$vboptions[bbtitle]

Are you a headstock snob?

bugo
October 30th, 2011, 01:04 AM
(also posted to Strat Talk.)

I certainly am. I won't buy a guitar unless I like the headstock. There is a currently very popular guitar that will remain nameless that is a great guitar but I think the the headstock decal is ugly. I would buy the guitar if it had a better looking logo. Am I the only headstock snob here?

tooncaster
October 30th, 2011, 01:06 AM
I try not to be, but that Epiphone headstock bothers me. I always want to shave it down an inch. Totally irrational, of course. They make great guitars.

yark14
October 30th, 2011, 01:15 AM
I don't care as long as its not pointy like Jackson, B.C. Rich, etc.

Bruce Wayne
October 30th, 2011, 01:27 AM
I don't care as long as its not pointy like Jackson, B.C. Rich, etc.

+1

bender66
October 30th, 2011, 02:57 AM
You can always mod it. That being said, i'm starting to leave headstocks alone. I do like the traditional look though. I'll leave it to everyone else for their own definition of traditional.

edit* I like the decals to look good too, but could almost care less. Unless it looked like a child scrawled it with a crayon. Decals are easy to take care of.

Jupiter
October 30th, 2011, 03:29 AM
So you're not even objecting to the shape, just the logo?

Don't you have any duct tape?

bugo
October 30th, 2011, 03:35 AM
Yes.

Del Pickup
October 30th, 2011, 03:43 AM
There are some headstock shapes that are just ugly to my eyes. And, until recently, I hate to admit to being a bit of a headstock logo snob as well.

If it didn't say Fender or Gibson then it wasn't a 'real' strat/tele/LP/whatever.

That changed when I acquired my friend's handmade LP copy. He put his initials on the headstock as the logo (which is fair enough as although it's made from genuine Gibson parts, it's not a Gibson). Because I love the guitar so much - and he essentially customised it to my requirements, I actually don't care that it doesn't say Gibson on there.

But if the headstock hadn't have been the right shape that might have been a different matter...............!!!!

rangercaster
October 30th, 2011, 04:42 AM
headstocks ??? we don't need no stinking headstocks !!! :lol:... the only time i look at the headstock is when i tune or change strings ... headstock snobs are worried about what other people think about their headstock and how it reflects on their worth or significance ... i don't ponder the aesthetics of a hammer ... i just expect it to drive nails efficiently ...and if it has a maple or rosewood handle, i really don't care ... http://static.musiciansfriend.com/derivates/19/001/298/600/DV020_Jpg_Jumbo_518965.001_black_R.jpg

looney77
October 30th, 2011, 04:51 AM
I'll play anything. But, those Xaviere headstocks are the ugliest I've ever seen on a guitar. Even the pointy ones are better and I can't stand those things. Before I offend anybody, I'm not dogging Xavieres. I've never played one. I just think the headstocks are awful looking.

I like Gibson headstocks much better than Epis. But Epi makes a fine product and I don't mind playing one. I love the old 70's Fender headstocks too. I know most around here don't. But I dig 'em.

Mike Simpson
October 30th, 2011, 04:54 AM
I will never own a pointy guitar or a guitar with a pointy headstock.... or a headstock that looks like a hockey stick. Beyond that I am pretty much open if I like the guitar.

Telegraff
October 30th, 2011, 05:49 AM
My accoustic has to have a Martin style, it's like a Tele in that it's the only shape that works, esthetically.

slapshot
October 30th, 2011, 06:33 AM
edit* I like the decals to look good too, but could almost care less. Unless it looked like a child scrawled it with a crayon. Decals are easy to take care of.

one of my logos is a name scrawled by a kid with crayon:P
but i'm not adverse to writing the name on a piece of masking tape

yangounet
October 30th, 2011, 06:45 AM
I dont care much about..

Phelonious Ponk
October 30th, 2011, 06:45 AM
I play a G&L. The headstock not only has a teat, it's red. So, no, I don't suppose I'm a headstock snob.

P

tele salivas
October 30th, 2011, 07:25 AM
I really like those Ron Wood model telecaster ESP has out,this shop by me has one for $799, but I just can't get over the headstock, it bugs me. A really great tele, sounds and plays exceptional. One of the reasons I probably won't ever get a custom indy builder guitar is because of the headstock. I don't care if it says Fender or Squier, but the shape has to be there. Also can't stand a strat shaped neck on a tele body, ala Deluxe. Not so much a snob, as a persnickitty SOB.:lol:

Scotland
October 30th, 2011, 07:37 AM
I have never "heard" a headstock yet, sound and feel is more important to me but yes, the Epiphone does look all wrong to me too.

Coop47
October 30th, 2011, 08:33 AM
Normally no, but with one exception: I've been impressed by Seagull guitars, but can't get past the headstock.

BLAM
October 30th, 2011, 08:35 AM
Heck yes! I don't like bleached white maple, post 60s tuners, modern logos and all the rest of it. I am in therapy though.

telex76
October 30th, 2011, 10:03 AM
I've got to like the looks of the guitar, the headstock is part of that.

KevinB
October 30th, 2011, 10:14 AM
... i don't ponder the aesthetics of a hammer ... i just expect it to drive nails efficiently ...and if it has a maple or rosewood handle, i really don't care ...

There's no right or wrong here, and we're all different.

I "ponder" the aesthetics of everything. My favourite hammers are Estwings, and yes, there are many headstock shapes I just can't get past. If that makes me a snob, so be it. :roll:

http://www.leevalley.com/us/images/item/woodworking/assorted/69k1001s2.jpg

cocoboudin
October 30th, 2011, 10:33 AM
Not at all, for me is the sound,the playabilety and of course the feeling of the guitar in my opinion the look of the guitar dont matter much such as the head stock.

jammers5
October 30th, 2011, 10:45 AM
I used to be....before I bought a G&L I didn't like the headstock shape. But since I bought one that blew me away (ASAT Classic Rustic) that headstcok shape drives me wild!

J5

PJ
October 30th, 2011, 10:55 AM
I have a few of Epiphone's - a real old one and a couple new ones. The real old one has a normal headstock. And, it looks fine. The new models have a headstock shape that's trying not to be a Gibson. And, that's just the wrong approach. Fender got it right with the Squiers. Leave the shape alone and just change the name on the decal. Epiphone's been trying too hard to create that space between brands, that the product's already accomplished. No need to ask the peghead to do it. JMO...YMMV.

100580

beep.click
October 30th, 2011, 11:12 AM
I only have one guitar with a headstock I don't like, but even that doesn't bother me TOO much. I mean, I still bought it.

