Headstock Decal

chris78

poopot said:

It shouldn’t... and to me it doesn’t... but... I bet the vast majority out there would rather pay through the nose for a bolted together fender CS rather than have a really decent playing and sounding guitar with no name!... such is the brand snobbery within the guitar world!!!!

I’ll happily admit to it as well.

Ive had some great partscasters. They’ve all gone as they weren’t “real”

usedtobe

My lockdown partscaster hasn’t got a decal. Other things I’ve put together, I’ve either used a cast off neck from a branded guitar, and left the logo on, or used a new blank one and left it blank.
ive toyed with the idea of a witty personalised decal, but got no further than considering it, briefly..

poopot

chris78 said:

They’ve all gone as they weren’t “partscasters made by a big corporation to the lowest cost possible”

FTFY

 

mikem8634

I've actually got a bit of a dilemma. I've got two partscasters - a strat and a jazz bass - both of which have necks with logos. The strat has a 90s Ibanez blazer neck and the bass has a Squier Standard Jazz. I've got a (slightly bizarre and really really nerdy) compulsion to sand them off and replace them with my own decals, because they are my partscasters and so that they'll fit into the mikem partscaster family.

Is that sacrilege?

chris78

poopot said:

chris78 said:

They’ve all gone as they weren’t “partscasters made by a big corporation to the lowest cost possible”

FTFY

 

I’d like to both lol and wis that. I know it’s not rational, but I can’t get over it

TTBZ

poopot said:

maltingsaudio said:

does a guitar have to have a brand name displayed and if it doesn’t does that prejudice your opinion of it?

It shouldn’t... and to me it doesn’t... but... I bet the vast majority out there would rather pay through the nose for a bolted together fender CS rather than have a really decent playing and sounding guitar with no name!... such is the brand snobbery within the guitar world!!!!

Partscasters are the reason why I wouldn't pay through the nose for CS or other expensive strat. I'd rather have the specs and parts I actually want for a fraction of the cost. Makes no difference at all if it's me or a "master builder" who's bolting the bits together.

skullfunkerry

mikem8634 said:

I've actually got a bit of a dilemma. I've got two partscasters - a strat and a jazz bass - both of which have necks with logos. The strat has a 90s Ibanez blazer neck and the bass has a Squier Standard Jazz. I've got a (slightly bizarre and really really nerdy) compulsion to sand them off and replace them with my own decals, because they are my partscasters and so that they'll fit into the mikem partscaster family.

Is that sacrilege?

Not as far as I’m concerned

thegummy

maltingsaudio said:

Actually wasn’t thinking about fender and fakes when I posted this, it was more does a guitar have to have a brand name displayed and if it doesn’t does that prejudice your opinion of it?

When I first got back in to guitar as an adult I was watching an educational video with a top player and he had a beat up strat style guitar with no logo.

At the time, my layman self wondered if it was a cheapo guitar in terrible condition that he'd maybe found in a car boot that just happened to be amazing.

I later found out it's actually a very expensive guitar (Anderson I think) with fake reliccing. But my layman mind assumed it was a cheapo (I don't know if other laymen would think that).

I definitely didn't make any judgment on the player based on the guitar. I reckon that, apart from famous people who get them for free, people with expensive guitars are even less likely to be good than those with cheaper ones. Certainly no more likely to be good at the very least.

prowla

My fretless Jazz.

thegummy

TTBZ said:

poopot said:

maltingsaudio said:

does a guitar have to have a brand name displayed and if it doesn’t does that prejudice your opinion of it?

It shouldn’t... and to me it doesn’t... but... I bet the vast majority out there would rather pay through the nose for a bolted together fender CS rather than have a really decent playing and sounding guitar with no name!... such is the brand snobbery within the guitar world!!!!

Partscasters are the reason why I wouldn't pay through the nose for CS or other expensive strat. I'd rather have the specs and parts I actually want for a fraction of the cost. Makes no difference at all if it's me or a "master builder" who's bolting the bits together.

Assuming it doesn't make any difference who puts the parts together, why not just go for a Squier for example?

I know you said about choosing the specs but hypothetically if there was a Squier model that already had the specs you wanted?

thegummy

@maltingsaudio just a note that when you're asking on her for opinions, even if everyone here said the same thing, this forum is for people really in to guitars - and not just guitar music but the objects in particular.

At a gig you play there's only a small chance there will even be one person in the audience like that so most of the audience might think differently to us. In fact almost no-one at a gig will even notice if there is or isn't a logo.

JamieWakeham

An empty headstock just looks wrong to me.  I have a decal ready for my impending partscaster - very similar to what Fender might have put on there, but different enough that it couldn't possibly fool anyone into thinking it was genuine.

TTBZ

thegummy said:

Assuming it doesn't make any difference who puts the parts together, why not just go for a Squier for example?

I know you said about choosing the specs but hypothetically if there was a Squier model that already had the specs you wanted?

