Name on the headstock

[FrankHudson]

I'm mostly a "this instrument solves a problem or makes this kind of noise" guy, and with me this leads me to usually buying instruments that aren't from the prestige line of recognized makers, or instruments from other than most historic or successful brand names.

None-the-less I have to admit there's a strange, non-logical, thing that makes me enjoy having some guitars that have an important historical brand name on the headstock. I own a Martin, a Gibson, and a US Fender. Of those three only the Martin could probably claim to be the "same company" as the trail-blazers of the past, but their current product when I bought their guitars solved a problem for me at a price I could afford. I think it might be akin to folks who love, follow, support, and wear "team apparel" from their "home" sports teams. Gibson may not be Orville or Lloyd Loar or whoever. Leo Fender may be several ownerships away from Fender's ownership these days. Most sports teams have few or no players from their namesake cities, but they're "ours," still the team we cheer on.

[LSemmens]

I rarely purchase instruments and, although I do appreciated the name on the headstock, that does not really influence my decision. Guitars, like any other item in may arsenal are tools to do a job. If the tool is suited to the job, then it is the right tool for the job. Of course that includes sound and playability, like any tool, if you can't be comfortable using it, then it is not a good tool for a job. My criterion for trying a new guitar has little to do with the name on the headstock (though it does influence my buying) but with playability and the sound. Years ago I purchased my Maton out of necessity, At that stage I was unaware of the brand. I had to "trade" my Ovation for it and I was not entirely convinced but, the Ovation was unplayable and I needed another guitar. Here it is some 39 years later and I'll not willingly part with it. My most recent purchase was my Bass guitar, and, again. the name on the headstock was secondary. I was looking for a neck thru 5 string and this was the most playable in my budget. If I had to sell one of my guitars then it would likely be the first to go, for no other reason than it has yet to get its tentacles into me.

[aknow]

Originally Posted by Willie Voltaire

Yes, the name on the headstock matters to me, and there are many brands that I simply refuse to own. I don't care if that makes me a snob; I'm all grown up and can like whatever I want.

Gibsons and Martins have always done me right; I'm proud to show up to a gig or a jam with either one.

I like all guitars, and the only 2 serious guitar disappointments coincidentally were Gibson and Martin.
What comes out of the soundhole is way more relevant that the logo on a headstock, and few notice anyway.

[lodi_55]

I had three gigs in three nights. I played three different guitars....Carmel Guitar Go Mahogany, Taylor 414 FLTD Nylon and Kremona Daimen. There are many, many good guitars being produced these days. Too many to count for sure. As I have said before, I am a big believer of keeping both my mind and my ears open. If I to go to a shop that "only has Brand X', i will never know what I might be missing. And I have been surprised many times by picking up a model I'd never bonded with before.

[brianmay]

Well I waited 50 years until I had enough disposable income to buy what I wanted.

I have a D-28, a 000-28 and a D12-28, all by Martin. It's important to me, but I don't take them out of the house, so nobody really knows bar me.

It's important as they play beautifully.

I really rate Martins (otherwise I wouldn't have bought them) but the main point for me is I AM WORTH IT and very comfortable with my decision.

I don't ever seek to say to anybody that my choice is better than theirs. I wish them well, answer honestly if I have something to say and encourage them to enjoy their acquisition experience as much as possible.

If I'm being shallow, so be it, I own it, it was me . . .

[Silly Moustache]

A point about the name on the headstock, I'd like to comment on is ...what that brad means to you, the player, rather than the audience.

I went through Harmony, Guild, Gibson, Epiphone, Tama, but aspired to Martin back in the '70s. I didn't know how to assess guitars so I bought some dogs.

Martins were trouble, because I main y bought ones that needed a neck reset ...didn't know any better, until I found a two year old D35 that stayed with me for decades.

Fast forward. I discovered that standard rhythm necks weren't for me, and I discovered the second 12 fret Collings Dread to come into the coutry, and found a guitar that suited my style and my hands perfectly. It was a risk because I didn't know how they were put together.

