Headstocks and tuners

[TheGreek]

[quote name='Roger2611' timestamp='1509992923' post='3403114']
"Unintentionally jab our vocalist in the ear" there was nothing unintentional when I gave our guitarist a black eye with the end of my Precision headstock, he doesn't stand so close to me nowadays.... (to explain, I am not some kind of bass wielding physco he was jumping around like an idiot I just provided him with something to crash in to)
[/quote]


...and so closes the case for the defence...

[Spike Vincent]

Anything other than 4 in a row is confusing

[Woodinblack]

3+2 - I don't like them any other way.

[quote name='Painy' timestamp='1509924352' post='3402695']
Seen a few 5 string Maruszczyks recently with a Fender style headstock in a 3+2 and it just doesn't look right to me somehow.
[/quote]

I have one. Couldn't stand a 4+1, that just looks like an afterthought

[Matt P]

i voted 2+2 mainly as i like the shorter headstock, my real preference is 2+3 as it allows the b-tuner to be slightly further from the nut which i've found prevents issues with the b-string running out of silk length, i've had a couple of 5 strings where the thickest part of the b-string ended up on the tuner.

i actually have a few of these variations in my collection, and i'm not sure a precision (or a jazz for that matter) would look right with anything other than 4 a side (or 4+1 for my P5) i haven't got anything 3+1 yet but a stingray is on my bucket list.

Matt

[stingrayPete1977]

I think the 3+1 works well from a marketing point of view along with the oval plate, it's the first thing you see glinting in some Queen videos before the lights come up fully.