Here is how Heritage could sell more guitars (Warning: another headstock discussion!)

[SouthpawGuy]

Heritage will only thrive, however, as a clearly recognized alternative to Gibson, which includes it's own headstock identity. Being just another knockoff, such as Edwards or Tokai, is not an option.

 

Amen brother !

[skydog52]

I personally don't like the plain unbound headstock Heritage has.

I think every headstock should be enhanced somehow.

 

They should at least be bound. I've always liked binding anywhere

it's possible. Guitars are very visual to me, the more bling the better.

 

In these economic times every business has to look at whatever it takes

to get an edge. Just don't sacrifice the tone or quality.

 

Here is a nice headstock

[big bob]

I personally don't like the plain unbound headstock Heritage has.

I think every headstock should be enhanced somehow.

 

They should at least be bound. I've always liked binding anywhere

it's possible. Guitars are very visual to me, the more bling the better.

 

In these economic times every business has to look at whatever it takes

to get an edge. Just don't sacrifice the tone or quality.

 

Here is a nice headstock

 

really

how about this

no binding no paint no nothing

[grooveyard]

How many people are buying the Tokai's and Edwards out there partly because of the headstock, how much of the decision because it is shaped like a Gibson. I had this discussion with G&L's; people could not get over their not liking the headstock design.

[Jazzpunk]

Not sure why on earth I thought this would be a productive thread here lol. I'm going to agree to disagree and politely bow out.

Here's to Heritage surviving the rough economy and prospering for many more years to come.

[big bob]

here, here

[SouthpawGuy]

Not sure why on earth I thought this would be a productive thread here lol. I'm going to agree to disagree and politely bow out.

Here's to Heritage surviving the rough economy and prospering for many more years to come.

 

Hey JP ..... no animosity here, just some discussion between friends.

 

It's all good.

[barrymclark]

Not sure why on earth I thought this would be a productive thread here lol. I'm going to agree to disagree and politely bow out.

Here's to Heritage surviving the rough economy and prospering for many more years to come.

I actually thought it was productive in terms of getting discussion going.

[SouthpawGuy]

How many people are buying the Tokai's and Edwards out there partly because of the headstock, how much of the decision because it is shaped like a Gibson. I had this discussion with G&L's; people could not get over their not liking the headstock design.

 

I was the same with G&L, then the local shop got some Tribute models in and I checked them out.

 

I'm into double figures now !

 

I really like the G&L headstock now, same with Heritage.

[barrymclark]

Although it might be too late to capitalize on it, where Heritage could stand to make a couple of bucks is find a way to compete with the budget brands but make them American made.

 

Make them attractive. There has to be an easy way of manufacture. It won't be top quality wood or components, but it is DEFINITELY Heritage.

The problem with my thought here is you would have to sell enough of these cheaper ones to make it worth the while. For that, you have to have accessibility and market visibility and Heritage has always run at a minimum here. With how Heritage is now, it would probably only serve to cheapen it's perceived market value.

 

Business as usual.

 

I am not necessarily opposed to changing the headstock. Every company has done it. Even G's headstock has evolved over the years. It would have to be subtle and maintain its basic overall appearance.

 

If you keep changing the headstock, you end up with a guitar no one recognizes. That is bad. That is another reason I support keeping the headstock if only mostly.

[Dick Seacup]

Not sure why on earth I thought this would be a productive thread here lol. I'm going to agree to disagree and politely bow out.

Here's to Heritage surviving the rough economy and prospering for many more years to come.

 

 

I think it is productive. You got a lot of people talking about Heritage and the pros/cons of headstock design relative to sales, the mechanics of this design over that design, &c. If we all agreed on everything all the time, this place would get pretty boring.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But, I'll still have a beer with ya!

[Kuz]

Bottom line.... I spoke with Bill Paige on Friday and sales are up from the summer.

 

Word is getting out! (and I love the headstock. Heritage went the narrow headstock angle before PRS, McInturff, New Orleans guitar co, Huber, ect.....)

[Jazzpunk]

Bottom line.... I spoke with Bill Paige on Friday and sales are up from the summer.

 

Word is getting out! (and I love the headstock. Heritage went the narrow headstock angle before PRS, McInturff, New Orleans guitar co, Huber, ect.....)

That's great news!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(really wish you would've mentioned this before I started this thread! )

[Dick Seacup]

(really wish you would've mentioned this before I started this thread! )

 

I'm really not getting that beer now, am I.

[blueox]

There are a lot of thoughtful comments here. I'm in the leave-it-the-way-it is camp. If anything is to change, I would like Heritage to get even further away from Gibson and become more unique over time. Bottom line:

i know that a lot of people say they would buy a heritage if the headstock was different, but i seriously think that is just a BS way of saying that would rather pay more for something that says gibson on it rather than going for the less popular brand, eventhough it may be a better guitar in the long run.

And that's rockin' the truth!

[TalismanRich]

I could care less about the shape of the headstock. Why go through the added expense of gluing "wings" on the side to make it look fancy. The addition of the binding gives it all the added touch of class it needs, if you need a little window dressing.

 

When I bought my 157, I wasn't looking for a Gibson, just browsing the store. Jim, the owner, went to high school with me. He pulls out this 150, and says "check this thing out". Before long, the order for the 157 went in. I like the block inlays and the bound headstock. That's not to say that the dots and plain headstock on the 535 bothers me. I play that guitar more than the 157. It was the feel and sound that grabs me.

