Members kayd_mon Posted August 9, 2012 Members Share Posted August 9, 2012 It's like a deformed Martin Backpacker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Pine Apple Slim Posted August 9, 2012 Members Share Posted August 9, 2012 Mine aint so bad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members tedmich Posted August 9, 2012 Members Share Posted August 9, 2012 if functionality matters a straight string path trumps wood aesthetics for me, since I do heavy bar work with no locking nut. I changed my sole guitars headstock like this: ebony sheathed with cocobolla cover, sperzels, minimal tuning issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members mrbrown49 Posted August 9, 2012 Members Share Posted August 9, 2012 I like the 3 per side one. Yes we all love the Gibby headstocks. But having a straighter string path makes nut cutting easier. Better tuning stability too. They may not be as asthetically pleasing, but they are functionally better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Angry Tele Posted August 9, 2012 Members Share Posted August 9, 2012 carvins look bad from top to bottom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Flatspotter Posted August 9, 2012 Members Share Posted August 9, 2012 My Carvin has the second one, which I like. The first one is hideous and the third is so-so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members vintage clubber Posted August 9, 2012 Members Share Posted August 9, 2012 Lindert Ibanez Jet king SX Harmony Fender CBS Big Ass headstock - never really liked these much, but I have two guitars with them: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members skibob Posted August 9, 2012 Members Share Posted August 9, 2012 That Gibson one is truly horrible, followed by the Dean and his offshoot company (I can't remember what it's called). I used to HATE HATE HATE Tele headstocks, to the point where I wouldn't even consider them. I've gotten over that... Now I own two and I want a third. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members peskypesky Posted August 9, 2012 Members Share Posted August 9, 2012 carvins look bad from top to bottom pretty much Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Angry Tele Posted August 9, 2012 Members Share Posted August 9, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members headless Posted August 9, 2012 Members Share Posted August 9, 2012 ... I used to hate Tele headstocks - im still not overly keen on them, but i gots 2 tele's now - luv em! The headstock doesn't bother me so much these days even though they are a b@st@rd for hangers Says the man with a Starcaster as his avatar. The ugliest headstock Fender ever made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members grunge782 Posted August 9, 2012 Members Share Posted August 9, 2012 Yes, Carvin has some fugly headstocks. I do like the look of their strat copies though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Kevman Posted August 9, 2012 Members Share Posted August 9, 2012 Lol @ "my wife is wonderful" truss rod cover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Yarbicus Posted August 9, 2012 Members Share Posted August 9, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Kevman Posted August 9, 2012 Members Share Posted August 9, 2012 Much prefer / that dean to the other posted earlier.I bet Glenn Tipton would like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ExiledCrow Posted August 9, 2012 Members Share Posted August 9, 2012 As long as Lindert and James Tyler retain the ones they have, headstocks can be pretty bad but "worst" is already taken! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Help!I'maRock! Posted August 9, 2012 Members Share Posted August 9, 2012 it's good to know that we've gotten the daily headstock bashing thread in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members grunge782 Posted August 9, 2012 Members Share Posted August 9, 2012 it's good to know that we've gotten the daily headstock bashing thread in. Toan is in the headstock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Presc Posted August 9, 2012 Members Share Posted August 9, 2012 those look fine to me, but I cant stand these ones: Suhrs look incredibly lame considering that theyre such a high end product I've never quite understood what's so offensive about Suhr's headstock (it's simple, clean, and balanced, is it just too boring or something) but beyond a resemblance in shape when you actually look at the finishing and wood of the Suhr versus the Xaviere it's pretty clear which guitar is the high end one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Help!I'maRock! Posted August 9, 2012 Members Share Posted August 9, 2012 I've never quite understood what's so offensive about Suhr's headstock (it's simple, clean, and balanced, is it just too boring or something) but beyond a resemblance in shape when you actually look at the finishing and wood of the Suhr versus the Xaviere it's pretty clear which guitar is the high end one from what i've seen over the past 10 years of arguments on the subject, it's not a Fender headstock, therefore it is ugly. that's really all there is to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Flying_Milkman Posted August 10, 2012 Members Share Posted August 10, 2012 I've never quite understood what's so offensive about Suhr's headstock (it's simple, clean, and balanced, is it just too boring or something) but beyond a resemblance in shape when you actually look at the finishing and wood of the Suhr versus the Xaviere it's pretty clear which guitar is the high end one I personally think the headstock is pretty sleek, but I really don't like their logo. YMMV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Angry Tele Posted August 10, 2012 Members Share Posted August 10, 2012 I personally think the headstock is pretty sleek, but I really don't like their logo. YMMV. i dont like the logo and I dont think the shape is sleek. Its simple but not elegant. Its boring, plain jane, generic. Hahn has a nice shape but terrible logo I like my Flatine-cool shape and logo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Belva Posted August 10, 2012 Members Share Posted August 10, 2012 Better tuning stability too. They may not be as asthetically pleasing, but they are functionally better. Very true. The straighter the string path, the better IMO. I have developed a nut cutting technique for the Gibby type headstocks that involves a straight cut followed by a slightly angled cut on the back side of the nut that greatly improves tuning stability. My acoustic customers are happeh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members *BLEEP* Posted August 10, 2012 Members Share Posted August 10, 2012 Fugly headstocks? How'bout a fugly buttstock... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members billybilly Posted August 10, 2012 Author Members Share Posted August 10, 2012 I've never quite understood what's so offensive about Suhr's headstock (it's simple, clean, and balanced, is it just too boring or something) but beyond a resemblance in shape when you actually look at the finishing and wood of the Suhr versus the Xaviere it's pretty clear which guitar is the high end one I like Suhr's headstock as well, oh well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.