New Essex (SX) Headstock?

[savit260]

I'm still of the opinion, at least untill I see a good clear pic of it on an actual bass, that this appears to be a slightly BETTER looking version of the Valenti headstock.

Still waiting to see on in real life, or at least a good clear pic.

 

[P-BASSLOVER]

Now we'll be able to call them ScheXters?

 

[bassrique]

I foresee a large drop in SX purchases. I really hope they get one last run of the maple with black blocks and binding (right hand, fretted 4) before they switch.

+1

If you're selling a classic P or J body, you can't stray far with the headstock.

If Rondo is going to do something stupid, they should leave opportunity for their buyers to mod the headstock into a "Fenderesque" shape

If they slap on a shape that can't be modded properly, I really believe it's a deal-killer for a significant number of their potential customers.

Don't do it Rondo.

 

[savit260]

+1

If you're selling a classic P or J body, you can't stray far with the headstock.

If Rondo is going to do something stupid, they should leave opportunity for their buyers to mod the headstock into a "Fenderesque" shape

If they slap on a shape that can't be modded properly, I really believe it's a deal-killer for a significant number of their potential customers.

Don't do it Rondo.

Sorry, but I find that post a bit of a stretch.

I can't think of more than one or two SX's that I've seen on this board, where someone tried to mod the headstock into a Fenderesque shape.

I REALLY don't think that the ability to mod it to a Fender like shape has ANY bearing on peoples purchase.

That said, a shape that people don't like probalby will. Lord knows I would not buy one with the fish hook headstock (personal preferance) and I may not go for the new headstock (jury's still out). Nor would I buy a Valenti or probably not a Alleva Copola either for the same reason.

If people turn away from them , it's because they don't like the asthetics of the new headstock. It would be a fairly rare case IMO, that someone passes because they can't reshape it to a Fender style.

 

[bassrique]

Sorry, but I find that post a bit of a stretch.

I can't think of more than one or two SX's that I've seen on this board, where someone tried to mod the headstock into a Fenderesque shape.

I REALLY don't think that the ability to mod it to a Fender like shape has ANY bearing on peoples purchase.

That said, a shape that people don't like probalby will. Lord knows I would not buy one with the fish hook headstock (personal preferance) and I may not go for the new headstock (jury's still out). Nor would I buy a Valenti or probably not a Alleva Copola either for the same reason.

If people turn away from them , it's because they don't like the asthetics of the new headstock. It would be a fairly rare case IMO, that someone passes because they can't reshape it to a Fender style.

Not many mod them into a Feneresque shape because they currently are Fenderesque, follow? If Rondo puts some Carvin looking non-modifiable headstock on their classic P or J clones, their sales will plummet.

 

[Essthreetee]

It actually looks like a Schecter headstock that they use on their version of the jazz bass!

IT does look like the Scheter...but it looks even more like the Peavey

 

[savit260]

Not many mod them into a Feneresque shape because they currently are Fenderesque, follow?

Here's what you said..

+1



If Rondo is going to do something stupid, they should leave opportunity for their buyers to mod the headstock into a "Fenderesque" shape

If they slap on a shape that can't be modded properly, I really believe it's a deal-killer for a significant number of their potential customers.

Don't do it Rondo.

Now REALLY. How many people mod the headstock to look like a Fender? A couple maybe? Can only think of one or two.
Seeing how they're already Fenderesque, they don't need to be modded DIRECTLY contradicts what you just said in the previous post.

If Rondo puts some Carvin looking non-modifiable headstock on their classic P or J clones, their sales will plummet.

They may lose sales because people don't dig the new headstock, but I SERIOUSLY doubt that it will be because it CAN'T be modded to a Fender shape.

Again, I think this is a HUGE stretch as it seems only a very , very few actaully mod the shape of the headstock.
Follow?

 

[bassrique]

IT does look like the Scheter...but it looks even more like the Peavey

Peavey headstocks look good on a Peavey, but not a classic J or P. Rondo is crazy, but I'm repeating myself.

 

[bassrique]

How many people mod the headstock to look like a Fender? A couple maybe?

Not many, because they are close enough now. Get it?

A Carvin type headstock is a far cry away from the classic look.

Simple concept.

Edit:

Again, I think this is a HUGE stretch as it seems only a very , very few actaully mod the shape of the headstock. Follow?

If people want the classic looks for a few bucks, they'll have to do a mod to get that classic look. If the new Rondo headstock is too far removed, then people may just get something else rather than buy a but-ugly Fender clone that's not even looking like a Fender anymore.

 

[Essthreetee]

Peavey headstocks look good on a Peavey, but not a classic J or P. Rondo is crazy, but I'm repeating myself.

Aha...but yet maybe along those same lines, an SX headstock will look good on an SX

Something to think about...I am not ruling anything out until I see them...even then, a headstock doesn't change my opinion of that the SX's are a good purchase...

 

[bassrique]

Aha...but yet maybe along those same lines, an SX headstock will look good on an SX

Something to think about...I am not ruling anything out until I see them...even then, a headstock doesn't change my opinion of that the SX's are a good purchase...

A Peavey has a Peavey [original] body, not a classic P or J.

