Broken Headstocks - Why doesn't Gibson Change Design

[RedLizard]

So with all the history of broken headstocks on Gibson-style guitars, why don't the builders change to something better?

Is it solely because they don't want to use string guides ala Fender or is there a better reason? If string guides are so bad, so damaging to tone, such a blow to civility...why hasn't Fender changed?

If Gibson used maple for necks, would they break less? Or if Fender used mahogany, would we see snapped Fender headstocks?

Just curious...

[jonny guitar]

the angle of the head adds some tension to the strings that I personally prefer over the fender style...it is really needed with the shorter scale too. I have played Gibsons for 30 years and never dropped my guitar once; I think not letting your guitar fall is worth the risk of the added benifit of the design.

[smallbutmighty]

Gibson headstocks break because both the neck and the headstock are back angled so when a guitar falls over the headstock hits first. Gibson won't change it because it is one of the most widely and immediately recognizable icons in guitardom.

Beyond that, all of these aspect contribute to the way a Gibson guitar feels, plays, and sounds. Change the formula....it's not what people expect a Gibson to be anymore.

A

[jackaroo]

I think Gibson and the mahogany sound are kind of joined at the hip. And generally speaking, folks want the one piece neck- like the older guitars had. Even if there are flaws to the design when it comes to strength and durability.

A Gibson with a maple neck is just Un-Gibson to most folks. Same goes for a mahog Fender.

I think the inherent weakness in the angled HS design stems from Gibson's legacy with respect to acoustic guitars. They're an old, and traditional company. That's the way they built guitars forever so...that's the way they'll do it in the future. Fender, on the other hand, basically redefined the whole way an instrument was built/assembled with the bolt on design etc...

You might see less HS cracks and breaks, but the tonal signatures of the instruments would be completely different...and we as guitarists are pretty conservative...we want what Clapton or (isert idol here) had. Right now the big companies are basically a nostalgia act. Churning out lukewarm versions of their greatest hits from a bygone era. And we as guitarists are supporting it by buying the same old guitars year after year.

But then again I've yet to find a design I like more than these tried and true ones...

I'm as guilty as the next guy of living in the past.

My rambling $.02

Jack

[axepilot]

Originally Posted by jonny guitar

the angle of the head adds some tension to the strings that I personally prefer over the fender style...it is really needed with the shorter scale too. I have played Gibsons for 30 years and never dropped my guitar once; I think not letting your guitar fall is worth the risk of the added benifit of the design.

Roger that!

Ahem...................................strap locks.

[RedLizard]

I hear you guys on both tradition and the 'Gibson' sound.

FWIW, I wasn't suggesting that Gibson go to maple necks or Fender go to mahogany, just questioning whether the strength of the wood also plays a part.

Isn't it ironic that Fender necks rarely break, but would only take two minutes to replace with a new one, while Gibson's break, but it's cost prohibitive to replace.

[musicofanatic5]

Most broken Gibson headstocks occur because their owners are negligent. Leaning the gtr up against the amp, using some cheap-ass stand or carelessly placing the gtr in the stand, not being cognizant of the human (or animal) traffic in the vacinity of their poorly propped gtr, etc. Many broken headstocks I have seen have occurred in the case either in shipping or normal hand-automobile transport. It's called whiplash. Gtr case leaned up against something, succombs to forces of gravity, slams down hard on the ground, and with all the space around a headstock in a normal gtr case, it's like cracking a whip. Except a gtr neck/headstock does not have the resilience of a whip.
(Statement of pompous self-rightousness): I do not own any gtr stands. Any valuable/vulnerable gtrs of mine that aren't on a strap being played are in the case, with the case lying flat on the floor, with very, very few exceptions.
The design reason for the vulnerability is that the wood grain is shortest in the neckshaft to headstock transition. A classical gtr neck is built with a grafted scarf jointed headstock which eliminates the grain shortcomings, but is not accepted outside of the classical gtr tradition. Some builders have employed this technique (Kramer, Framus, etc.), and I have seen many delaminate. I imagine Gibson continues to build the way they do because of their tradition-bound ways. They did for a time employ a volute to beef up this area, which many tradtionalists distain. And when neckshaft girths were larger (pre-sixties), this was less of a problem. My advice is if one cannot provide proper care in handling/usage of a Gibson, then one should play Fenders.
________
aromed vaporizers

[justonwo]

If you are careful with your guitar (and I'm anal about all my guitars), the headstock joint isn't an issue.

