stingrayfan Posted July 5, 2008 Share Posted July 5, 2008 Why do so few basses have colour-matched painted headstocks? To my eye, it makes them look unfinished. Wonder if there's a historical reason why they never bothered to spray the head the same colour as the body. Cost or fashion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tait Posted July 5, 2008 Share Posted July 5, 2008 leo fender invented the bass. he never put coloured headstocks on his guitars (well he did some), so i guess he just decided not to put them on his basses. people just followed his lead i guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budget bassist Posted July 5, 2008 Share Posted July 5, 2008 (edited) i don't like painted headstocks on some basses, musicman stingrays and fenders in particular, just doesn't suit them. Adversely it does suit other basses like ESPs and the like. It's all subjective. Nothing's stopping people getting a luthier to spray the headstock and getting the decals put over the top, so i guess a lot of people like it unpainted. Edited July 5, 2008 by budget bassist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingrayfan Posted July 5, 2008 Author Share Posted July 5, 2008 [quote name='budget bassist' post='233209' date='Jul 5 2008, 04:17 PM']Nothing's stopping people getting a luthier to spray the headstock and getting the decals put over the top...[/quote] You're putting ideas into my head, stop it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigRedX Posted July 5, 2008 Share Posted July 5, 2008 I'd go one step further an say that I don't much like necks that don't match the colour of the body. I would guess it's a matter of ease of mass-production and cheapness, started by Fender. At the time the other serious bass made by Gibson and Rickenbacker had set or through necks and were sprayed up to match the body. With the Fenders the necks could be made entirely independently of the bodies and just bolted on at the end. Since they were all 'natural' finished no extra time or effort was wasted finding the matching neck for the body just grab and body and a neck and bolt them together. Job done. Move onto the next bass. The rest is history... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bass_ferret Posted July 5, 2008 Share Posted July 5, 2008 This is a question of aesthetics? Which looks best? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budget bassist Posted July 6, 2008 Share Posted July 6, 2008 the black one ^^^ but only because i don't like red basses and that scratchplate is rather ugly (sorry) Am i the only one that finds fender basses hideous with painted headstocks? Same with most musicman basses too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deep Thought Posted July 6, 2008 Share Posted July 6, 2008 I'd say the black, but the red one would look lousy with a red painted headstock IMO. Colour of the fingerboard makes a diiference too-I think rosewood boards look better with painted headstocks, whereas maple ones look better unpainted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonny Walker Posted July 6, 2008 Share Posted July 6, 2008 Your never going to get a precise answer because its all opinion anyhow although 'BigRedX' seems to have it on the money... Then again just realised all my basses have painted headstock's must be a subliminal thing lol... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lfalex v1.1 Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 It's never really bothered me, but I do have 3 with matching headstocks. 2 have matching Necks AND Fretboards (!) too... There's no accounting for taste! Just as well that they all play well and sound good! I should imagine the original natural headstock concept was driven by cost and ease of manufacture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickeyboro Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 A purple neck...never thought I'd see the day!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoo Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 [quote name='budget bassist' post='233513' date='Jul 6 2008, 11:37 AM']Am i the only one that finds fender basses hideous with painted headstocks? Same with most musicman basses too.[/quote] Nope - same here. Maple necks and headstocks should be left naked. I don't even really like the look of rosewood boards on them, although I've accepted the compromise on my OLP MM22 cos of the huge price difference. Colour matched headstocks just always seem to look massively naff to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spinynorman Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 (edited) The (always have to be different) Gibson approach - black front of headstock to match ebony fretboard, red back of headstock and neck to match body. It's a bit of a shock, the first time you see it in the flesh. It's mahogany though and I'm not a big fan of mahogany left uncovered. Edited July 7, 2008 by spinynorman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bassmanady Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 [quote name='Lfalex v1.1' post='233903' date='Jul 7 2008, 07:54 AM']It's never really bothered me, but I do have 3 with matching headstocks. 2 have matching Necks AND Fretboards (!) too... There's no accounting for taste! Just as well that they all play well and sound good! I should imagine the original natural headstock concept was driven by cost and ease of manufacture.[/quote]I dont mind either painted or natural,depends on the colour/design/fingerboard of the bass,as already mentioned,IMO the blue bass would not look as good without the matching headstock.which really sets it off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingrayfan Posted July 7, 2008 Author Share Posted July 7, 2008 (edited) This is turning into painted headstock porn - I like it. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all that but to me, this is tasty: This, less so: Edited July 7, 2008 by stingrayfan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve-soar Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 [quote name='spinynorman' post='234319' date='Jul 7 2008, 05:30 PM']The (always have to be different) Gibson approach - black front of headstock to match ebony fretboard, red back of headstock and neck to match body. It's a bit of a shock, the first time you see it in the flesh. It's mahogany though and I'm not a big fan of mahogany left uncovered. [/quote]Is that your bass? It's a stunner. I'm a sucker for red basses and pointy too, great. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lfalex v1.1 Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 Did some one say "pointy"? Just reminded me of another colour-matched headstock, neck and body... Apologies for blurred photo, missing string and dead pots. Soon to be reborn, methinks. I have sufficient spare bits to go either black or chrome with the hardware, and I might chuck a BadAss on there. I'm open to pick-up suggestions... The current ones are "HardPunchers" Any relation to a certain Tokai "P" copy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spinynorman Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 [quote name='steve-soar' post='234846' date='Jul 8 2008, 11:22 AM']Is that your bass? It's a stunner. I'm a sucker for red basses and pointy too, great.[/quote] Yes, it's mine. I wanted a Thunderbird without the narrow neck. It's great to play, but doesn't work that well in a band context. Seems to make the guitarist nervous. At least, if the 80s ever come back, I'll be ready. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.gif.9ad672bb8b84505709f76b39c8c256ec.gif)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.