mikeymix Posted October 23, 2007 Posted October 23, 2007 So i love the peghead shape. I have heard some people...Ok, Gibson owners, say it looks "pointy" and "cheap". What do you all think?
campfire Posted October 23, 2007 Posted October 23, 2007 As much as I love my Super Eagle KB prototype, and my Golden Eagle thin-line, I have to admit...I've never really cared for the headstock. Not a dealbreaker, but I just think they could do better. But where else are you going to get a guitar better than a new Gibson, for half the price? I can live with the headstock, for all that tone, playability, and incredible wood! They are what Gibson "used" to be. Larry Camp
golferwave Posted October 23, 2007 Posted October 23, 2007 We've had this thread before and I'll vote again. I like the Heritage headstock!
Yankeefan01 Posted October 23, 2007 Posted October 23, 2007 Six of one, half a dozen of another. I love my H-140 and wouldn't trade it for a Les Paul.
Dick Seacup Posted October 23, 2007 Posted October 23, 2007 The narrow one on my 137D and Millennium DC are fine by me. They're a throw back to the 30s Gibson headstock, aren't they?
Gitfiddler Posted October 23, 2007 Posted October 23, 2007 I never gave the headstock shape a second thought until reading a few negative comments about it on other forums. Sure, Heritage could have come up with something more flashy or traditional, but they focused on the functional aspect of the headstock...neck angle, string tension and tuning stability. To me that's good enough. Besides, when a guitar plays, feels and sounds as good as a Heritage, my eyes are closed most of the time anyway.
GuitArtMan Posted October 23, 2007 Posted October 23, 2007 I love my Heritages but think the headstock could be more attractive.
wingnut1 Posted October 23, 2007 Posted October 23, 2007 Before I owned a Heritage I didn't like the headstock. Now that I have a couple and have been playing them for a while I actually like it. In fact, when I'm playing the guitar I can't tell the difference between the Heritage and the Gibson, the look the same from the side.
squawken Posted October 23, 2007 Posted October 23, 2007 I think it's fine. Similar to the headstock on my Aria. Also easier to wind new strings on the Heritage. My little crank rubs on the headstock of my Epiphone when I re-string.
DFB140 Posted October 23, 2007 Posted October 23, 2007 Six of one, half a dozen of another. I love my H-140 and wouldn't trade it for a Les Paul. From 1 Yankee Fan to another,I agree 100%.I love the looks of my H-140. Although I sold a Les Paul and used some of the $ to get the 140 ;D
davesultra Posted October 24, 2007 Posted October 24, 2007 It's not the most ornate kind around, but I like it much better than a production PRS peghead.
Gitfiddler Posted October 24, 2007 Posted October 24, 2007 Well...at least they didn't use THIS headstock on the archtops! http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/6828/heritageh162rz6.jpg[/img] http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/6828/heritageh162rz6.jpg
yoslate Posted October 24, 2007 Posted October 24, 2007 "Form follows function." L. Sullivan Heritage headstocks have simple lines which seem to complement all of the body styles. Want to have a field day with a headstock shape, my First Act Garage Master (about which I've posted elsewhere) looks like a hydrocephalic Gumby. Good thing the rest of the guitar is equally goofy.... I'll post pix when I'm able.
ewheel Posted October 24, 2007 Posted October 24, 2007 Doesn't bother me a bit - I think they look great.
tsgv575 Posted October 25, 2007 Posted October 25, 2007 I think they'd improve it a bunch by adding a slight concave cut to each side, but as it is there's no mistaking a Heritage for anything else. For proof, look at Kenny Burrell's Blue Muse cover. The axe is nothing but a dark silhouette but even so it's unquestionably a Heritage. From a marketing perspective that's a big plus.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.