Heritage headstock

[Kuz]

To those of you who may think that this topic has been run in a hole and would like it to go away . . . I believe that it is probably the single most important issue I've seen discussed here on the HOC forums. It's also my favorite thread to participate/argue within. Just the entertainment value I derive from hearing the passion expressed in concern, anger, frustration etc., is worth its' weight in gold. Let's, for at least a brief minute, take all of our personal feelings and emotions out of the discussion;; the owners at Heritage, through their passion for the brand, their love for guitar building, their committment to quality . . . and yes . . . their sheer stubborness, have stumbled upon something that I've seen corporations spend hundreds of thousands, and in some case millions of dollars in search of . . . . AN IDENTITY!!! Large corporations seek out the assistance of 5th Ave., New York City consulting firms to help them discover who and what they are. Heritage's "identity" is . . . their history, their quality and . . .yes . . . their headstock. Cudos to Jim, Marv, JP and now Vince for not acquiesing to the repeated requests/demands for a change in headstock design. However, from a business aspect, they don't quite know how to go about marketing their "identity". They need help with that. Kuz . . . think about your last post. Basically what you are saying is that if the target customers don't like our product then fuck them . . . let them buy something else. No company can stay in business with that attitude/philosophy. If Heritage is building guitars purely as a hobby and only to satisfy those of us here in the HOC, who love their guitars . . . headstock and all . . . . then I would totally agree with you. However, it's a business. First and foremost, it's a business. Heritage needs to find a way to convert those who can't bring themselves to look beyond the headstock design. If Heritage had received an order for a guitar from everyone, players and dealers alike, who chose not to buy because of the headstock design . . . they would have the problem that every company dreams about . . . more orders than they could handle. Some of you say that there are uglier headstocks out there . . . and some have even posted pictures of them here in this thread. How many guitars are they selling? How predominant is their brand? Think back a half a centry ago (you young'uns are excused). Did we ever see ANYTHING as god awful ugly as the Volks Wagon Beetle? People didn't buy it . . . they ridiculed it. Then the Germans did a masterful job of marketing it and getting its' story out to the target audience. Shortly there after, they couldn't build enough of them. As tired as some of you are of this subject coming up constantly . . . you can't deny the fact that . . . . this subject comes up constantly. That should tell you something. That should also tell Jim Deurloo something. He, as President of Heritage Guitars, needs to recognize that it is indeed an impediment to their growth . . . and needs to address it as such. Digging in and holding fast on your beliefs is great. But not recognizing and addressing a problem is not so great. It doesn't go away just by ignoring it.

 

 

All goof points but Heritage doesn't want to grow into a Mega-mass produced guitar. They are happy doing things there way (and aren't going to change).

 

Bottom line is (and it has been stated before MANY times in this thread- including Jay Wolfe, Heritage's biggest dealer) people are using the headstock as an EXCUSE for really wanting to buy a Gibson. The DON'T want a Heritage. They want to be SLASH or JIMMY PAGE. They are never going to want anything other than a Gibson. If Heritage changed their headstock then Heritage would be labled as "They are trying to copy Gibson. See Heritage guitars are just copies of Gibson".

 

Heritage has it's own identy, they are surviving just fine. While ever company want to grow a little bit, Heritage probably only wants to increase sales about 15%. From what I read GIBSON is the one that is introuble finacially.

 

Final Line... When I bought my Mcinturff I never notice the skiiny headstock. When i bout my PRS guitars I never looked at their headstock. When I bought my 11 Heritages I never looked at the headstock. SO if you only want a Gibson-like headstock then ONLY Gibson will do. Changing the heasstock will not increase Heritage's business.

 

SO F**K them if they can't get past the headstock. They only want a Gibson anyhow, and more importanly..... They only want a Gibson for all the wrong reasons..... they want to be like someone else (NOT to sound like someone else, but the silly identity that comes with owning a Gibson!)

 

I rest my case!

[Bombassa]

Indeed the headstock tells us the identity of a guitar.

 

Whether you like it or not, is another question.

 

Heritage will always be "linked" and compared to Gibson. The headstock included.

Even called the real Gibson. I mentioned the headstock of Gibson mandolins,

very similar to Heritage H. I'm not sure that is a coincidense.

 

When I buy a guitar, the design of it also importent.

I would not own a guitar not to be proud of .

