chris_b Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 (edited) 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 February 11, 2018 by chris_b Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Dare Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 Seems most makers try to either copy the Fender design/devise something practical or be original. The second approach often results in ghastliness. I prefer it when form follows function - straight string pull, no odd angles, keep it simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Jack Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 When I'm playing a bass, I struggle to see the headstock and don't waste much time trying. I try not to get stressed about these things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gs_triumph Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 I don't mind at all but I guess there are few fugly headstock that might just turn me away. Sometimes things are so fugly they become beautiful. Eye of the beholder n all that! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gelfin Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 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 It is a near copy of the CS74 Which was originally made by Jim Mouradian for Chris Squire.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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ead Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 Thanks for the link! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeftyJ Posted February 12, 2018 Share Posted February 12, 2018 (edited) 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: 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: Edited February 12, 2018 by LeftyJ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Dare Posted February 12, 2018 Share Posted February 12, 2018 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wateroftyne Posted February 12, 2018 Share Posted February 12, 2018 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_b Posted February 12, 2018 Share Posted February 12, 2018 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeftyJ Posted February 12, 2018 Share Posted February 12, 2018 3 minutes 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. I beg to differ. Their bodyshapes, yes. Their headstocks, not so much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jus Lukin Posted February 12, 2018 Share Posted February 12, 2018 (edited) - Edited February 25, 2022 by Jus Lukin 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artisan Posted February 12, 2018 Share Posted February 12, 2018 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 😀 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EBS_freak Posted February 12, 2018 Share Posted February 12, 2018 4 hours ago, LeftyJ 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EBS_freak Posted February 12, 2018 Share Posted February 12, 2018 On 2/10/2018 at 21:45, ZilchWoolham said: I like Wal and Gibson (classic open book, and V) headstocks, The Wal 4 string headstock is one of my most hated headstocks of all time... but then the 5 I think is lovely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EBS_freak Posted February 12, 2018 Share Posted February 12, 2018 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigRedX Posted February 12, 2018 Share Posted February 12, 2018 On 2/10/2018 at 22:10, arthurhenry said: Fender got it right and then no one was allowed to copy it. Fender nicked it of Paul Bigsby, who nicked it of Martin who in turn nicked it off any number of 19th Century German luthiers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radiophonic Posted February 12, 2018 Share Posted February 12, 2018 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeftyJ Posted February 12, 2018 Share Posted February 12, 2018 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! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve-bbb Posted February 12, 2018 Share Posted February 12, 2018 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 ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EBS_freak Posted February 12, 2018 Share Posted February 12, 2018 (edited) Aw cmon, Alleva must be top of the pile on the JB front. EDIT: although it may be D Lakin. Edited February 12, 2018 by EBS_freak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingrayPete1977 Posted February 12, 2018 Share Posted February 12, 2018 On 10/02/2018 at 21:36, gelfin said: I quite like mine. But then I would I suppose. I'm sure I drew this in an exercise book when I was at school in the 80s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingrayPete1977 Posted February 12, 2018 Share Posted February 12, 2018 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: 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: 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EBS_freak Posted February 12, 2018 Share Posted February 12, 2018 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? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimothey Posted February 12, 2018 Share Posted February 12, 2018 What’s wrong with this headstock it’s simple, classy IMO it’s perfect I think it’s much better than this design Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.jpg.7e18f76540598a8efc0e6ca9be453059.jpg)
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.