Official Luthiers Forum!

Im at the point on my second build in which i am designing the neck! here is a picture of my headstock on the first one i built! I need opinions as to whether you'll think i should keep it?!. Modify it?! or completely change it?!

Jonathan



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

I really like to see people try different designes, different from the retro Martin style. I'm just not that into that paddle square plain looking shape. However, there are plenty of people out there that think exactly the oppopsite of me

With that said, I'm still a rebel and I think you should stick in the ball park of what you created. My original shape that I made for my first is the backbone of what I have now. Looking back to all my drawings and templates, I absolutely hate the way the first looked (at first I thought it was great ). If it didn't go through those phases though, it wouldn't be where it is right now, and I absolutely LOVE it now! If you play around enough, sticking to what you originally made, you might come up with something that to you will be some tasty eye candy.

Mike Doolin has a "different" headstock shape and the double cutaway. I've heard people say that he makes the ugliest guitars that they have ever seen. Myself, on the other hand, I absolutely love everything about his design. This just means that there are many opinions out there, and if you make something that YOU really like, there will be an audience for it out there guaranteed.

Can't say that I'm too keen on what you have there (looks like a head with a bad haircut), but I agree with what lavrov said. Use that as a starting point and continue to refine.

As it is...my eye breaks this down into three isolated design elements; 1. the square side ear, 2. the pointed side ear, and 3. the bulbous middle.

To me....it's better if the whole thing reflects a common design theme....meaning that you see it as a whole, single expression, and not three seperate ones. Sorry if that sounds vague but I can't find another way to put it. I'll just say what I'd do with it and you can take or leave this.....it's an opinion.

The side ears.....one of them is pointed and the other is squared. I'd make them both pointed.....not necessarily symmetrical, either in shape or in placement...but have each side carry a similar shape. Then I'd take that pointed theme and apply a small tip in the middle of the bulbous middle....to help carry the theme.

_________________
I read Emerson on the can. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds...true...but a consistent reading of Emerson has its uses nevertheless.

StuMusic

Here is something to consider when designing a headstock shape.

How easy/difficult will it be to bind that sucka if someone/you wanted to.

Your shape, in my hands, would be a total nightmare to bind.

Just sayin.....

_________________
P A U L B U R N E R
Burner Guitars

Amen to that! Binding the fancy shapes can be a challenge. One way to work around that is to trim the head plate a little more to yield the depth of the binding. That way there is no need to route a chanelle for the binding. Just glue on the bound head plate to the neck and cut tht shape on the bandsaw and perfect it on a sander

I like it, it's unique. The asymmetric shape is nice but could maybe use a little refinement. I would open up the notch on the bass side into a bit more of a vee rather than a slit.

_________________
Brian

You never know what you are capable of until you actually try.

https://www.howardguitarsdelaware.com/

I think it's nice too.

When I have an asymmetric headstock, I like to set my tuning posts asymmetrically too. So in your case, I'd raise the point and the posts up just slightly on the bass side, and down on the treble side. Just a touch...maybe 1/8" or something like that. You'd think that it makes it look weird but oddly enough it can make it look more natural and flowing.

I like the way it looks,
but, I wouldn't want to finish it.

To be honest, I find it kind of distracting. You have probably already done this, but I would explore ways of making the round part on the top a little less prominent.

Maybe something like this:

_________________
George :-)

My thoughts exactly!

_________________
Jason McGowan
M&S Guitars
_____________________________
United States of America, looks like another silent night
As we're sung to sleep by philosophies that save the trees and kill the children....
Casting Crowns

I'd have to agree. That particular design is a little too much for the rest of the guitar design. The headstock almost has a comical element to it, whereas the rest of the guitar is elegant and classy.

As others have suggested, I would try to tone it down and try to make it much less prominent (distracting is a good word).

_________________
Jim Hansen

I'm in the process of developing a new headstock, so I think I understand some of the difficulties. You can't please everyone, and you shouldn't try to. I think it's worth doing lots of drawings, getting feedback from friends and potential customers (and fellow builders), then making mock ups of just the headstock, and then repeating the feedback process. That way you can say you did your homework when you go with your own instinct, and choose the design nobody liked. (Nobody gets in this for the money.)

To be candid, I wasn't wild about your design at first. I thought George's suggestion was a big improvement. But perspective is everything. I think Todd is right: this is the "Gipper" model. You could do a whole presidential series. Looking at it that way, George's suggestion seems more like the current Republican front runner. The "Nixon" headstock could work for death metal (The "Johnson" headstock is metal-worthy too, but it just looks like an SG.)

Abstracted from the rest of the guitar makes it impossible for me to have an opinion.
Does the rest of the guitar design have that cartoonish quailty?

Sometimes an odd shaped headstock can distract from another wise nice guitar, Unless your guitar body has a wild radical design I say stick with simple. I have seen guitars that may have been great guitars but the headstock just didn't look like it belonged on that guitar. And that made me not even give them a second thought..Mike.

_________________
Another day, another dollar.

He posted more pics in his build thread. They can be seen here
viewtopic.php?f=10101&t=34845

_________________
Jim Hansen

Jonathon,
I seemed to have missed the original thread that included the other pics of your guitar. Wow! Nice job. Please take my comments above with a very large grain of salt. You obviously possess strong design sensibilities and will surely find your own way to a signature headstock shape without me chiming in.

_________________
George :-)

"The Gipper" - now that's funny. (the joke, not the headstock)

Here's my two cents. It's a very unconventional shape which isn't a bad thing. The more I look at it, the more I like it. I think you ought to experiment (on paper) with making it even a little more "Dr. Seuss", rather than toning it down. I also am bored to death of the Martin clone headstock shape. I've struggled as well to find a shape that I like, which doesn't scream "I copied this from a "insert your guitar brand of choice here". I think you should continue to refine rather than pitch it, if the shape still "speaks to you". Life's too short to build guitars because others say they should look a certain way.

The only thing I'd suggest is that your bridge design and your headstock design complement each other. On your first guitar, they look a bit like pieces of two different guitars. To state the obvious, you've got some limitations on the bridge shape due to its purpose (sharp pointy things on the top of the bridge won't work, right? Will split your top in two.) but I think you can integrate those designs a bit more.

Love your rosettes - keep it up.

I think George L nailed it. The squashed design flows much better.

I know I can be a bit slow but I don't see the Gipper in the headstock design. Unless the joke is irony, that is, using great American and Gipper in the same line

The Bozo guitars have a rather unique head stock shape. Some might find it distracting but it makes the guitars fairly recognizable from a distance. Colling's guitars on the other hand require a bit closer inspection to verify the maker. Both are good guitars, The nicer your guitar the less the peghead shape matters. Design something you like and build a fantastic guitar under it. People will love it.