Gold Drip Suhr.... haha... wow

[straycat]

The drips are OK but the Shur headstock no.
RSguitarworks headstocks look much better.JMO

[Ward]

Well, Suhrs and Andersons are (I suppose) the hot chicks that don't do jack for me. I guess we all have our likes and dislikes.

I was just making a joke because you wrote can get it up for a hot chick, and I assumed you meant can't...

Maybe I shouldn't make jokes on a Friday night after a good number of beers

[horns666]

Try on your favorite guitar, and look in the mirror!! You could look cool or like a tool...you filthy little animals!!!

[xenophobe]

The drips are OK but the Shur headstock no.
RSguitarworks headstocks look much better.JMO

Eh, I don't like those semi-stratheads... that one reminds me of the ESP. No real love from me.

I do like...

[sully]

The drips are OK but the Shur headstock no.
RSguitarworks headstocks look much better.JMO

Meh. Mine is better than both of theirs.



Vote Sully!

(btw, xeno, check out my pal Andy at Black Water Guitars http://www.blackwaterguitars.com/main/)

[xenophobe]

I have to say, your headstock is badass. But it looks better bound. It'd look good with 7 or maybe even 8 would fit on there :O

Hmm... interesting company. Too bad they don't have more pictures up.

[Trem]

Headstocks are certainly a very personal preference type thing. I think Surhs looks alright, i just don't like the body style.

I've always seen the Suhr as basically a take on this


I sawed the tip of my Fernandes in 91 cause i hated the headstock, so it looked like this
it was an improvement, at least to me.

That headstock you posted above Xeno is obviously a take on the Parker - never liked that one, though it was original looking to say the least, but i'd say that one above is a better variation.
Recently i have noticed there is like 3 maybe 4 custom builders doing that same headstock, and it's so similar i can't tell them apart. I been wondering why whoever came up with that variation first is allowing these other guys copy it so directly. Anyway that style seems to be a fad at the moment.

[sully]

It definitely does look better bound, as you can see below. There's definitely room for another tuner, but I really can't see making 8 stringers.





And Andy @ Blackwater might be right up your alley. He does some really great stuff.

[DonP]

I was just making a joke because you wrote can get it up for a hot chick, and I assumed you meant can't...

Maybe I shouldn't make jokes on a Friday night after a good number of beers

D'oh, didn't realize I flubbed that one.

[Trem]

^I think Blackwater is one of those that's doing that headstock style, as i mentioned above, this is where my confusion is. ( he does make cool guitars, he had one recently that is one of the coolest guitars i've seen in a long time.)

As for that headstock style though, as far as i can tell they are close relation of a Blackmachine headstock? I actually don't know who did it first, but Siggery is another one doing that - but none of my business. I honestly can't tell those builders guitars apart, even the body styles are really close. Thin line style body, and they have a similar distinct top forearm carve, or beveling. Anyway, iI'm not trying to rip on anybody, It's a challenge to create something totally not derivative of something else for sure. For headstocks there's only so much space to work with and geometry wise, and the strings gotta be straight across the nut as much as possible, so what can you do.

Sully your headstock is great.

I have some builds on the back burner, and my headstock is derivative of something as well, it's hard to escape it. But you just try to put your own spin on it.
I've been wanting to put some of my ideas out there, but i'm torn about letting any of my designs out until i actually get started building them.
Maybe it is better in this day and age to put stuff out there as sort of a stamp in time? :think:

For reasons from the past,.. what i'm talking about is, there's some thing i designed almost 24 years ago that eventually something similar was designed and created, i won't say what.
But at the time i thought it was close to my design, and was a little bummed. I designed it in late 87 or early 88, and something popped on the scene in around 91? But, now that i've dug up pics of it, and the drawings, maybe it's not as similar as i thought back then. I still kind of like mine better personally.

Sully i think you know that feeling, as you had mentioned that you had something similar to the Broderick headstock design before Jackson did it, and when something comes out in production close to your idea it's kind of an aww shit feeling.

