Would you buy a vintage guitar with a repaired headstock break?

[Easy2grasp]

I am looking at a Kalamazoo built Epiphone from the mid '60's. I will be purchasing it on line so I can't really examine it. At some point in its life it had a headstock break and repair. The repair looks good in the pictures. I have requested more pictures of the repair area and asked some questions.

I am wondering how many of you out there would consider buying a vintage instrument with a headstock repair. One of my favorite guitars I own has a headstock repair - my beloved '57 blonde ES-175 with the genie that lives inside ("Kalamazoo" is his name apparently?)

Would you buy one if it was any desirable vintage guitar?

[Stringswinger]

If I thought the repair was done well and the price was right (I would want a 50% discount from a full retail vintage price), I would consider it.

[AllanAllen]

It depends on a lot.

How much is it?
Can I play it in person?
Can I return it?
Did Mark Campellone do the repair

I could go on and on.

[deacon Mark]

It depends on the price and the guitar. Done right and a break that is not split all over the place is fine. One one must remember the glue is stronger than the wood and all guitars have cracks even brand new. Granted they are planned cracks but the tops and backs glued down the middle are cracks just on purpose. For the right price not a problem and them frankly if someone like Mark Campellone fixes the break then you are good to go. You can get someone to do this if you buy it and think it might need additional work. Rare but possible.

[jasguitar]

I've purchased vintage guitars with headstock repairs in the past and have gotten a ton of bang for my buck. I would absolutely want to ensure that I could return the guitar if necessary, and you should advocate for a sale price of 50% of retail or so. Call a trustworthy guitar tech and schedule a time to have them evaluate it for you after you receive it. If the tech is a good one, they will be able to quickly reassure you either way if it is a good repair.

[Gregc57]

Yes, after careful considerations.

[Vihar]

No. I would rather buy a cheaper guitar with a perfectly untouched neck.

[DawgBone]

I buy guitars to play hard i.e gig and to play often so if the repair work was good, who cares? I would expect a deep discount for the previously broken headstock which fits into my "player" mentality. True vintage, 40s, 50's, and 60's guitars seem to me as inherently collectible so I probably would not buy an instrument that had the headstock snapped off as the collectible factor is gone. Caveat, I don't collect anything so all guitars, even the most collectible, are "players" to me. A guitar collection is about as interesting as a washing machine collection. A big pile of junk no one uses for it's intended purpose.

Now, if a master luthier like Campellone had done the repair work and it was all documented, I would probably go for it, though probably still not on a vintage instrument. You might get a good discount but reselling it will be tough. There are many undamaged vintage instruments out there to purchase so I don't see a good reason to buy a pre-damaged axe other than just buying something that will be rode hard and put up wet. Keep in mind that "desirable vintage guitar" and "broken headstock" basically don't go together.

[Jimmy blue note]

I've repaired necks and breaks and they lasted fine. I've repaired the work of other repairmen and they failed for a number of reasons. It's an unknown quantity and you really can't know.
If it's a fantastic deal, I would consider it knowing I can restore the join (like zillions of time more of a pain in the A than doing it right the first time), or even re-neck the guitar if it had a sound to die for.
You don't know. If you know a really good luthier, it opens your options.

[John A.]

If there's a way to verify who did the repair and how long ago, maybe. Otherwise, probably not. For instance if the repair was done by a well known luthier, and it's 20 years old and still holding, it's probably a safe purchase (assuming also a good price). Absent those sorts of reassuring details, I wouldn't want to take on something that will turn into a repair project.

[Gilpy]

Some years ago I was finally able to purchase the guitar I’ve always wanted, a 1964 ES-335. (Not cheap!)The person who packed it for shipping was an idiot, and when I opened the case there was the classic Gibson headstock crack. I was heartbroken.
The seller was willing to take it back but I’m a player not a collector, and I couldn’t bring myself to part with it.
I negotiated a small discount (nowhere near 50%) and had it repaired by a very skilled luthier. It cost $200 and took a month and you can’t see that it was ever broken.
I’ve owned many guitars and this is the best playing and best sounding ever. I have played hundreds of gigs with it and constantly receive compliments on my tone. I have never regretted keeping it.
I love guitars, but playing music is my job and they are tools that are expected to work every time. My old broken-neck 335 does the job just fine.
To answer the OPs question: yes, I would buy a vintage guitar with a repaired headstock, if the repair was done well and the guitar was appropriately discounted.

