Aster1 Posted May 30, 2013 Share Posted May 30, 2013 Hi Ya'll, I don't know why I thought of this when I sat down for dinner tonight. But the tall headstock, on one of my Epi acoustics, was sticking up about 12" (well close anyways) above the gripper on my Hercules guitar stand. I pondered, "is there any technical reason for the large headstock?" Or did Epi just want it to look different than a Gibson back in the original days? Hopefully I can get an answer soon so I can sleep tonight!!! Thanks!! Aster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aster1 Posted May 30, 2013 Author Share Posted May 30, 2013 Didn't sleep well at all with this question tumbling thru my mind. Hope I will get an answer & sleep tonight!! Aster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheapShoes Posted May 30, 2013 Share Posted May 30, 2013 My son the violin player was visiting a couple weeks ago and asked what's up with the stupid ugly top on your guitars? Now I'm self-conscious about it. It really didn't bother me previously. I told him I assumed it was a patent FTO issue, but I don't really know. If that was true, why do only half my Epiphones have the large headstock? - plus patents are only good for 18 years or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spamonkis Posted May 30, 2013 Share Posted May 30, 2013 Well, my best guess: if you are in a boat race using your guitar neck as a paddle, an Epiphone will go faster than a Gibson! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aster1 Posted May 30, 2013 Author Share Posted May 30, 2013 I told him I assumed it was a patent FTO issue, but I don't really know. If that was true, why do only half my Epiphones have the large headstock? Which one's DON'T have the long headstock? All my acoustics & my 2 Electrics (Casino & Custom shop SG) all have the boat oar as described above! Doesn't bother me and I like them. I had a beautiful Ric 330 that was in the few years era with the boat paddle headstock. My newer 330 doesn't have it nor does the 325. Kind of liked that wide look (almost Gretschish looking to me somehow). Not longer, just wider. Aster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old mark Posted May 30, 2013 Share Posted May 30, 2013 But seriously now.. Back in The Old Days (Epiphone is now 140 years old) Epiphone made a lot of very good arch top acoustic guitars that were used widely in playing and recording jazz. The archtops were very mid range heavy sounding instruments...the music of that time was played live over the radio, and the mid range guitar cut through the mix very well and broadcasted better than flat top guitars...but they lacked sustain. The larger headstock added a bit of weight to the guitar neck, which might have added a bit of sustain to the guitar. They still make them like that out of tradition, I guess. FWIW, Les Paul played mostly Epiphone archtops before he developed his Log...in fact the Log was made from Epiphone parts. That's my story and I'm sticking to it... and I will sleep just fine tonight ;) mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie brown Posted May 30, 2013 Share Posted May 30, 2013 Frankly, I'd much rather have (and look at) the "ugly" Epiphone (hour glass) headstock, than ANY chopped up looking PRS headstock! Talk about FUGLY!! Epiphone headstocks are quite elegant, by comparison. IMHO, as always. And, for what it's worth, Epiphone has had many headstock sizes, and shapes, over the decades. There's the Masterbilt versions, the old "archtop" versions, the current "hourglass" versions, and their modified (chopped corner) versions, like on the regular Sheraton's, etc. So, there really isn't just "one" Epi headstock style. But, several. I believe, the "hourglass" or "elongated bookend," was started in Kalamazoo, just to be different enough, from the Gibson version, to have it's own identity, for the Epi brand, at that time, since they were made "side by side," with Gibson's back then. Even the pricing was much closer, to being the same, than nowadays. Epi's were (somewhat) less expensive, but not a lot! Designs, were different, especially in the solid body models, but...overall Quality was Equal! CB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pin Posted May 30, 2013 Share Posted May 30, 2013 I think it is a bit of both "projection / sustain" sound reasons and the need to be distinctive. Here is a gallery of Epiphones (not all guitars) from the 1930s. Headstocks are varying in design but most are indeed large: http://www.premierguitar.com/Magazine/Issue/2011/Nov/GALLERY_Vintage_Epiphones_of_the_1930s.aspx?Page=18gallery Personally, I like the Epi big headstock just as it is and especially when it is adorned with the "Tree of Life" inlay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonematter Posted May 30, 2013 Share Posted May 30, 2013 Maybe to sell the specialized cases to fit the big-headstock guitars in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aster1 Posted May 31, 2013 Author Share Posted May 31, 2013 Well, I'm fine with the headstock as I said before. Thanks for the link with the photo's and I'd sure love 1 each Navarre, Tudor, & Deluxe Epi guitars. Esp. the archtops with F holes. Beautiful guitars. I was just curious if it was for a technical reason on the elongated headstock. I do like the suggestion for the special longer cases as a motive!! Thanks for playing along. I just find some of these things fascinating to understand more about. Aster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheapShoes Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 "Which