However, I will say that there are some headstocks I like a lot better than others. This one, for instance, just screams cool:

http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj309/clikbucket/telenless/100_0771-Copy.jpg

Great logo, real simple.

southwoodgtars
October 30th, 2011, 11:20 AM
I love tele headstocks. Shock I know... I am a lover of cheap guitars and wish the makers of some of these brands would spend more time in this area of design. So yes headstock shape bothers me a bit but not enough to keep me from buying guitars that feel, play or sound great or have the potential to.

Camplain
October 30th, 2011, 11:24 AM
I like most headstocks, even pointy ones.... I'm looking at an AMS catalog to see if I can find any I don't like.... let's see what I come up with....

Don't care much for Gretsch, just not very stylish to me
Not crazy about Ibanez. the tip looks tacky IMO
The EVH Wolfgang just looks wrong
Not wild about Schecter, but some of theirs look ok
BC Rich Revenge Warlock looks like something from the Brutal Legend video game, not good
Not in the catalog, but those guitars without headstocks look like toys to me

Everything else in the book looks ok.

I'd still be glad to own any of these guitars, and I hope I didn't offend anyone who owns the guitars I listed above. I find most headstocks become cool after getting used to them.

I once thought (put down the rocks and pitchforks please) Tele headstocks were ugly and looked like they would snap off, love them now... also thought the hockey stick on my Explorer looked really odd and puny at first, but now I love it too. I even prefer the less popular big 70's Strat headstock over the smaller ones, think it reminds me of Hendrix.

Perhaps I am a headstock snob, but I think it's really just a matter of taste for me..... I mean if I had 2 guitars that cost the same and had to choose one, I would pick one that plays best over the one that has the nicest headstocks.... luckily guitars with nice headstocks are always the best players :) j/k

PJ
October 30th, 2011, 11:26 AM
Can't have enough Tele pegheads - even an Esquire or two will do.

100583

flag72
October 30th, 2011, 11:27 AM
well Im with you bugo head stock in important and I will not purchace a guitar that as an ugly head stock. tele head stock is so sexy.Im the same way with amp's look is very important ....lol

D_Schief
October 30th, 2011, 11:34 AM
I guess I do have a hang-up for the sleek look of a tele headstock. I'm thinking of getting a strat, but know I'm going to have to retro fit a tele neck on it, 'cause that big ole strat headstock just looks wrong to me.

I suppose I don't really have to add that your mileage may vary. IMO

BTW, spending the morning listening to Curtis Mayfield and Marvin Gaye. "Makes me wanna hollar, throw up my hands!"

Joe Sailor
October 30th, 2011, 11:40 AM
Gotta admit I like traditional headstocks. Despite knowing that Stevie Wonder could play a hockey stick head stock and make fantastic music.
Heck, Stevie could make a real hockey stick sound good.

oramac7891
October 30th, 2011, 11:41 AM
Yup, I won't buy a guitar with pointy headstock. There are order companies as well that I just cant get over.

Thinlineggman
October 30th, 2011, 11:44 AM
I don't really care about the headstock shape as long as it isn't stupid looking like the BC rich warlock. What does bug me is the joint going from neck to headstock. Gibson and Epiphone both bug me immensely because of how fragile those head joints are.

mijstrat72
October 30th, 2011, 11:57 AM
For 2 decades I could not stand the site of a Tele headstock, much less the complete guitar. Pointy headstocks all the way.

Then I saw the large strat headstock and that was it, the turning point.

Slowly I evolved to the smaller strat headstock.

Now I love my tele, and it's headstock.

Telehogger
October 30th, 2011, 12:01 PM
Oh yeah, just can't get past the Larrivee headstock. Great guitars, fugly headstock though.

samato
October 30th, 2011, 12:35 PM
With Fender guitars (and others I'm sure but I'm really only into Fenders) the relationship between the body shape and the shape of the headstock is part of the whole package. They are truly works of art and I don't think they were done by accident. As soon as you change the headstock shape it loses something.

Toto'sDad
October 30th, 2011, 12:46 PM
Headstock beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder, while I love the Fender headstocks, my son who'se a Gibson guy says the headstock on a Fender looks like a chicken's head with chrome knobs for a comb. Maybe that's why they call it chicken pickin'.

gypsyseven
October 30th, 2011, 01:09 PM
I don't care as long as its not pointy like Jackson, B.C. Rich, etc.

Exactly.

Troubleandahalf
October 30th, 2011, 01:24 PM
If I recall, the OP's issue was with the axis of one of the words on the headstock. I don't know what to tell you if that keeps you from enjoying this wonderful, magical guitar. I think it's an exotic condition you have.

boldaslove71
October 30th, 2011, 01:27 PM
It used to bother me a bit on my 1979 Fernandes Strat Copy that the Head Stock was not perfect and the logo was different. After 4 years of never playing the Fender Strat, I recently let my 2005 Am Std Strat go on a trade for an 85 CIJ Jag, because the Fernandes Strat was such a superior guitar.

Agave_Blue
October 30th, 2011, 01:32 PM
As stupid and ignorant as it is - all the moreso in my case - yes, I am. Not as much about what another owns or buys or plays, but about what I would buy.

stevieboy
October 30th, 2011, 01:59 PM
(also posted to Strat Talk.)

I certainly am. I won't buy a guitar unless I like the headstock. There is a currently very popular guitar that will remain nameless that is a great guitar but I think the the headstock decal is ugly. I would buy the guitar if it had a better looking logo. Am I the only headstock snob here?

I don't think having individual tastes equates to being a "snob." I tend to like lots of different designs, but if I really hated how a guitar looked I probably wouldn't buy it.

daniel89
October 30th, 2011, 02:07 PM
I only really like the Gibson, Fender, Guild and Martin headstocks. Yes, I am a snob. Yes my guitars *appreciate* in value ;-).

dstuart
October 30th, 2011, 03:00 PM
it annoys me when a company almost copys every spec of a guitar then leave the headstock....

Dawg
October 30th, 2011, 05:28 PM
Yes. Telecasters have to have the err... tele headstock with the old logo too - if it's still there :rolleyes::lol:

http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n183/billybuck_2006/c6680cfe.jpg

I can't stand the big '70's headstock Stratocasters - goes with bad mustaches, brown flared pants and curly leads. I'd never have one just because of that massive fugly headstock - give me '50's neat & cool every time :wink:

TimJ
October 30th, 2011, 07:44 PM
I'm certainly not a Tele purist, I admire and love the Tele for what it is but it'll never be my main guitar.

To that end, I have 3 Ibanezes (2 pointys and George Benson), Strats, a Les Paul, a Firebird, and 2 Steinbergers (a previous poster has already done the gag, but I love them!) in addition to my Tele.

Anyway. different strokes for different folks, but I will say this:

if you are going to buy a guitar, you should love it in every way, tone first, yes, but looks too.

