strictly-diesel
Registered User
Join date: Sep 2012
363 IQ
#1
Does anyone else have serious beef with guitars that have a headstock that doesn't match the body? I know sound is most important and its being extremely picky but I just cant bring myself to buy a guitar that looks that mismatched. For example I want an eclipse cause I love ESP and they have some real nice finishes but then they throw on a plain black headstock and it just ruins it (although I could just get the vintage black one I guess). I donno it just feels like they're being cheap which is crap if I'm payin at over a grand for it. But is that the case or is there some other reason for it?
T00DEEPBLUE
Boba FRETT
Join date: Oct 2010
2,270 IQ
#2
How is painting something black 'being cheap'?
Quote by Axelfox
Please understand how little we as a community care
JustRooster
Professionally Crabby
Join date: Jan 2005
7,261 IQ
#3
I had a Gloss Black on a Gun Metal Green Strat. It looked rad.

Quote by EyeNon15
Thats too bad, I was under the impression I was arguing something profound

I K0nijn I
Registered User
Join date: Jul 2008
1,050 IQ
#4
Loads of guitars have black headstocks without the guitar being black.
Gibson SG
Fender CS Telecaster
Kemper Profiler
Swannie
drives a hearse
Join date: Jun 2009
1,637 IQ
#6
I can't stand black strats or teles with rosewood fretboards and plain maple headstocks for that reason. Looks cheap to me. Otherwise it doesn't bother me.
"The man that hath no music in himself, nor is not moved with concord of sweet sounds, is fit for treasons, stratagems, and spoils. The motions of his spirit are dull as night, and his affections dark as Erebus. Let no such man be trusted."
KG6_Steven
Eats ponies for breakfast
Join date: Nov 2006
3,163 IQ
#7
For me, I won't buy guitars that are painted - in other words, guitars you can't see the natural woodtone. It's partially personal preference and it's also the idea that they use lesser quality wood on solid color guitars. Guitars are made out of wood, so I want to see wood grain.

The headstock thing doesn't bother me.
W4RP1G
Please, call me Pig.
Join date: May 2010
2,847 IQ
#8
I won't say that it bugs me or looks cheap, but I prefer the look of a matching headstock over a black one. But I also like guitars with a natural headstock(not matching the body).

It annoys me when someone asserts that something "looks cheap". Often times, the thing that is supposedly cheap isn't any easier, faster, or cheaper to do, so that argument isn't very sound.
jmaguire
Registered User
Join date: Oct 2009
472 IQ
#9
Framus guitars? Warwick basses? Hardly cheap rubbish. Or even cheap looking.
[404]Signature not found
Last edited by jmaguire at Apr 10, 2013,
ProphetToJables
Tight Tight Tight
Join date: Dec 2008
1,529 IQ
#10
Quote by T00DEEPBLUE
How is painting something black 'being cheap'?


in the 70s Fender used to just paint any blemished bodies black. Resulting in a way higher number of black models being sold kind of cheap.
Gear:

Gibson 2005 Les Paul Standard
Fender Road Worn Strat w/ Noiseless pickups
Marshall JCM 2000 401C
Marshall Vintage Modern 2266
Marshall 1960A cab (Dave Hill from Slade's old cab)
Ibanez TS9DX
EHX Little Big Muff
Freshman Acoustic
T00DEEPBLUE
Boba FRETT
Join date: Oct 2010
2,270 IQ
#11
Quote by ProphetToJables
in the 70s Fender used to just paint any blemished bodies black. Resulting in a way higher number of black models being sold kind of cheap.

Well they were 70's Fenders.
Quote by Axelfox
Please understand how little we as a community care
Blompcube
Registered User Error
Join date: Aug 2006
4,368 IQ
#12
Quote by ProphetToJables
in the 70s Fender used to just paint any blemished bodies black. Resulting in a way higher number of black models being sold kind of cheap.

practically everybody does that with bodies, because it's not necessary to have a good looking body just to laquer over it. The appearance of the grain isn't going to make the guitar sound better or worse. some would call that cheap - i call it 'resourceful'.

