The Allure of the Headstock

dindude

Some random musings here....

How much does the name on the headstock REALLY matter to you?

I have to say that I've long got over (or maybe never had to get over) Gibson - just doesn't have any cachet for me, not sure why. If there's a better option out there for a Gibson style, I'll gladly have it.

However, I'm a huge Fender fan and wouldn't dream of owning a Strat type guitar without Fender on the Headstock.

But, I'm not so sure these days, my head could probably be turned. The Strat and Tele is pretty much old enough to be public domain, and you could say that John Suhr is more valid in building Leo's guitars than a bloke from Nike. I'm also not convinced Fender are making the best guitars at the moment, bland in the low and middle, and over-priced in the Custom Shop. My more recent Custom Shop purchase is a great guitar no doubt but I'm not sure it's quite as sharp in the build as my 8-year old CS.

Then I was in Guitar Guitar recently and a young (or youngish!) guy was noodling very nicely indeed on a shell pink Suhr Classic S - something about it seemed so right for that guy, whereas a relic Fender would have somehow looked sad and try hard. A subtle difference but notable, and yes, I'm overthinking this!

There was talk recently (probably in THAT Gibson thread) whether the next generation would have the emotional connection with Fender and Gibson - well the new "stars" (i.e. people who pop up on YouTube) don't really seem bothered, I see most rocking alternative or boutique versions of Strat's / Tele's / LP's - think Ariel Possen / Joey Landreth / Josh Smith / Kirk Fletcher. etc. etc.

So, are we all obsessed with uncool Grandad guitars? Discuss.

richardhomer

I agree with you about Fenders - I’ve owned a couple of Suhrs - but for me a Strat says ‘Fender’ on the end....

I’m less bothered about Gibson though. The longest I’ve owned a Gibson is 15 years - a year of birth 335, which I sold earlier this year. The decision was more about finances and a desire to own fewer things, than any short-comings it had as an instrument.

I’ve replaced it with a PRS DGT - so not a ‘cool’ brand - but an epic guitar. Ive just completed some recording with it and it sounds fantastic in the mix. Anyone listening to it would almost certainly assume it’s a Gibson - and probably think it’s a Les Paul. 

Which probably adds nothing of value to the thread, except that I’m also inconsistent with brands.... 

rlw

The name on the headstock doesn't bother me but the shape does.  I cannot be doing with the unsightly variations on the Fender headstock, Suhr, albeit one of many, being the worst in my view. 

And Vigier.

Tenebrous

It doesn't really bother me at all. Most the musicians I've listened to & enjoyed over the years are traditional Fender players with a few Gibson/other brand players thrown in for good measure, but I've never really based my purchases on the brand at all.

My dream guitar is a perfect feeling butterscotch blonde blackguard telecaster which just squeals when you dig into it. It can say Suhr, Fender, Feline, Squire, Kramer on the headstock... Anything it wants, so long as it feels the part, looks the part, and sounds the part.

My current #1 is a Yamaha strat, and all I really care about with this guitar is that it plays & sounds better than others around it - I think it does, so why would I trade that for a different logo on the headstock? Even if money were no object, I'd only gravitate towards the Fender if it were simply better than everything else.

So nah, I don't really care  

ICBM

I'm not very bothered about brands, but what I don't like is copies... if that makes sense. ie I wouldn't own something that was a 'Strat' - same shape, general hardware and pickups etc - but not a Fender (or Squier), regardless of the head shape.

I have no problem with Fender-*inspired* guitars with a different body and headstock shape, or substantially different hardware etc, and in fact I own one. On the other hand since it was made in 1984 it's probably also an uncool grandad guitar by now!

Tenebrous

ICBM said:

I'm not very bothered about brands, but what I don't like is copies... if that makes sense. ie I wouldn't own something that was a 'Strat' - same shape, general hardware and pickups etc - but not a Fender (or Squier), regardless of the head shape.

I have no problem with Fender-*inspired* guitars with a different body and headstock shape, or substantially different hardware etc, and in fact I own one. On the other hand since it was made in 1984 it's probably also an uncool grandad guitar by now!

I'm curious as to where you'd draw the line, ICBM.

The much revered Tokai Les Paul's are pretty much carbon copies with a few models boasting minor differences, while something like the SC PRS guitars are definitely influenced by LP's, but do they differentiate themselves enough to make them something you'd like to own?

Then you've companies like Reverend who're just wacky & cool that everyone likes (at least they should, haha).

barnstorm

Some of those new stars have chosen brand X over Fender or Gibson, of course, because Fender and Gibson weren't offering them free guitars.

IMHO Leo's designs are extremely difficult to improve in really meaningful ways (I think that's truest of the Strat) so I'd never go out of my way to buy something other than a Fender if I was looking for an F-type guitar. I accept that Gibsons often sound spectacular but for me they're not brilliantly engineered, so if I was looking for a G-type sound I'd default to another brand.

On the subject of headstocks in particular, it has always driven me mad that Gibson doesn't seem to care whether its headstocks are symmetrical or not. Sometimes they're all over the shop.