one's DON'T have the long headstock? All my acoustics & my 2 Electrics (Casino & Custom shop SG) all have the boat oar as described above! " My SG-400 '66 Pro, and LP Custom Prophesy have Gibson sized headstocks, if slightly different in design. Also my '58 Korina V headstock is more or less identical to Gibson except the name on the truss cover. OTOH the Dot 335 and 355 have the royal Egyptian Epiphoness headdress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterswe Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 It the best way to change its balance with a minimum of added weight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyphre Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 My Dot's headstock doesn't bother me at all. I had an Ibanez AS73 previously and that headstock seemed much more like an oar to me than my Epi's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spamonkis Posted June 1, 2013 Share Posted June 1, 2013 I had an Ibanez AS73 previously and that headstock seemed much more like an oar to me than my Epi's. Sounds like a challenge to be settled down at the river! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheapShoes Posted June 1, 2013 Share Posted June 1, 2013 Ha! I guess my Telecaster would come in next to last, just before the Steinberger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spamonkis Posted June 1, 2013 Share Posted June 1, 2013 I guess my Telecaster would come in next to last, just before the Steinberger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
20_Gauge Posted June 1, 2013 Share Posted June 1, 2013 Which one's DON'T have the long headstock? All my acoustics & my 2 Electrics (Casino & Custom shop SG) all have the boat oar as described above! Doesn't bother me and I like them. I had a beautiful Ric 330 that was in the few years era with the boat paddle headstock. My newer 330 doesn't have it nor does the 325. Kind of liked that wide look (almost Gretschish looking to me somehow). Not longer, just wider. Aster I'm w/ ya Aster, I kinda like the Epi headstock. My favorite is the 'stock on my Epi LP Jr. The 'stock on my EJ-200 is long(longest of my 3 guitars) & skinny but I think it looks sharp. 20 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bongoscot Posted June 2, 2013 Share Posted June 2, 2013 I think Dean wins the prize for the worlds ugliest headstock with that big V monstrosity. They could have the best guitar on the planet and I would never know it because I would never own that ugly thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheapShoes Posted June 2, 2013 Share Posted June 2, 2013 Agree. Dean makes fantastic guitars for little money. But very few people over 30 would be caught dead playing a guitar with that headstock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milod Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 I think the older marques kinda got some pretty decent and relatively unique headstocks that, large or medium, are pretty much classic designs. The point of the old companies and archtops in the early radio/recording days is pretty valid, although rather than increasing sustain, I'd suggest that such "style" was pretty common on all sorts of products in the art deco era from the 20s into perhaps the '40s. m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cougar Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 I pondered, "is there any technical reason for the large headstock?" It's phallic. Size matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Notes_Norton Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 After this: all other headstocks seem too big and wasteful ;) The large headstock on my Casino looks out of proportion to me, but if it has that beautiful vine inlay like the Sheraton all of a sudden it makes sense. My favorite is the 'Bikini' headstock - it looks more in proportion and the string angle at the nut is less severe And I believe at one time the Casino did come with a Bikini headstock Of course, it's all a matter of personal taste, and unless the headstock was detrimental, it wouldn't be an issue on my guitar purchase. After saying all that, I do prefer the Parker, not for it's looks, but for it's tuning stability. The Sperzel locking tuners don't use even one complete wind or string around the peg, the 6 in line and straight path from the tuner to the ball end at the bridge (with the exception of the slight headstock angle) and the graph-tech nut makes the Parker stay in tune better then any of my other guitars - and it's the only one with a whammy bar. After all that, I think I would prefer the 'batwing' headstock for the straight string path I'm for function first, looks second. Notes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vinlander Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 Quite big to me on that Super 400 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleeko Posted June 8, 2013 Share Posted June 8, 2013 Quite big to me on that Super 400 Same with this Hoochie Momma . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluemans335 Posted June 8, 2013 Share Posted June 8, 2013 I think Dean wins the prize for the worlds ugliest headstock with that big V monstrosity. They could have the best guitar on the planet and I would never know it because I would never own that ugly thing. +1. I can't believe they put that atrocious headstock on otherwise nice guitars. Though down a couple notches on the ugly scale, PRS headstocks are nothing to brag about either. Epi's are far better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.