The Name on the HEADSTOCK

vic

We often see "you pay extra for the name on the headstock"...or..."I don't care what's on the headstock"...or...etc.

How important is that "name on the headstock" when you buy a guitar (or a keyboard, or a piano, or...) ?

???

Attila

Depends if you can make music or only talk about it ..... ?

Vic this is a trap question coming from a purist such as yourself

vic

Attila Barath wrote: Depends if you can make music or only talk about it ..... ?

Vic this is a trap question coming from a purist such as yourself

Certainly not Atilla... ? It will be interesting to hear a few honest comments. For me the "name" is a reference point ito many things......for others it may be quite different ?

aubs1

I would love to see who says what here ..... can't wait for some of the response you gonna get Vic! ? (...... and some lies!)

nick

The name on the headstock is the company that makes the type of guitar I want, so sure. Not a big fan of copies, its easy to just copy someone elses original design and claim its better.

vic

Aubs1 wrote: I would love to see who says what here ..... can't wait for some of the response you gonna get Vic! ? (...... and some lies!)

LOL !.....Thus the invite to speak up on this often DELICATE topic..... ?

AlanRatcliffe

It's complicated. ? It goes both ways and it should be a guarantee of sorts, but it isn't. It's also personal, based on our own experience and from those we trust.

Certain names carry with them an assurance of quality, resale value. Some carry an expectation of a high price tag, while others it's value-for-money. Others for pure crap. If I see "PRS" or "Suhr" I know more-or-less what to expect. The same with "Cort" or indeed, even "Sanchez" - I still know what kind of things to expect, but obviously I will not expect the same things as I do with a Suhr.

With the older, well-established names, it gets far more complex - they haven't always produced great guitars. Heck, sometimes they haven't even produced good guitars. They have "periods" which are better (or better regarded) than others, they've had models or ranges which were better (or were received better) than others, and they have had periods of spotty (or nonexistant) quality control. And to top it off, there is a lot of subjective opinion about which is which (I won't even look at a big headstock Strat or '70s Paul, but I know others who are drawn to them).

The newer brands have it easier in some ways - shorter histories. If they have started at a high level and sustained it, it makes it easier for a buyer to judge what they are getting before (or even in lieu of) picking the instrument up and playing it. It can also play against them - if they start by building cheapies (even decent ones), it can be difficult for them to break away from that when they do make something really nice.

ryanguit

We'll here is a question of sorts... If it says Fender on the headstock BIG and "made in China" on the back then wouldn't you rather play a Fernandez? Which one is really the Copy? Both. And some copies are better than others. I'd go as far to say some current models are not very good copies of what the same company has done in the past.

vic

Alan Ratcliffe wrote: It's complicated. ? It goes both ways and it should be a guarantee of sorts, but it isn't. It's also personal, based on our own experience and from those we trust.

Certain names carry with them an assurance of quality, resale value. Some carry an expectation of a high price tag, while others it's value-for-money. Others for pure crap. If I see "PRS" or "Suhr" I know more-or-less what to expect. The same with "Cort" or indeed, even "Sanchez" - I still know what kind of things to expect, but obviously I will not expect the same things as I do with a Suhr.

With the older, well-established names, it gets far more complex - they haven't always produced great guitars. Heck, sometimes they haven't even produced good guitars. They have "periods" which are better (or better regarded) than others, they've had models or ranges which were better (or were received better) than others, and they have had periods of spotty (or nonexistant) quality control. And to top it off, there is a lot of subjective opinion about which is which (I won't even look at a big headstock Strat or '70s Paul, but I know others who are drawn to them).

The newer brands have it easier in some ways - shorter histories. If they have started at a high level and sustained it, it makes it easier for a buyer to judge what they are getting before (or even in lieu of) picking the instrument up and playing it. It can also play against them - if they start by building cheapies (even decent ones), it can be difficult for them to break away from that when they do make something really nice.

I think this sums it up very nicely...IOW to my mind the "name on the headstock" is not just a name but rather gives a broader perspective of the item at hand, albeit it a fuzz box, amp or violin

vic

ryanguit wrote: We'll here is a question of sorts... If it says Fender on the headstock BIG and "made in China" on the back then wouldn't you rather play a Fernandez? Which one is really the Copy? Both. And some copies are better than others. I'd go as far to say some current models are not very good copies of what the same company has done in the past.

Good question... ?

Bob-Dubery

I pay attention to the name on the headstock, but I don't feel any particular brand loyalty. If I see a good player inclining towards a certain instrument or brand then I pay attention and ask questions: why do they use THAT rather than some other? The instrument might not suit me, but the fact that some name player uses a certain guitar tells me it has something going for it.

