Gibson Gripes:

[Gilmourisgod]

Here's a little more info on the infamous Fender truss rod access issue that no one on this thread seems to have ever heard of.... Yes it exists and was largely but not completely engineered out.
removing neck to adjust truss rod

And as for the Gibson truss rod sectional view photo posted a few messages up the thread... Let's get a little more intellectually honest - that cross section showing the rod access cut out with scant little wood left below the rod and the back of the headstock only exists at the cutout hole, it is not the entire width of the headstock. If that sectional cut had been made either a quarter inch to the right or left of the truss you'd see full headstock wood thickness all the way to the fretboard/nut area with no obvious weak spot.

All that said, is the Gibson headstock design more robust than the Fender flat headstock design? Nope, it's much less robust. Is it adequate to get the job done and strong enough to eliminate the possibility of failure under normal use? Absolutely it is. Will the Gibson headstock fail under abuse (i.e. Dropping on the headstock, stepping on the neck...) before the Fender headstock? Quite likely. Gibson does not have a design flaw in its headstock, it's perfectly functional as is. Fender on the other hand does have a design flaw in its flat headstock design and had to resort to string retainers to keep the Strings from jumping out of the nut grooves while playing.

Conclusion, if you intend to abuse your bass you might want to consider a Fender, it's more forgiving. However, neither design is documented to suffer from spontaneous self destruction, either one requires an idiot or otherwise careless person to set the failure in action.

I'm all for a little intellectual honesty, of course it has to cut both ways. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, chances are it's a duck
Broken Headstock Gibson - Saferbrowser Yahoo Image Search Results

Notice how they all break at the same place in basses and guitars, at the short grain under the trussrod pocket. OK, It's not a design flaw, it's Gibson's Quick N' Easy Headstock Separation Feature", works like charm!

Interestingly, if you Google "Broken Headstock Fender", you STILL get mostly busted Gibsons!
Broken Headstock Fender - Saferbrowser Yahoo Image Search Results

"Broken Headstock Rickenbacker" doesn't yield much, but I did find this one:

See anything familiar in the location and angle of the break? I think the relative rarity of this kind of break on Rics is due to the shallower headstock angle, you still have short grain and no volute, but the grain travels farther out the headstock due to the shallower angle.

 

[TBird1958]

Seriously it's just a question of your stupidity, not the structural integrity of the bass.
I can't imagine a sax player choosing one brand over another based on it's ability to be dropped and abused.....

Anything can be broken, I can post pics like this up all day long too.

 

[Gilmourisgod]

Seriously it's just a question of your stupidity, not the structural integrity of the bass.
I can't imagine a sax player choosing one brand over another based on it's ability to be dropped and abused.....

Anything can be broken, I can post pics like this up all day long too.

Sure you can break anything with enough force, but rock maple is HUGELY stronger than mahogany, and Fenders have very little short grain in the headstock area, because it's an extension of the neck beam, which makes them MUCH harder to break. That's not opinion, it's verifiable objective fact, and well known among luthiers. Hell, don't take my word for it, I'm just another schmo on TB, do a little reading if you are interested in comparative guitar design and why some designs hold up to ordinary use or minor accidents better than others. Here's a pretty good illustration of why a scarf joint is superior to the Gibson/Rickenbacker headstock design.
Link Removed
Some basic info on grain orientation and comparative strength of mahogany vs. maple. This isn't rocket science, furntiure and instrument makers figured this stuff out hundreds of years ago:
Wood Strength

 

[TBird1958]

Sure you can break anything with enough force, but rock maple is HUGELY stronger than mahogany, and Fenders have very little short grain in the headstock area, because it's an extension of the neck beam, which makes them MUCH harder to break. That's not opinion, it's verifiable objective fact, and well known among luthiers. Hell, don't take my word for it, I'm just another schmo on TB, do a little reading if you are interested in comparative guitar design and why some designs hold up to ordinary use or minor accidents better than others. Here's a pretty good illustration of why a scarf joint is superior to the Gibson/Rickenbacker headstock design.
Link Removed

Sorry, I own plenty of Gibson basses (that's my own real world experience, not your internet hearsay) and have played them out for decades with no issues, just the usual care any responsible adult would give an instrument. Anybody can break a bass' headstock, that it might take greater stupidity to break a Fender is hardly anything to celebrate.

 

[Shortie]

I hope the OP didn't really send that message to Gibson verbatim.

I know if I was working in customer service & I came across "BS" in the message anywhere, it's going to my trash folder.

When you give Gibson style customer service, you should expect people to be pissed.

 

[GBassNorth]

Sure you can break anything with enough force, but rock maple is HUGELY stronger than mahogany, and Fenders have very little short grain in the headstock area, because it's an extension of the neck beam, which makes them MUCH harder to break. That's not opinion, it's verifiable objective fact, and well known among luthiers. Hell, don't take my word for it, I'm just another schmo on TB, do a little reading if you are interested in comparative guitar design and why some designs hold up to ordinary use or minor accidents better than others. Here's a pretty good illustration of why a scarf joint is superior to the Gibson/Rickenbacker headstock design.
Link Removed

Look, I don't have a clue as to what your point is, other than Gibson head stocks can break easier than Fender head stocks, which is certainly a fact that I won't dispute. The bottom line (which you've continued to ignore) is that neither headstock is going to fail unless abused! Neither headstock self destructs! And therefore neither headstock has a structural design flaw!

