can a headstock ruin a guitar for you?
- Thread starter mooncobra
- Start date
D
Deleted member 13074
Guest
What’s that adage about owners and their dogs?8len8":l1nd4jr1 said:
I’m just saying, Sterling Ball is in no danger of knocking his bonce off a lintel
Spaceboy
Well-known member
I'm like the opposite of everyone here. I hate all pointy headstocks, reverse headstocks, obscenely large headstocks, and think that Suhr is one of the better modern spins, while the tele is the all-time most gorgeous and simple design. It does have some influence over my opinion of a guitar aphetically, but it probably wouldn't be a complete deal-breaker on a nice machine.
Spaceboy":36n7yrfc said:
I have the same thoughts, IMO Suhr and PRS have the best inline 6 and 3x3 modern headstocks. I'd throw Gibson's smaller 50's headstock in there with Tele's as an all time great simple elegant design. I'm not a fan of pointy headstocks but I'd rock a Jackson if I really liked how it played. The only headstock I would never play is BC Rich Widow. That with the Warlock body looks like something I'd draw when I was 13.
messenger
Well-known member
LP Freak":2erymy4j said:Can’t agree more on this one. Every time I see one of these it reminds me of a headstock blank that they never finished.vultures":2erymy4j said:
I don't know how folks play guitars with ugly headstocks
I don’t think they’re too bad on their teles
screamindemon
Well-known member
Absolutely !
SpiderWars
Well-known member
I was just going to post that the Heritage headstock has grown on me and now I like it. When I look at the Gibson paddle I think that it looks 'right' but not because of some great/elegant design. It's what Jimmy Page, etc played so it looks cool but in a vacuum I think the Heritage headstock looks better.Salos":23y5do33 said:Heritage Guitars. No offense to anyone who owns one, I'm sure they play great and I'd like to try one myself. But each time I see a solid deal, that headstock stops me from going for it. Kind of silly, but it just doesn't sit well with me.
And I didn't see it mentioned but for me one of the worst offenders is NO headstock. Just doesn't work for me.
riffermadness
Member
The Kramer "Beak" headstock..here we go ! For me the Beak headstock is one I want to like,and I have seen it on several older Kramers and the newer line,I would have one if I needed one no doubt,but their not my favorite Kramer headstocks. I have a Kramer "Claw" Non-reverse pointy neck and 1 pointy Kramer maple neck right now,and i love them both !Speeddemon":oqv4jstl said:For sure.
I love Kramers, but old ones. Not banana/hockey-stick headstocks.
But this one:
Deans with the headstock in the shape of Gina LaMarca's red carpet? No thank you.
I actually prefer this one:
ChurchHill
New member
Yeah, for me, a headstock can definitely ruin a guitar. I'm kinda picky, anyway, but it seems to me that the headstock is the most difficult part to design. I've seen so many really beautiful guitars ruined by a headstock that looked like melted Silly Putty or the ink spots from a psychiatric test. If the guitar, as a whole (including headstock) is desirable to my eyes, it makes my fingers want to play it. If it isn't, then I'm not going to get excited picking up it, no matter how beautiful the neck and body are or how well it plays and sounds.
Riggins1966
Member
Findthetone1":1fh0ufnj said:
couldn't agree more. It's not even because "Gibson vs Epi", It just sticks up too far and is too busy (too many curves and angles) IMO.
also; BC Rich earwig and Dean ML headstocks. Enough said.