How many of us

TTBZ

@rlw I agree on headstock shape, but I like most of the alternatives (PRS, Suhr, Daniels, LTD, Schecter etc) and it's only the truly ugly ones like James Tyler and old Epiphone I have an issue with!

JayGee

All the guitars I own at the moment are mass production items. Not necessarily big brands but very definitely factory made. Luthier stuff has crossed my path on a number of reasons but the stars have not yet aligned in a “right guitar at the right time when I’ve actually got the money” way, and I suspect the reason that (for the relatively high value stuff anyway) the reason is that there’s just so much more of the big name brand stuff about so, if I’m actively shopping the probabilities favour it being something from Brand F, Brand G, or Brand P which pops up and presses my buttons in the right way at the right moment.

That said, I keep thinking back to the Fidelity guitars I played at the last Newmarket show, and one of them in particular looms large and fits nicely with both the sound and the general vibe of a slow burning project I’m involved with at the moment. And the toy fund savings account has been growing nicely over the last year or so...

poopot

rlw said:

For me, its not the name on the headstock, but the headstock.  I'm fine with Epiphone and Gibson, and Tokai mimicking same, but assymetrical variations totally do my head in.

I couldn't live with the quirky shapes from Guild or Duesenburg, even the Heritage one bothers me, and don't mention Vintage which makes me squirm.   I was very tempted by a Daniels but once I clocked the headstock, temptation went.

Fender is the same; I'm fine with the shape, even reversed like Chapman, but one you start messing with it like Suhr, Anderson, G&L etc, I'm out.

I have a perception of what works visually and what doesn't to the extent that you could give me a Suhr or a Feline Tabby and I just wouldn't want it. 

I imagine that a lot of thought went into the original shapes, both to get them to work and to look just right.  Mess with that at your peril.

What a load of nonsense!...

are you seriously saying you would not look at a guitar, no matter how good that guitar was, just because the shape of the headstock?

I guess that’s one of the differences between someone who uses a guitar to create and perform music as opposed to just someone who has a guitar as a hobby... there’s nothing wrong with just being a hobbyist/bedroom guitarist... but why overlook a great instrument just because it doesn’t fit your dewy eyed and I’ll informed sense of tradition!...

the same goes for resale value, if you are buying a guitar with one eye on its resale value then a bespoke custom built guitar is not for you. There are plenty of generic, off the shelf mass produced “standard” guitars for you to choose from!...

When all is said and done... a good guitar is a good guitar... but a good bespoke build “should” always serve to be a better musical instrument...

Provided you get someone who knows what they are doing you will get so much more than just another “guitar” to hang on the wall or polish!...

impmann

Not fussed about the brand. A good guitar is a good guitar. My fave Strat and the one that I compared every Custom shop Fender to in Coda one afternoon (and didn't buy any of them) is a Jap Squier from the early 90s. All my Teles are bitsas of some description (and would have the "fake" Police going purple in the face).

Yes I have two PRS guitars - both bought at times when they were as fashionable as Loon Pants. I have a couple of Gibsons - one being an SG Special that probably most would look down their nose at because its not a Standard and the other being a Les Paul with the "wrong" neck angle.

I also own Shergold guitars - whilst interest is on the up for these, I became interested in them when nobody else wanted them.

I sold my expensive Guild acoustic because I prefer the sound of my 1968 Hagstrom J45 - that cost me less than £200.

And I have the guitar that our very own Andy built me - a one off that we designed between us. It'll never be sold but I'd imagine that it would be hard to value and hard to find a home for if it did.

Point is - I don't care what the name is on the headstock. I like Fenders and Gibsons (I really like PRS too) but it doesn't *have* to be made by them. And resale value isn't really a motivational factor - money is a vile thing that ruins a good hobby.

crunchman

The headstock is one of the big problems with Gibson.  Something with straight string pull is much better.  Gibsons get a lot of tuning problems because of strings sticking at at the nut.

The standard Fender one isn't great either.  With 6 in line, and not angled back, you normally end up needing string trees, which add friction.  When I went to Crimson a couple of years ago I built something based on a Tele, but I gave it a 3 a side headstock to avoid the need for string trees.

26.2

It has to have Fender, Gibson, Gretsch etc on the headstock for me. I’m not interested in copies or posh ‘improved’ versions. Resale value is a small factor, but mainly it’s a totally subjective feeling that they’re the ‘real thing’. I guess it allows me to feel somehow connected to an era of music that I love and a tradition that I value. You can call me deluded, shallow or whatever, and pick holes in the logic, but the feeling is still real  

I do have a certain regard for the likes of Fano, Huber, etc as ‘retro that never was’ designs but I’m not sure I’d get one. 

rlw

poopot said:

rlw said:

For me, its not the name on the headstock, but the headstock.  I'm fine with Epiphone and Gibson, and Tokai mimicking same, but assymetrical variations totally do my head in.