 

I still have some more Heritages to buy

[Dick Seacup]

But not recognizing and addressing a problem is not so great. It doesn't go away just by ignoring it.

 

Your argument is based on the premise that there is a problem. There isn't a problem. Just ask the owners of Heritage Guitar, Inc.

[Thundersteel]

Basically what you are saying is that if the target customers don't like our product then fuck them . . . let them buy something else.

 

Well, they've been doing that since their inception--and I wouldn't want it any other way!

[Dick Seacup]

Well, they've been doing that since their inception--and I wouldn't want it any other way!

 

If someone won't consider a Heritage guitar because of the shape of the headstock, then I'd say they're not really the "target demographic." Probably "lifestylers" looking to "live a brand image."

[Patrick]

All goof points but Heritage doesn't want to grow into a Mega-mass produced guitar. They are happy doing things there way (and aren't going to change).

 

Bottom line is (and it has been stated before MANY times in this thread- including Jay Wolfe, Heritage's biggest dealer) people are using the headstock as an EXCUSE for really wanting to buy a Gibson. The DON'T want a Heritage. They want to be SLASH or JIMMY PAGE. They are never going to want anything other than a Gibson. If Heritage changed their headstock then Heritage would be labled as "They are trying to copy Gibson. See Heritage guitars are just copies of Gibson".

 

Heritage has it's own identy, they are surviving just fine. While ever company want to grow a little bit, Heritage probably only wants to increase sales about 15%. From what I read GIBSON is the one that is introuble finacially.

 

Final Line... When I bought my Mcinturff I never notice the skiiny headstock. When i bout my PRS guitars I never looked at their headstock. When I bought my 11 Heritages I never looked at the headstock. SO if you only want a Gibson-like headstock then ONLY Gibson will do. Changing the heasstock will not increase Heritage's business.

 

SO F**K them if they can't get past the headstock. They only want a Gibson anyhow, and more importanly..... They only want a Gibson for all the wrong reasons..... they want to be like someone else (NOT to sound like someone else, but the silly identity that comes with owning a Gibson!)

 

I rest my case!

 

It's a business Kuz. That's what it's all about. I agree that they don't want to grow into a mass produced Gibson type of a company. But if you believe that they are content with their current sales, you're kidding yourself. Whether or not they want to grow . . . they do want to thrive. Hell, they need to thrive. They owe it to their loyal employees and to themselves as business men. They are NOT thriving. They are down to 4 day work weeks. That's not by choice. They are surviving, for sure. But they want and they need more business. No one is suggesting that they change their headstock design. We, here at HOC are their most loyal customers and we have grown to love their headstocks. Badge of Honor. I for one would be genuinly pissed if they did change their headstock design. I and others are saying that as a business, they can't continue to ignore the fact that the headstock is, for some, a deterent to buy. They need to address that WITHOUT changing their design. They need to sell more guitars. The world is changing around them. We've got companies like Eastman and others flooding the market with relatively decent quality guitars at rediculously low prices. Some of those sales, in fact many of those sales should be going to Heritage. If it wasn't an issue, it wouldn't keep coming up as one. Unfortunately, it's probably true that Heritage is more well known for their "strange" headstocks, than for the quality and craftsmanship of their products! They need to invest in a good marketing campaign to use that very headstock debate, to expose the potential customers to exactly how good their product really is. I gotta keep beating that drum!!!!

[Kuz]

If someone won't consider a Heritage guitar because of the shape of the headstock, then I'd say they're not really the "target demographic." Probably "lifestylers" looking to "live a brand image."

 

PERFECTLY stated Dick, exactly what I was trying to say!!!!

[Patrick]

So, if I understand Thundersteel, Kuz and Dickseacup correctly, a company should adopt a business philosophy that is centered on the strategy of . . . "we're gonna make the products we want to make, whether or not enough people want to buy them to keep us in business" Or, try this one . . . "we refuse to adapt to market demand" Or how's this one? . . . "if people don't like our products, then fuck'em . . . let them buy our competitors". Again . . . all they have to do is get their story out. They don't need a newly designed headstock . . . . they need more sales.

