Does the headstock 'make-or-break' the guitar?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TrueTone500
  • Start date Start date
I love the Music Man head stocks. The 4x2 shape is very cool and short.
 
Sure. I prefer Fender Stratocaster headstocks by far, but I dig the Ibanez. PRS is cool. I've come to dig the Suhr headstock as well.
Gibson is ok, but the weakness of the design really turns me off.
 
danyeo":ahkqq1h2 said:
Yeah this would ruin it for me.

1748_450301881704141_1066846381_n.png
Click to expand...
Soooooooooooooooooo hurtin' :no:
 
Any headstock that makes the strings have an acute angle from tuners to nut will be a negative for me.

It reflects bad design, and ironically, most "classic" headstock shapes present this flaw.
 
I'm not a fan of reverse headstocks, but I love this! If they weren't so heavy I'd buy one.

Screenshot2013-01-01at44635PM_zpsc9429121.png
 
danyeo":1euv8fju said:
1748_450301881704141_1066846381_n.png
Click to expand...

Those are all serious upgrades to that Fugly Bitch that spent most of last year in your avatar.



:thumbsup:
Fender-Strat/Tele
Gibson
PRS
McNaught
Caparison-Elf Foot
Ken Lawrence
Luxxtone
Jackson-Broderick


:thumbsdown:
Suhr (reversed isn't too bad)
Anderson
Tyler
Dean
EVH-Fish Mouth
 
It's not a deal breaker for me...function over form. That said, it can certainly sway my decision if all else is equal.
Two of my main gigging guitars are an Anderson and a Suhr (unbound maple...Shawn would hate them ;) ) and although their skinny Kramer/fat Kramer beak headstocks aren't my faves, I've gotten to the point where I don't hate them.
I think Tyler makes the most hideous headstock going, but I'd still own one if it spoke to me...the few that I've played were nice guitars.
 
Not a deal breaker, but two headstocks that turn me off are the large 70's Fender Strat and the new TA Bulldogs. I wouldn't buy either because of this.
 
Not a deal breaker, but a consideration for sure.

When I think of ugly heads stocks, I think of heritage guitars.
 
Headstocks don't decide whether a guitar is good or bad. With that said, I prefer those of the Strat, Tele and LP. :yes:
 
Most generally don't bother me, and I like a lot that many do not like. Every once in a while though, there is an attempt at trying to make it so different, that is can ruin it. Can not say though that there has been a guitar I have flat-out said no to though just because of the headstock.
 
Yup. Only three though...Heritage, Agile, and the limp dick ESP/Kramer type banana looking headstock.

To me a LP should have the open book headstock, and nothing else looks right to me. The limp dick thing is just ugly, and I've never played a guitar that had one that was a good enough player to get past it.

I'm a picky fuck like that!
 
A headstock won't "make" a guitar for me, but it can certainly "break" it for me. I'm not a fan of reverse, hockey stick, Dean V, or any headstock with binding.
 
Not all Hamers have that ugly 3 per side headstock :)
0027.jpg

HamerSS3andWashburnSS80048.jpg

0005.jpg

Atomic Playboy
 
Atomic Playboy":2u75ab0r said:
Not all Hamers have that ugly 3 per side headstock :)
0027.jpg

HamerSS3andWashburnSS80048.jpg

0005.jpg

Atomic Playboy
Click to expand...
Heritage Gary Moore model = want! :doh:
 
TrueTone500":2fh4ae9i said:
How important is the shape of the headstock to you? Are there guitars you would purchase, but don't due to the shape of the headstock?
Click to expand...

Definitely not! Tone, playability, overall quality and comfort always come first for me. I'd love to own a Tyler and like most everyone I think the headstock is probably the ugliest one around... I'd own one in a heartbeat..

Oh yeah... I also own a few Caparisons and I always get lost in how great they are to play... I don't even think about the headstock....

My two cents...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top