The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Posts 26 to 50 of 80
  1. #26

    User Info Menu

    Try as I might, I just can't warm up to the Heritage headstock. It's created a bias in me to the point of never playing or considering a Heritage guitar. It's stupid I know, but I just can't help myself.

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #27

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by skiboyny
    Try as I might, I just can't warm up to the Heritage headstock. It's created a bias in me to the point of never playing or considering a Heritage guitar. It's stupid I know, but I just can't help myself.
    Yep, that's stupid alright. Even a bound, inlayed headstock like on a golden eagle? I think that's gorgeous. The plain headstock on my 575 is ugly, but the guitar sounds awesome and the sunburst is so good, who cares about the headstock?

  4. #28

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
    Yep, that's stupid alright. Even a bound, inlayed headstock like on a golden eagle? I think that's gorgeous. The plain headstock on my 575 is ugly, but the guitar sounds awesome and the sunburst is so good, who cares about the headstock?
    Not stupid, but the replied comment is. Is it really stupid to like one headstock shape over another?
    Why do some Heritage owners get their panties in a bunch if people don't like the headstocks?
    Just a matter of preference, you know, like vanilla and chocolate.
    Carry on....

  5. #29

    User Info Menu

    Heritage headstock function-image-jpeg

    anyone like these old Ibanez head stocks ?
    sorry .... Carry on

  6. #30

    User Info Menu

    Attached Images Attached Images Heritage headstock function-lion-jpg Heritage headstock function-del2-jpeg Heritage headstock function-del1-jpg 

  7. #31

    User Info Menu

    I'm a Bauhaus-influenced form-follows-function, less-is-more guy. I like the "The Heritage" headstock. That said, the only question I ever really ask myself about a guitar is "Can I raise the dough?" so....

  8. #32

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
    Yep, that's stupid alright. Even a bound, inlayed headstock like on a golden eagle? I think that's gorgeous. The plain headstock on my 575 is ugly, but the guitar sounds awesome and the sunburst is so good, who cares about the headstock?
    Seems nearly everyone cares about headstocks. i know I do. No argument that Heritage has made some fine guitars, but the pick guard shapes, many of their tailpieces, and that headstock have kept me from pulling the trigger. You’ve noted that the sunburst is good, so looks do matter. With so many options out there, at all price points, no one should be expected to “settle” on anything that’s going to bug them.
    Last edited by customxke; 10-21-2019 at 11:18 AM.

  9. #33

    User Info Menu

    Another instantly recognizable headstock: Parker.


  10. #34

    User Info Menu

    Original Gibson Moderne: "I'm Gumby, dammit!"


  11. #35

    User Info Menu

    straight line from nut to tuner headstocks were nothing new or ingenius...even cheapo japanese teiscos had it ...in the 60's



    once you work out the string angles, the woodcarving is pure aesthetics..and the heritage cut has always left me dry...artistically..

    but of course to each his own

    cheers

  12. #36

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
    Yep, that's stupid alright. Even a bound, inlayed headstock like on a golden eagle? I think that's gorgeous. The plain headstock on my 575 is ugly, but the guitar sounds awesome and the sunburst is so good, who cares about the headstock?
    Thats how you should feel. I’m a bit spoiled I’m afraid. I’ve owned lots of guitars all different brands. I just never could warm up to the heritage headstock. I’m totally satisfied with Gibson in all departments so I just don’t feel like I was missing out on anything.

  13. #37

    User Info Menu

    I love my G&L but they get picked on for their headstock, too. I don't mind.


  14. #38

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by wintermoon
    Not stupid, but the replied comment is. Is it really stupid to like one headstock shape over another?Why do some Heritage owners get their panties in a bunch if people don't like the headstocks?Just a matter of preference, you know, like vanilla and chocolate.Carry on....
    It is stupid, because there's not just one Heritage headstock look.Y'all some guitar owners.

  15. #39

    User Info Menu

    Yeah, I looked.
    They're all the same save for binding and inlay. A pitchfork top w little attention to style and less workmanship.
    But again, just a matter of preference. Doesn't affect the playability or tone of an instrument obviously and apologies to Heritage owners, don't mean to start another fire, just my opinion. That said there's a lot of great players making beautiful music on them, some are dear friends...

  16. #40

    User Info Menu

    First off, a thank you to Dr. Mark for his insights. When it comes to Kalamazoo made guitars, he certainly is a wealth of information about that subject.

    My experience in both guitars and women is this: One man's queen is another man's sweathog.

