2002 Heritage Sweet 16

**danishbacon** · 03-31-2021, 06:41 AM

And how sweet it is....what a winning formula for us average sized people. Sat down, standing up, it's very well balanced, comfortable and a joy to play. Beautifully made and has aged to a nice golden brown. I think there's a lot to be said for this particular design. Previous owner installed an additional pot for tone control and although I appreciate Rich Severson's take that 'set the amp tone and forget', it is a nice facility to have at hand.

**Wildcat** · 03-31-2021, 07:06 AM

Congratulations!! A great and beautiful guitar! This model seems to keep its value and its demand.

**Mark M.** · 03-31-2021, 07:08 AM

Beautiful! They are lovely guitars, and that combination of size, width, and scale length is so nice. Enjoy. It’s a beauty!

**Marty Grass** · 03-31-2021, 07:16 AM

Super spruce. Great maple.

What do you think of the amplified sound?

**danishbacon** · 03-31-2021, 07:44 AM

Originally Posted by Marty Grass

Super spruce. Great maple.

What do you think of the amplified sound?

indeed, a nice selection of tone woods on this one. I didn’t realise that Ant Nat had something like a $400 up charge back in the early 2000s, presumably due to the need for selecting higher grade woods?

It has the Heritage #3 pickup (I think) originally sold by Wolfe Guitars (assuming due to sticker).

The amplified tone at home volumes is beautiful with the tone pot rolled back a bit. With it wide open it feels a tad bright, even with flatwounds, though that can obviously be adjusted at the amp end of things.

2002 Heritage Sweet 16-c46738aa-7c92-46ab-bfee-e8943e6acc65-jpg

2002 Heritage Sweet 16-c46738aa-7c92-46ab-bfee-e8943e6acc65-jpg

2002 Heritage Sweet 16-20196d47-e6ea-4bd0-8f72-79c6c11b0957-jpg

**rabbit** · 03-31-2021, 07:49 AM

Enviable, to say the least.

Congratulations!

**Jim Soloway** · 03-31-2021, 07:52 AM

Very nice.

I've never understood why Heritage used the same Sweet-16 name on both the floating version and the in-top version. They've always seemed like very different guitars to me.

**silvertonebetty** · 03-31-2021, 08:21 AM

They are beautiful guitars but I just can’t get over their headstock

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**ronjazz** · 03-31-2021, 08:26 AM

I would never let a headstock stand in the way of a great guitar. In fact, I bought a Samick Greg Bennett Royale 3, possible the ugliest headstock ever made, but it never let me down as an instrument, and it fed me very well for years. That Heritage is glorious, congrats!

**danishbacon** · 03-31-2021, 08:39 AM

Originally Posted by silvertonebetty

They are beautiful guitars but I just can’t get over their headstock

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I personally find the heritage headstock to be quite beautiful and well designed, especially with a bit of binding.

Also, it is possible a subtle middle finger towards the former employers...something I read online at some point.

2002 Heritage Sweet 16-404de400-9d5b-4a29-afba-e95362219959-jpg

2002 Heritage Sweet 16-404de400-9d5b-4a29-afba-e95362219959-jpg

**silvertonebetty** · 03-31-2021, 11:35 AM

Originally Posted by danishbacon

I personally find the heritage headstock to be quite beautiful and well designed, especially with a bit of binding.

Also, it is possible a subtle middle finger towards the former employers...something I read online at some point.

2002 Heritage Sweet 16-404de400-9d5b-4a29-afba-e95362219959-jpg

It’s probably a lot more stable tuning wise

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**danishbacon** · 03-31-2021, 11:41 AM

Originally Posted by Marty Grass

Super spruce. Great maple.

What do you think of the amplified sound?

quick and dirty sample with the iPhone, unfortunately it’s clipping because of the volume but on softer passages you might be able to make out its amplified tone.

**vinnyv1k** · 03-31-2021, 11:44 AM

A beautiful example. Love the back ! Congrats....nice score

**Gitfiddler** · 03-31-2021, 11:47 AM

Congratulations on scoring a very beautiful Sweet 16!!

Yours has a great example of what Heritage used to call their "Choice Woods" package, an added cost option.

Play it in good health.

**citizenk74** · 03-31-2021, 12:18 PM

Sweet indeed. You have an outstanding instrument, there. Congratulations, and play it in good health!

**Marty Grass** · 03-31-2021, 01:43 PM

Originally Posted by silvertonebetty

They are beautiful guitars but I just can’t get over their headstock

The headstock design was intentionally functional. They wanted the string pull to be as close to straight as they could get with a 3 + 3 arrangement of tuners to prevent the strings getting caught when changing tension during tuning. More for electrics, this also made string bending a little easier. Another concern was the weight of the headstock, which they wanted to be minimized.

You can argue that the pitch angle of 17 degrees may have been too steep. They understood the trade off in terms of string binding at the nut. But that tension on the nut from that higher angle diminishes energy loss from string vibration to the headstock.

Heritage released the first batches of guitars and got feedback on the headstock. I'm sure there were many, many discussions about that with the Heritage Company owners. I know of half dozen. At first, Heritage allowed customers to design their own headstocks for an upcharge. Soon they stopped doing that, with a few exceptions, and stood proud by their design.

Over time most guitarists have gotten over the shape. I'm completely used to it.

Yes, the natural finish archtops were an upcharge due to the scarcity of appropriate, unflawed wood. I have seen several instances where someone has had a solid finish removed in the hopes there was glamorous wood underneath only to find knots and other irregularities. The same is true of Gibsons.

**danishbacon** · 03-31-2021, 05:21 PM

Originally Posted by Marty Grass

The headstock design was intentionally functional. They wanted the string pull to be as close to straight as they could get with a 3 + 3 arrangement of tuners to prevent the strings getting caught when changing tension during tuning. More for electrics, this also made string bending a little easier. Another concern was the weight of the headstock, which they wanted to be minimized.

You can argue that the pitch angle of 17 degrees may have been too steep. They understood the trade off in terms of string binding at the nut. But that tension on the nut from that higher angle diminishes energy loss from string vibration to the headstock.

Heritage released the first batches of guitars and got feedback on the headstock. I'm sure there were many, many discussions about that with the Heritage Company owners. I know of half dozen. At first, Heritage allowed customers to design their own headstocks for an upcharge. Soon they stopped doing that, with a few exceptions, and stood proud by their design.

Over time most guitarists have gotten over the shape. I'm completely used to it.

Yes, the natural finish archtops were an upcharge due to the scarcity of appropriate, unflawed wood. I have seen several instances where someone has had a solid finish removed in the hopes there was glamorous wood underneath only to find knots and other irregularities. The same is true of Gibsons.

Thanks Marty, that's very helpful.

**2bornot2bop** · 03-31-2021, 05:31 PM

I’ve owned 4 of them. I had one in a Chestnut sunburst with a single inset humbucker. I eventually sold it, but looking back I should have kept it because it’s the only single humbucker I’ve ever seen in CS. Enjoy your guitar.