Notes_Norton Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 Personally, I prefer the Gibson headstock. I don't mind the Epi shape, but it is too long for my personal aesthetic tastes (for whatever that is worth). Especially on the smaller body guitars like the G-400. On the other hand, I really like the pearl inlay on the Sheraton II (Joe Pass, etc.), and it makes the larger headstock look like it has a reason to be larger so the guitar doesn't look unbalanced to my eyes. The Kat head with the "bikini" logo looks good to me, too. I'd like to see that headstock on my Casino. It seems to be tapered a bit so the third and fourth strings don't come so close to the first and fifth string posts and that gives it a "less heavy" looking head. But it's all a matter of personal taste. As far as my guitars are concerned, I am most interested in: 1) Play-ability especially the neck but including the controls (switch, knobs etc.) 2) Sound 3) Shape 4) Weight Notes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thunderstruck507 Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 I just wish the headstock on the elitists weren't so f'n ugly. Too rounded and sissy looking IMO compared to the Gibson type which almost looks like a blade of some sort....very ballsy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PJ Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 I kinda like the Elitist HS. Looks well balanced. I also like the Casino, Dot and Riviera (hope this model comes back) HS. The LesPaul and SG I'm not fond of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thunderstruck507 Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 I kinda like the Elitist HS. Looks well balanced. I also like the Casino' date=' Dot and Riviera (hope this model comes back) HS. The LesPaul and SG I'm not fond of.[/quote'] its less there is something wrong with the elitist hs as its a matter of not looking good on an SG AT ALL the sg has sharp curves and the gibson hs just looks perfect... to me the elitist hs looks a bit better on the LPs since it mimicks the body contour Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
volt1281734017 Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 The Mexican Fenders are still Fenders' date=' Epiphones are not Gibsons. [/quote'] Gibson could brand Epiphone's as Gibson's if they wanted to, and Fender could brand the MIM Strats as something other than Fender's if they so desired. I actually prefer the style of the Epiphone heads over the Gibson's. EDIT: I am referring to the current Epiphone headstock design. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Notes_Norton Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 I actually prefer the style of the Epiphone heads over the Gibson's. Proving that it is all just a matter of taste. Notes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amino Moore Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 There have been more than a few different types of Epiphone headstocks and logos over the years. not to mention serial number methods!! I have often thought that it would make a cool thread or just a sticky at the top of the forum to show the different types of Epiphone headstocks. It could even have a link to JPW's guitardater project! Maybe Gibson would help us with it since it might help reduce the number of phone calls they get regarding fakes and serial numbers. My buddies over at the Tokai forum have a page that shows the different types and it is used there for identifying the make and year along with serial numbers. The Epiphone styles I am familiar with are the current LP & SG, Wildkat & Alleycat, Elitist, Masterbuilt, Kalamazoo production (several types there including the exact replica of the Gibby), batwing, Banana or hockey stick, razor (sharp hockey stick), the mid 90's that had the offset camel hump, and the vintage (pre Gibson). There are probably more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
volt1281734017 Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 To me, the Epiphone HS looks more stylish and more expensive than the Gibson. These are two current Les Paul models. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lerxst1281733995 Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 But a Squier has the same headstock shapes as the Fender models it replicates. For Fender' date=' a name change was sufficient. For Epiphone, it saw the need to change head shapes. Not sure why it mattered all that much. Maybe because Epiphone, prior to the merger with Gibson, was not a low-end brand, made & sold top-end guitars, something Squier never did.[/quote'] It was always my assumption that Squires had the same headstock because Fender wanted people to associate the Squire brand with Fender. The mentality of the consumer being; it's a lower end Fender, but it's still a Fender. When Squires first came out, they even had a large Fender logo on the headstock, with "Squire Series" in smaller type near the end... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thunderstruck507 Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 To me' date=' the Epiphone HS looks more stylish and more expensive than the Gibson.These are two current Les Paul models. [img']http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f223/longtall/HSCompare.jpg[/img] true that it does, but that Gibson hs looks razor sharp and I just love that about it...it has an attitude about it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st3v3ss Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 The Epiphone shapes are just fine as is the Telecaster shape. What I don't like is a headstock that is too big like this Ibanez I have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingfrets Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 Well, truth be told, I prefer the Gibson headstock, but I won't NOT buy an Epi because of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lerxst1281733995 Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 I used to have an Artcore.. I never thought the headstock was too big... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
