Do headstocks ever become a buying factor.....

[llamalor2112]

The room I use at home to practice in is somewhat...er...cramped. I did not want my Geddy's headstock to whack into anything so I purchased a Steinberger (no headstock at all)!

 

[bassteban]

Most of the time it makes no difference, but I likely won't ever own a Spector because of the HS, inparticular the way the strings are angled. I imagine it doesn't affect anything much, but it bugs me to look at it.
BTW, I appreciate the carrot option- I'd hate to see that TB tradition go the way of the dinosaurs.

 

[HEIST]

Yeah. I like matching headstocks and some are just plain ugly.

 

[bassrique]

Some headstocks are just plain ugly. I'm sorry, but Avella Coppolo heastocks hurt my eyes.

Fender has a great headstock.

I also like the Peavey Zodiac. Oh yeah, the Dingwall "Classic J" is nice.

 

[Blake Bass]

I played a Sukop at the NAMM show a few years ago and was totally blown way by the sound and playability, but because of the weird looking headstock I could never own one.

 

[alexofc69]

Yes, for me the headstock is a factor in the overall appeal of the bass. Example: Pedulla Thunderbolt/Thunderbass/Rapture. I like the look of the body, plays great, but the headstock is horrible.

 

[neonrust]

WOW! I thought I would be the only shallow fool, but I am glad to see some others that feel the same. Also....regardless of certain headstock's or the basses they accompany, they all have a great musical deed to preform along with their owner. That said, I am happy that there are so many different choices available(tone/aesthetics). I would hate a 1 bass world.


BTW...I am pleased to see that I may not have to choke on a carrot.

 

[NickMarinelli]

When I first got into bass guitars 30 years ago, I simply hated the FEnder head stock. I thought those huge tuners lined up all on top looked like crap, and I could not figure out how anyone could disagree. My first three basses (hofner 500/1 Beatle Bass, Gibson Grabber, and Ibanez BEAN bass are all 2+2 head stocks, and I liked it that way.

Somewhere down the line, I lost my repulsion to the Fender head stocks and I recently purchased a Fender MiM FSR Jazz. Best purchase I ever made, and I love the looks and the feel.

These days, the only head stocks I really don't line are the pointy Dean ones.

 

[Marill]

when i'm going to put down $3000 for the instrument, yes, everything matters... color, headstock etc

 

[fretlessman71]

WOW! I thought I would be the only shallow fool...

Nope. Apparently there are PLENTY of shallow fools here on TB.

Honestly! Turning down a bass because "you think the headstock looks funny"? A bass that might play perfectly and sound unbelievable to you and have everything else you might want, but the headstock is "funny" and you won't buy it? Wow.

We now return you to the kiddie pool so you can all wallow in your shallowness.

 

[MattChancellor]

Well, yes... I won't buy another Epiphone les paul, only a Gibson, both because my les paul is satisfactory and because I love the Gibson custom shop headstocks.

Of course, for a $2,000+ guitar, it had better be fully satisfactory. I think the warwick headstocks look goofy but I own a rockbass, so it's not always a factor for me.

 

[Expendable Bass]

I've never liked the inline headstock look, but I'll be darned if it'll prevent me from buying a bass I love. It's still a nice bass.

 

[JPaulGeddy]

Yep, I'll confess to shallow. But if it's *my* bass, why can't I have an opinion on it. I tend to prefer in-lines, and it was very much was part of the decision in my last purchase.

 

[Smallmouth_Bass]

I think that the headstock shape is an important aesthetic to the overall look of the bass. I'm not sure it would be a deal breaker for me. Luckily, I like many different shapes and tuner configurations, so I don't have any "all in line" limitations or such to my preferences.

I also like the Peavey Zodiac. Oh yeah, the Dingwall "Classic J" is nice.

Oh, and it's Super J, not Classic J!
And yes, it's a very nice headstock.

 

[Enmesarra]

Yes!

I personally thank Warwick for having a crappy headstock shape, otherwise I wouldn't be able stop myself from robbing a bank or something to buy a Corvette.

 

[Hoover]

It would never be a dealbreaker for me, and I'm perfectly willing to tolerate a hideously ugly headstock if the bass has something to offer. But I definitely recognize how a well proportioned, sublimely shaped, or smartly finished headstock can make the difference between a nice looking bass and an awesome looking bass.

 

[rob2966]

Some headstocks are just plain ugly. I'm sorry, but Avella Coppolo heastocks hurt my eyes.

Fender has a great headstock.

I also like the Peavey Zodiac. Oh yeah, the Dingwall "Classic J" is nice.

+1. Every time I see an AC I think it looks like a Walmart special. Also don't care for the "absent control plate" pickguard. The notch makes it seem like it should be there, but they forgot to install it.

Oh well, to each their own.

Later
Rob

 

[JimmyM]

Agreed on both the AC headstock and the absent control plate notch. But I'd still buy one if I had $3500 for one bass, which I don't. Couldn't give a crap about them as long as they don't break off.

 

[aikakone]

Love the Spector headstock. The entire thing is gorgeous, but that jsut adds to it. So I'll agree with those who have said that it is part of the decision making process.

Yeah, I realize the party line is that it's all about how you play it, but that doesn't mean I want to play something ugly. Someone on a thread commented that life was too short to play an ugly bass. I'll agree to that.

 

[TheGrizz]

I'm not totally picky with headstocks, but they are definitely a factor when I am looking at basses. A 2+2 headstock on any Fender-type bass really weirds me out. Equally a Grabber with a 4-in line headstock would do the same. I don't really care as long as it fits with the bass' style.