People arguing over this stuff is really weird. The bulk of the arguing people on this classic "debate" are pretty salty about the headstock breaking at higher rate than other brands fighting with traditionalists. The headstock breaks aren't at all common. They happen, but they're not common. I can see the added risk being of concern, but it just seems like the internet is full of people really focused on it really disproportionately to the actual incident rate. And then you have the traditionalists who don't want their Eisenhower era designs messed with because they won't be able to hear the 173rd order harmonic on seventh fret of the third string. Somehow being in punk bands for years, I'm a nutbag all over the stage, and I've never managed to break my headstocks off my SGs. I have no issue with the hand wiring in my 2002 versus the PCB in my 2011 (who wants repeatable manufacturing and consistency, anyway?). I'm not concerned about the engineering elements or nostalgia; I really just like the playability, quality, and look of them, so that's why they got played. Gibson has to have been in a product development hell for decades, pinned between groups of people who are mad that they aren't doing something more modern, but when they do the traditionalists come swinging back.