By definition, a design FLAW would indicate that the instrument is not capable of being used as intended due to premature failure. Is the Fender design more robust, sure it is! I even said so in my previous post (you know, that little sentence you chose to ignore because it challenges your intellectual honesty). Photos of broken head stocks regardless of what bass they are from are completely meaningless unless accompanied by the back story outlining how it happened.

Perfect example, there was a TBer who recently purchased a very nice SG. Within a week after he got it he posted a picture of the headstock snapped off. I was nearly as heartbroken as I'm sure he was. It was a beautiful bass and no one deserves to have that happen to them. He later posted how it happened. IIRC the bass was laying on his bed and he didn't realize it when he sat down on it. You could certainly post his failed headstock picture here and make stupid comments about quacks like a duck but in reality I don't think any bass player in their right mind specifically goes out and buys basses with the intent of using them as chair seats or bed mattresses. If that's how you use your bass then don't expect it to last as long as one that gets normal use.

Try being intellectually honest about this - it can be refreshing, and you don't even have to relinquish the position that Fender head stocks are more robust than Gibson head stocks.

 

[guy n. cognito]

Guys, if we want to be "intellectually honest":

Corporately, both Gibson and Ric are well aware of the issues with weaknesses in their headstocks. Gibson even went with a volute for a brief period of time IIRC. They've simply made a design choice. Whether it be "playability" of the heritage of older designs.....they've made a choice. It's absolutely nothing to get defensive about. They ARE weak in that spot....weaker than a Fender.....it's just a fact. In the same vein, Fender continues to make the design choice of putting the truss rod adjustment on some RI basses at the heal without an access route. Now, that doesn't make the bass weaker or more prone to breaking....it simply makes adjusting it a pain.

 

[guy n. cognito]

By definition, a design FLAW would indicate that the instrument is not capable of being used as intended due to premature failure.

A bit limited of a definition here. Guitars and basses have to be designed to withstand some levels of abuse. Headstocks get whacked and might even get dropped......and the Gibson design makes those event potentially more traumatic.

There's a fix....a really simple and time tested one, but they choose not to utilize it. Whether you want to call it a design choice or willful ignorance of a known design flaw, Gibson continues to allow it to exist.

 

[GBassNorth]

Speaking of non robust designs - anybody got a picture of a Fender bolt on neck with the neck screws ripping out of the neck heel. It happens. Or how about a pic of having to use threaded inserts for the neck bolts because the neck wood has been torn up by removing and reinstalling the screws too many times. Or how about a pic of the infamous sheared off neck screw that is embedded in the neck and has to be extracted some how. Or how about a discussion the almost guaranteed dead spot on a Fender neck. Or a pic of the not as common but still an issue string tension bent headstock on older Fenders. Or how about a pic of the slop fit that some fender necks have in some fender pockets that actually allows the neck alignment to shift over time causing runout of the G or E strings on the fretboard or misalignment of the strings over the pup pole pieces.

Surely, if the Gibson headstock is a "Design Flaw" then every single Fender issue I've listed above is also a "Design Flaw" - do you really want to go down that path?

 

[guy n. cognito]

At least your not defensive about it......

 

[GBassNorth]

A bit limited of a definition here. Guitars and basses have to be designed to withstand some levels of abuse. Headstocks get whacked and might even get dropped......and the Gibson design makes those event potentially more traumatic.

There's a fix....a really simple and time tested one, but they choose not to utilize it. Whether you want to call it a design choice or willful ignorance of a known design flaw, Gibson continues to allow it to exist.

... And Fender allows at least 7 of their neck design flaws or willful ignorance issues to continue to be marketed as well.

Bottom line, each company has a different engineering approach to their instrument designs and those various approaches all have pros and cons and fans and haters. To each their own.

But please don't be so intellectually dishonest as to imply that if you buy a Gibson bass it's only a matter of time before the headstock mysteriously snaps off. Unless of course you're willing to say the same thing about It being only a matter of time before the neck screws in your Fender strip out the wood or shear off in the neck or you find a dead spot on the G string or you have to remove the neck to adjust the truss or you notice the neck has shifted in the pocket or you need to install threaded inserts in your neck or you've noticed the headstock starting to bend up or the strings won't stay in the nut unless you use a string tree.

 

[guy n. cognito]

If it placates you at all, I do consider the Fender truss rod in the heel without access to be a design flaw. Although.....they did seem to address that issues about 30 years ago with the exception of RI and certain artist basses......

I'll keep my Geddy Lee MIA Jazz stock except for a route in the pick guard for the rod.....

