Was there a "reason" for the large Epi headstock?

Bluemans335 · June 8, 2013

My favorite is the 'Bikini' headstock - it looks more in proportion and the string angle at the nut is less severe

After all that, I think I would prefer the 'batwing' headstock for the straight string path

I'm for function first, looks second.

To me, the metal on the bikini headstocks gives them a decidedly cheap look. Looks like a piece of foil from a gum wrapper. The batwing headstock is too much like the headstocks used by the evil empire (Fender). With big hands, 6-in-a-row tuners are too crammed together for me to use; I'm always turning the wrong tuner for the string I want to tune. I can easily, without looking, get the right tuner on a 3x3.

Aster1 · June 8, 2013

Same with this Hoochie Momma . . .

Now that's a headstock I can really enjoy looking at! I love it. Also like my J-45 Custom too.

Aster

Sleeko · June 8, 2013

Now that's a headstock I can really enjoy looking at! I love it. Also like my J-45 Custom too.

Aster

Barney Kessel model.

milod · June 8, 2013

Gotta admit that in my olden days and a few "metal" logos on the headstock were such a "cheapie" turnoff I'd not even give a guitar a chance. And... I hate to admit I'm still pretty much that way.

Never cared much for the F headstocks, either, although they worked fine for me on basses.

m

Cyphre · June 9, 2013

Those metal-plated "bikini" head stocks don't look cheap at all in my opinion. I think they look classy and retro, which I dig.

Gonna get a Wildkat one of these days, and I think every bit of that guitar screams "retro cool".

20_Gauge · June 9, 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!!

Totally agree, CB!

PRS has some sharp lookin' guitars but those 'stocks looks like some kinda Star Wars toy haha.

20

milod · June 9, 2013

Cyphre...

Yeah, but I'm retro <grin> and, seriously, even 50 years ago I thought the metal headstock tags looked cheapie and even then I figured it may well have been a way to mass-produce guitars for different companies and just nail on their little metal logos...

It's probably an unfair criticism of a guitar, both then and now. But...

m

Cyphre · June 9, 2013

Must just be a generational perceptual thing.

:)

milod · June 9, 2013

Actually I agree about the "generational" thing.

Gotta figure there was some really, really horrid stuff out there in the late '50s and early '60s as the folkie and rock thing both hit guitar manufacturers with far more demand than could be met with better quality stuff.

I saw guitars both electric and acoustic that I swear were made of smoothed fruit crate wood - and sometimes only smooth on the inside. I'll never forget one "new" guitar for sale that literally had more than an inch of bow between the body and the nut. It woulda been better for archery than pickin'.

And... it seemed that many of those horrid cheapy imports had a metal logo on the peg heads...

m

Cyphre · June 10, 2013

Makes perfect sense.

To me though it is merely a stylistic choice, and harkens back to great guitars in performances I've seen from the past.

Bluemans335 · June 10, 2013

And... it seemed that many of those horrid cheapy imports had a metal logo on the peg heads...

+1. I can't think of a quality guitar that has a big metal emblem on the headstock. Right or wrong, it's just something I associate with cheapos.

milod · June 10, 2013

All kidding aside, this is almost kinda funny 'cuz it shows we're not really talking guitar quality, but some impressions (right or wrong) that affect how we perceive quality.

I know I'll have Fender fans on my back on this one, but honestly, the bolt-on neck is one thing I associate with cheapies too. Yes, I have, and have had Fender basses. Never owned a Fender-type guitar and I doubt I ever will. There's something about the modular approach I just can't associate with great quality. You mess up the neck, you toss it and bolt another onto a body that passed QC. Ditto a messed up body. Two boards made separately and then bolted together...???

For what it's worth, I pretty much feel the same way about Taylors, regardless that some folks figure they're marvelous guitars.

Fair? Probably not. But as I said, it's kinda that each of us will have some odd perceptions of quality that may or may not have anything at all to do with a guitar's virtues or vices.

An extreme version of this is that when I was in my late teens, you could not have given away a Gibson or other quality acoustic archtop to anybody I knew if you required that they get a setup that made them happy and they hadda play it exclusively for a year.

m

20_Gauge · June 10, 2013

All kidding aside, this is almost kinda funny 'cuz it shows we're not really talking guitar quality, but some impressions (right or wrong) that affect how we perceive quality.

Fair? Probably not. But as I said, it's kinda that each of us will have some odd perceptions of quality that may or may not have anything at all to do with a guitar's virtues or vices.

Well put, milod.

Basically it boils down to the old sayin' "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.".

20

Bluemans335 · June 10, 2013

I know I'll have Fender fans on my back on this one, but honestly, the bolt-on neck is one thing I associate with cheapies too. Yes, I have, and have had Fender basses. Never owned a Fender-type guitar and I doubt I ever will. There's something about the modular approach I just can't associate with great quality. You mess up the neck, you toss it and bolt another onto a body that passed QC. Ditto a messed up body. Two boards made separately and then bolted together...???

+1 again. I have Fender fans on my back for a number of reasons, so one more doesn't make a difference. I don't like, or want, bolt-on necks. Just looks cheap. I love the rationale they give: 'If you break the neck, it's so easy to replace.' What kind of responsible adult is breaking necks on their guitars?

Bluemans335 · June 10, 2013

Ignore this, double post.

Notes_Norton · June 10, 2013

Bolt on or glue on doesn't make a difference to me. Two different methods, each has their good and bad points.

My Parker has a Ken Parker designed bolt on Radial Neck Joint that does me just fine, my partner's Parker has a glue on neck. My Gibson and Epi have glue-on and my LTD has a bolt on. Either way works for me.

The main reason why I prefer the 6 in line headstock is because without the angle break of the strings at the nut, the tuning of the guitar is more stable - less friction at the nut. Function is more important than looks to me.

My Parker sometimes stays in tune from gig to gig. Changing temperature and bouncing around in the van, open the case at the next gig while I set up the PA so the guitar can adjust to room temp, pick it up, turn the tuner on, and be amazed that it's still in tune. I've never had a guitar that did this before.

I'm not a Fender fan - but not because of the headstock - it's the short radius necks. I prefer a 14" radius and most Fenders come with a much shorter radius than that. I despise 7.25" or 9.5" because (1) I like low action, bend strings a lot and that is a formula for fretting out and (2) the curved string position under my pick hand slows down my playing - not that my playing is that fast to begin with. I know I can get a Strat with a 12" radius neck, but it has the soon to corrode in the Florida humidity gold hardware.

My Parker has all the nice things about a Strat (contoured & balanced body, s-s-sh pickups, high fret access) plus an added piezo pickup under the bridge, 14" radius, and much better tuning stability thanks to a better design at the bridge end of the guitar.

I still like the bikini headstock for looks, it just looks balanced to me. I never thought about the plate looking cheap, it's just pleasing to my eyes.

I agree the PRS headstocks look weird, but they do have the advantage of the straight sting path.

The Epi headstocks that look the worst to me are the SG and Casino. They are too long and without the vine inlay, there doesn't look like there is any reason for the size. But I do love my Casino because it plays nicely and sounds great. But for looks, I prefer the Gibson ES-330 which I also love.

All in all, headstocks are secondary to function for me, but I do prefer both looks and function. But for function, give me the 6 in line or other straight string path designs.

If there was only one right answer, we wouldn't have anything to talk about.

Notes

Notes_Norton · June 10, 2013