The Allure of the Headstock

Bridgehouse

@JezWynd  - I hate that stubby horn look too.. but I just got a Shuker so what do I know?

Moe_Zambeek

Rocker said:

When you are playing the guitar, you can't actually see the headstock anyway....

I can. It helps with tuning on my guitars.

ICBM

JezWynd said:

It's the cresting wave upper horn, it's just so right.

Mostly I’ve used 330/360/381-size semis!

They are very distinctive-looking whichever it is though.

57Deluxe

I am not opposed to alternative brands/headstocks but probably AFTER I have in my ownership some fine examples of the traditional makes. Probbo like many of us, I wanted to collect those guitars that were so iconic to me when growing up and no amount of 'better than' would suffice until those icons were nailed.

StefB

TheGuitarWeasel said:

TTBZ said:

All I ask is that its not a fugly shape! I like how Epiphone guitars play and feel but like a lot of others I just don't really like the headstock shape compared to a Gibson. I know it's shallow.

That's kinda where I'm at myself. I have played many Epiphone LPs ... and yes ... they can be very good ... but there's bugger all elegance in that headstock shape ... to me it's like drawing a moustache on the Mona Lisa. And with many LP copies they mess around with the cutaway or the top bout shape ... for copyright reasons obviously ... but it spoils the harmony of the original design.  

I hate the Epiphone Les Paul headstock, but I DO like it when they (very rarely) use the classic Epi headstock on an LP - they should use it more often if they aren't prepared to go the whole hog and use the Gibson open book.

http://i1085.photobucket.com/albums/j437/stefbillington/E%20LP_zpsa3jci8fv.jpg

grappagreen

57Deluxe said:

I am not opposed to alternative brands/headstocks but probably AFTER I have in my ownership some fine examples of the traditional makes. Probbo like many of us, I wanted to collect those guitars that were so iconic to me when growing up and no amount of 'better than' would suffice until those icons were nailed.

Bang on..

Kitsune

Fender and Gibson all the way for me. It does matter - it shouldn’t but it does. They were the aspiration brands when I was skint and learning. Now I can afford them........I have them 

Yeah that makes me a brand slag, but it is what it is.

koss59

octatonic said:

According to the cool kids club all my guitars are sterile and soulless,  because I mostly play Anderson, Suhr and PRS.

Ah well, they work for me.

Often spoken by the same people that say “ if you learn to read music you’ll lose your soul in your playing”

thegummy

koss59 said:

octatonic said:

According to the cool kids club all my guitars are sterile and soulless,  because I mostly play Anderson, Suhr and PRS.

Ah well, they work for me.

Often spoken by the same people that say “ if you learn to read music you’ll lose your soul in your playing”

I've always ignored that idea and learned theory over the years but recently I was playing an old synth I used to use years ago and it took me right back and I remembered that it used to feel so magical to stumble upon nice sounding things like chords or intervals etc. Whereas now I know all the available ones so it has definitely taken that naive magic away for me.

smogmonster

Then there's other companies who manage to get it so wrong...



...and still sell shed loads, so what do I know?

That looks like a pig carcass.

HarrySeven

rlw said:

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.

Spot on.

DrBob

So we’re 70+ messages into a headstock based thread and no ones flagged up an image of a Tyler headstock or that massive BC Rich one yet ? Weird ! Or did I miss something ?

stickyfiddle

I don't mind the Tyler headstock. It's unapologetic and pretty much the only not-Fender that is properly trying not to be a Fender headstock. 

For me, I'm not a brand snob, but these days I know what I want, and don't like to compromise. So that means several partscasters with the "right" headstock (or very close in the case of my USACG-necked La Cab Tele), but I do like a "proper" Gibson. It's not that I wouldn't play a Tokai or a Yaron, but I don't really like the cheaper versions, and I don't see the point in spending several thousand and getting what is still basically a copy, rather than the real thing.

octatonic

stickyfiddle said:

I don't mind the Tyler headstock. It's unapologetic and pretty much the only not-Fender that is properly trying not to be a Fender headstock. 

It is basically a 'fuck you' to vintage purists too.

Tyler is a funny guy- the psychedelic vomit finish was meant to be a joke that people, inexplicably, seemed to like.

ICBM

HarrySeven said:

rlw said:

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.

Spot on.

The worst for me are Anderson, followed by Suhr. They manage to be both bland and ugly at the same time - I’d take something overtly odd but distinctive like a Tyler any day, over that sort of lazy dull lack of design flair.

It shows just what geniuses Leo and Freddie Tavares were - they got it so right that even the slightly-incorrect shapes Fender have sometimes used - not the CBS one, which has its own style, but things like the Dan Smith and 90s USA, including the ‘Cunetto Relics’ - are glaringly wrong, and not just because they’re different... the lines don’t ‘flow’ properly.

Wazmeister

rlw said:

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.

I agree 100% with this... really  don't like the PRS or Suhr...

And yet... I now own a Suhr Alt T Pro !

And for me, if there is a better playing guitar, out there, Ive yet to play it...

John_A

IMO a Suhr or Anderson is just a well put together Strat, a Vigier on the other hand takes quality and innovation to a good few levels up.  Once I played one I stopped worrying about the headstock shape, they are brilliant guitars 

Kitsune

I prefer the big 70s Fender headstock. Looks much better than the undergrown one.

Voxman

Of my 12 guitars I have 4 Fenders and 2 Gibson. The others are 2 Epiphone, 2 Yamaha, 1 PRS, and 1 Washburn.  So a reasonable spread. All my Fenders are USA but now that the quality and tone of Mexican Fenders has really shot up, I'd have no problem in buying one.  

When I buy guitars it's always been 'pre-loved (sounds better than used or second hand! Lol) simply because I can get a much better deal than new prices.  I'm with @ICBM in that I don't want a 'copy'.  If I want a Les Paul, Strat or Tele then for me it won't feel 'proper' without the right name and headstock. Unless I fell on a crazily cheap deal I wouldn't buy e.g. a Tokai Les Paul or Tokai Strat.

But I'd love a Suhr or a Tom Anderson simply because they are so well made, sound great, are hugely versatile, highly regarded and used prices are pretty stable. 

ICBM

Kitsune said:

I prefer the big 70s Fender headstock. Looks much better than the undergrown one.

I used to not like it, but eventually I realised that it actually seems to affect the tone of the guitar, in a good way - that deeper Hendrix/Blackmore sound - and then I started to like it. I can't say I actually prefer it, but I like them equally and I think of it as different in the way a Strat and a Tele are different. I wouldn't have a 50s-style 2-tone/maple neck Strat with one on, but a late-60s black or white Strat now looks better to me with the big head.

I really do think it affects the tone, and it's because the headstock is something like 30% heavier than the small one - that will definitely change the resonance of the neck.