But black headstocks are anything but cheap in more expensive guitars - sometimes they aren't painted on, they are ebony veneers.
Rig: (under construction)
1979 Yamaha SG1000
Fender Jazzmaster
1964 Vox AC30TB
A/B/Tuner box
A -> DIY fuzz, tremolo and boost -> normal channel
B -> compressor, chorus and delay -> brilliant channel
Boss TU-3/Talkbox
ProphetToJables
Tight Tight Tight
Join date: Dec 2008
1,529 IQ
#13
What I'm saying is they used the black paint as an excuse to not get good bodies, They produced a way higher number of black models.
Gear:

Gibson 2005 Les Paul Standard
Fender Road Worn Strat w/ Noiseless pickups
Marshall JCM 2000 401C
Marshall Vintage Modern 2266
Marshall 1960A cab (Dave Hill from Slade's old cab)
Ibanez TS9DX
EHX Little Big Muff
Freshman Acoustic
W4RP1G
Please, call me Pig.
Join date: May 2010
2,847 IQ
#14
Quote by ProphetToJables
in the 70s Fender used to just paint any blemished bodies black. Resulting in a way higher number of black models being sold kind of cheap.

Regardless of what Fender did at one point, a black guitar does not equal cheap.
ProphetToJables
Tight Tight Tight
Join date: Dec 2008
1,529 IQ
#15
I'm just saying if people leaned towards black guitars lookign cheap, that might be why.

On topic: Aside from Ebony Gibsons, and natural coloured Fenders, all their headstocks are mis-matched. And look great.
Gear:

Gibson 2005 Les Paul Standard
Fender Road Worn Strat w/ Noiseless pickups
Marshall JCM 2000 401C
Marshall Vintage Modern 2266
Marshall 1960A cab (Dave Hill from Slade's old cab)
Ibanez TS9DX
EHX Little Big Muff
Freshman Acoustic
dannyalcatraz
Black Cherry Jello
Join date: Dec 2008
3,265 IQ
#16
Usually, mismatched headstocks dont bug me. Nothing is wrong with chromatic counterpoints or compliments as opposed to congruence.

But I DO hate mismatched headstocks when it is clear (to me, at least) that someone messed up.

For example, while I normally praise Carvins, but this one has the wrong color purple headstock, compared to its body:
http://www.carvinguitars.com/images/guitars-in-stock/large/113718b.jpg

Here's Carvin doing it right, for comparison:
http://www.carvinguitars.com/images/guitars-in-stock/large/120129b.jpg

Who approved that first one? That person needs a smack to the back of the head.
Sturgeon's 2nd Law, a.k.a. Sturgeon's Revelation: “Ninety percent of everything is crap.”

Why, yes, I am a lawyer- thanks for asking!


alhaq369
It is very impotent to success a business.
Last edited by dannyalcatraz at Apr 10, 2013,
I K0nijn I
Registered User
Join date: Jul 2008
1,050 IQ
#17
Quote by ProphetToJables
I'm just saying if people leaned towards black guitars lookign cheap, that might be why.

On topic: Aside from Ebony Gibsons, and natural coloured Fenders, all their headstocks are mis-matched. And look great.


There are Fenders with matching headstocks, though. CIJ Jaguars are an example that have them (not sure if all of them have it, though).
Gibson SG
Fender CS Telecaster
Kemper Profiler
SteveHOC
Used Register
Join date: Jul 2012
1,051 IQ
#18
Quote by I K0nijn I
There are Fenders with matching headstocks, though. CIJ Jaguars are an example that have them (not sure if all of them have it, though).


Yep, some of the Jags and Jazzys from Japan feature that matching headstock, as do Thin Skin models of both. I love the matched headstock on the offset Fenders, but could care less otherwise.
OffsetOffset
griffin888
Registered User
Join date: Jun 2011
65 IQ
#19
Depends. I don't with Fenders. They're classics and that's how it's always been. There's some guitars that it doesn't look right with though imo.