 

Same thing with the G&L. I looked long and hard at Strats, Washburns, Ibanez, etc and came across the Legacy. Like it SO much better than the Fenders because of the tremelo. I like the G&Ls enough that I ended up adding an ASAT tribute for my "throw it in the trunk" guitar. So what if there's a little bump on the headstock. I can't see it when I'm playing anyway.

 

Anyone who says the won't by a Heritage because of the headstock, isn't interested in buying one anyway.

[Millennium Maestro]

The headstock design is an improvement!! The straight routing of the strings to the tuners increases tuning stability.

 

I like the guitars period, My lead player got done playing his $2000 PRS tonight and I let him go on my Green 155... first words.." Your guitar plays so great!!"

 

Pulled my 157 Black Beauty out and let an educated player there to see us perform have at her for a bit... he says "Headstock is a little different to look at, but this is a really nice guitar"...

 

M.M. ?? who'ld have thought.

 

I play hard and my guitars stay in tune!

[Foggy]

From the perspective of a guy who's been lurking and looking for his first Heritage for a little while, I'd throw two comments into the mix.

 

First, I agree with those who'd like to see bound headstocks with "The Heritage" in MOP become standard fare.

 

Second, and more important than the headstock, I'd love to see Heritage adopt build sheets (a la Suhr and Anderson). Since the purchase of a new or used guitar is often a long distance affair these days it would really help knowing exactly what you are buying. Nut width, neck shape and neck depth are variables that can be difficult (especially for a Heritage novice like me) to figure out and I've held back on several intended Heritage purchases because I was just not sure what I would be getting. If each guitar had a build sheet that laid out dimensions, hardware, etc. I think it would help enhance the value of new and used Heritage guitars.

[pcovers]

It is absolutely true that some stay away from purchasing due to the headstock. I was one of them. I decided to buy and glad I did, but I went for years avoiding it.

For me, and many others, it has nothing to do with the G word. It is purely aesthetics. The reason most cited is it is too long and thin for the guitar. Most that don't like it share the same reason. Saying you don't play the headstock turns a blind eye to the reality that aesthetics factors in as much as playability to many.

[barrymclark]

It is absolutely true that some stay away from purchasing due to the headstock. I was one of them. I decided to buy and glad I did, but I went for years avoiding it.

For me, and many others, it has nothing to do with the G word. It is purely aesthetics. The reason most cited is it is too long and thin for the guitar. Most that don't like it share the same reason. Saying you don't play the headstock turns a blind eye to the reality that aesthetics factors in as much as playability to many.

Yep. The headstock is its own. I rather like that. You know the Heritage headstock from across a room. That is just as important as anything else.

[pcovers]

I think some of use might take somewhat personal the dislike of the headstock. As with other owners, it has grown on me and I no longer "see it" as I used to. I suppose that is normal. However, that a significant number of potential buyers identify a common aspect of the guitar's aesthetics as off putting, should not to be discarded if increasing sales is of interest. These are exactly the kind of things focus group activities are for when looking to expand the market for your product.

 

I am perplexed over Heritage not responding to the market with a modified option. As I understand from most of those that identify the headstock as a problem, almost all complaints are related to the sense of too slim and too long. An easy alternative would be a slightly wider, slightly shorter, slightly less exaggerated crown. There is nothing unusual about a guitar company having more than one headstock. G has gone through several, F has several, Gretsch has several, it is pretty normal.

[barrymclark]

After all this discussion, I say that Heritage should stay the course with their designs. The guitars are not the problem. It is the lack of information that is available. Unfortunately, not even the new website is big on disclosure. Case in point, some still-in-production guitars are not mentioned at all. That is a tremendous oversight and somewhat shocked that the site was launched that way. Another thing that would help is to make sure that all of the selling points of the guitar are mentioned. Unforunately, the specs for a Heritage reads JUST LIKE the specs for an Epiphone (If you've been to their site, you know what I mean).

 

"Maple back and sides. Curly maple top. Maple/mahogany neck. Rosewood fingerboard. Pickups: Gold humbuckers. Hardware: Gold"

 

Gibbon does that for Epiphone stuff because there just isn't much to talk about with their pickups and hardware. Cheap stuff. I am afraid that is what the Heritage website would leave the uninitiated feeling as you can better your bottom dollar that a new buyer has been recently to the Gibson and Epi site.

 

If you got good stuff, scream it from the mountain tops.

 

TonePros

Kluson

Seymour Duncan...

 

These people need to know that buying a Heritage is buying the best stuff on the planet.

 

Before the net, I used to find out specs by calling shops or by waiting for the annual Guitar World Buyers Guide.

 

Times have changed and the internet is the primary source of information.

 

My two cents.

[Thundersteel]

For those that think the Heritage headstock is ugly, have you ever seen the one on a Tyler? It's horrible!

 

[pcovers]

For those that think the Heritage headstock is ugly, have you ever seen the one on a Tyler? It's horrible!

 

 

 

This post underscores how a headstock can and does keep very real potential buyers away. I just would never buy a Tyler specifically because of the headstock. Never. It could have every top of the line spec going for it, but I would not buy one. For many, and it cannot be denied or wished away, the Heritage headstock is keeping buyers away. Not a couple, but enough to have made it a regular and reoccurring theme for not buying. So many guitars have top of the line specs these days that it is not difficult finding a more aesthetically pleasing alternative with good specs. I agree that one problem with Heritage is lack of exposure and marketing, but a significant segment of proven and eager buyers have spoken and the focus of their disenchantment is loud and clear. It may not be to th eextend as the hidious monster on the top of a Tyler, but it is not far behind, for some.

[barrymclark]

Damn... that is ugly. haha. What makes it worse is the repeating text fading above and below. Wow... I guess no one looked at this thing before it left the design room. haha.