I couldn't live with the quirky shapes from Guild or Duesenburg, even the Heritage one bothers me, and don't mention Vintage which makes me squirm.   I was very tempted by a Daniels but once I clocked the headstock, temptation went.

Fender is the same; I'm fine with the shape, even reversed like Chapman, but one you start messing with it like Suhr, Anderson, G&L etc, I'm out.

I have a perception of what works visually and what doesn't to the extent that you could give me a Suhr or a Feline Tabby and I just wouldn't want it. 

I imagine that a lot of thought went into the original shapes, both to get them to work and to look just right.  Mess with that at your peril.

What a load of nonsense!...

are you seriously saying you would not look at a guitar, no matter how good that guitar was, just because the shape of the headstock?

I guess that’s one of the differences between someone who uses a guitar to create and perform music as opposed to just someone who has a guitar as a hobby... there’s nothing wrong with just being a hobbyist/bedroom guitarist... but why overlook a great instrument just because it doesn’t fit your dewy eyed and I’ll informed sense of tradition!...

the same goes for resale value, if you are buying a guitar with one eye on its resale value then a bespoke custom built guitar is not for you. There are plenty of generic, off the shelf mass produced “standard” guitars for you to choose from!...

When all is said and done... a good guitar is a good guitar... but a good bespoke build “should” always serve to be a better musical instrument...

Provided you get someone who knows what they are doing you will get so much more than just another “guitar” to hang on the wall or polish!...

Absolutely that's what I'm saying and if you think that's nonsense, that's fine by me.  

Why would I want to own something that I don't like the look of.  I don't want to own something that makes me feel it's very nice but..... 

And that's why I've never kept a PRS for very long - great guitars but the headstock just unbalances them visually.

Each to their own.

poopot

rlw said:

poopot said:

rlw said:

For me, its not the name on the headstock, but the headstock.  I'm fine with Epiphone and Gibson, and Tokai mimicking same, but assymetrical variations totally do my head in.

I couldn't live with the quirky shapes from Guild or Duesenburg, even the Heritage one bothers me, and don't mention Vintage which makes me squirm.   I was very tempted by a Daniels but once I clocked the headstock, temptation went.

Fender is the same; I'm fine with the shape, even reversed like Chapman, but one you start messing with it like Suhr, Anderson, G&L etc, I'm out.

I have a perception of what works visually and what doesn't to the extent that you could give me a Suhr or a Feline Tabby and I just wouldn't want it. 

I imagine that a lot of thought went into the original shapes, both to get them to work and to look just right.  Mess with that at your peril.

What a load of nonsense!...

are you seriously saying you would not look at a guitar, no matter how good that guitar was, just because the shape of the headstock?

I guess that’s one of the differences between someone who uses a guitar to create and perform music as opposed to just someone who has a guitar as a hobby... there’s nothing wrong with just being a hobbyist/bedroom guitarist... but why overlook a great instrument just because it doesn’t fit your dewy eyed and I’ll informed sense of tradition!...

the same goes for resale value, if you are buying a guitar with one eye on its resale value then a bespoke custom built guitar is not for you. There are plenty of generic, off the shelf mass produced “standard” guitars for you to choose from!...

When all is said and done... a good guitar is a good guitar... but a good bespoke build “should” always serve to be a better musical instrument...

Provided you get someone who knows what they are doing you will get so much more than just another “guitar” to hang on the wall or polish!...

Absolutely that's what I'm saying and if you think that's nonsense, that's fine by me.  

Why would I want to own something that I don't like the look of.  I don't want to own something that makes me feel it's very nice but.....

Each to their own.

It fine to not want something based on looks... 

but to exclude the idea of owning an instrument just because it’s not “a brand” or has an improved headstock shape that doesn’t conform to “brand guidlines” is laughable... 

like I said, if you want a guitar to look at, polish and hang on your wall that’s fine...

but, consider this... outside of yourself and your guitar playing chums... no one else cares!!!!!

If you are a gigging muso, the punters don’t care or even possible know what guitar you are playing... they just care about “what” you are playing and how it make them feel... and if a bespoke guitar is a better tool for you to accomplish your goal then thats what you should get...

guitars are not pieces of art!!!! They are tools to be creative with. 

if you are just buying guitars solely based on looks, as a status symbol or for their resale value it’s just posing in the extreme... 

not a dig btw just an honest opinion!.

rlw

I think we will have to agree that our requirements of a guitar are quite different.  For me, it needs to bring a degree of pleasure in looking at it and handling it while, obviously, sounding good and working well.  It doesn't have to be perfect or make me money.  That's it.

A shallow but serious question.  How do you select your life partner?    Do you go for the one that fufils a role very well or the one that you think you'll really fancy for the rest of your life even though they aren't perfect?

rlw

TTBZ said:

@rlw I agree on headstock shape, but I like most of the alternatives (PRS, Suhr, Daniels, LTD, Schecter etc) and it's only the truly ugly ones like James Tyler and old Epiphone I have an issue with!

