Heritage Headstock Critics Have Win

[mad dog]

A non issue to me for sure. I don't think any subtle changes will sway the purists anyway.
MD

[Max405]

+1 I have made a similar experience with two Golden Eagles vs an L5 CES. I like the Heritage headstock but hate the f-holes. The thin top can be great, if you're not looking for Gibson tone in a Heritage.

What really led me away from Heritage and back to Gibson are the necks. Too thin, even on the newer ones. And for some reason the string spacing feels narrower although the nut width is (almost) identical.

I've had a Millie Custom built with a '59 neck a few years ago. Feels like a matchstick compared to the neck on my 59 reissue ES-345. I much prefer Gibson guitars but I have needed years to admit it. Gibson as a company just isn't likeable, quite the opposite with Heritage. The guitars are a different story.

I do think the silk screen logo on the new headstock is a bad idea, makes it look like an entry level guitar. They should do mop on all of their guitars. In fact I think they have to if they want to compete.

Drifter, great post. You said all I wanted to say, and more elegantly..
I hope they keep it up with the wood pickguards. I hope they don't discover the same plastic trees that most cars made in Michigan use.
JD

[Marty Grass]

The neck carves were highly variable but are less so now.

The early guitars had thin necks because that's mostly what the dealers requested. And the history of the thinner neck preference involves the evolution of chord melody playing.

Since maybe 2005 or so the necks have been medium to fat.

I know the guy who rolls the large majority of the necks currently and is as good as one gets. He has target measurements at two places on the neck so that there is some consistency. Importantly, he's a very seasoned player and he trained under Marv Lamb for a decade rolling necks. Marv began at Gibson in the 1950s and retired about a year ago.

My point is that for those who don't like thin necks, check out a different Heritage. You'll probably find what you want.

BTW, neck variation is a part of Gibson's history as well. It is more predictable with a Gibson though.

[Marty Grass]

My response to top thickness:

It is true that archtop spruce thickness is not consistent on the older Heritages. So why would that be?

The more important factor is that the dealer who ordered the guitar often specified the thickness. The second factor is that parallel braced guitars were typically built heavier, like Gibson did. Third, the carver had the freedom to carve the wood out to what he felt was going to produce the best tone for that billet after considering the first two factors.

Consider that Heritage built these guitars new to the demands of the customer and dealer. In the used market, you can't assume anything and have to ask or check out the guitar personally.

[skiboyny]

I have to admit the headstock design stops me dead in my tracks. I feel bad that I can't get past it....

[Max405]

My response to top thickness:

It is true that archtop spruce thickness is not consistent on the older Heritages. So why would that be?

The more important factor is that the dealer who ordered the guitar often specified the thickness. The second factor is that parallel braced guitars were typically built heavier, like Gibson did. Third, the carver had the freedom to carve the wood out to what he felt was going to produce the best tone for that billet after considering the first two factors.

Consider that Heritage built these guitars new to the demands of the customer and dealer. In the used market, you can't assume anything and have to ask or check out the guitar personally.

Great points MG.
Every Heritage I ever had in my hands was used. The 2 HJS's I had were amazing guitars. But the depth of the necks were consistently shallow. My GJS has a much deeper fuller neck, not quite L5, but noticeably fuller the HJS.
i will admit, one of the CHUNKIEST necks I've ever grabbed was The Heritage 335 variant that Patrick had. Oh my god.. Chunkier than the 135/137's in my opinion.
Back to the headstock. I feel the headstock design is fine, but it absolutely NEEDS binding and inlay. No binding, no inlay screams CHEAPO...
JD

[Woody Sound]

Never was an issue to me.

Now Epis, on the other hand ...

YES! I thought I was the only one!

[Woody Sound]

Great points MG.
Every Heritage I ever had in my hands was used. The 2 HJS's I had were amazing guitars. But the depth of the necks were consistently shallow.

Oh man, I just LOVED the neck on my HJS. One of the best EVER. I guess TEHO.

[Drifter]

Drifter, great post. You said all I wanted to say, and more elegantly..
I hope they keep it up with the wood pickguards. I hope they don't discover the same plastic trees that most cars made in Michigan use.
JD

JD, you're a very kind and modest person. Your experience with high-end guitars and ability as a player far exceed mine, it is an honor that you share my opinion.

The wood pickguards are wonderful indeed. Especially the ones made of ebony but I fear that wood species will not be available anymore some time soon. But that's a different topic.

[JazzNote]

Marty Grass, i don't get it .... the photos in the posts No. 1 and 3 are the same. are these new or old headstocks? Or is it that the old from the behind and the new from front?