[Dick Seacup]

So, if I understand Thundersteel, Kuz and Dickseacup correctly, a company should adopt a business philosophy that is centered on the strategy of . . . "we're gonna make the products we want to make, whether or not enough people want to buy them to keep us in business" Or, try this one . . . "we refuse to adapt to market demand" Or how's this one? . . . "if people don't like our products, then fuck'em . . . let them buy our competitors". Again . . . all they have to do is get their story out. They don't need a newly designed headstock . . . . they need more sales.

 

No. A business should adopt a philosophy that allows them to achieve the business purpose. The classical, orthodox business purpose is "to increase shareholder value over the long term." The modern, unorthodox (shortsighted, wrongheaded, and various other adjectives of negative quality) business purpose is "to increase management wealth in the short term at the expense of all other stakeholders, including, importantly, shareholders, as well as employees and others."

 

In your conversation with Jim Duerloo did he tell you that he and the other owners believe that Heritage Guitar, Inc. needs more sales?

 

I'm going to leave this here just because we haven't seen enough of our little friend lately:

 

[Patrick]

No. A business should adopt a philosophy that allows them to achieve the business purpose. The classical, orthodox business purpose is "to increase shareholder value over the long term." The modern, unorthodox (shortsighted, wrongheaded, and various other adjectives of negative quality) business purpose is "to increase management wealth in the short term at the expense of all other stakeholders, including, importantly, shareholders, as well as employees and others."

 

In your conversation with Jim Duerloo did he tell you that he and the other owners believe that Heritage Guitar, Inc. needs more sales?

 

I'm going to leave this here just because we haven't seen enough of our little friend lately:

 

 

In order to increase share holder value over the long term . . . there needs to be a long term. Sales are tantamount to survival. Regarding increasing management wealth at the expense of others; the only share holders/stake holders of record (that I'm aware of) are the 4 owners . . Jim, Marv, JP and Vince. JP may be retired, but he's still a share holder. Further, Vince's very presence in the company as an owner is indicative that the company was in need on an infusion of capital . . . . funds .. . . financial resources, and various other adjectives of monitary nature. They didn't take Vince on as a partner because he knows how to build guitars, or because he had experience running a manufacturing facility. Vince's presence has also added a greater level of business structure . . which was also needed at the time. And, yes. the other owners that were there during my visit did indeed express not only a genuine desire for additional sales . . . but a need for it. Ren's exact words to me were "let's hope business picks up" When a company's long term employees like Ren express such a concern, then the newer people also start to get nervous. Heritage has a great deal of time and money incested in some of the newer guys . . . and their building great guitars. What happens if they start to lose some of those people? The training curve starts all over again. Again . . I am not implying that Heritage is desperate, or on the verge of going under, so PLEASE do not misinterpret my words here. Jim and Marv are 2 very astute men. They see what's happening in the market place. They are also "advanced in the years" if you will. When they are ready to call it a day, there need to be viable sales in order for Vince to carry the torch further. If not, then some company from another continent is going to step in with an offer that they can't refuse. Then the Heritage that you and I and others know and love ... will be no more. By the way, I look nothing at all like that little guy you posted . . . . I'm bald

[Dick Seacup]

By the way, I look nothing at all like that little guy you posted . . . . I'm bald

 

He's our resident Henry J. stand-in, wasn't a poke at you.

[Guest mgoetting]

All goof points but Heritage doesn't want to grow into a Mega-mass produced guitar. They are happy doing things there way (and aren't going to change).

.................................

 

I believe that's what they call a Freudian slip. You probably meant good points.

[Guest mgoetting]

The most important thing I learned from this discourse is the mass of the headstock can dampen vibrations and affect tone. Now that's quite interesting. If it made a noticible difference that might influence my decision in a guitar purchase. And a company that considered the headstock design based on instrument tone, not market flash, would really impress me by that fact.

[Kuz]

Patrick, you obvious mean well. I know you do. If you read the other 5-6 times this topic came up, I have always had Heritage's survival as my primary concern.

 

WHERE HOWEVER, I think you are in error is your assumption that the headstock is the issue.

 

JAY WOLFE, HERITAGE'S LARGEST DEALER, SELLS HERITAGE GUITARS ALL OVER THE WORLD FOR 20 YEARS said that the headstock is NOT the issue and it doesn't come up.

 

Now I agree every company wants to increase sales.

 

A year ago, the NEW WEB SITE was the scret to sales success. If Heritage had a NEW WEB SITE SALE WOULD TRIPLE, blah, blah, blah....... Well a year later with a new updated web site and......