[Jimmy blue note]

I should note that "neck break" covers many cases and each has its own repair procedure and its own chance at success. Some clean splits can require less expertise and a higher chance at successful repair. Some look easily repairable but may be fraught with issues, grain breaks and impeding wood splinters that if not addressed by a good informed, experienced and skilled repairman, could actually weaken the neck by not assuring a perfect dry fit. You cannot look at any damaged neck and judge it by anecdotal repair cases. You need to know, to the best of your abilities, how it was repaired, and by whom.
Done well, you could have a guitar as good as new, but done poorly or just mostly correctly, you can have something with issues that can re-appear long after the repair. Too, depending how short the grain is on either side of an even good repair, necks CAN rebreak. There's always talk of a repair being stronger than it was originally, but a break is more than the strength of the glue, it's the surrounding wood and the damage to that. Often one "break" is made up of more than one break. Wood is a complex thing.

[rpjazzguitar]

I wouldn't buy one with a headstock repair because I don't have the skill to evaluate the quality of the repair.

And, there's the emotional factor that I'm unenthused, for reasons I can't really explain, about buying something that was damaged.

[Gilpy]

I totally understand the responses of those who just wouldn’t feel right buying a guitar with a headstock repair. But for the rest of us, it’s an opportunity to own a nice old guitar that might have otherwise been unaffordable.
For me, a refinish on a vintage guitar is a bigger turnoff than a well done repair.

[deacon Mark]

Additionally, if you buy a guitar with a headstock/neck break then you want if for yourself not too much other consideration. When someone goes to sell a guitar with a headstock/neck break then the obvious situation is you have to explain the issue. If you never have to explain and issue selling a guitar you then have a much better hold on the sale. A guitar can show wear and tear but never have a crack or any structural issues so you just list it has well played. Ideally, we all want to sell a guitar this is in execellent condition and no issues but it does not always work out that way.

[Easy2grasp]

I got some more pictures of the neck repair area of the 1960's Epiphone and the seller answered my questions. The other pictures showed it was a deep gnarly break all the way through, stopping just shy of the holly veneer without interrupting it. I was feeling too much hesitation until I saw these new pictures and it was a deal killer. I was lucky the seller didn't take my early offers. I probably would be shipping it back across the USA at my expense. Thanks to everyone so far who have offered their opinions. It was helpful. Feel free to continue to weigh in. Like I said in my original post, one of my favorite guitars in my collection has a great headstock repair.
Ted



Here's the headstock repair on my '57 ES-175 - almost cell to cell.

[hotpepper01]

I don't see why not. There is a value in terms of a musical instrument, and there is a financial value. In terms of the instrument, you have to like it, also think you are in need for it, can not live without it and therefore want it. A guitar with a repaired headstock has a lesser value as the same guitar without a repaired headstock. That has to be reflected in the price when closing the deal. My 75 LPC has a stable, but cosmetically lousy, repair in the headstock. I bought it very cheap. I own her for quite some years now. The only thing I regret today is the weight. I am not getting any younger and she is not getting any lighter with 4.9 kg still.

[gitman]

There is no universally accepted percentage/value for discounting a guitar with ANY repair, modification etc., it's always a new situation with many separate aspects to be discussed.
Some say it's 50% off "market value" for a re-fin or headstock break but that figure is just as elusive and debateable. Seller and buyer have to fight it out.
Having been around guitars for 50 years now I have a pretty good idea of and feel for a structurally stable and sound instrument so when I look at a repaired crack, a neck re-set, a fixed headstock break etc. and I can play it for a while to get a feel for it then I trust my judgement. A re-finish does not concern the functionality of the guitar; it might take away some of it's vintage charm but then there are old and either darkened or bleached finishes that look downright ugly and when heavy flaking, rotten binding and rub-off are also present then I would have no qualms having it re-finished by some specialist.
A couple of years ago there was a thread over on the Gear Pages forum documenting the re-finish and re-binding of a 40's D'Angelico Excel , by an older pro repairman of legendary status from NYC. It showed before and after photos and the guitar looked 10 times better after he was done, set up just right, clean, smooth and the naturally darkened spruce and maple just glowed - beautiful to behold and I'm sure the owner was over the moon with it. Would this guitar in it's original, dilapidated state be worth more ?
As with so many issues discussed here : ask 10 guys and you get 20 different opinions.... it can be frustrating but I at least sometimes learn a thing or two and might get a different perspective on things.