 I have no issue with the old Epihone headstock. It's a bit bulky but it's symmetrical and doesn't jar.

rlw

Danielsguitars said:

rlw said:

For me, its not the name on the headstock, but the headstock.  I'm fine with Epiphone and Gibson, and Tokai mimicking same, but assymetrical variations totally do my head in.

I couldn't live with the quirky shapes from Guild or Duesenburg, even the Heritage one bothers me, and don't mention Vintage which makes me squirm.   I was very tempted by a Daniels but once I clocked the headstock, temptation went.

Fender is the same; I'm fine with the shape, even reversed like Chapman, but one you start messing with it like Suhr, Anderson, G&L etc, I'm out.

I have a perception of what works visually and what doesn't to the extent that you could give me a Suhr or a Feline Tabby and I just wouldn't want it. 

I imagine that a lot of thought went into the original shapes, both to get them to work and to look just right.  Mess with that at your peril.

Lol had to laugh at you not liking my headstock, it was done purely to address straightening the strings through the nut and I have no intention of just rounding over an open book headstock which is a bad design and lazy imo

You'll probably hate what I'm doing next anyway and I can't please everyone.

I can't help but admire the workmanship and apparent (never having seen on in the flesh) quality of your guitars.  They look great but the headstock just messes with my head.

I totally get why you'd go for an improved shape and it makes perfect sense.  But I like symmetry.  Quite why I like single cuts and not double cuts is, however, a mystery

Dontgiveupyourdayjob

I'm only ever bothered by the name on the headstock in so much as it may affect the potential resale value.

The two main considerations for me when buying a guitar are:

1. Is it the right guitar for me, fulfilling my wants/needs at that point in time

2. Am I getting a good deal on it

The name on the headstock has can have an impact on #2, but doesn't necessarily affect #1. 

I've happily owned US, Japanese, Korean, Indonesian and Chinese built guitars in the past, I've also happily bought other people's partscasters that had no name whatsoever on the headstock, and I'd happily buy any of the above again regardless of brand name providing it fits the two criteria above.

Dominic

If a stunning looking and fantastic- driving car comes onto the market like the new Honda NSX ( which is very expensive ) I would still bet that the same vehicle with a Ferrari badge would sell for a further £75,000.
If Porsche made a really shitty little Fiat 500 size car with no poke it would still comfortably outsell the opposition because of the name badge.

rlw

Dominic said:

If a stunning looking and fantastic- driving car comes onto the market like the new Honda NSX ( which is very expensive ) I would still bet that the same vehicle with a Ferrari badge would sell for a further £75,000.
If Porsche made a really shitty little Fiat 500 size car with no poke it would still comfortably outsell the opposition because of the name badge.

But the Porsche would be reliable.....

poopot

rlw said:

Dominic said:

If a stunning looking and fantastic- driving car comes onto the market like the new Honda NSX ( which is very expensive ) I would still bet that the same vehicle with a Ferrari badge would sell for a further £75,000.
If Porsche made a really shitty little Fiat 500 size car with no poke it would still comfortably outsell the opposition because of the name badge.

But the Porsche would be reliable.....

And bought and owned by posers with something lacking that they need to compensate for!

rlw

Or by people with lots of money who can afford the very best

crunchman

rlw said:

Dominic said:

If a stunning looking and fantastic- driving car comes onto the market like the new Honda NSX ( which is very expensive ) I would still bet that the same vehicle with a Ferrari badge would sell for a further £75,000.
If Porsche made a really shitty little Fiat 500 size car with no poke it would still comfortably outsell the opposition because of the name badge.

But the Porsche would have tyres that cost £2000 to replace

FTFY

poopot

rlw said:

Or by people with lots of money who can afford the very best

Not really... I can afford to buy one tbh... it’s just I don’t feel the need to drive around in a massive penis extension!...

again... most Porsche owners very rarely take their cars on a track... I’d say the majority
of porsches are driven at normal road speeds to the shops and back...

a parallel can be drawn to folk who buy the expensive branded guitars but can’t play...

why? Just to pose... end of.

prowla

Dominic said:

If a stunning looking and fantastic- driving car comes onto the market like the new Honda NSX ( which is very expensive ) I would still bet that the same vehicle with a Ferrari badge would sell for a further £75,000.
If Porsche made a really shitty little Fiat 500 size car with no poke it would still comfortably outsell the opposition because of the name badge.

https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/aston-martin/cygnet-2011-2013 ?

Blueingreen

For me having an iconic name on the headstock is a very minor plus but it's more important to get the specs and QC I want.  The last 9 guitars I bought (over a long period of time) break down Gibson 3, Fender 0, other manufacturers 6. 

The main reason I have Gibsons is that for the models I like (small semi-hollows) I'm not seeing obviously better alternatives from other manufacturers except at silly prices (Collings; even PRSs high end semi-hollows are now well over £4K).  It has nothing to do with particularly wanting Gibson on the headstock.