 

[guy n. cognito]

But please don't be so intellectually dishonest as to imply that if you buy a Gibson bass it's only a matter of time before the headstock mysteriously snaps off.

That's a bit of a straw man, as no one here has said that. But you know that....

 

[GBassNorth]

When you give Gibson style customer service, you should expect people to be pissed.

Fortunately I've never had to deal with their customer service, or the CS department of any of my basses. If they have poor service then shame on them at the prices they ask for their instruments.

 

[/\/\3phist0]

Look at a Warwick or Spector to see how a volute is successfully incorporated into a bass headstock to improve the concerns in that area.

And Warwick are a one piece neck without a scarf joint, as are carvins both have tilt back headstocks
A volute is Far from just decoration.

 

[GBassNorth]

That's a bit of a straw man, as no one here has said that. But you know that....

From post #40...
"Gibsons are notorious for snapping off headstocks because of this design flaw."

For the record I would have no issue with the statement "Careless players are notorious for snapping off Gibson head stocks". That would be an honest statement vs what has been said and implied in the photos. Not to mention any tongue in cheek comments about only "having to look crooked at the headstock to cause a failure".

 

[guy n. cognito]

From post #40...
"Gibsons are notorious for snapping off headstocks because of this design flaw."

For the record I would have no issue with the statement "Careless players are notorious for snapping off Gibson head stocks". That would be an honest statement vs what has been said and implied in the photos. Not to mention any tongue in cheek comments about only "having to look crooked at the headstock to cause a failure".

I think you're smart enough to understand the implication of that quote.

 

[/\/\3phist0]

... And Fender allows at least 7 of their neck design flaws or willful ignorance issues to continue to be marketed as well.

Bottom line, each company has a different engineering approach to their instrument designs and those various approaches all have pros and cons and fans and haters. To each their own.

But please don't be so intellectually dishonest as to imply that if you buy a Gibson bass it's only a matter of time before the headstock mysteriously snaps off. Unless of course you're willing to say the same thing about It being only a matter of time before the neck screws in your Fender strip out the wood or shear off in the neck or you find a dead spot on the G string or you have to remove the neck to adjust the truss or you notice the neck has shifted in the pocket or you need to install threaded inserts in your neck or you've noticed the headstock starting to bend up or the strings won't stay in the nut unless you use a string tree.

Gibson doesn't make bolt ons?
Losing battle on that point.
A stripped screw hole is an easy fix.
To let an instrument out of the factory, with a manufacturing issue, like the original poster's is a tradition with some manufacturers.
I dont, now and probably never will AGAIN own a Gibson, or a Ric. For similar reasons.
The Epiphone and Squier lines rival the hand made products, for fit finish and consitency.
That is somehow wrong in my estimation.

The fit, finish, and execution on my Cort A5 is better than most of the Fenders I have test run in the stores.
Lakland gets it right, others get it right, Gibson and Fender seem to know that the public will accept the flaws and move on, some arrogantly deny, and refuse to repair/rectify the problems, or even claim the user is somehow inept (ric)

 

[GBassNorth]

I think you're smart enough to understand the implication of that quote.

The implication of that quote in the context it was written combined with the misleading cross sectional photo and subsequent failure photos on a follow up post absoutly imply if not flat out state that Gibson head stocks fail for no good reason because of a serious design flaw.

In reality and in all honesty any brand of bass is subject to headstock failure if pushed beyond its design limits. The Gibson design is adequate for a lifetime of normal use without failure, the Fender design is more than adequate for a lifetime of normal use without failure, and there are headstock designs that are even more robust than the Fender design. Does that then make the Fender headstock a design flaw and completely inadequate? Not in my opinion any more than the Fender design makes the Gibson design a design flaw and completely inadequate.

On the bright side, If I wanted to use one of my basses as a crowbar I'd probably grab one of my many Fenders, it sure wouldn't be a Gibson I'll use that as a bass thank you very much.

 

[Norwegian Bass]

About Gibson's Customer Service: I've had great experiences dealing with their customer service. Never needed them regarding my Gibson instruments; but they helped me out when something was wrong with their site and I was not allowed to join their forum; they resolved that within the hour. And once I e-mailed them with a question; which they answered the next day. I've also bought things from their online store, and everything always works fine. I live in Norway; I ordered a box of their heavy picks; which was delivered at my door! 3 days later. That's stellar; the little box crossing the Atlantic Ocean to my door step... But I've heard stories of things not going THAT smoothly, sure! With Gibson; it's a mixed bag. They do fantastic stuff; like the Historic Les Pauls; and they do things like the Firebird X; which should've been aborted on the drawing stage IMO. Also people have different expectations. For instance; some people were dissapointed that their expensive CS guitar had binding bleed within one weeks use. They saw that as a clear defect; when it's an inevitable occurance because of the historical accuracy of the dye they use; which is a plus for most. A lot of times the disgruntled people change their opinion after being informed of that fact; and they think it's cool.
"Oh, really? That's great!" Humans....