If it had decent components and sounded/felt good I have no issues with a Squier. My experience of them is they're alright but let down by cheap tuners, and small and sometimes sharp frets. Actually my next guitar might be a Harley Benton TE52 and upgrade some of the cheaper components (tuners, maybe bridge) if they're not great. The body and neck seem to be very good and I can get the whole lot for less than just a body/neck from somewhere else. Not saying a cheap Harley Benton would match a Fender CS etc, but I think there's no reason something made with quality parts would - SC Relics, GSP etc. Or at least the difference isn't something I'd notice, others might.

Recently I've been playing my strat (Squier affinity neck and no-name cheapo body) more than my Gibson, it's just more fun at the minute and I'm starting to prefer the satin neck finish now. Not a brand snob  

thegummy

TTBZ said:

thegummy said:

Assuming it doesn't make any difference who puts the parts together, why not just go for a Squier for example?

I know you said about choosing the specs but hypothetically if there was a Squier model that already had the specs you wanted?

If it had decent components and sounded/felt good I have no issues with a Squier. My experience of them is they're alright but let down by cheap tuners, and small and sometimes sharp frets. Actually my next guitar might be a Harley Benton TE52 and upgrade some of the cheaper components (tuners, maybe bridge) if they're not great. The body and neck seem to be very good and I can get the whole lot for less than just a body/neck from somewhere else. Not saying a cheap Harley Benton would match a Fender CS etc, but I think there's no reason something made with quality parts would - SC Relics, GSP etc. Or at least the difference isn't something I'd notice, others might.

Recently I've been playing my strat (Squier affinity neck and no-name cheapo body) more than my Gibson, it's just more fun at the minute and I'm starting to prefer the satin neck finish now. Not a brand snob  

That's interesting.

Any time I've got Excel up and specced out a partscaster using cheap parts (often Northwest Guitars) it comes out to a price that's higher than a Squier so then I start to wonder if it would be better than a Squier or worse and what about it would be different. Then I start comparing to Fender models and partscasters with more expensive parts and it just confuses me really because there seems to be no real knowledge about where things are actually better than others and in what ways - the only thing we have really is a bunch of peoples guesses on forums.

Would really love to know the whole truth about what exactly differs in guitars as they go up in price. From any resources I've seen there's just too much assumption and speculation and people feeling more sure than they really are due to being oblivious to biases etc.

I actually suspect that if the whole real truth was known it would blow the market apart so in a way, the most likely people who'd be able to detail the reality would potentially have a big reason not to.

maltingsaudio

thegummy said:

@maltingsaudio just a note that when you're asking on her for opinions, even if everyone here said the same thing, this forum is for people really in to guitars - and not just guitar music but the objects in particular.

At a gig you play there's only a small chance there will even be one person in the audience like that so most of the audience might think differently to us. In fact almost no-one at a gig will even notice if there is or isn't a logo.

Funnily enough that’s why I posed the question here . From the answers we have people on here who are really into guitars, self confessed brand snobs, players watchers and everything in between . I knew what I felt about it and wondered what every one else thought, which has produced quite an interesting and amusing thread. Therefor I am awarding myself a curly wurly for being such a clever chap

prowla

I don't think my partscaster needs a logo.

prowla

This was one of my earlier attempts before I settled for the waterslide on the bass I posted before.

Devil#20

I'm not so sure that having Fender or Gibson on the headstock, in particular, have the cache they once had anyway. Better made guitars for less money from other manufacturers or small independents. In answer to the OP's question "Does a headstock decal matter to you"? Very easy to answer. If say Gibson had, as an option, a debadged Gibson Les Paul (like that that's available on some cars) would you be happy to have one? No default. You had to choose badged or de-badged. If you chose badged then clearly the headstock decal IS important to you. Your reason may not be the same as somebody else's but it was important to you for some reason. I suspect most people want the badge if only to say they've got the real deal. Just need to admit we're mostly gear snobs.   

thegummy

Devil#20 said:

I'm not so sure that having Fender or Gibson on the headstock, in particular, have the cache they once had anyway. Better made guitars for less money from other manufacturers or small independents. In answer to the OP's question "Does a headstock decal matter to you"? Very easy to answer. If say Gibson had, as an option, a debadged Gibson Les Paul (like that that's available on some cars) would you be happy to have one? No default. You had to choose badged or de-badged. If you chose badged then clearly the headstock decal IS important to you. Your reason may not be the same as somebody else's but it was important to you for some reason. I suspect most people want the badge if only to say they've got the real deal. Just need to admit we're mostly gear snobs.   

That is a very good point about the "debadged" option.

I don't think it means someone is a gear snob though - it means we're victims of the psychological warfare of marketing that all big companies inflict on us.

DeeTee

My partscaster has a Mighty Mite neck that the previous owner stuck a Fender logo on. I don't like it. I hate that he put a Custom Shop logo on the back.

Thing is, it's already on there, and I'm not sure I could remove it without marking the headstock (it's satin).

At some point I'm going to get drunk with a sander and it's going to end badly.