The only guitar I can honestly say I've purely judged 100% on tone is my classical - in which case they all pretty much look the same anyway (bearing in mind I only dabble in classical, so pardon me if this is ignorance).

king5697
October 30th, 2011, 08:18 PM
I hate to admit it but I am a complete Fender headstock snob. All of my guitars have the fat stratocaster headstock. I'm a sucker for that style. My strats and my 72 tele deluxe and my jaguars. With the exception of my jaguars, all of my guitars also have 3 bolt necks. Don't judge me.

Radspin
October 30th, 2011, 08:51 PM
If it's a traditional-looking Strat or Tele-type guitar, for me a non-traditional headstock looks wrong on it. If it's something else, for example my Grosh ElectraJets, then anything goes. Although, exception, I do like the G & L headstocks. Maybe it's because they have the Leo Fender stamp of approval.

w3stie
October 30th, 2011, 09:03 PM
Headstocks are very important. Luthiers used to have their own design for headstocks (classical guitars anyway). I didn't used to like the Tele headstock, now I think it's just perfect.

Jupiter
October 30th, 2011, 09:21 PM
Gotta admit I like traditional headstocks. Despite knowing that Stevie Wonder could play a hockey stick head stock and make fantastic music.
Heck, Stevie could make a real hockey stick sound good.

Wait, what? Stevie Wonder plays hockey?

dylanfan424
October 30th, 2011, 09:26 PM
I like some of the wacky old headstock designs of the 60's like Teisco and EKO headstocks, but mainly I just enjoy a Fender Tele or pre cbs strat headstock and my Martin is the classic definition of understatement which I love. So to answer your question I am not a snob but i prefer to have a classic look to my headstocks.

arakele
October 30th, 2011, 09:27 PM
I don't consider myself a snob, but the pointy/banana/hockey stick headstocks do drive me nuts.

naveed211
October 30th, 2011, 09:33 PM
Depends how ugly we're talking. I don't think I'd ever buy a James Tyler guitar...that headstock is just ridiculous (and if I'm going to pay that kinda money I'd prefer an Anderson, anyway).

That said, I thought I'd mind that my SX Tele looks more like an Ibanez headstock and not "Tele" enough, but I'm fine with it.

bluesman07
October 30th, 2011, 10:47 PM
I really don't care much for the ugliest head stock ever, want to see it check out cole clark guitars. I really no how to describe that! Other wise I can't stand pointy and hockey sick headstotocks.

Cubeoid
October 31st, 2011, 05:26 AM
It is funny with cole Clark, such an ugly tele and strat headstock such a great acoustic one...

Back to topic

Iml a shape snob, usually whatever the original headstock design was works for me though it is probably more acquired taste than actual taste..

Ironhide
October 31st, 2011, 09:49 AM
Normally no, but with one exception: I've been impressed by Seagull guitars, but can't get past the headstock.

Feel exactly the same way. After James Blunt became a featured artist I gave up completely.

samsmithtele
October 31st, 2011, 10:05 AM
Originally Posted by yark14
I don't care as long as its not pointy like Jackson, B.C. Rich, etc.

+1

The shape of the headstock bothers me somewhat, but not the decal on it. I just don't like pointy headstocks at all. The tele one is just perfect.

Wrong-Note Rod
October 31st, 2011, 10:09 AM
I run into all kinds of guys that turn their noses up unless it has a Fender or Gibson logo on it. Three of my best guitars dont have any logo on them at all, they're partsacasters, and they're great guitars.

I think snobbery of any kind of just retarded. If it sounds good, it feels good, and it doesnt fall apart on you, then it IS good.

Wrong-Note Rod
October 31st, 2011, 10:11 AM
it annoys me when a company almost copys every spec of a guitar then leave the headstock....

in the case of Fender clones, this is because Fender sold off almost all their patents... but they retain the headstock shape patent.

So you get companies that clone a strat or a tele down to the finest detail... but have to have a different headstock shape, or Fender can get after them

RockerDuck
October 31st, 2011, 10:18 AM
Yes

Durtdog
October 31st, 2011, 10:19 AM
I run into all kinds of guys that turn their noses up unless it has a Fender or Gibson logo on it.
Sure, right here on this forum.

Guys put Fender decals on Squiers and partscasters all the time here. I even saw a thread where a guy wanted help cutting down an Epiphone headstock to make it look like a Gibson. Just nutty, if you ask me. I say let a guitar be what it's supposed to be.

I don't consider myself a headstock snob, but there are some I don't like, such as PRS. Just kinda goofy, though most of my friends disagree with me. I don't have a problem with most any others, though.

Love the old Bigsby design. Love Epiphone.

markesquire
October 31st, 2011, 10:38 AM
It doesn't have to actually be a Fender or Gibson shape and logo, but the shape and logo have to be well designed and "fit" the theme of the guitar.

I think that G&L is perfect in this regard. They are "traditional" styled guitars, and while the headstocks are different than Fender, they evoke a similar kind of "western" shape. Objectively, I think I like the G&L headstock shape AND BLOCK LETTERS better than Fender!

Ricky D.
October 31st, 2011, 10:55 AM
I have no issues at all with the appearance of other people's guitars.

For my own, I have to like the way the guitar looks before I consider buying it. Right now, I have two partscaster tele's and an ESP 400 strat.

I'm from the generation that pays extra for used guitars in good condition as opposed to the current fad of paying extra for new guitars that have been beaten up. Plenty of room for everybody to get what they want, no snobbery at all.

Slickster
October 31st, 2011, 10:55 AM
I always thought this headstock looked great ... I think it's the only "epi" that looks good

stantheman
October 31st, 2011, 11:20 AM
I used to be I suppose, then along came MIJ, then along came MIK, then along came MIM, then along came Crafted In Indonesia, then along came Crafted In China. If you went back oh I don't know maybe 8000 posts ago I said that Epiphone Korea was in a Golden Age - and there was a firestorm, but it turned out those two Korina Flying V's I bought weren't flukes at all.

The day is coming - actually it's already here when those in the know will be searching for what once was considered a red headed step child that grew up to be a Swan. :cool:

TG
October 31st, 2011, 12:15 PM
The headstock is part of the guitar and its aesthetic is as important to me as the rest of the guitar....and I prefer not to own an ugly guitar.

G&L, Heritage, the stupidly long Epiphone version, James Tyler,...those headstocks would have an influence on whether or not I'd actually buy the guitar, ie...I probably wouldn't.

bossaholic
October 31st, 2011, 12:27 PM
Total headstock snob here.

The Tele headstock is 100% perfect Feng Shui. I cannot except anything else. It just doesn't look right.