Well, once I got tit and had some minor adjustments made - mainly to fit electrics and have the action raised. I read up on them and decided that they would be pretty reliable.

I got some more.

When Martin Authentics came out I took one pof my Collings to compare wioth a '31 Authentic...great guitar, but no truss rod, Martin Dove tail, no real warranties on Martins in the UK, I kept my Collings and don't regret it.

I have one Martin a 1964 D12-20 that has been rebuilt by Martins at least twice. I am always nervous of any neck movement on it.

I never have to worry about such things with Collings.

I desired a short scale Gibson style jumbo ...specifically the Roy Smeck style.

Chencked out two Gibson Jackson Brownes in two separate shops, both were so poorly presented and tonally dead that I went for another unknown - a custom Huss & Dalton. That was an expensive failure - I guess they hadn't got their act together at that point and customer service was non existent.

Finally I got a used Santa Cruz RS shipped over from the US. ... another big risk.
Needed some set up work (perfectly normal), but with one to one customer service from Richard Hoover - matters resolved locally.

For me the logo on the headstock tell me whether the instrument will be well made, or not, reliable or not.

[Mooh]

Most folks aren't going to recognize the headstock logos on several of my guitars, no matter whatever pride I take in them.

[Orfeas]

What Fazool describes is exactly what happened to me.

For almost 2 1/2 years, I was in the market for an instrument that I will keep for a lifetime. Once I've secure the funds, I've tried several instruments from many luthiers and small shops and I have had no idea about SCGC. The guys at Chicago Music Exchange introduced me to Richard Hoover's instruments for the first time. After been extremely happy with my guitar, I started watching the company's videos (at that time I discovered Eric Skye's work and sig model), guitar reviews etc, and became more active in regards to reading posts on AGF about that shop. It turns out that I am not only happy about my guitar purchase, but I am proud as a player for what SCGC represents, their business model, customer service etc. So, like Fazool, I am happy and proud to display their brand and use their products to the point that I would love to visit their shop and finally meet Richard Hoover.

[mattwood]

I don't care about what name is on the headstock, but there are some headstock shapes that bother me.

[trabb]

Originally Posted by Mooh

Most folks aren't going to recognize the headstock logos on several of my guitars, no matter whatever pride I take in them.

This is something I've come to appreciate. I play mostly at church, and I play multiple instruments. Showing off money in that setting feels wrong. It's nice to be able to tell people who comment on my Martin DRS1 that it's actually one of their inexpensive instruments. And it's even nicer that because only mandolin players know about Weber, they don't have a clue even to think that the mandocello cost four times as much as the guitar..

[warfrat73]

I will admit that it matters to me a bit.

I used to go to a lot of guitar shops and play a lot of guitars, and formed a lot of opinions... some of which admittedly probably aren't fair anymore.

There a number of brands that I've played multiple examples of that just have never "done it" for me. I'll not list those brands off here, but will say that Taylor is one of them. I've played literally dozens of Taylors, and the only model that I ever wanted to take home with me was the old 714 cedar over rosewood. Taylor makes good guitars, and I would never suggest otherwise, but repeated experience tells me that they're not for me... so I just kind of ignore them.

For years Martin was in this category too.

Not that I didn't play Martin's that I thought sounded good, but that none of the ones that I could afford did anything for me. I was pretty nonplussed by the Martin offerings in the later 90s, and found that the Bourgeois sounded better to me and was more affordable than pretty much anything I could put my hands on.

The redesign of the D-18 was a game changer, and I think represented a pretty fundamental change in Martin's guitar design philosophy; and I think it made more than one of us sit up and take notice. I fully expected that when I bought a mahogany dread it was going to be either a Huss and Dalton TDM, a Santa Cruz Vintage Artist, or a Bourgeois Country Boy... the new D-18 made me change my mind, and I just bought Martin number two this weekend.

So I guess now I'm a Martin guy, even though when I ordered mine from the CS this is how I had them make the headstock: