Jump to content
Why become a member? ×

What is it with headstock design?


Owen

Recommended Posts

Ugly is in the eye of the beholder. As long as I can get a good sound out of it then, for me, any instrument is up for consideration.

On the other hand, head stocks I don't rate are the Kubicki Factor 5, or the extended B string design that Fodera occasionally use and for practical reasons the nice looking angled back Gibson head stocks are a bad design. If the best sounding bass in the world was the ugliest and I could afford it, I'm sure I'd own at least one. 

Edited by chris_b
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, ead said:

That is stunning.  Is it one of the Mouradian (may have mispelt that) basses that Chris Squire used to use, albeit with a different pickup combo?  I'd love to try one of these.

This is a custom build for me by Andyjr1515. It is a near copy of the CS74 Which was originally made by Jim Mouradian for Chris Squire.

I've had it for over a year now and still love it

Full build diary here.   

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I especially find many British headstock designs rather dull, somehow. Guys like Overwater, Status, Eggle... Very similar in design, just a generic and bland shape. Could just as well have been a cheap Stagg or whatever. I like a headstock to be instantly recognizable by its shape or other features. Not something entirely featureless like this:

Headstock_1000x72_608e95b8-bed9-42a6-a3f

patrick-eggle-berlin-pro-24_360_9119bba1

merlin_detail_lg3.jpg

acg-headstock_322_250.jpg

 

Surely they could have thought up something better to match their well thought-out bodyshapes?

And then there's gems like that D. Lakin headstock on the previous page, or this:

 

4158332095d0ff5eef14f392a2f1d2f9.jpg

Edited by LeftyJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LeftyJ said:

I especially find many British headstock designs rather dull, somehow. Guys like Overwater, Status, Eggle... Very similar in design, just a generic and bland shape. Could just as well have been a cheap Stagg or whatever. 

Those headstocks by Overwater et al are fine. Form following function - straight string pull, decent break angle over the nut, not overly large/heavy (and therefore less risk of neck dive). It's an instrument, not a fashion accessory after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dan Dare said:

Those headstocks by Overwater et al are fine. Form following function - straight string pull, decent break angle over the nut, not overly large/heavy (and therefore less risk of neck dive). It's an instrument, not a fashion accessory after all.

That logo, though.. it's one step away from Comic Sans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taking Overwater as an example, if your design goals are to produce a Precision or Jazz shaped bass then you need a unique head stock to differentiate your instrument from the others. If your bass has a unique body shape then the design of the headstock isn't as important.

Overwater are a quality act and the headstocks look fine to me. They are recognisable at a distance, which is what they were designed to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, chris_b said:

 

Overwater are a quality act and the headstocks look fine to me. They are recognisable at a distance, which is what they were designed to do.

The worst neck joint I have ever seen was on an overwater jazz bass I used to own,it had 4.5mm of very rough plastic shimmingin the neck cavity which left virtually no wood to wood connection,Just a large air gap.

When I complained to overwater they weren't interested & said that it was perfectly acceptable on a bolt on bass !

Sorry for going o/t

Rant over 😀

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Dan Dare said:

Those headstocks by Overwater et al are fine. Form following function - straight string pull, decent break angle over the nut, not overly large/heavy (and therefore less risk of neck dive). It's an instrument, not a fashion accessory after all.

Agreed - the requirement for a straight string lie pretty much dictates the shape that a headstock needs to be. They are all variations on a theme. Yes, there's loads of people doing whacky headstocks... but they invariably end up being clunky or meaning that a string doesn't lie straight through the nut and hence more likely to cause tuning issues or strings jumping out of the nut. I'd say all of those British luthiers have done a great job or meeting the spec.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't the problem with headstocks, the lawsuit issue? There are only a few practical ways of arranging the machine heads and resonance deadspot issues if you get the amount of wood beyond the nut wrong. Meanwhile Fender's lawyers are waiting to pounce. Personally, I've always liked the Travis Bean 'open T' design. Probably doesn't work with wood though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, EBS_freak said:

Ah JT. Instantly recognisable headstock. I'd say job done. May not be to everybody's taste but as soon as you see it in print, on the TV etc, you know exactly what it is.

Very true. But ugly as hell nevertheless! xD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/02/2018 at 21:15, owen said:

So many lovely basses out there. So many ........ unpleasing headstocks. I have no positive suggestions, don't get me wrong. But people who can design really nice bodies just miss the spot with the headstock. Or is it just me?

 

Disclaimer - I am stuck in front of Saturday night TV and I am bored. I will also not be pointing out examples of what I mean - nothing to be gained by dissing people on a public forum. 

you mean like sadowsky and fodera ?  :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, LeftyJ said:

I especially find many British headstock designs rather dull, somehow. Guys like Overwater, Status, Eggle... Very similar in design, just a generic and bland shape. Could just as well have been a cheap Stagg or whatever. I like a headstock to be instantly recognizable by its shape or other features. Not something entirely featureless like this:

Headstock_1000x72_608e95b8-bed9-42a6-a3f

patrick-eggle-berlin-pro-24_360_9119bba1

merlin_detail_lg3.jpg

acg-headstock_322_250.jpg

 

Surely they could have thought up something better to match their well thought-out bodyshapes?

And then there's gems like that D. Lakin headstock on the previous page, or this:

 

4158332095d0ff5eef14f392a2f1d2f9.jpg

The bass ones look good to me, nice straight after length beyond the nut, I'm still amazed BigredX was happy with the Rickenbacher five string in the other thread after reading previous posts regarding tuning peg layout,  the Ric is just terrible, bad break angles, big clumsy neck dive head and little tuning posts awkward for wrapping a B string around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, stingrayPete1977 said:

The bass ones look good to me, nice straight after length beyond the nut, I'm still amazed BigredX was happy with the Rickenbacher five string in the other thread after reading previous posts regarding tuning peg layout,  the Ric is just terrible, bad break angles, big clumsy neck dive head and little tuning posts awkward for wrapping a B string around.

So you're a fan then?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...