Other headstocks bother me. Can't recall any specific makers, but headstocks should aesthetically match the bodies.

xjazzy
October 31st, 2011, 12:31 PM
I think I could play every guitar if I like to play them dispite the look of the headstock but there are a few that I hate:
- Heritage
- Epiphone on a Les Paul or a SG
- Shur
- Tyler

Jaaniic
October 31st, 2011, 12:46 PM
I used to be a brand snob...not that much of a headstock knob...when i started playing i needed every guitar to say Epiphone, Washburn...then - a few year later it changed to Gibson, Fender :D But now, I actually adore those teles with headstocks that doesn't say anything at all on them. (I know that some of you make your own decals, but I somehow don't get it...maybe I'm still too young) :D I still want my guitars to look good though.

All in all - I must be a headstock knob, cause I love traditional Fender and Gibson headstock shapes. They just....work for me...dunno :) nothing else does.

BigDaddyLH
October 31st, 2011, 12:50 PM
I used to think "it's all good", but on a local online classified section I keep seeing this guitar listed under "Semi Collectible Gibson Epiphone T-310 Telecaster" and it makes me grind my teeth!

http://c.castanet.net/data/23/large/My_Pictures_16661.jpg

w3stie
October 31st, 2011, 05:39 PM
I used to think "it's all good", but on a local online classified section I keep seeing this guitar listed under "Semi Collectible Gibson Epiphone T-310 Telecaster" and it makes me grind my teeth!

http://c.castanet.net/data/23/large/My_Pictures_16661.jpg

Hmmm, that actually works for me. Simple and elegant. I think the floor covering is rubbish though. :wink:

Bolide
October 31st, 2011, 05:57 PM
..., this is because Fender sold off almost all their patents... ....

...

Patents only run for two decades* and then whatever is covered by the patent passes into the public domain.

Trademarks can be defended for an indefinite period.

If a feature is the slightest bit useful it cannot be a Trademark :mrgreen:

srsly, the only function a Trademark can serve is to identify the source, if it serves any other function it cannot be used as a trademark.


*note: There are ways of extending patent protection past two decades, but as a practical matter these extensions only apply to pharmaceuticals.

Shardik
October 31st, 2011, 06:04 PM
If not a snob, I do really care about the headstock shape. If it is not right for me, I do not want it. But brand name is not important to me.

Torz Johnson
October 31st, 2011, 06:24 PM
Yeah, I don't like certain headstocks. It doesn't have to be Fender / Gibson etc. though, just has to look graceful to the eye. I love the headstocks that were on Robin guitars, and I like Ron Kirn's, Crooks and Hahns. I don't care for the G&L headstocks though. It's just one of those things where beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

bluesstrattone
October 31st, 2011, 06:47 PM
The reverse headstock on a strat used to bother me so much
Also the tele.
Got a tele; check!
Need a reverse headstock strat; (pending)$$$$$

chrisgblues
October 31st, 2011, 06:56 PM
Getting back to the OP's post...I am going out on a limb and assuming he is talking about the Squier CV series.

And for the record...I am a headstock snob too. Not with regards to other peoples choices, but with my own. It's wierd because I see someone on stage with 'another' headstock and I think "gee that guy is so cool for using a knock-off" but I wouldn't do it myself. I know...I'm delusional.

JMHO.

Toto'sDad
October 31st, 2011, 06:56 PM
I think it's very important to have a headstock on a guitar, it gives you a place to put the tuners, and to hang a smoke if you indulge in that sort of thing.

bugo
October 31st, 2011, 07:06 PM
Getting back to the OP's post...I am going out on a limb and assuming he is talking about the Squier CV series.

Just the Teles. I like the CV Strat and the basses just fine.

xagyg
October 31st, 2011, 07:17 PM
I think it's very important to have a headstock on a guitar, it gives you a place to put the tuners, and to hang a smoke if you indulge in that sort of thing.
+1. I like tuners on the headstock.

chipbutty24
October 31st, 2011, 07:33 PM
The headstock is what has kept me from owning an agile or SX Tele

ringodingo
October 31st, 2011, 07:45 PM
Yes. I'm a bit of a snob.
Dislike:
Seagullacoustic guitar headstock. Even tho it's a simple and sleek design. Too small. No thanks.
Fat head Strat - Too big. Ever see The Buddy Holly Story were Gary Busey is playing a fathead Strat. No. That's wrong. Anachronism aside.
BC Rich Warlock - very Spinal Tap. Top end looks like the reverse silhouette of a scrotum. I'm sure they designed that on purpose.
Hockey headstocks.
Rickenbacker 4003 bass headstock. Ew. Body is even worse.

Admire:
Telecaster - Sleek and curvy. Just the right size.
Larrivee - Like a Martin but with a fresh twist. Economical.
Rickenbacker 360 headstocks and the like. Classy. Great design.

Ambivalent:
Taylor. It's fine, just forgettable. Does the job.
Fernandes Nomad - meh, but it totally suits the body. Cute, I guess.
Gretch white falcon - reminds me of those tulip shaped Rickenbackers.

PennyCentury
October 31st, 2011, 09:50 PM
No, not at all. Makers of a T-style and LP-style guitars HAVE to design an alternative headstock or suffer the legal consequences.

Toto'sDad
October 31st, 2011, 10:32 PM
I gotta say, I really am a snob when it comes to one thing, if I'm playin' an acoustic, it's gonna be a Martin. Been playing Martins since '65, too late to put in a change now. I even own a Taylor and it's a good box, but it's really an electric guitar, and I'm cool with that. Since I got goin' on electrics, I just like Fenders, and Esquires. I own a Tele AVRI, and an American Standard Strat, and a MIM Classic Players Tele. I'm right now at this minute, playing a Squier '51 my buddy gave me that plays so good, and sounds so good, I can't believe how it can happen. I'm going to a jam Sat night, I'm takin' the esquire, and a little super champ I'm doin' the reverse snob thing. If no body can hear me tough, I'm gonna play it anyhow. Besides, according to eveyone, it's all in the fingers anyway, just play a concrete block, it's all good.

Jupiter
October 31st, 2011, 10:52 PM
Just the Teles. I like the CV Strat and the basses just fine.

Hmm, in that case, I can say that I




totally don't get it.:confused:
:lol:

jammers5
November 6th, 2011, 11:02 AM
To be honest anyone is that particular over headstock shapes is missing out on some fine guitars....

J5

bugo
November 7th, 2011, 01:47 AM
To be honest anyone is that particular over headstock shapes is missing out on some fine guitars....

J5

So is anybody who is particular about body shapes. Most Tele guys don't seem to like BC Rich type guitars. The BC Rich guitars that I have played were excellent guitars. But I wouldn't buy one. There are many reasons for liking or disliking guitars, and headstock shape is no less valid of a reason to influence your purchases as body shape is.

