Heritage Headstock Critics Have Win

[Marty Grass]

The Heritage factory founders chose their headstock design in 1984 and have been criticized for the aesthetics since. To this day I have to agree that it doesn't have the pleasant open book appearance of a Gibson, but many, including myself, have gotten past it.

The new Heritage owners have subtly filled out the "snake head" profile to make the shape more rectangular. While I concede it is more pleasing to the eye, it compromises the advantages of the original design. The more radical tapering of the headstock reduced its mass and provided a straighter string pull across the nut. The latter allowed for easier string bends and less hang up of the wound strings when tuning.

Here is the old design and the new. Subtle.

[Marty Grass]

Hmm. I don't know why I'm having trouble with the images. I uploaded them from my PC directly.

[Marty Grass]

[cmajor9]

That difference is so subtle I'm not sure I see it. Its made harder by comparing a bound to an unbound headstock.

What I think would be a good solution is to simply go all-in on the original 'snake head' shape used on the original Gibson guitars and mandolins (but without the 'open book' notch) - a bit more angled sides, and quite aesthetically pleasing.

[lammie200]

Seems a little strange, but how hard could it be to put the numbering and lettering on the back straight and centered?

[Marty Grass]

You know, the headstock with the frontal view may be a one-off or an illusion from the camera angle that makes the base appear narrower. Other new ones look like the old ones.

Heritage did play with some alterations in the shape of their headstocks last year, and I did see them in person. So I'm not sure what's going on, if anything.

Sorry.

[Woody Sound]

I believe the larger guitars have larger headstocks anyway, with a sharper string angle to the tuners.

[wintermoon]

If they want to make them more pleasing asthetically they should scallop the sides.
At least then it'll look less like a pitchfork.

[Teddyfm]

Strange decision. Dont see this swaying those in the nay camp. Too small of a change I think. Or is there another reason behind the altered design?

Anyway, I love my Heritage, warts and all.....

Ted

[Greentone]

I have never considered the headstock to be unattractive. Gadzooks. In a market that boasts Kramer, Jackson, Dean, B.C. Rich, and Ovation? There are some headstocks out there that make The Heritage design look positively elegant. Just sayin'.

[Robertkoa]

You know- I normally don't care too much about the Appearance of a Guitar...IF it's special .

I ordered a BC Rich Mockingbird long ago for warm Tones and versatility - despite the Rad Shape.
And that the Factory was willing to do H-S-H Koa with mini Toggles for over 40 Tones...

But - to have Traditional Designs and 'Heritage' be the name and then have a Non Traditional Headstock is costing them Sales from a Marketing Perspective.

Branding is Key- also making the same shape Guitars as Gibson - they have to offer Reduced Price
or Higher Quality in some way.

So IF they just get the darn thing Proportional or un-noticeable is all they have needed.

Have they achieved this yet ?

Also- straighter string pull and increased strength are good...not sure why their Headstocks are so skinny/ narrow

[Woody Sound]

I have never considered the headstock to be unattractive. Gadzooks. In a market that boasts Kramer, Jackson, Dean, B.C. Rich, and Ovation? There are some headstocks out there that make The Heritage design look positively elegant. Just sayin'.

[fws6]

If they want to make them more pleasing asthetically they should scallop the sides.
At least then it'll look less like a pitchfork.

haha a pitchfork

oh boy now you have done it

[Jabberwocky]

It won't be The Heritage without that headstock though so best to leave well-enough alone.

Maybe take down the pitchfork association a little by reducing the points and the scallops.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Never was an issue to me.

Now Epis, on the other hand ...

<dons helmet, dives for slit-trench>

[neatomic]

kinda reminds me of this old classic design




cheers

[vinnyv1k]

I kinda like the Heritage headstock. That was never a issue with me. Tops being carved too thin and F-holes being too large has always been my issue with them.

Not to mention I bought a top of the line Super Eagle with the upcharge woods and natural finish.
Not even close to the same league as my Gibson Super 400 in sound and playability.
The fret job had 4 high frets that needed leveling on the SE and this was their best of there flagship. File marks on the fretboard and binding too.
Not to say Gibson doesn't turn out a lot of turds but you are not going to need fretwork on a new Super 400 these days for sure.

I really wanted to be a Heritage fanboy because I really dislike Gibson business ethics but I can't get past the fact that Gibson archtops will always rule for at least me. I do love Heritage as a company though and wish them great success with the new owners and hope they make countless guitar players very happy in the future.
Heritage.....long may you live.

[Greentone]

Vinny,

I hear you. The Super 400 is a beautiful, awesome guitar. No doubt about it.

My experience with the Super Eagle, however, has been on par with my experience with top line Gibsons. It is a Super Eagle with upcharge woods, extra binding, and a custom, Rose sunburst finish. The fit and finish on the guitar is just impeccably good and the guitar plays and sounds dynamite. It's what I would expect from an L-5 or Super 400.

I have had in my hands some Golden Eagles, other Super Eagles, Eagle Customs, and Sweet 16s that I thought were awfully fine instruments, too.

In no way, however, am I suggesting that top line Gibsons are not great--because they are. I could be VERY happy with an L-5CES or a Super 400, at this point.

[Drifter]

I kinda like the Heritage headstock. That was never a issue with me. Tops being carved too thin and F-holes being too large has always been my issue with them.

Not to mention I bought a top of the line Super Eagle with the upcharge woods and natural finish.
Not even close to the same league as my Gibson Super 400 in sound and playability.
The fret job had 4 high frets that needed leveling on the SE and this was their best of there flagship. File marks on the fretboard and binding too.
Not to say Gibson doesn't turn out a lot of turds but you are not going to need fretwork on a new Super 400 these days for sure.

I really wanted to be a Heritage fanboy because I really dislike Gibson business ethics but I can't get past the fact that Gibson archtops will always rule for at least me. I do love Heritage as a company though and wish them great success with the new owners and hope they make countless guitar players very happy in the future.
Heritage.....long may you live.

+1 I have made a similar experience with two Golden Eagles vs an L5 CES. I like the Heritage headstock but hate the f-holes. The thin top can be great, if you're not looking for Gibson tone in a Heritage.

What really led me away from Heritage and back to Gibson are the necks. Too thin, even on the newer ones. And for some reason the string spacing feels narrower although the nut width is (almost) identical.

I've had a Millie Custom built with a '59 neck a few years ago. Feels like a matchstick compared to the neck on my 59 reissue ES-345. I much prefer Gibson guitars but I have needed years to admit it. Gibson as a company just isn't likeable, quite the opposite with Heritage. The guitars are a different story.

I do think the silk screen logo on the new headstock is a bad idea, makes it look like an entry level guitar. They should do mop on all of their guitars. In fact I think they have to if they want to compete.

[339 in june]

Neck heavy, isn't it ?

[Gitfiddler]

These 2017 Heritage H157, H150 and H137 guitars do appear to have a slightly larger headstock.

[floatingpickup]

If they want to make them more pleasing asthetically they should scallop the sides.
At least then it'll look less like a pitchfork.

I have always thought that. I had a Golden Eagle and a 555. Never could get used the the headstock on those guitars. They're gone now.
Keith

[GNAPPI]

Funny, whatever they do / did to the head will likely alienate a segment that liked the previous head, it's a no win unless they were to license the open book from Gibson, even then I suspect there would be cries from purists.

[Cunamara]

For the past 20 years Gibson's got nobody in the spray booth with the deft touch of Heritage's sunbursts, though.

[vinnyv1k]

I agree. Heritage sunbursts are the best.