The Allure of the Headstock

Philly_Q

Kitsune said:

I prefer the big 70s Fender headstock. Looks much better than the undergrown one.

I think Fender got both their Strat headstocks just right (ignoring mis-steps like "The Strat", I think that was just a tooling error).  Both look great on Strats of the relevant periods.

I think I lean towards the big headstock due to the Blackmore, Trower, Roth associations but I really like the '50s and '60s looks as well. 

AndyR

I'm going to shock @Philly_Q here... I am coming round to the 70s Fender Headstock (mainly for the reasons @ICBM states). However, out of the 4 or 5 strats I do own, they're still all 50s/60s.

On the allure/brand/etc of the original post... I'm easy on it either way myself. But mostly I buy Gibsons/Fenders over Epiphone/Squier because I prefer them and can afford them. I'm very happy that Mexican Fender are real Fenders (same as Japanese are - except, out of the ones I've played, I don't like them so much!).

I buy Gibsons/Fenders instead of "whoever" when I want a Gibson/Fender design. Mainly because I grew up on "copies" in the days when that wasn't such a good thing... and again, because I can afford it now.

When it's not a G/F design - eg Yamaha Revstar - and it grabs me... I'm all over it :-)

StefB

octatonic said:

stickyfiddle said:

I don't mind the Tyler headstock. It's unapologetic and pretty much the only not-Fender that is properly trying not to be a Fender headstock. 

It is basically a 'fuck you' to vintage purists too.

Tyler is a funny guy- the psychedelic vomit finish was meant to be a joke that people, inexplicably, seemed to like.

I think the repetition of the logo on the Tyler headstock makes it seem much worse than it actually is.  When I try to visualise it without all that it never seems as bad.

ICBM

Philly_Q said:

(ignoring mis-steps like "The Strat", I think that was just a tooling error).

I can't believe it was - it's too big a difference. Someone must have drawn what they thought was a 'small' headstock without taking the apparently obvious steps of either looking at the original drawings - which if I remember rightly may have been lost or destroyed by CBS - or just finding an old one and drawing round it.

I seem to remember reading that the Cunetto-era headstock was intentionally wrong too, to avoid fakery - but I find that odd as well, because it's so easy to permanently mark the neck as a reissue somewhere else. Either way it spoils the effect of the otherwise quite realistic relicing, because you can see the head shape is wrong from the other end of a room.

stickyfiddle

Also +1 for “yay nitro”. I don’t doubt a good thin poly (of whatever type) sounds just as good, but nitro looks better and feels better and wears better, and that helps me make more of a connection with an instrument 

Once I’ve had my old Strat refin-ed I’ll only have one poly finish - paisley MIJ Tele

Philly_Q

AndyR said:

I'm going to shock @Philly_Q here... I am coming round to the 70s Fender Headstock (mainly for the reasons @ICBM states). However, out of the 4 or 5 strats I do own, they're still all 50s/60s.

I am shocked!

AndyR

Philly_Q said:

AndyR said:

I'm going to shock @Philly_Q here... I am coming round to the 70s Fender Headstock (mainly for the reasons @ICBM states). However, out of the 4 or 5 strats I do own, they're still all 50s/60s.

I am shocked!

However... the vile painting of strat headstocks is another matter entirely, deserving of severe and possibly violent disapprobation

Philly_Q

AndyR said:

Philly_Q said:

AndyR said:

I'm going to shock @Philly_Q here... I am coming round to the 70s Fender Headstock (mainly for the reasons @ICBM states). However, out of the 4 or 5 strats I do own, they're still all 50s/60s.

I am shocked!

However... the vile painting of strat headstocks is another matter entirely, deserving of severe and possibly violent disapprobation

I look forward to you getting a nice '60s in Burgundy Mist with a matching headstock...

Voxman

AndyR said:

Philly_Q said:

AndyR said:

I'm going to shock @Philly_Q here... I am coming round to the 70s Fender Headstock (mainly for the reasons @ICBM states). However, out of the 4 or 5 strats I do own, they're still all 50s/60s.

I am shocked!

However... the vile painting of strat headstocks is another matter entirely, deserving of severe and possibly violent disapprobation

Nonsense...I really like matching headstocks. My 2010 Daphne blue Strat is lovely and the matching headstock looks fab! 

Fretwired

When it comes to a Stratocaster (my main squeeze) then I'm a Fender guy. I won't look at another Strat. Other than that I don't care. I have a couple of Godin guitars which I'd have trouble giving away .. I have a Tele made by Arrowhead Guitars and a Mike Stern Yamaha signature Tele and an Epi Dot which I've had modified.

