django49 Posted February 26, 2018 Share Posted February 26, 2018 12 minutes ago, Steve Haynie said: What are the two brands on the bottom, and what wood is on them? The mix of light and dark makes me wonder if that is some of the ebony with light wood running through it. They are a Scott Walker Santa Cruz and an earlier (2011) Frank Hartung take on the Les Paul. Believe it or not, they are both solid Brazilian Rosewood necks. I would love to be able to say that I owned the one on the right, but not $9k worth of love! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBraz Posted February 26, 2018 Share Posted February 26, 2018 It's always tricky with headstocks. Some will love a design where others detest them. I guess the best thing you can hope for are designs that offer originality and respected craftsmanship with a generally pleasing aesthetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ting Ho Dung Posted February 26, 2018 Share Posted February 26, 2018 16 hours ago, LefThanDed said: This has bothered me ever since I was a kid: Looks like you could grate some cheese on that. Maybe even lemon zest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkrownd Posted February 26, 2018 Share Posted February 26, 2018 4 hours 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. The basic Hamer paddle headstock is quite boring at first glance, but I eventually got used to them and now I don't mind the shape if it's in good proportion to the body. It's just a personal thing. I'm actually fine with that "J Guitars" headstock near the top of the thread, but I'd never buy the Dean V shaped headstock. I don't like really small 3x3 headstocks, or "headless" guitars, or the "banana/hockey stick" (but I love the pointy "beak"), and I hate "reverse headstocks". I don't like the classic Fender headstocks either. Bright plain maple headstocks also often bother me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbonesullivan Posted February 27, 2018 Share Posted February 27, 2018 As long as the headstock matches the body in design somewhat, I don't much care. If it's got like a Gumby-looking body and a pointy headstock.. yeah that's not pleasing to the eye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stobro Posted February 27, 2018 Share Posted February 27, 2018 I like the simplicity and utility of the headstock on my NS Designs electric upright bass. This is what a guitar version might look like- it's actually a six-string cello: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack C Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 Dan Armstrong came up with a great one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hanspanzer Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 Thumbs up for daring to be different Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmatthes Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 Those almost make Jan Kammerer’s stuff not seem as ugly. Almost... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
django49 Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 2 hours ago, hanspanzer said: Thumbs up for daring to be different Somehow that makes me think of both thumbs and sucking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sugartune Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 On 2/25/2018 at 10:16 PM, BubbaVO said: So much to like about the guitar, but that notch in the headstock is not one of them. http://davesguitar.com/products/collings/city-limits-5/ Ah, I like the "haircut". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sugartune Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 6 hours ago, hanspanzer said: Thumbs up for daring to be different Ha! Ads for these littered the magazines in the early to mid nineties when I started playing. I'd be cool with one now. Thumbs up is a little stupid, but looks like it could pack a solid punch, if need be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crunchee Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 I've always thought that the standard 'six-in-line' Suhr and Tom Anderson headstocks weren't very 'distinguished' looking...the only thing making them stand out design-wise IMO is the logos (and that's not mentioning colors or wood choices). The 'six-in-line' headstock on most Benford Guitars (a moderately-priced US-based guitar maker) sure does look to me a lot like the Suhr headstock: http://benfordguitars.com/price_list1.html Maybe there's only so much that can be done with a 'six-in-line' headstock. Funny thing about the 3x3 Hamer headstock (especially the ones on guitars back in the '70's and '80's), it reminds me a LOT of the 'snakehead' design that was used by Gibson on mandolins (and maybe some guitars), back in the 1920's onward. I can't imagine Gibson being happy about that, but apparently they never bothered Hamer about it...at least not that I've ever heard about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burningyen Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 20 minutes ago, crunchee said: I've always thought that the standard 'six-in-line' Suhr and Tom Anderson headstocks weren't very 'distinguished' looking...the only thing making them stand out design-wise IMO is the logos (and that's not mentioning colors or wood choices). The 'six-in-line' headstock on most Benford Guitars (a moderately-priced US-based guitar maker) sure does look to me a lot like the Suhr headstock: http://benfordguitars.com/price_list1.html Maybe there's only so much that can be done with a 'six-in-line' headstock. Funny thing about the 3x3 Hamer headstock (especially the ones on guitars back in the '70's and '80's), it reminds me a LOT of the 'snakehead' design that was used by Gibson on mandolins (and maybe some guitars), back in the 1920's onward. I can't imagine Gibson being happy about that, but apparently they never bothered Hamer about it...at least not that