Impact of a neck/headstock repair on value

[HazBeen]

After having discussions with a potential seller I wanted to get your views on this.

Whilst a headstock repair (a properly executed one) does not impact stability of the neck it does impact resale value of the instrument. But by how much?

What does BC think?

[Jack]

I've got to be honest, it's a full-on deal breaker for me. I couldn't care less about superficial damage to the body or electronics, but anything on the neck or the headstock that's under string tension is a no for me. There's enough other used basses out there.

 

Maybe, maybe, if it's either a super rare bass and I'm unlikely to get another, or if having the neck/headstock repair takes a bass I couldn't usually afford down into my budget.

[Belka]

If it's a rare or vintage instrument, especially one which is prone to headstock breakages (vintage Gibsons) the financial impact would be less (perhaps even minimal on something like a '52-'60 Gibson), providing the repair has been professionally done. On anything else I'd probably say at least 40%. I have a bass with a broken headstock, albeit professionally repaired, and I wouldn't even bother trying to sell it; the hassle of explaining the break and how it's been repaired and the money off I'd be willing to take a hit on means that any sale is just not worth my while. 

[Paul S]

For me, unless there was fully documented evidence to show who/what/when/how of the repair I wouldn't go near it because otherwise you just have someone's word for it and people sometimes tell fibs.

[Soledad]

33 minutes ago, Paul S said:

I wouldn't go near it

same. The vote form doesn't give a 'walk away' option. I'd say the area around neck to head transition is the most critical structurally and a repair may be cosmetically very good but that isn't the issue - it wasn't designed that way for a reason and I can't see inside the repair. It's like a Lalique with a chip out of it... pass.

[Hellzero]

Most of the headstock repairs are poor job done by someone not having a clue what he is doing. I know that it won't break were it's been glued, but if it had broken once, it will break again. This means that something hasn't been taken into account. So at least 60% value loss.

[fretmeister]

The amusing thing is - if it was a Les Paul, then the neck will be stronger after the break and repair than before!

Even so - I'd have to be desperate for that model, and I'd need to know who did the work (with a receipt) before I considered it.

[Lozz196]

5 minutes ago, fretmeister said:

The amusing thing is - if it was a Les Paul, then the neck will be stronger after the break and repair than before!

Sad but more than likely true.

[Paulhauser]

I'm agree with what others said above:

- I would not buy a bass with reparied neck/headstock/any sizeable crack on wood elsewhere like the fingerboard or the body/top. 

- If one of my basses would suffer such a damage I had it repaired with some of those luthiers here who can do a great jobs then I'd keep it for lifetime. 

[DoubleOhStephan]

Yeah, deal breaker for me too. 

[HazBeen]

Interesting comments and input folks. Appreciated. I think the consensus is that if the fix is proper a loss of 40-50% is still to be expected if not you walk away (or make it a headless  ...).

[BigRedX]

IMO it depends on the bass, the nature of the break (and what caused it) and the quality of the repair.