[RJVB]

Out of curiosity, when you re-neck a vintage guitar, does it get a new headstock? If a bowed instrument (violin, cello, etc) is in need of a new neck, the original scroll and pegbox will (normally) be grafted onto this new wood. In other words, you can hardly buy a true vintage violin (cello, etc - where true vintage means from before the 1800s) that hasn't had the equivalent of a headstock repair. Sometimes more than once. Doesn't seem to hurt their resale value

[Sam Sherry]

I got some more pictures of the neck repair area of the 1960's Epiphone and the seller answered my questions. The other pictures showed it was a deep gnarly break all the way through, stopping just shy of the holly veneer without interrupting it.

Ouch!!

A splendid example of why the 'standard deduction' for headstock breaks is 50%.

[hotpepper01]

Ouch!!

A splendid example of why the 'standard deduction' for headstock breaks is 50%.

I do not think that 50% reduction is a good measure. Yes, may be that goes for a 1K USD guitar. But, IMHO, the higher the value, the less effect a neck repair will have on the buying price. A neck repair on a 10K USD will not reduce the price by 50%. Just my 2 cents

[gitman]

Out of curiosity, when you re-neck a vintage guitar, does it get a new headstock? If a bowed instrument (violin, cello, etc) is in need of a new neck, the original scroll and pegbox will (normally) be grafted onto this new wood. In other words, you can hardly buy a true vintage violin (cello, etc - where true vintage means from before the 1800s) that hasn't had the equivalent of a headstock repair. Sometimes more than once. Doesn't seem to hurt their resale value

The violin market is not nearly as fad and collector driven as the market for "vintage" electric guitars (post WW II) plus it's a couple of centuries older ....
Moreover, the neck on a violin or cello plays not as important a role re tone as it does on a guitar where the attack and sustain of a plucked string is directly affected by the material, size, weight, age, construction and structural integrity of it.
The value of master-grade violins and cellos is also significantly higher than all but a very few select guitars so a general comparison is really not helping much in understanding the guitar-market mechanisms and it's idiosyncrasies. I could never afford a bowed instrument in a comparable quality bracket where I'd situate some of my guitars. Even a modern master-grade clarinet or flute is more expensive ! Different ball game IMHO ..... When I talk to my neighbor/friend Thomas the violin luthier he just smiles when I tell him about some of our topics and heated discussions here ....

[powerwagonjohn]

I have mentioned this before but I had a headstock break on my 1969 SG Std. back in the late 1980's. It was expertly repaired and most people would never notice it unless I pointed it out. It has been stable and I still own the guitar. If it was a guitar I wanted very badly and it had a very good repair I would buy it. But at this stage in life and finances I may just wait until I found one not broken or just get by with the dozen guitars I have now. After all I really don't need another guitar.
Thanks John

[customxke]

I’m a big fan of buying guitars with “issues”, as long as they’re stable and playable. It can be a great entryway into guitars that would otherwise be cost prohibitive. They can be harder to sell if you don’t have realistic expectations, but my flipping days are over, so for me, it’s a non-issue.

[RJVB]

The violin market is not nearly as fad and collector driven as the market for "vintage" electric guitars (post WW II) plus it's a couple of centuries older ....

But isn't it? Ask your friend about the percentage of (classical) players who would consider a new(ish) instrument over an old one, or even a new-looking instrument over one that's been vintaged! (Apparently some builders of vintaged instruments subject them to actual abuse so there is actual and not just cosmetic damage.)

FWIW, the violin I just sold was a master-grade instrument (from '82) but wouldn't even have covered the price of a carved-acoustic Trenier or Campellone if I had managed to sell it for anywhere near its actual value. Instead, after not finding takers for 4 years including through the luthier who built it, he offered to refund the sum I'd paid him almost 30 years ago. Problem is that it still looks new, and not even brown.

When I talk to my neighbor/friend Thomas the violin luthier he just smiles when I tell him about some of our topics and heated discussions here ....

Heh, mine too. He doesn't say it but he clearly thinks guitar builders are still tinkering with problems they've resolved looong ago

Meanwhile, the reason I brought up grafted scroll boxes is that they don't even enter the discussion. You buy an instrument from a luthier, or one that has been seeing a luthier regularly (mine got a maintenance job once every 1-2 years) you expect it to be in playing condition. Or you go take it to your luthier for assessment. The neck may have less influence on sustain (which comes from the bow - on attach I simply wouldn't know) but string tension is a lot higher on bowed instruments than it is on most guitars and necks relatively a lot thinner (and I've never heard of there being reinforcements in them either).