AndyR

Voxman said:

AndyR said:

Philly_Q said:

AndyR said:

I'm going to shock @Philly_Q here... I am coming round to the 70s Fender Headstock (mainly for the reasons @ICBM states). However, out of the 4 or 5 strats I do own, they're still all 50s/60s.

I am shocked!

However... the vile painting of strat headstocks is another matter entirely, deserving of severe and possibly violent disapprobation

Nonsense...I really like matching headstocks. My 2010 Daphne blue Strat is lovely and the matching headstock looks fab! 

Hehe... I really thought I'd added

"unless, of course, someone has already bought one and it is their pride and joy... in which case, it's a very nice look but not for me personally :-)"

I must have clicked Post Comment before I was finished - there was a lot of stuff going on here (post-lunch nap, etc)

axisus

I used to be very much someone who needed 'Fender' on strats, Tele's etc. I'm actually not bothered now, which probably came about when I started making my own guitars, which I prefer to play. I do generally like the 'right' headstock shape on stratty guitars or tele guitars, but not always.

My main bass for a while was a Squier that I modded. I hated Squier on the headstock so I replaced it with a regular Fender decal (In theory only whilst I owned it). I wish I hadn't changed it now though. I'm gonna remove the Fender decal, I may get a Squier or I may just leave it blank.

thegummy

Any time I see a good musician, sometimes professional, using a Squier it makes me feel embarrassed for having my bias where I just couldn't get one.

I just know I'd have an irrational fear that it was somehow inferior and I couldn't be at peace.

Paying for the American Fender stops me having that unrestful mind but in reality it's all in my head to begin with.

Rocker

John_A said:

IMO a Suhr or Anderson is just a well put together Strat, a Vigier on the other hand takes quality and innovation to a good few levels up.  Once I played one I stopped worrying about the headstock shape, they are brilliant guitars 

Never saw, let alone played, a Vigier but I own and play an Anderson. I cannot imagine a better playing instrument than the Anderson. If the Vigier is better, as you say it is, then it is some guitar

punchesjudy

The name on the headstock doesn't bother me at all, one of my favourite guitars is a Squier.  The shape though. I can't be dealing with manky looking headstocks. Mainly those that are sorta like a Fender/Squier but not. Haar's headstock shape bothers me for example. 

gringopig

.

Kitsune

thegummy said:

Any time I see a good musician, sometimes professional, using a Squier it makes me feel embarrassed for having my bias where I just couldn't get one.

I just know I'd have an irrational fear that it was somehow inferior and I couldn't be at peace.

Paying for the American Fender stops me having that unrestful mind but in reality it's all in my head to begin with.

Guilty. Was watching some footage of a great guitarist the other and thinking “that’s a lovely Tele he’s got”

look it it up and it’s a Squier. Which surprised me as it was a pro musician.

Still sounded good though. Probably spent all the money on pedals

Voxman

AndyR said:

Voxman said:

AndyR said:

Philly_Q said:

AndyR said:

I'm going to shock @Philly_Q here... I am coming round to the 70s Fender Headstock (mainly for the reasons @ICBM states). However, out of the 4 or 5 strats I do own, they're still all 50s/60s.

I am shocked!

However... the vile painting of strat headstocks is another matter entirely, deserving of severe and possibly violent disapprobation

Nonsense...I really like matching headstocks. My 2010 Daphne blue Strat is lovely and the matching headstock looks fab! 

Hehe... I really thought I'd added

"unless, of course, someone has already bought one and it is their pride and joy... in which case, it's a very nice look but not for me personally :-)"

I must have clicked Post Comment before I was finished - there was a lot of stuff going on here (post-lunch nap, etc)

LOL!  It's one of my guitars - it's not my 'pride & joy' but I do like it and it plays & sounds great too.  But disapprobation....do you honestly think that this isn't a very pretty guitar?

AndyR

^ It is a cute guitar. And the headstock on it's own is pretty to look at...
But I just can't get on with the two together. Especially the last picture. It just doesn't look "right" to me.

meltedbuzzbox

Wazmeister said:

rlw said:

The name on the headstock doesn't bother me but the shape does.  I cannot be doing with the unsightly variations on the Fender headstock, Suhr, albeit one of many, being the worst in my view. 

And Vigier.

I agree 100% with this... really  don't like the PRS or Suhr...

And yet... I now own a Suhr Alt T Pro !

And for me, if there is a better playing guitar, out there, Ive yet to play it...

owwwwwwwww thats the suhr in the classifieds by 2019 :-P