Seagull Headstock

[offeringplate]

Originally Posted by motojunky

I may be in the minority but I do not like the Martin headstock. I'm not a big fan of the Seagull headstock either. I don't think I'd let that stop me from purchasing a great guitar.

I have always dis-liked the Martin headstock

Back on topic, the seagull is better, not sure how sound comes into play with the size............... Hate a fender start style head on an acoustic

[steelvibe]

It's hard to dis Seagull. Many Seagulls I've played have been stunning guitars for the money and I love the neck profiles on the wide side. One of the finest Seagulls under 2K that I spent about an hour with was the D'Agostino signature Artist.

The Seagull headstock is not my favorite, and I would go as far to say that it is at the bottom of the aesthetics scale for me, but then again, I'm not really sure what is my favorite. Heck, I dumped nearly 2K on a RainSong last year and they don't have my favorite headstock either.

Guess I don't care in the end. If the guitar sounds good and has enough features to suit my style-I'm in.

What I really don't like are certain bridges out there- you know who y'all are.

There have been many of threads about that subject too- enough for an ugly Christmas sweater for everyone in the world probably

[benhemp]

The Ashton guitar headstock in the link below IMO is very nicely designed both visually and for straight pull. I greatly prefer it to the Seagull's. (I have no opinion of or experience with Ashton guitars; I'm just commenting on headstock design.)

I suspect Seagull's design (and to some extent, Martin's) is trying to reduce the cost of the guitar by making the headstock smaller. Other brands (e.g., Guild) go the other way to try to make their guitars stand out from the crowd. (I don't like oversized headstocks, but to each his own.)

[IMG]
https://photos.app.goo.gl/byd5q97mvuHfSfzq5
[/IMG]

[Earl49]

The Seagull head stock is specifically designed to have a straighter pull on the string from the tuners, which makes sense from a tuning stability viewpoint. It has nothing to do with saving money or wood. My apologies if this was discussed earlier - I have not read all eight pages of this thread.

[menhir]

My two main guitars, one of which is a Seagull which I've owned for many years, both have tapered headstocks. It's merely a coincidence.

The appearance never bothered me in the first place.

Truth be told, I'm at the point now where regular headstocks are starting to look a bit clunky and top-heavy to me.

[Birdbrain]

If you object to the Seagull headstock, believing it not a model of functionality and ideal proportions such as, for example, the Fender headstock, There's an easy answer. Just mount a clip-on tuner, and your guitar will look like anyone else's! That $30 Snark really dresses up a $5k Martin, don't you think?

[ruby50]

This straight-pull thing has me a little confused. I have a 1933 Gibson L-00 and a 1974 Martin 000-28.

Using a bevel gauge compared to a large protractor I use for Windsor chair parts, I find that, on both guitars, the angle of the strings pointing down at the nut along the 15° angle of the headstock is about 13°. All acoustic guitars have about this amount of angle regardless of the shape of the head.

I then measured the angle off of parallel with the fretboard that the D and G strings make at the nut and I get 9°. So the snakehead doesn't have the 9° bend but it does have the 13° bend.

I am not a math whiz and I realize that the sum of the 2 angles might be slightly more than either on the paddle head, but still, not much difference.

Also, I have never read this but I have to imagine that the fender head is influenced by the Stauffer head used by Martin and others before about 1850

http://www.vintagemartin.com/stauffer.html

versus

http://www.ucreative.com/articles/fe...rat-headstock/

I have these 2 "real' guitars plus 6 that I have made, all with Grover tuners. They all stay in tune, at least as far as my aging ears can tell.

Ed

[Paddy1951]

I have an S6. While the headstock is completely different from anything else I have, I am just fine with its appearance.

More important, it holds tune extremely well. The snakes head design DOES work and maybe better that those that are more classic, prettier.

Form follows function.

[Paddy1951]

Originally Posted by psychojohn

According to the folks at Seagull/Godin, their headstock is superior in it's design as it maintains a straighter line from the nut to the tuner, making for more stable tuning longevity and ease.



John

Yes!! That is what people ought to be concerned about.

[Birdbrain]

Originally Posted by Basque

While the Seagull headstocks aren't my favorite, I have a soft spot for the brand for the following reasons:

- Great bang-for-the-buck guitars that often sound better than guitars costing several times more.

- Robert Godin is a stud. His company basically employs an entire town, they use mostly local wood, and he's passionate about providing killer guitars at killer prices.

- My favorite girlfriend is from Montréal and I bought my first guitar (S6) because it was Canadian.

I know this is about headstocks, but I get defensive when people rag on anything Godin haha..

And it's a shameless excuse to post a pic of my Godins.. Seagull SWS Maritime Folk, and a Simon And Patrick Showcase Mahogany

THAT'S the answer to Seagull Headstock Revulsion Syndrome! Buy a Simon & Patrick instead.

Personally, that subtle S&P logo, styled to look like a pennant on a staff, is one of the loveliest things I've ever seen on a headstock.

[hilts]

I have 3 Seagulls and I really like the headstock. It's unique and gets people talking. I like that it stands out like that.

[12barBill]

Originally Posted by hilts

I have 3 Seagulls and I really like the headstock. It's unique and gets people talking. I like that it stands out like that.

Its kind of funny but it seems there are three things that consistently, without hesitation, get bashed on the forum:

The Seagull headstock
Taylor guitars
Elixir strings

My first guitar was a Seagull S6 and I still have it. I started learning to play with that guitar. I have three Seagull guitars, one of which is an Artist series Cedar/Rosewood from ~2000 that is a wonderful guitar by any standard. I like the Seagull headstock.

I have a Taylor 416ce (2013 model) that I really like. It is currently my main player.

I mainly use Elixir phosphor bronze strings. Like most of us, I like to try a new string from time to time but it always seems, eventually, all roads lead back to Elixir PBs.

I guess that puts me in some kind of minority, but in the immortal words of an old friend, you'll have that sometimes.

[FrankHudson]

I'm not particularly sensitive to most cosmetic things with acoustic guitars for whatever reason--which is odd, because I have a element in my appreciation for electric guitars that considers them playable sculpture. Go figure.

But I like the Seagull headstock shape. It's not overstated, has a pleasing symmetry and communicates it's identity very well and as being functional platform for the tuning machines. I have no idea how much of a minority I am in that opinion (if at all) but that's all I need to be content.

The impression that the Seagull headstock is a abomination causing great pain to human sight is reinforced by the well known forum factor that negative opinions are a stronger motivation to post (that's not a comment about the AGF, but public forums in general, and the behavior predates the Internet.)