BigD
November 7th, 2011, 12:16 PM
Well I ain't going to lie. I prefer the traditional HS on a Tele and would find a decent Tele with that design, Fender logo, and all before I would buy a T-Style with a different design. It's not practical to think this way, but I think if you were in the market and shopped around you could find a Fender that would equal the quality of some of the boutique builders. And yes I said you would have to look hard to find a Fender that would equal in quality,design, and pricing to the boutique guys.

palesaint
November 7th, 2011, 12:29 PM
I like all the classics. So yeah, call me a snob. I don't like anything pointy or anything that looks remarkably close to one of the originals but with an added point or contour. Just looks wrong.

Then there's this headstock... The blacksheep of the Fenders, the Starcaster. Kind of cool, kind of ugly! Still amazing guitars.

dcooper830
November 7th, 2011, 03:43 PM
I'm not a snob cause I don't look down on other people's choices if that's what they enjoy.

But I am really irrationally particular about what names I want on my guitar's headstocks.

I only like Fenders, Squiers, Gibsons, and Epiphones.

If it says "G&L" I'm not interested.... even though it's probably better than my Fender lol!

Im not interested in Suhr, Benford, Tokai, Burny, Greco, Trussart, McNaught, Edwards ...... or any of the other copies..... no matter how nice they are.

I'm missing out on great guitars ..... yeah whatever.. I don't care. I want guitars from the original companies. And they're good enough for me.

fezz parka
November 7th, 2011, 03:58 PM
Not anymore.:lol:
http://i901.photobucket.com/albums/ac218/sunnyland_photos/IMG_1428.jpg

Wingnut515
November 16th, 2011, 11:49 AM
I don't like pointy headstocks, however I don't care what the logo says if the guitar feels good to play. Does that make me a snob?

GuitarHack
November 16th, 2011, 02:21 PM
I have a kramer ferrington and it has a pointy headstock, but it has kind of grown on me. I still don't like the pointy look, but I could stand one on and eighties Tele or an HMT. That said, I really don't mind headstocks all that much. As for the SX guitars, I actually like those, so... yeah.

Sherpa
November 16th, 2011, 02:45 PM
No - the pair of NSGs I bought with the original Gumby headstocks cured me. Fantastic guitars, fugly headstocks!

BigDaddyLH
November 16th, 2011, 02:48 PM
There seems to be two distinct strains of "headstock snobbery":

1. The logo on the headstock. Some people don't want to be seen with a Squier.

2. The shape of the headstock, as in "that headstock shape is a dealbreaker"

62 Jazzmaster
November 16th, 2011, 02:53 PM
An old friend of mine always said:You don't look at the mantelpiece whilst poking the fire.
I've got a couple of guitars with fugly headstocks, but it doesn't bother me when I play them. :neutral:

P Thought
November 16th, 2011, 02:54 PM
I guess I am. Sorry.

http://i824.photobucket.com/albums/zz167/hankstank/TD40.jpg

Flaneur
November 16th, 2011, 04:52 PM
As I get older, it's all about the sound. When I was younger, I had no money and I couldn't play...... so it didn't matter. :grin:

This one is a bit flashier than I normally like- but the guitar sound and playability converted me.......

Phelonious Ponk
November 16th, 2011, 05:23 PM
I'm not a snob cause I don't look down on other people's choices if that's what they enjoy.

But I am really irrationally particular about what names I want on my guitar's headstocks.

I only like Fenders, Squiers, Gibsons, and Epiphones.

If it says "G&L" I'm not interested.... even though it's probably better than my Fender lol!

Im not interested in Suhr, Benford, Tokai, Burny, Greco, Trussart, McNaught, Edwards ...... or any of the other copies..... no matter how nice they are.

I'm missing out on great guitars ..... yeah whatever.. I don't care. I want guitars from the original companies. And they're good enough for me.


There's a pretty convincing argument that G&L is more "the original company" than Fender. What's more original, the ownership of the name Fender, or the guy, Leo Fender? I'm just sayin'....

P

Teleglide
November 16th, 2011, 05:34 PM
There was a time that I didn't like Tele headstocks, but I've learned to love them. I have a 1972 large headstock Strat, and I love everything about the guitar except the headstock - it's too big!

old goat
November 16th, 2011, 06:42 PM
I have a Gretsch Country Classic. I'm seriously thinking about removing the stupidsquare gold-colored plate that says "Country Classic". If it weren't that I might sell it some day . . .

It does bother me to see a strat with a tele neck/headstock and visa versa.

kevinjames
November 16th, 2011, 06:57 PM
Well, I'm going to do the worst thing possible.

I'm going to put a reverse strat baritone neck on a tele body.
The worst looking headstock goes to Epiphone, then Seagull guitars.

hal
November 16th, 2011, 07:33 PM
I am. Confession is good for the soul.

tdu
November 16th, 2011, 07:36 PM
My personal view is that there is nothing wrong with wanting to like EVERY aspect of a guitar you are buying. From the look to the feel. I don't really see how that can be considered snobbery.

I don't by clothes that I find ugly just because someone told I a missing out not wearing them. I like what I like, and I'll buy what I like.

czech-one-2
November 29th, 2011, 05:09 AM
Sure, right here on this forum.

Guys put Fender decals on Squiers and partscasters all the time here. I even saw a thread where a guy wanted help cutting down an Epiphone headstock to make it look like a Gibson. Just nutty, if you ask me. I say let a guitar be what it's supposed to be.

I don't consider myself a headstock snob, but there are some I don't like, such as PRS. Just kinda goofy, though most of my friends disagree with me. I don't have a problem with most any others, though.

Love the old Bigsby design. Love Epiphone.

Durtdog,I agree that some folks go a little overboard trying to fit in with the popular crowd.Believe it or not,this may be the best sounding electric I've ever owned,and its plywood with a 3 piece neck!!! Its got a fat,U shaped neck with a flatter radius,jumbo frets and a wider 1.68 nut width.After a fret level/crown its got the lowest buzz free action I've ever seen on a tele.The angled 'batwing' headstock is actually quite practical,eliminating string trees [you 'behind the nut' stunt benders outta try one!]I swapped the tuners for actual gotohs and the stock pickups for an EMG FT set.The neck pickup is pure magic,bridge/neck can pretty much cover acoustic electric steel string duty and the bridge twangs and Rocks!.
Funny story,but when I lived in Madison,TN,you would see these epiphones in pretty much every pawn shop and they would just sit there forever,I never bothered to pick one up.
Now living in Prague,I actually took a four hour bus ride :shock: to buy this thing in Slovakia for about $100.00.........best trip I ever made!
Oh yeah, I got the EMG set for $40.00 on ebay,all crusty and sold 'as-is'.
$140.00 for a killer guitar! I'm not ecstatic with the matching 'Batman' headstock on my 'Telephone'.........but the Snark does help :lol:!