[jay42]

I always thought it was the drummer's fault...Norlin era guitars have volutes...at least mine did. They got ripped for it and discontinued the practice.

[davess23]

If Gibson changed the design, you just know that within 24 hours there'd be a zillion posts about how horrible the new ones are and how the old ones were much, much better. We guitar players are amazingly conservative about this kind of thing.

I've had my share of Gibsons over the years (including two Lesters at present) and I've never busted off a headstock. Hope I never do.

[axepilot]

All of the Gibson headstock breaks that I've witnessed or heard of were the direct result of owner negligence.

It's a known fact that Gibson's headstocks brook no ignorance, but it always seems:

I leaned it against the amp

I leaned it against the wall

I can't afford strap locks (good one, considering the price of the guitar:NUTS )

Strap locks are for whimps

The list goes on and on................................................ ............

It's called "just taking care of the guitar". That would rule out about 90 percent of the user induced headstock breaks.

[DanielT2]

Originally Posted by jackaroo

...and we as guitarists are pretty conservative...we want what Clapton or (isert idol here) had. Right now the big companies are basically a nostalgia act. Churning out lukewarm versions of their greatest hits from a bygone era. And we as guitarists are supporting it by buying the same old guitars year after year.

What an eloquent piece of prose Jackaroo. I dub you the poet of this thread.

[jzucker]

Originally Posted by jonny guitar

the angle of the head adds some tension to the strings that I personally prefer over the fender style...it is really needed with the shorter scale too. I have played Gibsons for 30 years and never dropped my guitar once; I think not letting your guitar fall is worth the risk of the added benifit of the design.

The volute was a good idea as was the 3pc neck. Both reduced (but not eliminated) the issue. Gibson would rather not mess with a good thing. That's my guess as to why they don't try anything. It's like changing the coca-cola formula to them...

[jzucker]

Originally Posted by axepilot

All of the Gibson headstock breaks that I've witnessed or heard of were the direct result of owner negligence.

It's a known fact that Gibson's headstocks brook no ignorance, but it always seems:

I leaned it against the amp

I leaned it against the wall

I can't afford strap locks (good one, considering the price of the guitar:NUTS )

Strap locks are for whimps

The list goes on and on................................................ ............

It's called "just taking care of the guitar". That would rule out about 90 percent of the user induced headstock breaks.

But the reality is different. I know guys who have broken their headstocks carrying their guitars in a gig bag on the subway on the way to gigs. You can take care of the guitar but if you're out in the world, accidents do happen.

[dave251]

I guess I've probably reglued at least a hundred gibson pegheads over the last thirty years.

It's POOR DESIGN

let me repeat that

POOR DESIGN

It's not the angle of the peghead; or the short grain of the mahogany(Martin has been using mahogany forever...and I've fixed maybe five or six broken Martin pegheads)....

No, the problem is the HUGE amount of lumber carved out of the peghead to allow for the 5/16" adjusting nut on the trussrod. Guild uses a 1/4" nut...and that's a lot better....Fender and the modern Japanese instruments use a "bullett" or an internal allen head...an even further improvement.

Even though it's more difficult to build, and to maintain....the BUTT END adjustment of the truss rod is the CORRECT solution, IMHO. No lumber carved out of the neck/peghead juncture. MUCH STRONGER.

Next time you adjust the rod on your Gibson, take a gander at how much wood has been removed around that adjusting nut.

My necks always adjust from the butt end...a bit more difficult to get to, but oh, so much stronger. Here's the juncture on a guitar I built for Steve Vai.....I also leave extra lumber in the critical area