can a headstock ruin a guitar for you?

mooncobra

mooncobra

Well-known member
it can for me. although, I can tolerate a headstock I don't like if the guitar is good enough, playability, tone, etc. I really don't care for the Suhr headstock, but no doubt, they are great guitars. I can deal with those. What I wonder is this: have I seen strats for so long that in my mind that is a cool headstock or is it just an aesthetically pleasing shape? I like the Tyler headstock and I know people don't like that. Then again, I hate the tele headstock and I have seen those my entire life. So I have to assume the strat headstock is just that cool. I don't really like the Ibanez headstock but it kind of fits into the entire RG thing as a whole. I wonder if a new classic will come along that everyone starts to copy like the strat?
 
Absolutely - I can't stand that 'traditional' Suhr headstock for example. Plenty of companies are coping the Black Machine scythe type head.
 
Without question. I’ve considered picking up an Epiphone a few times but I can’t look past the headstock. I think it’s hideous.
 
Kind of have the same thoughts as OP.

Yes, it can definitely ruin it to where I would not go out of my way to obtain said guitar BUT if one fell in my lap that played and sounded good for the right price I could justify.

Inspired by the new Keith Merrow guitar? :LOL: :LOL:

That was the end decision for me. The headstock just did not look right from most angles and without being able to actually play it or see in person I decided not to wait on that.
 
Yup. Would definately consider more schecters if their headstocks were different. Hell, logo can kill it for me. I refuse to get the blocky LTD guitars cuz I can’t stand the LTD logo. Haha.
 
For sure.
I love Kramers, but old ones. Not banana/hockey-stick headstocks.
But this one :rock: :
pacer2.jpg



Deans with the headstock in the shape of Gina LaMarca's red carpet? No thank you. :bleh:

I actually prefer this one:
B000XQ8VGQ-3.jpg
 
crwnedblasphemy":3agnjtjf said:
Yup. Would definately consider more schecters if their headstocks were different. Hell, logo can kill it for me. I refuse to get the blocky LTD guitars cuz I can’t stand the LTD logo. Haha.
Click to expand...

The E-ii Logo makes the LTD way more appealing IMO.

But I get what you are saying. Anything can ruin a guitar for someone. I love some of the Stephen Carpenter ESP's but I find his choice of pickup configuration horrible and to be a deal breaker.

Could be as simple of the placement of a volume knob or something like that. Some are more picky than others but as guitarists we all should be able to get what we like. Money is usually the factor preventing most of us from getting our "perfect" guitar.
 
Yes and no, for me; I liken it to women. It needs to be appealing for me to investigate further. :D

Having said that, a good looking guitar will get my attention, but if it’s not comfortable and sounds like shit, it doesn’t matter how good it looks, it’ll never make the cut.

I won’t go out of my way to seek out and try a guitar I don’t find attractive, but if I happen to come across one that’s fantastic in every other respect, the looks wouldn’t keep my from making it a keeper.

I guess I’ve been fortunate; both my wife and favorite guitars are all attractive. :LOL: :LOL:
 
maddnotez":1yj17u4p said:
Kind of have the same thoughts as OP.

Yes, it can definitely ruin it to where I would not go out of my way to obtain said guitar BUT if one fell in my lap that played and sounded good for the right price I could justify.

Inspired by the new Keith Merrow guitar? :LOL: :LOL:

That was the end decision for me. The headstock just did not look right from most angles and without being able to actually play it or see in person I decided not to wait on that.
Click to expand...

See; I think the merrow headstock looks cool, and a big improvement over the old schecter shape. Each to their own, I get it. I can't stand a headstock without an angle or tilt.
 
mchn13":1iiywa04 said:
maddnotez":1iiywa04 said:
Kind of have the same thoughts as OP.

Yes, it can definitely ruin it to where I would not go out of my way to obtain said guitar BUT if one fell in my lap that played and sounded good for the right price I could justify.

Inspired by the new Keith Merrow guitar? :LOL: :LOL:

That was the end decision for me. The headstock just did not look right from most angles and without being able to actually play it or see in person I decided not to wait on that.
Click to expand...

See; I think the merrow headstock looks cool, and a big improvement over the old schecter shape. Each to their own, I get it. I can't stand a headstock without an angle or tilt.
Click to expand...

I just tend to like OLD Jackson headstocks and the ESP M stocks. Not a fan of spade or anything of that typel
 
maddnotez":1dxjygfz said:
mchn13":1dxjygfz said:
maddnotez":1dxjygfz said:
Kind of have the same thoughts as OP.

Yes, it can definitely ruin it to where I would not go out of my way to obtain said guitar BUT if one fell in my lap that played and sounded good for the right price I could justify.

Inspired by the new Keith Merrow guitar? :LOL: :LOL:

That was the end decision for me. The headstock just did not look right from most angles and without being able to actually play it or see in person I decided not to wait on that.
Click to expand...

See; I think the merrow headstock looks cool, and a big improvement over the old schecter shape. Each to their own, I get it. I can't stand a headstock without an angle or tilt.
Click to expand...

I just tend to like OLD Jackson headstocks and the ESP M stocks. Not a fan of spade or anything of that typel
Click to expand...

I totally agree but this new jackson I got is killer!, and for some reason it changed my mind about it.
Just got these and the spade headstock one owns the other reverse in every way. Even though I prefer the reverse headstock look. The straight string pull seems to bee less binding as well. Both have smaller locking tuners but the spade jackson seems to be a little more stable at my tuning. Could be nut? As well but still fine tuning them.
Couple of jacksons by steve moore, on Flickr
 
Interesting ^^^ I never have considered the string pull design while looking at headstocks but I imagine that could make a difference in tuning stability.
 
With all the guitars out there I won’t even waste my time trying ones with ugly headstocks. Should be able to find a “complete package”.
 
jcj":7vukaa3g said:
Yes and no, for me; I liken it to women. It needs to be appealing for me to investigate further. :D

Having said that, a good looking guitar will get my attention, but if it’s not comfortable and sounds like shit, it doesn’t matter how good it looks, it’ll never make the cut.

I won’t go out of my way to seek out and try a guitar I don’t find attractive, but if I happen to come across one that’s fantastic in every other respect, the looks wouldn’t keep my from making it a keeper.

I guess I’ve been fortunate; both my wife and favorite guitars are all attractive. :LOL: :LOL:
Click to expand...
:LOL: :LOL: :LOL: :LOL: :LOL: :LOL:
I was looking for a cheapo/hardtail for drop tuning covers a couple years ago. I found a Washburn X series, made in Korea that played/sounded great, Buzz Feiten system stayed in tune great. But that damn headstock.....
 
Yes, I feel about the same; headstocks can ruin it for me, but other things can make up for it. I tend to like pointy (or at least almost pointy).

I actually love the Suhr headstock. I know I’m probably the minority, but have never liked the Fender Strat headstock, something about the little round bubble on the end just ruins it for me.
 
mooncobra":1sqsihi9 said:
I really don't care for the Suhr headstock, but no doubt, they are great guitars.
Click to expand...
+1
On the plus side, Suhr's headstock and logo are a great antidote to GAS
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top