But you have to beware. Brian May used to use a rather cheap acoustic guitar on records, because it had a particular buzz that he liked. He wanted the cheap sound.

Or some players have very heavily modified guitar. You're not going to buy a strat and sound like Ry Cooder for example. Or they have a somehow less obviously non-standard guitar. So you buy a Les Paul but you won't sound quite like Peter Green.

Aaaargggh! I don't know what it means.

shaunf

The name on the headstock is not particularly important to me, but my personal attachment to the instrument is vital. If I don't bond with it, it makes no difference what it's name is or isn't.

ftcl

Joe Moore wrote:

The more you practise / learn , the better you get , no matter what the name on the headstock is. 8)

+1.

However.

This does not stop me from wanting that all important name on the headstock. Even though I cannot in any way whatsoever warrant buying it. My current main guitar is everything I want. Except sometimes. Sometimes I can't help but wonder: Would it not be better?

psyx

Sometimes owning that guitar with the name on the headstock which you desire, makes you WANT to practice more.

Give a man a R1200 SX and he'll play for a day, give a man a R12 000 strat and he'll feel obligated to play for a month :?

Ray

Vic wrote:
How important is that "name on the headstock" when you buy a guitar (or a keyboard, or a piano, or...) ?

???

I think people buy guitars for different reasons. If you're buying the guitar for playing it then it might not be the most important thing about the guitar. If you're buying to invest then depending on the model, date and serial number etc. it will be important. If you're buying for prestige then it is all important.

Bob-Dubery

Here's a question. You're in a working band. You need a new guitar player. Some oke walks in to audition and he plugs in a sanchez. Does that result in immediate points added or points deducted?

Ray

I guess it's ppoints off. But will it be in your mind what guitar brand does the guy play when you anticipate the audition? If he steps up with a Gibson will you say, ok this is a good start? Maybe because then he looks serious enough about what he wants to do.

Keira-WitherKay

? great question bob ..... Skill tho out weighs gear when one is seeking band members as long as the oplayer can crack the tone needed

and yes back 30 yrs ago a cheap guitars wouldn't stay in tune But todays budget line guitars are great .... And giggable for live playing same with amps a cube 8o will more than do the job in most live bands ...... Just not in the studio ....so we living in a good time

and +1 to joels post ... No guitar makes anyone play better ..... And that argument of a good guitar makes a player practise more ...only holds true till the honeymoon period is over and it too will gather dust

but people buy name brands cos they want to buy into the vibe , heritage , status of the brand same as one does when shopping for that rolex or top end car, or mansion of a house ....

Are name brands better instruments ..... Hell yes ... Maybe a cheapie or copy can crack a similar tone .... But i tend to find its the feel that is hugely better on name brands .....most cheap guitars even more expensive ones just feel cheap but i could gig live with anything that stays in tune ....

So for me keira, my answer to the question is two fold .....

1. Yes it is important ... Cos that name has a heritage attatched, which we as emotional beings tap into .....and yes top end name brand gear is good quality an WILL HAVE A RESALE

and after the disasterous experience i had with a top end COPY which was valued well into double figures which on paper people rave about.... But maybe i expected too much but it fell so short of the mark and my 6k epiphone jazz box sounded and was better built .... So dissapointed i put it up for sale at a great price and no takers eventually i swopped it for something i did not want just to get rid of it ..... So that was my wakeup call that i will buy only usa made fenders and gibsons when buying top end instruments ..... Never again a copy said to be as good as or better ...

However if i buy a cheapie as in 4k or less guitar i will buy anything that sounds good or catch's my fancy.... No matter what the brand But if i'm investing more it needs to be a name brand ...

Bob-Dubery

There's lots of things to argue each way. It's true that guitars are not containers of talent, but a good guitar can enable one to better realise one's idea and talent.

In a way we're farting against thunder arguing in favour of the budget brands. The majority of the players we each look up to are playing high end guitars (as identified by the name on the headstock). Why is that? There talent is not diminished if they play a cheapy, but they don't save the money and play the cheapy. Why?

Norman86

X-rated Bob wrote: In a way we're farting against thunder arguing in favour of the budget brands. The majority of the players we each look up to are playing high end guitars (as identified by the name on the headstock).

in most cases, those guitars are custom made for them!
they might not become signature guitars sold by the company, but they will be specially made.. Especially if the big boys are endorsing them!

i cant remember if it was Ray Dylan, or Gerhard Steyn that went through the Gibson factory.. Either way, a custom Gibson was built up for him, and shipped back when it was done! Sure, it was organised by his manager, but its still a custom!
and im pretty sure its not an isolated case!