I've ever heard about. There's a ton that can be done with 6-in-line headstocks, but like I said before, the more you try to make it your own, the more people you're going to lose. Some of my favorites: Teuffel Scott Walker Reverend Parker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jorge Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 1 hour ago, crunchee said: I've always thought that the standard 'six-in-line' Suhr and Tom Anderson headstocks weren't very 'distinguished' looking... ........I can't imagine Gibson being happy about that, but apparently they never bothered Hamer about it...at least not that I've ever heard about. I fully agree with you re: Surh and Tom Anderson. To me, they look "character-less", not "kind of ugly". Which I cannot say about Hamer´s 3+3 headstock. Now, Hamer was competing on the base of price and their great playability and construction, at least compared to Gibson. They succeded there, but with time, other companies played catch-up on construction and setups, and Hamer was not longer unique. To this day, I play any Tom Anderson, and their playability and attention to detail (in setups, not in the look of their guitar top woods) is still mostly unsurpassed, IMO. And yes, Gibson probably decided not to bother Hamer about it, they may have been actually relieved and saw them as not competitive on the design front. A guitar is something that should look cool to most owners and viewing public, while probably for something as a mandolin that could be mostly irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucSulla Posted March 1, 2018 Author Share Posted March 1, 2018 The only thing that makes this any more hideous is just how lazy it was. "Hey guys, I just sawed some off!" It looks like a Fender with a flat tire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biz Prof Posted March 1, 2018 Share Posted March 1, 2018 3 hours ago, LucSulla said: The only thing that makes this any more hideous is just how lazy it was. "Hey guys, I just sawed some off!" It looks like a Fender with a flat tire. Even worse is the simple fact that Wayne and his son have made these guitars virtual copies of the legendary San Dimas-era instruments that he had absolutely nothing to do with. They bore his name, but were conceived a couple of years after he sold the company and its outstanding debt to Grover Jackson, who (with his original team) actually designed and built the early '80s guitars that the Wayne brand is emulating. Ironic...and pathetic IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucSulla Posted March 1, 2018 Author Share Posted March 1, 2018 47 minutes ago, Biz Prof said: Even worse is the simple fact that Wayne and his son have made these guitars virtual copies of the legendary San Dimas-era instruments that he had absolutely nothing to do with. They bore his name, but were conceived a couple of years after he sold the company and its outstanding debt to Grover Jackson, who (with his original team) actually designed and built the early '80s guitars that the Wayne brand is emulating. Ironic...and pathetic IMHO. It's amazing to me how many people still think Wayne was building those guitars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dhuber Posted March 2, 2018 Share Posted March 2, 2018 Some of the modern designs are OK at best. You're never going to top the Fender Telecaster, Stratocaster, or Standard Gibson Headstock. From what I'm seeing so far you might as well carve a head stock in the shape of a side view of penis and scrotum (can I say that on this side of the forum). Maybe someone has already done that. Anyway I'll probably get taken out to the alley by all the Explorer fans here. If you disagree with me show me what you got. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucSulla Posted March 2, 2018 Author Share Posted March 2, 2018 2 hours ago, dhuber said: If you disagree with me show me what you got. Like, my junk? I'm so confused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamerhead Posted March 2, 2018 Share Posted March 2, 2018 11 hours ago, dhuber said: .....might as well carve a head stock in the shape of a side view of penis and scrotum..... On 2/28/2018 at 6:02 AM, hanspanzer said: ^^^^ Right there. Of course it's got four balls, but who's counting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Haynie Posted March 2, 2018 Share Posted March 2, 2018 If all we had from the start was three on a side headstocks we would be criticizing Fender's headstock if it was introduced today. The cure for an embarrassing headstock shape is to keep it hidden while on stage. That is why rock stars cover them with distractions like bras and panties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
django49 Posted March 2, 2018 Share Posted March 2, 2018 In the traditional realm, but with nice attention to detail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biz Prof Posted March 2, 2018 Share Posted March 2, 2018 2 hours ago, hamerhead said: ^^^^ Right there. Of course it's got four balls, but who's counting? I thought those were wrinkles. 😆 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dhuber Posted March 2, 2018 Share Posted March 2, 2018 6 hours ago, Steve Haynie said: If all we had from the start was three on a side headstocks we would be criticizing Fender's headstock if it was introduced today. I've tried to draw a new concept headstock and I'll admit I can't do it. I've always thought the early guitar companies had it made because they were able to start from a clean slate. I despise the Dean Headstock however when you see one you know that's a Dean. So originality has to count for something. If it's cool looking someone might say that JD looks like a Huber. Is that a Washburn or a Hamer. When is a headstock shape a Trade Mark, and when is a headstock shape public use? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.