[mr. beaumont]

The skinny snake heads, binding or not, still look too skinny to me.

The larger paddle headstock, when bound and inlayed, looks beautiful.

I honestly don't get how anybody doesn't like that...

When it's unbound and silkscreened, like on my 575...well...

But I don't play the headstock

[vinlander]

Paddle like arrow shape headstock on an arch top is simply not for everyone despite its functional advantage...

[vintagelove]

My god, I can't believe how tonedeaf this company is. They could double their sales if they just change that headstock.



They have some of the nicest finishes in the game.

[vinlander]

The irony is they did produce a gorgeous headstock at least once:

[QAman]

I never had an issue with the Golden Eagle bound headstocks - they are very attractive .

But to me - the new skinny silk screen version screams cost "cutting idea " and arguably lacks some class - and may actually turn off some potential buyers .

Just my two cents

[wintermoon]

The irony is they did produce a gorgeous headstock at least once:

Not hideous, but not very functional
You really don't want your D & G strings brwaking across the A & B strings

[vinnyv1k]

Bottom line their are 2 types of archtop players. The people that love a bright acoustic sound Heritage is going to meet there needs better than Gibson will. The people that love a more dark / electric sound Gibson is the one for them.
We are lucky to have both basses covered. It comes down to sound preferences really.....well looks a little too.
Anyone that builds F hole archtop guitars I like. I will not play anything else.

As far as headstocks no one comes even close to the looks of a D'Angelico or D'Aquisto in my book. Old Epi vine headstocks and Guild AA's are runners up to the D'A's IMO then I guess Gibson comes in at 4th place.
My opinion and $2.00 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. :-)

At least Heritage threads are not as dangerous as Gibson threads are here. So I say Amen to that.

[Stringswinger]

Let's face it, archtop guitars, which came of age in the art deco age are "functional art". Those of us who love them (Isn't that why we are here?) have multiple criteria when it comes to these guitars, to wit, sound, playability and looks. And all three of those things are subjective. Some players like bright guitars, some dark. Some like thin necks, some like thick. Some like the Heritage headstock, some do not.

You cannot please everybody. I have no problem at all with the Heritage headstock (I actually kind of like it, as we bikers say, one man's queen is another man's sweathog ). And I like skinny necks (so long at the nut size is 1 5/8 or more). I do not like overly bright guitars (I sold my Heritage 535 due to brightness, My Gibson 335 is WAY warmer) and my problem with the Heritage esthetic is those pointy pickguards. Those things seem downright dangerous (Had I kept my Heritage 535, I would have changed out the pickguard for sure). I also agree that doing the Company name in MOP would be wise. Skimping on your logo (your best advertising tool on a guitar) to save money seems ill advised. As far as binding goes, high end guitars get it, lower end models do not. That has been part of the equation for years.

So you Heritage headstock haters may continue to rant (Don't like it that much, don't buy one), I will say this; Long live Heritage and their distinctive headstock. I may be a Gibson/D'Angelico fanboy, but I am still fond of Heritage guitars and their story.

[Marty Grass]

Marty Grass, i don't get it .... the photos in the posts No. 1 and 3 are the same. are these new or old headstocks? Or is it that the old from the behind and the new from front?

I had trouble posting the pics so I did that twice. Suddenly the first appeared.

[Marty Grass]

Heritage used to allow customers to design their own headstock. Occasionally you'll see one out there.

I wouldn't call them tone deaf. I'd use the term pig-headed. They've been told long ago that the design is a big turn off to some. Their response, as judged by their behavior, is just don't buy the guitar then. And that's what happens in some cases.



[QUOTE=vintagelove;788231]My god, I can't believe how tonedeaf this company is. They could double their sales if they just change that headstock.

[Marty Grass]

The decals and silk screening have been used since 1984 on the cheaper guitars. I'm not a fan either.

I never had an issue with the Golden Eagle bound headstocks - they are very attractive .

But to me - the new skinny silk screen version screams cost "cutting idea " and arguably lacks some class - and may actually turn off some potential buyers .

Just my two cents

[Marty Grass]

[vinnyv1k]

Now that is a gorgeous headstock !

[Longways to Go]

My opinion (my own personal very personal opinion with a capital "O") is that Gibson and Fender win on headstock design by a mile.
They won on their great designs ages ago.

I don't much care for Ibanez headstock, nor Eastman headstock, though my lovely and enjoyable AR810 has me conceding that issue. But that wouldn't stop me from buying their guitars.

Heritage headstock design is just . . .

[339 in june]

Can anybody explain to me what's wrong with this ?

Functional it is, what else ?

This is my best/preferred/goto guitar, and I love it, headstock included.