Mur
November 29th, 2011, 05:41 AM
I like the design of the Tele headstock. Also, Martin and Gretsch, and especially those on my wood-pegged flamenco guitars.
.
.

Phelonious Ponk
November 29th, 2011, 07:02 AM
Martin headstock looks like a blank. Tradition is the only thing that makes it acceptable. Want a truly beautiful headstock design? Snakeheads from pre-war Gibson mandos. Those are pretty.

P

mke52
November 29th, 2011, 07:32 AM
The headstock is part of the general looks of the guitar, an ugly one can ruin the general impression.

Spidercaster
November 29th, 2011, 07:55 AM
Yes, without a doubt.

TRexF16
November 29th, 2011, 03:29 PM
My personal view is that there is nothing wrong with wanting to like EVERY aspect of a guitar you are buying. From the look to the feel. I don't really see how that can be considered snobbery.

I don't by clothes that I find ugly just because someone told I a missing out not wearing them. I like what I like, and I'll buy what I like.

I don't buy clothes, period. I wear whatever my wife gets for me and tells me to wear. Problem solved.

But I do want and need a guitar to look pretty to me, headstock and all. Since my playing is so bloody lousy, I figure SOMETHING in the experience ought to be pleasent.

Rex

Bill
November 29th, 2011, 04:19 PM
Yeah, I totally am. It's wrong, but there it is. Certain guitars have been aspirational objects since I was a kid, and the headstock is part of it. Getting, say, a Tele-style guitar with a non-Tele headstock tells the lizard part of my brain that I didn't quite get the guitar I aspired to. It's so wrong, but it feels so right.

crumpler
November 29th, 2011, 05:34 PM
All about the shape.
If the headstock is the right shape, it can say "ACME" for all I care...

savofenno
November 29th, 2011, 05:41 PM
I run into all kinds of guys that turn their noses up unless it has a Fender or Gibson logo on it. Three of my best guitars dont have any logo on them at all, they're partsacasters, and they're great guitars.

I think snobbery of any kind of just retarded. If it sounds good, it feels good, and it doesnt fall apart on you, then it IS good.


+1

czech-one-2
November 29th, 2011, 08:11 PM
Originally Posted by Wrong-Note Rod
I think snobbery of any kind of just retarded. If it sounds good, it feels good, and it doesnt fall apart on you, then it IS good.

+2

bugo
November 30th, 2011, 12:09 AM
These headstocks are just about perfect.

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6225/6365312859_cb21f9d8b6_z.jpg

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6093/6284871666_67b06a26fb_z.jpg

Alexandre
November 30th, 2011, 12:19 AM
I guess I sort of am... not sure it's the design more than the name that's on it.

We simply get use to a brand and I do not like copies of a guitar with a different headstock... While I don't like pointy headstocks, the Gibson Explorer one doesn't bug me since it's got the Gibson logo on it and ... it kind of matches the guitar. Only Gibson headstock I don't like is the V.

Tele, Strat or LP need to have the original headstock, if not, I don't want it. Even the name Squier on a Fender headstock annoys me... so I guess I'm a headstock and brand name snob...

Les Stratele
November 30th, 2011, 02:14 AM
I have a few guitars with, let's say, 'non-traditional' headstocks, and while they are just fine on those guitars, I am especially fond of my Fenders and Gibsons headstocks.

It's part of the guitar mojo vibe thingy, so color me snobby.

InfiniteRhino
November 30th, 2011, 02:40 AM
Some shapes just turn me right off, no matter how good the instrument might play/sound. Aesthetics are part of the total package and some stuff is just butt-ugly.

smokerjoe34
November 30th, 2011, 03:35 AM
I am for sure !! lol

jamblehamblebum
December 2nd, 2011, 12:26 PM
i am indeed it has to have squier on the headstock

Sacdubro
December 2nd, 2011, 12:56 PM
No pointy or Spearhead styles. They just remind me of the Shredder/Metal Bands of the '80s. The body shape of an instrument is also something I consider. So, yes I'm a Snob.

babybluetele
December 2nd, 2011, 01:02 PM
Yes I am i only like the gibson (general shape) epi lp es & tele headstocks

brewwagon
December 2nd, 2011, 01:07 PM
lots of great sounding guitars are ugly :lol:

the telecaster is simply beautiful

bugo
December 2nd, 2011, 01:29 PM
No pointy or Spearhead styles. They just remind me of the Shredder/Metal Bands of the '80s. The body shape of an instrument is also something I consider. So, yes I'm a Snob.

I'm an old school metalhead and I love a lot of music that was created on that style of guitar, but I don't like them that much. I'm very much a traditionalist when it comes to guitars. I'm the guy playing metal riffs on a Tele in dropped D. The Tele is surprisingly a good guitar for heavy music. Country guitar? It's a guitar that can be used for just about any style of music.

bugo
December 2nd, 2011, 01:40 PM
Yes I am i only like the gibson (general shape) epi lp es & tele headstocks

You don't like the Strat headstock? If I had to pick one headstock, it would be a Strat headstock with the spaghetti Fender logo, the "With Synchronized Tremolo" decal, and the "Original Contour Body" decal.

This is just about the perfect headstock for me. It's my Daphne Blue '50s Classic Series Stratocaster:

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6225/6365312859_cb21f9d8b6_z.jpg

bugo
December 2nd, 2011, 01:42 PM
i am indeed it has to have squier on the headstock

Really? I have a weird single humbucker 24.75" scale mid-1980s Japanese Squier Strat that I love to death, which was my first guitar. I've had it for almost 20 years and if I could save only one of my guitars, it would be the one I'd save. I wouldn't change anything about it, even the name on the headstock. But if I had a choice between a new Fender and a new Squier, I'd take the Fender every time. But I admire your dedication to Squier. They are underrated guitars and a great value.

MahoganyMan11
December 2nd, 2011, 01:44 PM
I cant think of a headstock i dont like...thats just me. the old silvertones are a little odd and i prefer the smaller strat headstock but i like the CBS one all right.

bugo
December 2nd, 2011, 01:53 PM
I cant think of a headstock i dont like...thats just me. the old silvertones are a little odd and i prefer the smaller strat headstock but i like the CBS one all right.

Which Silvertones? Silvertone made many different guitars with many different headstocks. I have a Teisco guitar that is supposedly a Silvertone (the headstock was painted over) that has the odd 4/2 headstock. It is shaped like this:

http://www.guitar-list.com/files/mygearpics/teisco-spectrum-5-4.jpg

As for the CBS headstock, it's OK but looks a bit "off" to me. I much prefer the classic style headstock over the CBS headstock.

wyclif
December 2nd, 2011, 02:11 PM
Total headstock snob here. It's just not a proper headstock to me unless it's the classic Tele or Strat shapes AND have the vintage Gotoh tuners and the classic "spaghetti" logo. I know it doesn't affect the sound, but it's a matter of great, iconic design and good proportions. I feel the same way about changing the lines on an Eames chair, for example. I guess I'm kind of a traditionalist.

I understand why people like sealed tuners but the rectangular tuning heads just don't look right to me, and the 70's era Strat headstocks just look like they have too much wood and need to be shaved down. Just my humble opinion.

Phelonious Ponk
December 2nd, 2011, 07:07 PM
Actually, I really like some of the streamlined "Strat" and "Tele" shapes that have been developed by other builders. And I aspire to a spaghetti logo that says Ponkaster.

P

Mr Perch
December 2nd, 2011, 07:15 PM
Total headstock snob here. Same here. I make sure everyone can see the "Squier" decal.

toddfan
December 2nd, 2011, 07:30 PM
...but, I probably am.

ESQUIREoholic
December 3rd, 2011, 07:54 PM
This is just as dang cool as cool can be:
http://www.pbase.com/esquire/image/121665388/original.jpg

rockinstephen
May 15th, 2012, 06:43 PM
I like some headstock designs better than others. A distinct headstock design is a great way to tell what a guitar is from a distance. But it's got to have a headstock! No Steinbergers for me...

Cymro14
May 15th, 2012, 06:56 PM
I know I shouldn't be ...but I am. I just have to have that Fender name on it although I know that there are equally good names out there.

Cymro14
May 15th, 2012, 06:59 PM
You don't like the Strat headstock? If I had to pick one headstock, it would be a Strat headstock with the spaghetti Fender logo, the "With Synchronized Tremolo" decal, and the "Original Contour Body" decal.

This is just about the perfect headstock for me. It's my Daphne Blue '50s Classic Series Stratocaster:

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6225/6365312859_cb21f9d8b6_z.jpg

Teles are wonderful things but that strat headstock is what rock 'n roll is all about!!

marc13
May 15th, 2012, 07:00 PM
My favorite of all my guitars is this one....there are some that bug me...Jackson is one for some reason, and Epiphone is not that great either....but the CBS big one is tops!! :D

festerbeatty
May 15th, 2012, 07:03 PM
Interesting topic! Im a snob i have to admit, i love suhr guitars...but the headstocks look absolutely crap! Love the fender tele headstock, and of course, it has to have the logo!

marc13
May 15th, 2012, 07:14 PM
Oh! But to answer your question, I think I am a snob....fender, Gibson, rickenbacker, and there are others, too, but i can't think right now

Homeside
May 15th, 2012, 07:20 PM
Most certainly. I think an instrument has to have a certain "go to" factor. if it doesn't appeal to me visually then it will be neglected, even if it's a better player. Case in point this P-Bass;
https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRr-d23lffjUY84L8rjLdr0QaA99AqhUWZPT3fuPKxPoi_uUUUwVA

It's a Classic Vibe 50s with a single coil pickup. Does not sound anything as good as its CV 60's P-bass stable mate below;
https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQn-njjOw6IoVba65vA4yTmAFGyovABDQzsrLEAkK5WkAYDJ3JW

But see that headstock on the 60s model? Too damn ugly for me, I prefer a tele-style neck, even on a bass and you know what, am a very happy chappy as a result. :smile:

joaopazguitar
May 15th, 2012, 07:23 PM
I try not to be, but that Epiphone headstock bothers me. I always want to shave it down an inch. Totally irrational, of course. They make great guitars.

totally agree... I'm considering a mod project on an Epi LP and here's an headstock draft

joaopazguitar
May 15th, 2012, 07:27 PM
I don't care as long as its not pointy like Jackson, B.C. Rich, etc.

:mrgreen: even pointy headstocks my be awsome! it's just a matter of being the "right" thing ... totally subjective, I know.
But I do have a BCRich and it's a great guitar, awsome neck and ebony fingerboard! (though I'll turn mine into a jazz axe one of these days ;-)

daveandshelle
May 15th, 2012, 07:41 PM
All the big ones for me.....fender, gibby, gretch...ahhh I guess I don't really care that much..heritage is fine.. G&L is good.. I guess maybe I don't like the ones that are way out there..

Gnobuddy
May 15th, 2012, 07:56 PM
I will never own a pointy guitar or a guitar with a pointy headstock.... or a headstock that looks like a hockey stick. Beyond that I am pretty much open if I like the guitar.
That pretty much nails it for me as well.

I'll add that I'm not a fan of the worlds most instantly recognizable headstock shape - the blobby, lopsided thing Leo Fender stuck on the end of his Stratocaster design in 1954. Fortunately, I don't have to look at the thing when I'm actually playing a Fender guitar!

-Gnobuddy

brown meadows
May 15th, 2012, 09:05 PM
Hands down the worst looking headstocks are James Tyler Guitars...truly awful. They're great guitars though.
http://www.tylerguitars.com/

The Shedder
May 15th, 2012, 09:32 PM
Not really a Snob, but the musicman tuner configuration looks odd to me, sort of out of place. Ugly even.

bluesfordan
May 15th, 2012, 11:06 PM
I freely admit to being a headstock snob. I don't give a rat's behind what's on the headstock, but it better look like a tele or a strat. I don't care how wonderful they are made, lovingly bathed in the tears of a unicorn and dried in soft frog down. If it ain't got the silhouette, it ain't got ****.

sgoodacre
May 15th, 2012, 11:25 PM
The shape is a sticky point for me (though I am looking at ordering a Crook at some point). I do not have such a problem with the logo. I am actually thinking about getting one made with my name for my Warmoth projects. I have been putting Fender logos on them because I am a pikey, but I think I would rather have my own stamp on there. Got a graphics agency I work with at the office all the time. Wonder if they will do me a favor?

savofenno
May 16th, 2012, 08:03 AM
Total headstock snob here. It's just not a proper headstock to me unless it's the classic Tele or Strat shapes AND have the vintage Gotoh tuners and the classic "spaghetti" logo. I know it doesn't affect the sound, but it's a matter of great, iconic design and good proportions. I feel the same way about changing the lines on an Eames chair, for example. I guess I'm kind of a traditionalist.

I understand why people like sealed tuners but the rectangular tuning heads just don't look right to me, and the 70's era Strat headstocks just look like they have too much wood and need to be shaved down. Just my humble opinion.


Vintage Gotoh tuners? I thought they were Klusons, at least in 50s - 60s.:shock:

Maybe Gotoh makes tuners in old style too, but vintage...:roll:

EsquireOK
May 16th, 2012, 08:09 AM
Yes, I am. Without a good looking headstock and decal, the look of the whole guitar is ruined for me. Take Heritage, Hamer, Suhr, Tom Anderson, Kramer, Jackson, Ibanez, and Music Man guitars as examples. Good guitars ruined by ugly heads IMHO. I don't care how good they are. They are ugly. And that matters to me.

I'm not saying it makes it a worse instrument, or that I wouldn't buy one if a great deal came my way on a guitar I loved, or that looks are everything to me...just that looks do matter a lot to me in a guitar. And in my eyes, nothing I've seen approaches the design perfection of a Fender head and a Fender decal.

G&L's heads I actually like, though. They are one of the few bastardizations of the classic Fender heads that I think actually look OK. I will sport any G&L without reservation. And I also think Epi's heads are pretty decent.

savofenno
May 16th, 2012, 08:17 AM
bugo is right, the 50s - early 60s headstocks are the best looking and most iconic Stratocaster headstocks!

I like Gibson`s usual type too, but last month i got a new Gibson favorite: Flying V in just this black-white-gold finish!:cool:

Edit: forgot this is mainly Tele site! Baja and Old Growth Redwood headstocks are of perfect style and shape, naturally.
Must add i am not logo snob, Squier headstocks are fine with me, they have same correct Fender shapes too.

Sorry, bugo, i missed it was you who posted Strat headstock pic first.

musicalmartin
May 16th, 2012, 08:17 AM
i have no preference in any headstock design ...as long as Leo designed it or possibly copied it .

Lefty Addams
May 16th, 2012, 10:05 AM
Teles are wonderful things but that strat headstock is what rock 'n roll is all about!!
Out of all of them imo, this is the ugliest. Far too much headstock and not enough logo! The Tele headstock is my favourite ......

drb1346
May 16th, 2012, 11:22 AM
Telecaster with the spaghetti logo is the perfect one for me . . .

Shardik
May 16th, 2012, 04:20 PM
i have no preference in any headstock design ...as long as Leo designed it or possibly copied it .
Interesting.

Ever see this one?
http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo97/ashtray_talkbass/Performer/p18.jpg

Beachbum
May 16th, 2012, 09:09 PM
Absolutely. It just doesn't feel right unless it's got a genuine Fender headstock.

http://i1081.photobucket.com/albums/j356/beachbum47/TELESTRAT/FMT022.jpg

Bernie
May 16th, 2012, 09:27 PM
I always thought these were cool...

http://www.elderly.com/new_instruments/items/images/30N/K161VCS_headstock-front.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ysXIRuxIQ20/Stjc0oWe_NI/AAAAAAAABgU/cySyUp49KCY/s320/Kay+Acoustic+in+Denver+for+$100+A.jpg
http://www.tdpri.com/forum/attachments/music-your-ears/113554d1329137640t-barney-kessel-talks-about-his-guitar-kelvinator-jpg

Gary in Boston
May 16th, 2012, 09:42 PM
Hmmmmm the headstock serves two purposes.

1) Anchor the strings

2) Provide a design element to "finish" the neck

3) (I lied) Serve to brand the instrument with some sort of recognizable crest / marketing vehicle so that when viewed from any reasonable distance you know from whence it came.

Gary

Cameage
May 16th, 2012, 10:13 PM
Definitely. I'd be totally cool with knockoff Teles (good knockoffs, that is) if they had the right headstock shape, regardless of what logo is on it.

I guess I feel about guitars the same way I feel about cars: it doesn't matter who made it, I'll like it if the proportions and performance are right.

One wrong line can completely mess up what might be a classic car design, I feel the same way about guitars. The designs that have stuck around are around because they're pretty much perfect, all of the other designs have fallen by the wayside because they're not...or they're close, so they get niche followings...I'm generalizing.

savofenno
May 17th, 2012, 08:55 AM
I always thought these were cool...

http://www.elderly.com/new_instruments/items/images/30N/K161VCS_headstock-front.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ysXIRuxIQ20/Stjc0oWe_NI/AAAAAAAABgU/cySyUp49KCY/s320/Kay+Acoustic+in+Denver+for+$100+A.jpg
http://www.tdpri.com/forum/attachments/music-your-ears/113554d1329137640t-barney-kessel-talks-about-his-guitar-kelvinator-jpg


You are right, they are very cool! Some sort of 20`s - 30`s art deco, mixed with 50`s fine automobiles visual styles. I think of Chrysler, De Soto, Ford Edsel etc. and many things from 20 years earlier!:cool:

Gusdaq
May 17th, 2012, 10:29 AM
I thought about asking Ron to put 'Fender' on the headstock of the barnbuster.....but then I thought better of it...!!

torresfan
May 17th, 2012, 11:37 AM
I try not to be, but that Epiphone headstock bothers me. I always want to shave it down an inch. Totally irrational, of course. They make great guitars.

I think that Epiphone would sell a lot more Les Pauls and SGs if they got the headstock right, a little closer to the Gibson shape, I've owned both and eventually moved them on as they bugged me so much. The Casino is a beautiful Guitar but you could shave a whole inch off the top of that headstock.

Abu Twangy
May 17th, 2012, 11:47 AM
I own a Reverend Charger HB.

I'm no longer a headstock snob.

Pips
May 17th, 2012, 01:08 PM
Yes, either Fender or Gibson (I also except Gretch or Rickenbacker). I have a simple rule almost with exception when you ask someone to describe another make, it normally goes something like, it sounds a bit like a Tele/Les Paul/ Strat. My answer well buy a Tele etc. I also always buy American - and I'm a Brit!

Trea
May 17th, 2012, 06:37 PM
Absolutely I am. I don't like guitars without headstocks.

qblue
May 17th, 2012, 07:58 PM
You don't like the Strat headstock? If I had to pick one headstock, it would be a Strat headstock with the spaghetti Fender logo, the "With Synchronized Tremolo" decal, and the "Original Contour Body" decal.

This is just about the perfect headstock for me. It's my Daphne Blue '50s Classic Series Stratocaster:

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6225/6365312859_cb21f9d8b6_z.jpg


This is more dramatic:
http://i573.photobucket.com/albums/ss171/qblue_1/IMG_1236.jpg
'69-'70 Stratocaster in Olympic white

c-los
May 17th, 2012, 08:00 PM
This is more dramatic:


Gross - save a tree lol: regular old tele headstock please lol

elmicko
May 17th, 2012, 08:31 PM
Yup, I guess I'm a snob too. If it has a tele body, then it needs a telecaster headstock. If it has a strat body, it needs a strat headstock (yeah and I prefer the fat 70's one). Decal isn't that important, but I prefer it to say Fender however the Crook and Kirn headstocks do look very good to me...probably because I can't afford one.