 

Bottom line is I know you mean well, but you haven't offered any solution to the issue of increasing sales. Wolfe has said the headstock is a non-issue.

 

And BTW, I have heard rumors that the sky is falling at Heritage, they going to be bought out, they are going out of business for 20yrs...... yet we still have Heritage making hundreds (maybe thousands) of guitars each year.

[Patrick]

Patrick, you obvious mean well. I know you do. If you read the other 5-6 times this topic came up, I have always had Heritage's survival as my primary concern.

 

WHERE HOWEVER, I think you are in error is your assumption that the headstock is the issue.

 

JAY WOLFE, HERITAGE'S LARGEST DEALER, SELLS HERITAGE GUITARS ALL OVER THE WORLD FOR 20 YEARS said that the headstock is NOT the issue and it doesn't come up.

 

Now I agree every company wants to increase sales.

 

A year ago, the NEW WEB SITE was the scret to sales success. If Heritage had a NEW WEB SITE SALE WOULD TRIPLE, blah, blah, blah....... Well a year later with a new updated web site and......

 

Bottom line is I know you mean well, but you haven't offered any solution to the issue of increasing sales. Wolfe has said the headstock is a non-issue.

 

And BTW, I have heard rumors that the sky is falling at Heritage, they going to be bought out, they are going out of business for 20yrs...... yet we still have Heritage making hundreds (maybe thousands) of guitars each year.

 

Kuz: Let me address your comments, hopefully in order, because I feel that you and others herein are oblivious to the obvious. Firstly, regarding me meaning well . . . I believe that we all mean well for this company, its' owners and its' employees. Secondly, it appears that you haven't fully digested all that I have written. I never said that the headstock is THE issue . . . what I and others have said is that it's AN issue. Certainly not the only one, but it is an issue. Next, regarding Jay Wolfe's contention that the head stock is not THE issue and it doesn't come up. What you do not realize and maybe even Jay doesn't realize this, is that Jay won't let the headstock become THE issue. He's marketing the guitar!! As for me not offering any solutions . . . again . . . you're reading my words but not hearing them. The reason Jay is so successful with this brand, is because he is doing a masterful job at exactly what I've been suggesting here at nausium. He's marketing the brand. He's getting the story out. He's leading with Heritage's strengths and embelishing upon them. The headstock is a non issue with Jay because he makes it a non issue. If Jay were to address concerns of the headstock the way I've read some on this thread address them his attitude would be . . . "well, that's Heritage's design .. . if you don't like it let me show you something else." Jay has MANY brands to sell. Heritage is his passion . . . and his loyal customers know that . . . and they consider him and his expertise to be credable. So, in some cases, his clients are actually buying "Jay" more so than Heritage. No solutions??? I've been repeatedly saying get the message out, marketing, exposure . . . etc. I've never once said change the headstock. I've said "use the headstock debate as a marketing campaign" How could you have read any of my posts and say I've offered no solutions to the issue of increasing sales? In fact, you may not know it, but some of you have offered up some great marketing slogans. Picture this;; you walk into a music shop . . . your greeted by a large full color poster . . . it has a picture of only a Heritage headstock . . . under it are the words "It's a Badge of Honor" Or another with the words "It's more than just a head stock . . . It's a Heritage" I've heard the term The Shrine" used to describe the plant. Think of a full page ad with a picture of 225 Parsons Street with words something to the effect of "The Shrine . . . it's where it all began for the great guitars . . . and the guys who built them are still there". That's some good marketing shit man!!! Of course they'd have to air brush the Gibson name off of the smoke stack or they'd get sued. That's another thing. Why the hell don't they have "The Heritage" painted on that smoke stack?? Think of the marketing campaign that would make. Nobody's saying the sky is falling . . . yet. But if people are under the impression that things are rosey and no changes are needed . . . . then one morning, we're all gonna wake up to a bad bit of news. Most companies that have fallen on slow sales or bad times need to totally reinvent themselves. Heritage doesn't need any reinvention of itself . . . or its' headstock. All it needs is the exposure.

[Patrick]

The most important thing I learned from this discourse is the mass of the headstock can dampen vibrations and affect tone. Now that's quite interesting. If it made a noticible difference that might influence my decision in a guitar purchase. And a company that considered the headstock design based on instrument tone, not market flash, would really impress me by that fact.