One thing i did back then by peoples suggestion was to mail a copy of my blueprint to my folks as at the time as i had heard it was like a soft copyright having a sealed envelope with a postal stamp and date on it. I don't really know if that's true though. While it's probably somewhere, i don't know where. I need to go to my moms and look, as well as pull the guitar out of the attic - i did start the build eventually in like 93, and it's still unfinished :|



Edit: Fuck it, here it is. http://www.jcfonline.com/threads/135...56#post1541456

[sully]

^I think Blackwater is one of those that's doing that headstock style, as i mentioned above, this is where my confusion is. ( he does make cool guitars, he had one recently that is one of the coolest guitars i've seen in a long time.)

As for that headstock style though, as far as i can tell they are close relation of a Blackmachine headstock? I actually don't know who did it first, but Siggery is another one doing that - but none of my business. I honestly can't tell those builders guitars apart, even the body styles are really close. Thin line style body, and they have a similar distinct top forearm carve, or beveling. Anyway, iI'm not trying to rip on anybody, It's a challenge to create something totally not derivative of something else for sure. For headstocks there's only so much space to work with and geometry wise, and the strings gotta be straight across the nut as much as possible, so what can you do.

Sully your headstock is great.

Thanks man! Yeah, I believe that Blackmachine may have been first, but when I see that headstock style, I think Parker. You're totally right, though; coming up with something different enough that still looks good is a challenge, to say the least.

I have some builds on the back burner, and my headstock is derivative of something as well, it's hard to escape it. But you just try to put your own spin on it.
I've been wanting to put some of my ideas out there, but i'm torn about letting any of my designs out until i actually get started building them.
Maybe it is better in this day and age to put stuff out there as sort of a stamp in time? :think:

For reasons from the past,.. what i'm talking about is, there's some thing i designed almost 24 years ago that eventually something similar was designed and created, i won't say what.
But at the time i thought it was close to my design, and was a little bummed. I designed it in late 87 or early 88, and something popped on the scene in around 91? But, now that i've dug up pics of it, and the drawings, maybe it's not as similar as i thought back then. I still kind of like mine better personally.

Sully i think you know that feeling, as you had mentioned that you had something similar to the Broderick headstock design before Jackson did it, and when something comes out in production close to your idea it's kind of an aww shit feeling.

One thing i did back then by peoples suggestion was to mail a copy of my blueprint to my folks as at the time as i had heard it was like a soft copyright having a sealed envelope with a postal stamp and date on it. I don't really know if that's true though. While it's probably somewhere, i don't know where. I need to go to my moms and look, as well as pull the guitar out of the attic - i did start the build eventually in like 93, and it's still unfinished :|

Edit: Fuck it, here it is. http://www.jcfonline.com/threads/135...56#post1541456

I definitely DO know that feeling, but when it's all said and done, I've decided to move forward with the other headstock design. Putting them side by side with a Broderick, there's enough of a difference. Granted, all of that could change if I ever get a C&D letter.

Sully

[xenophobe]

Sully, I think I need to order a guitar from you now.

One thing i did back then by peoples suggestion was to mail a copy of my blueprint to my folks as at the time as i had heard it was like a soft copyright having a sealed envelope with a postal stamp and date on it. I don't really know if that's true though.

Mostly meaningless. The best way to date it now is to post the picture online in forums like this. "New headstock design thread date xx/x/xx: (image dated xx/x/xx) and use a hosting site that doesn't delete pictures after a while. Or fess up the money and register the trademark.

[VitaminG]

out of all of the Suhrs posted in this thread, the black and gold is the only one that I HATE.

Particularly like that silver one

[Trem]

I always dug the green one with the painted headstock, and i swear there was a purple one too, i thought i had saved a pic of it to my pc but couldn't find it.

[xenophobe]

out of all of the Suhrs posted in this thread, the black and gold is the only one that I HATE.

Yeah, see I love that contrast, all the shades and the visual texture on the gold one.

It'd look a lot better with an ebony board, black pearl pickguard and a matching rev headstock.