13yguitarman Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 Think of it like this do you normally hear about epiphone headstocks snapping off because they had a 2 foot fall no you only hear gibsons so called stress releaved headstocks breaking with the slightest of ease Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
13yguitarman Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 I just wish the headstock on the elitists weren't so f'n ugly. Too rounded and sissy looking IMO compared to the Gibson type which almost looks like a blade of some sort....very ballsy. I know it looks like a fat easy girl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokestack Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 I don't like the Elitist shape. To my eyes it's not pleasing enough for such an otherwise beautiful guitar. That said, I do quite like the standard production headstock. I like the way it preserves a bit of Epi heritage in echoing the traditional shape of the old arch top models from the thirties. They should maybe just try a bit harder to match the overall scale of the headstock to the model in qustion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RotcanX Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 But a Squier has the same headstock shapes as the Fender models it replicates. For Fender' date=' a name change was sufficient. For Epiphone, it saw the need to change head shapes. Not sure why it mattered all that much. Maybe because Epiphone, prior to the merger with Gibson, was not a low-end brand, made & sold top-end guitars, something Squier never did.[/quote'] Well... you'll note that they use the less-desirable large headstock design on the Squier Strats these days... and the headstock on the Squier Teles is not quite the same as that seen on true Fender Teles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RotcanX Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 It would be more difficult' date=' time consuming, labor intensive and expensive to build up those "blunted" corners on the current Epis. Unless the refinish job was really first rate, your eye (educated to these shenanigans or not) would be drawn to the patchwork area (seams, uneven finish, etc). [/quote'] Actually, the blunted corners take care of themselves when you trim the Epi headstock to the correct Gibson length: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubstar Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 I like the elitist headstock shape, which has roots in epiphone's history... http://www.archtop.com/ac_32royal.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JEPI Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 dubstar - That's a beauty....How does it play and sound???..........J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RotcanX Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 Me too. I think it has a nice esthetic, and I really like the way it tapers so that the strings aren't crowding each other. Sure, I'd prefer to have the traditional Gibson design on my Elitists but the headstock they use is far more pleasing to my eye than the one they use on the standard LPs and G-400s. To tell the truth, the standard Epi headstock sucks because it doesn't work. The top two tuners are way too close the the edge of the headstock and I've even seen Epis with the last two tuners set at an angle so as to get a minimum clearance. Epi needs to go back to the drawing board on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubstar Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 not mine...I wish! but it brings up the point that epiphone has a rich history to draw on and doesn't always seem interested in doing so... I'd like to see a masterbilt level texan, frontier, and acoustic archtop...although none would probably be produced left-handed : ( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doth Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 This is a lot of talk about HS's. Last time I checked, they don't affect the tone. Hell, I even have a Steinie, and it plays well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JEPI Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 Soon' date=' we'll have Epiphone Les Paul knock-offs. Samicks sell for half what an Epiphone Les Paul does. So, you see, the headstock shape shell game never ends. I still think they (Epi) should have one shape and chase down anyone who illegally copies anything. It seems to work OK for Gibson and Fender, who both (if I'm not mistaken) have their respective HS shapes registered as trademarks.[/quote'] PJ - could you elaborate on what "Samicks sell for 1/2 the $$$" means. Also, why do they only sell for half?.........J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PJ Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 I see Samick "LesPauls" at the Guitar shows, that sell for $299 (vs. $499-699 for Epiphone), that look pretty similar to Epiphones. Mind you, I wouldn't put my $ down for one, over an Epiphone, since for my $, a Les Paul is best made by Gibosn or Epiphone. By the same token, I wouldn't buy a Johnson Strat or one of the other look-alikes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.