 

So . . . . you're under the impression that the main thing people are considering when purchasing a guitar is how it sounds and not how it looks. I believe that it's the whole package. And, if the push back that some are showing on one small, relatively unimportant aspect of a guitar, vis-a-vis the headstock design, can be overcome and result in additional sales for Heritage with a better marketing campaign . . . . that would be a bad thing???

[yoslate]

WHERE HOWEVER, I think you are in error is your assumption that the headstock is the issue.

 

JAY WOLFE, HERITAGE'S LARGEST DEALER, SELLS HERITAGE GUITARS ALL OVER THE WORLD FOR 20 YEARS said that the headstock is NOT the issue and it doesn't come up.

 

I suspect the headstock is an issue only to those who enjoy the easily mastered "art of critique," an exercise popular amongst middle-aged males, and which requires no training, no licensing, no meaningful qualifications. Those who judge the Heritage headstock as aesthetically deficient have, I'm sure, no interest in owning a Heritage, for who knows what reasons. I suspect, for many, it's not that it is a Heritage headstock, but that it is not a Gibson headstock. How does any re-design resolve that issue? Pointless to argue a negative, isn't it?

[Thundersteel]

All it needs is the exposure.

 

They did have an ad in Vintage Guitar magazine a year or so ago. I know full-color ads aren't cheap.

 

By the way, similar comments have been made over at the Hamer Fan Club for years. They build an outstanding guitar, but the average player hasn't heard of them.

[Dick Seacup]

If the owners of Heritage want to build and market their product the way that they think is best, then they must accept that the available pool of consumers is X. If the owners of Heritage have capacity to build more units than their pool of consumers desire, then they have two choices. They can change their product or marketing so as to expand X, or, they can reduce capacity and overhead so it is inline with demand.

 

Would you all agree with this? Being as everyone here is level-headed, rational and thinks in straight lines (unlike every woman I have had the extreme pleasure of knowing, and believe me, this is a complement, not a slur!), I am confident you all agree. So, I will continue.

 

The owners of Heritage have been building and marketing their product to consumer pool X for more than two decades. They have said, in the not-so-distant past, that they like the way they build and market their product and have no intention of changing how they build and market their produc.

 

With me so far? "Of course we are!" you all scream.

 

Might they like it if consumer pool X was greater and consumed all of their available productive capacity? Certainly, who wouldn't? Are the owners of Heritage likely to change their product or marketing in order to attempt to increase the size of consumer pool X? No, they're not. The anecdote related earlier in this thread about Jim Duerloo and George Gruhn illustrates this point perfectly.

 

Those of you who wish the owners of Heritage Guitar, Inc. would run their business in accord with your wishes, based on your perspectives, biases and opinions, and driven by your motivations are destined to perpetual annoyance and disenchantment. It simply isn't what they want to do, as demonstrated by, well, how they've chosen to run their business for more than two decades. Rant and rave all you want, but you'd be better off turning off the computer and picking up your headstock...er, guitar...and using that energy to play some music.

[Kuz]

I suspect the headstock is an issue only to those who enjoy the easily mastered "art of critique," an exercise popular amongst middle-aged males, and which requires no training, no licensing, no meaningful qualifications. Those who judge the Heritage headstock as aesthetically deficient have, I'm sure, no interest in owning a Heritage, for who knows what reasons. I suspect, for many, it's not that it is a Heritage headstock, but that it is not a Gibson headstock. How does any re-design resolve that issue? Pointless to argue a negative, isn't it?

 

+1

[Kuz]

If the owners of Heritage want to build and market their product the way that they think is best, then they must accept that the available pool of consumers is X. If the owners of Heritage have capacity to build more units than their pool of consumers desire, then they have two choices. They can change their product or marketing so as to expand X, or, they can reduce capacity and overhead so it is inline with demand.

 

Would you all agree with this? Being as everyone here is level-headed, rational and thinks in straight lines (unlike every woman I have had the extreme pleasure of knowing, and believe me, this is a complement, not a slur!), I am confident you all agree. So, I will continue.

 

The owners of Heritage have been building and marketing their product to consumer pool X for more than two decades. They have said, in the not-so-distant past, that they like the way they build and market their product and have no intention of changing how they build and market their produc.

 

With me so far? "Of course we are!" you all scream.