SteveF

barnstorm said:

Some of those new stars have chosen brand X over Fender or Gibson, of course, because Fender and Gibson weren't offering them free guitars.

IMHO Leo's designs are extremely difficult to improve in really meaningful ways (I think that's truest of the Strat) so I'd never go out of my way to buy something other than a Fender if I was looking for an F-type guitar. I accept that Gibsons often sound spectacular but for me they're not brilliantly engineered, so if I was looking for a G-type sound I'd default to another brand.

On the subject of headstocks in particular, it has always driven me mad that Gibson doesn't seem to care whether its headstocks are symmetrical or not. Sometimes they're all over the shop.

I'd never noticed that.  If I go upstairs now and notice mine amiss, I'll be very upset with you, sir! 

SteveF

I'll probably see nothing but wonky headstocks now... 

barnstorm

They've always been that way, though, so I suppose it's a vintage-correct feature!

clarkefan

I've arrived at a point where I honestly don't care about brands anymore.

Last guitar I bought was an EVH Wolfgang, not because of the brand but because of the spec.

I'm currently looking at a Harley Benton because it has the Gibson scale which I've played for years, and the Wolfgang is obviously Fender scale.

All attachment to brands stopped for me when I had an R7 and I couldn't deal with having 2 grand tied up in a hobby guitar.

I've also got right past colour, shape, "authentic", etc etc.  I had to check the headstock on the Wolfgang to remind myself what it looks like and what's written on it.  It plays great, that’s me happy

ICBM

Tenebrous said:

I'm curious as to where you'd draw the line, ICBM.

The much revered Tokai Les Paul's are pretty much carbon copies with a few models boasting minor differences, while something like the SC PRS guitars are definitely influenced by LP's, but do they differentiate themselves enough to make them something you'd like to own?

I wouldn't own a Tokai but would own a PRS SC. (Although I'm not actually a huge fan of the shape, I much prefer the DCs.)

My Aria is different from a Strat by about the same degree as the PRS is from a Les Paul, if it matters - very clearly derived from one, but different in every detail other than the hardware.

A more difficult hair-splitting question is something like a Blade RH4 - Strat-shaped, but with a different bridge and more advanced electrics, so you could argue that they're functionally different. On balance, I'm *just* OK with them, but it's a very close call.

It is a bit of a conundrum for me, because I think it's almost certainly true that without the likes of Tokai and other blatant copies, Fender would never have received the mighty kick up the backside that they needed to make good guitars again after the 1970s.

guitarfishbay

Given I like evertune bridges, active pickups, and multi scale basses my options are pretty limited for off the shelf purchases anyway... pretty much ESP/LTD or Dingwall

HAL9000

ICBM said:

...it's almost certainly true that without the likes of Tokai and other blatant copies, Fender would never have received the mighty kick up the backside that they needed to make good guitars again after the 1970s.

Wis'd

stimpsonslostson

 I like to think I'm not bothered by the branding- my main guitars are partscasters with blank & slightly modified shaped headstocks. The blankness is mainly because I'm not creative enough to come up with a logo! Id never put a fake logo on even if I were making a direct clone. 

That said, I'm currently in the market for a Strat type thing & have been offered a nice looking G&L Legacy Tribute... However I keep returning to Fender because of THAT logo on THAT headstock. 

StuartMac290

Interesting thread for me, because whilst I've found several makers of Fender-type guitars that I prefer to Fender (Asher, K-Line, Danocaster) I've still yet to find anyone who makes a better Gibson than Gibson.

skullfunkerry

I like to think that I'm not a brand snob... one of the guitars I quite like the look of at the moment is the Squier Contemporary Active Strat. I know a few people who would be 'Squier? Why don't you get a proper one?' but for what I want the Squier would do what no Fender anywhere near that price point does 

skullfunkerry

(and yes, I know that Fender owns Jackson & Charvel)

skullfunkerry

Similarly, when my main gigging guitar was an LTD EC1000, I had a few 'Couldn't you afford a real Les Paul then?' comments. I love Les Pauls but I don't get on with them; the LTD was much better for what I wanted... but that comment used to *really* boil my piss!  

So to summarise: no, I'm not fussy about brands  

duotone

It doesn't bother me that much tbh. If I like the style/shape/sound of a guitar then I don't mind what it says on the headstock.

Saying that I have lusted after an 'Epiphone Casino' for 20 years (John Lennon fan) and I don't think an Ibanez or other alternative would scratch the itch for me.

barnstorm

StuartMac290 said:

Interesting thread for me, because whilst I've found several makers of Fender-type guitars that I prefer to Fender (Asher, K-Line, Danocaster) I've still yet to find anyone who makes a better Gibson than Gibson.

All those are brilliant (and have attractive, practical headstock designs), but are similar enough (to me), scarce enough and expensive enough that I've never seriously considered them when I've been looking for an F-type; it's just so easy to find a good Fender with the specs you want without travelling far or ordering blind, or to buy and mod if you're after something unusual. There are definitely Ashers I'd like to own if money were no object.

I agree on the second point, in that most of the time a Gibson sounds nicer to me than some other brand's equivalent model – but if I were buying I'd settle for 90% of the sound and some improvements in other areas.