Currently, the SX headstock is in the ballpark and looks like other popular Fender clones that cost much more. A Carvin headstock on a standard J or P is a dog that just doesn't hunt. It's ugly.

 

[savit260]

Not many, because they are close enough now. Get it?

But that's not what you said. Get that?

A Carvin type headstock is a far cry away from the classic look.

Simple concept.

Edit:



If people want the classic looks for a few bucks, they'll have to do a mod to get that classic look. If the new Rondo headstock is too far removed, then people may just get something else rather than buy a but-ugly Fender clone that's not even looking like a Fender anymore.

Please direct me to pics of 5 SX basses that have been modded in this way.

I get what your saying, but I honestly don't think that this even FACTORS IN to the VAST MAJORITY of SX purchases.

To say that sales will plummet because an option that almost NO ONE actaully does isn't available anymore, just doesn't make sense.

Get it?

There are hundereds of SX owners on this board alone. Again, show me 5 that have been modded in this way.

 

[Tony-bobs]

I really dont think it looks that bad, obviously i'm in the minority here, but the shape of the head stock won't deter me from buying more of a guitar that sounds like it costs atleast 4 or 5 times what i paid for it...

 

[P-BASSLOVER]

Aha...but yet maybe along those same lines, an SX headstock will look good on an SX

Something to think about...I am not ruling anything out until I see them...even then, a headstock doesn't change my opinion of that the SX's are a good purchase...

+1. This is true. SX maybe stepping out now with their own
vibe! Even if it is just a headstock change, I think you guys are making too big a deal about it. Suppose the basses play better and sound better than even the new current SX's
and the only difference is the headstock. Does that mean the bass is now no good or you still wouldn't buy one?

Where's Kurt?
KURT! We NEED HELP HERE!!!!

 

[savit260]

+1. This is true. SX maybe stepping out now with their own
vibe! Even if it is just a headstock change, I think you guys are making too big a deal about it. Suppose the basses play better and sound better than even the new current SX's
and the only difference is the headstock. Does that mean the bass is now no good or you still wouldn't buy one?

Where's Kurt?
KURT! We NEED HELP HERE!!!!

As stated before, I'm STILL reserving judgment untill I actually see one, but YES, a bad looking headstock is enough to turn me off of ANY bass, regardless of price.

The Mike Lull headstock is BARELY acceptable IMO. Valenti, and Alleva-Coppolo turns me off where I won't consider one, and it's too bad, because otherwise the A-C's really do it for me, at least on paper.

Speaking only for myself, an ugly headstock is enough to keep me from buying something, regardless of quality and/or price.

I'm currently of the opinion, that the new headstock might look o.k. in the flesh.

 

[RobertPaulson]

the people that would care about a headstock not looking like a fender on a $100 guitar are the same type of people that put fender decals on said guitars.

 

[bassrique]

But that's not what you said. Get that?

It is what I said, you just aren't getting it [and this isn't a court of law my friend]. The SX J/P headstocks are close enough to classic looks now so they don't have to be modded. I don't know how else to say it. Slap on a weird shape on a classic body that can't be carved into a classic type shape for a few bucks [any luthier can do it in no time at all], and I strongly suspect sales will suffer.

Does that mean the bass is now no good or you still wouldn't buy one?

Yes.

Oh yeah, I really don't care all that much. I just think the Rondo story is a good one, and I'd hate to see them hurt themselves by uglying up a cheap, well-made Fender clone.

 

[P-BASSLOVER]

Lets just wait and see. They may look okay in person, or by popular demand keep them the same.

 

[savit260]

It is what I said, you just aren't getting it [and this isn't a court of law my friend]. The SX J/P headstocks are close enough to classic looks now so they don't have to be modded. I don't know how else to say it. Slap on a weird shape on a classic body that can't be carved into a classic type shape for a few bucks [any luthier can do it in no time at all], and I strongly suspect sales will suffer.



Yes.

Oh yeah, I really don't care all that much. I just think the Rondo story is a good one, and I'd hate to see them hurt themselves by uglying up a cheap, well-made Fender clone.

I TOTALY get what your saying, but REFUTING it because you nor anyone else has actually shown me more than one example of someone actually doing this.

All I'm asking is that you back up your claim, and it appears that you can't, as NO ONE (with maybe one exeption) actually does this.

Saying that a new headstock that people don't like will hurt sales is AN ENTIRELY different argument than saying because it can't be modded to a Fenderish type shape, that sales will suffer.
That's a DIFFERENT argument.


Shall we do a "Poll " thread to see who this reshaping the headstock thing actually matters?

I'm all for it if you are.


Wanna flesh out the details here?

Poll.

TItle SX OWNERS or Potential Buyers.

Does the ability to reshape the SX headstock to a Fender like shape influence your purchase?

YES. I like to have the option to reshape the headstock on my SX and this factored into my purchase.

NO. The fact that the headstock could be reshaped to something Fenderish played no part in my purchase.

Is that agreeable?

 

[RobertPaulson]

his point is not about reshaping the current one, because the current one is already very similar. The new one is not similar and not able to be shaped to something fenderish. You're completely missing the point.