T
TrueTone500
Banned
New member
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?
Code001
Well-known member
I like Tylers and Caparisons. That should answer your question.
xzyryabx
Well-known member
as superficial as it ma be, it's a biggie for me.
Only ones I really like are the ESP knife-edge and teardrop, mayones regious, jackson arrowhead.
particularly dislike all carvin, TA, washburn V, tyler.
Only ones I really like are the ESP knife-edge and teardrop, mayones regious, jackson arrowhead.
particularly dislike all carvin, TA, washburn V, tyler.
dannyr
Member
It's not that big of a deal to me, although I prefer some headstocks over others. It would not be a deal breaker.
H
Heritage Softail
New member
There are a few that I can't live with. Some of the dorky old Carvin head stocks are just out...
Ventura
Well-known member
Never really thought of it as making or breaking a guitar, but ya, there are some that I can't stand and would never buy into - regardless of how good the guitar it's attached to may be.
Not a fan of the limpdick ESP (circa Lynch era headstocks)
Not a fan of the Dean V headstocks
Not a fan of the Telecaster headstocks
There are others...
Not a fan of the limpdick ESP (circa Lynch era headstocks)
Not a fan of the Dean V headstocks
Not a fan of the Telecaster headstocks
There are others...
Mudder
Active member
I'd say it depends. For example I wouldn't hesitate to buy a cool guitar with a funky headstock like a Gibson Moderne, but I'm not crazy about guitars whose head looks like it was slapped on there.
Shawn Lutz
New member
For me it is extremely important. I guess I'm a shallow person 
In my opinion GMW is the best bang for the buck in terms of quality but since Fender issued the C&D I just can't seem to get into his 2 newer style headstocks.
I also I don't care for some of the Suhr's or Anderson headstocks either, primarily the non bound plain maple versions.
In my opinion GMW is the best bang for the buck in terms of quality but since Fender issued the C&D I just can't seem to get into his 2 newer style headstocks.
I also I don't care for some of the Suhr's or Anderson headstocks either, primarily the non bound plain maple versions.
D
Deleted member 16554
Guest
Not the most important thing but it can help me kill gas if i dont like the looks for sure. Hate the Tyler headstock, can only deal with suhr's if its a reverse headstock, Anderson headstock just screams sterile in my opinion, and then some of the more obscure companies have headstocks that are just plain ugly IMO: vigier, koll, and Bolin immediately come to mind.
lolzgreg
New member
A ugly headstock can ruin it for me for sure.
Skrapmetal
New member
lolzgreg":yc11hnui said:
Yeah, this.
I don't look at the headstock usually when deciding, but if it is so ugly that it draws the eye toward it? That will ruin it for me.
sandman
Well-known member
I gotta like the headstock as well
Sierra Voodoo
Member
+1Ventura":1o94e5u2 said:
The Dean V headstock is unique but not to my liking at all.
metalmaniac93
Well-known member
It does not matter to me!!! I have a cheapo Korean Dean Z 79' that I upgraded and while the headstock is not cool at all; it is a great guitar for the money. Pointy headstock Charvel vs Strat type also does not matter to me as well as the Heritage headstock vs Gibson and the Heritage guitar headstock is quirky looking but the 150CMs are equally good or better than the LPs unless you have an older one.
thiswaythatway
Well-known member
Only if it's ugly enough, like the gumby Tyler headstock.
5150clone
New member
Its does for me. It's got to be hard for a guitar maker to come up with something different but not too different. I love what Luxxtone did with the Strat Headstock, Its similar to the USA Custom Guitars. I love Ernie Ball 4-2 Headstocks as well. The Suhr (Kramer) are pretty good. I like what Dean did to the V's also. Another good one is the Agile version on the Les Paul copies. Not bad.
moltenmetalburn
Active member
lolzgreg":ycy8sfg6 said:
Yup.
thiswaythatway
Well-known member
Yeah this would ruin it for me.
T
TrueTone500
Banned
New member
One of my favorite brands is USA Hamer, but I never liked their proprietary headstocks. I love the Standard and Vector models, since those are of-course based on the original Gibson designs. Hamer made some awesome strat and semi-hollow body guitars, but I just can't get past the look of the headstocks. 
V
Valtyr
Member
Not a deal breaker. I dislike reverse headstocks and currently have an old Zion with a Jackson style reverse headstock.
I have owned a Steinberger Spirit 5 string bass (headless). That was only replaced after I got a 6 string bass and thus no longer needed a 5. I recently considered one of those Floyd guitars with the odd headstock but I saw some rumors on the net that speedloader strings for that model were no longer made. That's not the headstock though, it's the strings being unavailable that broke that deal.
My favorite guitars are Parkers, which have minimal headstocks.
I have owned a Steinberger Spirit 5 string bass (headless). That was only replaced after I got a 6 string bass and thus no longer needed a 5. I recently considered one of those Floyd guitars with the odd headstock but I saw some rumors on the net that speedloader strings for that model were no longer made. That's not the headstock though, it's the strings being unavailable that broke that deal.
My favorite guitars are Parkers, which have minimal headstocks.