Headstocks

[Shuksan]

Sheesh. I don't get the hostility toward the Tacoma headstock. I always liked how the shape was a design element repeated in the bridge and in the sound hole on the models that had the paisley-shaped offset sound hole. To paraphrase The Dude, it really tied things together.

[byudzai]

soooooooooooo coooooooooooooool

[JJI]

This is a Jayson Bowerman design...
IMG_2030.jpg

[Methos1979]

I really love the look and operation of slotted headstocks. The look is old-school and the position of the tuning machines to the rear makes for much easier operation when wearing/playing the guitar, IMO.

As for string changes, I know many people say they don't like doing them on slotted headstocks but after you've done a few they really are no harder than a regular paddle headstock string change.

I love the Martin Torch inlay on my 000-18GE.

[Ozzy the dog]

[rwmct]

Well, I will try to keep the spittle away from the screen, but yeah, that Tacoma headstock looks pretty bad to me. I don't like the Seagull headstock either.

Headstocks are funny. I don't care about bling (except to dislike it if there is too much of it), but I care about headstocks.

[Knollhaven]

To answer the OP’s question, I like the doves a lot on that Gibson, but I’d change the tuner buttons to something plainer, maybe the ivory or mint colored plastic in the same shape. I find these etched buttons way too distracting.

[mercy]

There are some headstocks that I dont like. It seems that builders try to be different rather than stick with an adequate design. I dont like the birds of the op sample but the Gibson shape is great. What would be wrong with everyone using that shape. I dont mean a law but, maybe there should be.

[Mr. Paul]

[jmagill]

As a 'design guy,' I'm always fascinated by headstocks, because I see them as the luthier's calling-card-cum-logo, so it's my 'introduction' to both the builder and the instrument, and as such, it's where first impressions are formed.

I think I can actually learn a lot about a builder from their headstock. If it appears to be well-thought out, distinctive and complementary to the rest of the guitar's design, I get a favorable first impression. However, if the headstock looks like an afterthought, borrowed from elsewhere, or something clumsy or poorly integrated with the guitar's design, that indicates to me a certain artistic laziness on the part of the builder and results in a less than favorable first impression.

So threads about headstocks catch my eye... see post #47 in this headstock thread.

However...

Many headstock threads wind up going sideways because some folks seem to conflate the headstock design (its form, visual balance, integration with its functionality as a platform for the tuners, integration with the rest of the instrument, etc.) with the decoration or maker's logo inlaid on it, or both.

Since I'm not a 'bling' person myself, it's the design, not the inlay that interests me. Besides, slapping an inlay on a headstock is straightforward and fairly common, while developing a fresh, distinctive and elegant design is challenging and decidedly uncommon.

So what do you mean by 'headstock'?

[zombywoof]

Most of my guitars have Plain Jane headstocks. This one, however, remains my favorite because it speaks so eloquently to a specific time and place.



As far as being sexy, this one rises to the top of the heap.

[Mr. Paul]

Originally Posted by jmagill

So what do you mean by 'headstock'?

A headstock can carry a sense of history, Wade's Loar photo is a great example. Gibson's Banner is another. The plain Martin headstock on the 000-30 1919 and 1931 OM28 are modern examples.

A headstock can be an opportunity for a luthier to display a sense of design, this is where your interest is. The Mark Hatcher and Emerald headstocks displayed here fall into this category.

A headstock can be an example of simple elegance, an example of which you describe as "slapping on an inlay."

The headstock is a mixture of form and function so tastes vary. I think the variety of photos in this topic express that pretty well.

[jazzguy]

Originally Posted by Erithon

My Hatcher "pillow" headstock:


Also the Casimi headstock. And many of Michael Bashkin's.

This is absolutely gorgeous!

[Shuksan]

Originally Posted by mercy

There are some headstocks that I dont like. It seems that builders try to be different rather than stick with an adequate design. I dont like the birds of the op sample but the Gibson shape is great. What would be wrong with everyone using that shape. I dont mean a law but, maybe there should be.

I can think of some headstock designs that look like they're just an effort to try to be different, but why should builders have to settle for an "adequate" design? Maybe all ice cream should be vanilla?

[Neil K Walk]

I'm not a big fan of too much pearly ornamentation, but I do like broader headstocks with curved sides and some variation of a curve on top. I really like Baranik's style as an example, though I'm not able to afford one or capable of reproducing that elaborate style of an inlay on my own attempts at luthery.