Jump to content
Hamer Fan Club Message Center

Recommended Posts

In light of recent happenings at one company, a question -

Is a decent headstock really that hard to design?  Obviously the Gibson, Strat, and Tele headstocks are iconic, and you often hear people say coming up with just a decent headstock is hard. But is it really?

Ernie Ball, G&L, Peavey, EVH, Shishkov, and PRS, just to name a few, seemed to manage it.  I don't necessarily love all of those, but at best, they don't distract me from the guitar.  In all honesty, Hamer's 3+3 shape was always a little too boat paddle for me, though they never jumped out like some other guitar brands. Binding helped out a bit with them as well. It was more something I'd notice occasionally while they were sitting in the stand, "Man, that really is quite a large headstock." 

So really, is the headstock really that hard, or has that just become a bit of an easy excuse when a guitar manufacturer craps out something like this?

p3_uwqxesahd_so.jpg

Edited by LucSulla

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's right on par with this one from J Guitars. It's a shame, too because he's re-fretted close to half dozen of my Cal'is and does excellent work but that head stock is just plain fugly IMO

 

Screen Shot 2018-02-25 at 5.46.33 PM.png

Edited by diablo175

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Hamer headstock shapes never bothered me except for the oversized headstock on Martin Turner's Standard Bass. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But in general - Making an iconic headstock may be very well impossible these days, but a decent one?  Like something that neither is great or terrible?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

                                                                    Has to be one of the ugliest out there!:o[Not a fan of some of their finishes either] As far as the guitars themselves........the build quality and so forth they are top notch. I have played a few and they were great...........and expensive!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

gotta be plain with a little personality... I think of several headstocks as classic, Tele, Strat, Les Paul, Explorer and Dan Armstrong.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not terrible, however lacking in originality  

54D3A3AE-CBD6-4C25-B9B1-F1562EBCA7DD.jpeg

Less fancified:

rnrrelic.jpg

 

Edited by RobB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rickenbacker makes a simple yet badass headstock on their 6 strings.

Edited by Jakeboy
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RobB said:

Not terrible, however lacking in originality  

54D3A3AE-CBD6-4C25-B9B1-F1562EBCA7DD.jpeg

 

Perfect example.  Not particularly offensive, nor memorable.  If I really dug the guitar it was attached to, I'd probably never think about it. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, LucSulla said:

If I really dug the guitar it was attached to, I'd probably never think about it. 

I really dig the guitar, and thinking takes too much effort.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never minded Hamer's headstocks, unless it was a 3x3 Blitz. Yuck, yuck, yuck for my eye.

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Steve Haynie said:

The Hamer headstock shapes never bothered me except for the oversized headstock on Martin Turner's Standard Bass. 

The only Hamer headstock I thought was ugly was on an ‘81 Vector.

But what do I know? I had a Heritage and the headstock didn’t bother me at all.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LefThanDed said:

This has bothered me ever since I was a kid:

silvertone 1448 headstock.jpg

Great for chopping up a hog though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, diablo175 said:

That's right on par with this one from J Guitars. It's a shame, too because he's re-fretted close to half dozen of my Cal'is and does excellent work but that head stock is just plain fugly IMO

 

Screen Shot 2018-02-25 at 5.46.33 PM.png

Yikes.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have always found the Hamer headstocks to be cool and iconic in the same way as Fender's or Gibson's headstocks.

The PRS headstock though, don't get me started. So ugly it hurts. Or the pointy Kramer 80's headstocks (not the original EVH banana one), or mosty pointy 80's headstocks for that matter, like Jackson's. This IS UGLY:

jackson_sls3_headstock.jpg 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As you can see from this very thread, yes, it's hard. The more distinctive you try to make it, the more people you will tend to turn off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing that always stumped me about that Tyler headstock is that you can tell that the builder put a bit of effort into designing it, and yet it's still hideous. 

Dean's inverted V always comes up in these discussions (apologies to BTMN), but there's this abomination: 

B00186W1TI-3.jpg

Which makes one think that Dime sat down with Zelinsky and said, "I figured out a way to make your iconic headstock even uglier."

Edited by Biz Prof
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Disturber said:

I have always found the Hamer headstocks to be cool and iconic in the same way as Fender's or Gibson's headstocks.

The PRS headstock though, don't get me started. So ugly it hurts. Or the pointy Kramer 80's headstocks (not the original EVH banana one), or mosty pointy 80's headstocks for that matter, like Jackson's. This IS UGLY:

jackson_sls3_headstock.jpg 

I actually dig those, though I like them better when they are reversed. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the features of the human brain is its great difficulty in acknowledging self-made errors. Sometimes, the more intelligent a person is, the more difficult it is to accept he/she has made mistakes.

 

Of course, this implies one could not correct them.

 

Jol/Hamer never accepted their headstock shape was a problem -at best, some customers did not mind it- and the brand finally collapsed. Their most commercially successful era was during the 80's, in which many models used variations of either the Strat (many times reversed upside down) or the Gibson "banana" Explorer shape.

 

That´s sad: the guitars were made incredibly well, but were not competitive as designed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hamer's marketing was far worse than the headstock. Personally, I think they were neuteral, not great, but not terrible. The one's I don't like are the Dave Edmunds and Bill Bremmers Armstrong clones... 

I like the PRS headstock, more than the rest of their guitars...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Jorge said:

Jol/Hamer never accepted their headstock shape was a problem -at best, some customers did not mind it- and the brand finally collapsed. Their most commercially successful era was during the 80's, in which many models used variations of either the Strat (many times reversed upside down) or the Gibson "banana" Explorer shape.

That´s sad: the guitars were made incredibly well, but were not competitive as designed.

I don't buy this argument for a second.  The only complaint about Hamer headstocks I've seen is about the "paddle" headstock that they used for a couple of years in the early 1990s.   The headstock had absolutely nothing to do with why the brand folded.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, cmatthes said:

   The headstock had absolutely nothing to do with why the brand folded.

The brand folded for many reasons, here are a few:

1.  Ownership by non-active Bill Kaman

2.  Changes in model names and features that confused the market place

3.  Tried to portray themselves as premium brand but were very reasonable priced most of the their life span, which in turn, again confused the market

4.  Move to Connecticut dictated less production, which lead to less artist budget, lead to less visibility, lead to less sales.................

5.  No consistent model other than the Standard through out their history, which in turn was a Gibson copy

6.  The 20+ different models over the years portrayed a job shop image, chasing the latest trend, not that of an iconic brand

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×