 

Might they like it if consumer pool X was greater and consumed all of their available productive capacity? Certainly, who wouldn't? Are the owners of Heritage likely to change their product or marketing in order to attempt to increase the size of consumer pool X? No, they're not. The anecdote related earlier in this thread about Jim Duerloo and George Gruhn illustrates this point perfectly.

 

Those of you who wish the owners of Heritage Guitar, Inc. would run their business in accord with your wishes, based on your perspectives, biases and opinions, and driven by your motivations are destined to perpetual annoyance and disenchantment. It simply isn't what they want to do, as demonstrated by, well, how they've chosen to run their business for more than two decades. Rant and rave all you want, but you'd be better off turning off the computer and picking up your headstock...er, guitar...and using that energy to play some music.

 

+1 I completely agree.

 

There is no right or wrong side of the fence in my opinion, but Dick's comments are just the plain fact of the whole situation.

 

And despite how some non-HOC guests might initially take this, I would like to congratulate the posters of this topic for keeping everything civil and open mined with the intent to only help the company.

 

SO, if we all want the company to increase sale I will offer a motion on the floor that we all buy a NEW Heritage from Jay Wolfe at 40% off!!!!! (OK, so I don't think we will hear from Jay in a while.... LOL)

[tbonesullivan]

what is so "lame" about the heritage head stock? I've seen a lot WORSE headstocks. I mean look at the kramer headstock. It looks like a hockey stick had sex with a banana. Didn't stop them from selling a ton back in the 80s. The parker head stock doesn't seem to be hurting them either.

 

Furthermore, having a narrower head stock that tapers means there is less of an angle on the strings at the nut, which lessens the chance of a string binding there.

[schundog]

Whew!! I finally got through this entire thread, as well as the 8 pager referenced earlier, and I gotta say it's been quite a "spirited" conversation! I'm relatively new here, and just got my first Heritage (used H535) a couple of months ago. I own 15 to 20 guitars, Fenders, Gibsons, Reverend, Epiphones, and now Heritage. I have seen Heritages in shops (rarely) since I got into guitars, and always passed over them for a couple of reasons; price was, of course, a consideration, but also, the lack of my recognition of, and marketing-induced disdain for the headstock. Once, I asked a shop-owner I respected to "let me see that 335 copy," a Heritage H535, behind the counter. This funny, older shop owner had done some business before, with me buying and selling some old pianos from/to him, so I considered him a buddy, despite our age difference. I also always gave him my full respect, in part for his knowledge of the music business, and in part because I knew that he always carried a 9 MM pistol under his shop apron!! haha. His face clouded over with almost anger as he said, "Now listen, boy, you can see it, but you gotta understand something...." He then went on to explain the origins of Heritage to me. When I played it, I gotta admit I was not a great player (not that I'm there yet, either, LOL) and I was a little intimidated by his rebuke, I wasn't to the point of dropping nearly $2000 on ANY instrument, AND, to my shame, my "drinking of the kool-aid" so to speak, that Fender and Gibson were the "real" guitars out there. I always kept the interesting story in the back of my mind, though. Eventually, the stars aligned, I got onto this forum, having found it from TGP, and got my first of hopefully several Heritages. Quick, think of a running shoe; Nike, right? Fast food? McDonalds. For some of you who've been around awhile, "Winston tastes good..." Like a cigarette should, right?! It's called top of mind awareness. It's hard not to succumb to the BILLIONS of $$ being spent on advertising the big brands. As mentioned, Heritage couldn't keep up with that kind of demand anyway. However, more people in the demographic that can afford and appreciate the quality of a Heritage NEED to find out about it SOMEHOW!! I don't think it's through glossy magazine ads; you are paying too much to have too many 14 year old Guitar Center wankers see the add. Find a way to market to the higher income, over 40, jazzer/rocker/ humbucker or P90 crowd. I think word of mouth and getting the guitars into more small dealers showrooms is the key. I don't know the dealer requirements to carry Heritage, but I gotta think that more Mom and Pop's could/should carry it than do. Put the guitar in the prospective customer's hands; let the guitar do the talking.

[Trouble]

I dont want anyone to get mad at me but the guy who started this thread owns a Steinberger! That is funny.

[yoslate]

Doesn't the guy who started this thread own a Steinberger...? That would be funny!