    I do not see the point of going onto an Internet guitar forum and bashing another guys guitar over something that is purely subjective. It certainly is no way to make friends and influence people is it? I have owned Heritage guitars and the headstock , while not my favorite, suited me just fine. Their pickguard (like the Gibson Tal Farlow pickguard) has sharp edges that I think can be a danger, but that said, I never changed mine.

    OK, carry on with a debate that cannot be won if you must......

  17. #41

    User Info Menu

    Standing by my comments but in the end it's just preference. Carry on y'all!

  18. #42

    User Info Menu

    my little boy (9) made a big deal of how cool the top part was on this guitar (i told him what the right word was for the top part) - he was perplexed - then troubled - then cross when I told him that lots of people spend a lot of time talking about how uncool the top part is - the only thing that's interesting that emerges from all this talk about the heritage headstock (it seems to me) is that there is a conflict or clash between two ways we have of thinking about our guitars. on the one hand we think of them as tools and assess them in terms of how well they perform the job we got them to do etc. etc. But on the other hand we think of them as art-objects - as lovely things that have an intrinsic aesthetic (non-practical) value - my big fear as a guitar-nut is that i'd reject the guitar that worked better than all the others if it did not look right to me - I bet I've done this already....

  19. #43

    User Info Menu

    My Super Eagle is a nice looking guitar, headstock and all. I think the Heritage headstock looks best on the full size models.

  20. #44

    User Info Menu

    I alway thought the Heritage headstock shape was selected partly as a way to simplify the cutting and the binding process. The hours saved over lets say a D'Angelico style would be considerable. Less time spent on construction equals lower price.

  21. #45

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by jads57
    Unfortunately the old guard at Heritage had no talent for aesthetic design. Not sure if was just lack of talent or just apathy. Hopefully Pete Farmer and the new owners will take more care in this area.It does seem that they understand that also is important when selling guitars.
    I'm sure I'll get flamed for my opinion on this, but I stand 100% by it.
    Quote Originally Posted by wintermoon
    if they'd have scalloped the sides it would look better.It just doesn't look balanced w/the rest of the guitar either, it's just....there
    no offense to those that own and love them though....
    but the early L-5 is an elegant and functional design
    Agree entirely. Happy to flame you for some of your other opinions. :^)
    Lack of [design] talent AND apathy. And orneryness, for sure.
    I prefer elegant snakehead headstocks on archtop guitars.


    Attached Images Attached Images Heritage headstock function-img_1982-jpg 
    Last edited by Hammertone; 10-21-2019 at 01:30 PM.

  22. #46

    User Info Menu

    "Hear with the eyes" "Form over function" "appearance over substance"

    Hockey stick, snake head, D'Angelico, volute, tail piece style, binding type or lack of it... I have or have had all of the oddball features and never thought about the head or others as a deal breaker.

    The visual issues I have a problem with is jointed necks, or crap wood selections on a higher priced git.

  23. #47

    User Info Menu

    I don't like my friend's wife but I would never call her a sweathog! She's quite fetching really but don't covet thy neighbour's wife...the nuns taught me that.

    The guys who break into paroxysms of delight over the "shading" of the bursts, the flame curly figuredness of the maple, the silking of the spruce, the iridescence of the mother of pearl/abalone, the layers of binding are the same ones who turn around all of a sudden, and say, oh yeah, the looks of the Heritage headstock don't matter...

    A hypocrite is a hypocrite is a hypocrite.

  24. #48

    User Info Menu

    To me aesthetics is important. Tone, playiblity and comfort are a top priority of course.
    Maybe some people don't care if their guitar is shaped like a skull or finished sparkling purple and orange or has dragon shaped headstock as long as they like the way it plays. Good for them.
    There are no shortage of guitars that I like the tone and playiblity of. So visual preferences can be a deal breaker for me. I have no reason to own a guitar that doesn't check all the boxes.

    That said I can totally live with the Heritage headstock. But if I never buy a D'Angelico, that will be because of it's headstock

  25. #49

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Tal_175
    That said I can totally live with the Heritage headstock. But if I never buy a D'Angelico, that will be because of it's headstock
    I can live with it on archtops, but on solid body rockers?

    It's like bumping into your granny at a bondage club.


  26. #50

    User Info Menu

    I never was fan of the headstock as such. Heritage could turn out quality guitars and just a little bit more thought and design it could be one of the best. To me it does depend on the guitar and the whole balance of the picture you are looking at. So to me the long headstock on a Super 400 works and looks great same as the D'a. The L5 has a bit smaller one but it looks fine and works with the whole picture. Frankly if Heritage had copied Gibson headstock at least a bit more they would have a complete winner.