New GMW

[skorb]

OMFG that is hilarious!! :ROTF:

[SEEGERMANY]

I don't like the "ballsack," however, it's shape "flows" better with the body contours than that weapon of death Ibanez looking thingy.

[sully]

agreed, but i'm surprised that the sackstock is so much like the sears headstock. i'd heard that the headstocks are carved, but you can't really tell from the pix. can anyone elaborate?

[VinceV]

I was in the shop a few months ago, and there were about 5 or 6 of these sitting on the counter top. The headstocks are carved or "archtop" style, looked kinda cool. I just don't think they mesh with the Charvel body. I didn't get to look at them closely, seems I might have walked in when he just opened and wasn't expecting anyone. I wrote about it in a post, but no one seemed to pick up on what I was talking about. I only saw the Ibanez style one not the BallSack.

[btx109]

agreed, but i'm surprised that the sackstock is so much like the sears headstock. i'd heard that the headstocks are carved, but you can't really tell from the pix. can anyone elaborate?

Sully, both headstocks are convex, with the center area raised. They are difficult to photograph without distorting the contours and the spacing of the tuners against the edge (they are NOT too close to the edge, despite appearances to the contrary). They are, however, angled and recessed in the rear of the headstock.

IMO, the Millennium works better with an archtop/carved top, a la my guitar...and I told Lee that months ago when he showed me the new necks in the shop. We placed each neck into different bodies and laid them out to see how they looked. The Traditional works better with a standard Strat/San Dimas styled body...but the issue remains, nothing yet has come close to beating the original S-head design, so naturally there's going to be resistance to anything new on those styles of guitars. But we'll see how it all works out. The Traditional is growing on me, but if I were to order one it would probably be the Millennium...

[Bengal65]

So, it is official then....the two new HS are officially the Ibanez and the Ballsack.

Exellent, I am sure Lee is going to love that.

I want to see some other versions of the Ballsack, myself.

Mike

LMAO! :ROTF:
These are test shots right? These are not in production are they? They have to be kidding! If it's true I wonder if I can just get a body from GMW and I'd put a Strathead on it?

[Bengal65]

Thanks for the posts guy's. I haven't laughed this hard in a long, long, time!

[Spider Riff]

I am so disappointed. I love GMW but that head stock is not for me. What is the other one like?

[Chameleonfong]

I am so disappointed. I love GMW but that head stock is not for me. What is the other one like?

You seems to have no luck with either GMW or Charvel. Why not try Anderson or Suhr?

[Shawn Lutz]

what bothers me more than the designs, they may grow one me, is the damn logo placement in the middle of the headtock

I said this in some other threads about this that if a guitar is a great built, well playing and feelin instrument people can get over fuglyness of the head stock.....proof in that pudding is the Andersons and the Suhr's (even old PC1)...both are ugly at the headstock but once you play one that really doesn't matter

[VinceV]

I am so disappointed. I love GMW but that head stock is not for me. What is the other one like?

Hello McFly
Did you read the thread? There are only pics of 2 different guitars, each with 1 style of headstock.

[Bengal65]

I just wanted to add that I'm not directing the laughter towards anyone that has purchased one of these or likes the headstock. I just never thought to associate the term "ballsack" to the 2nd headstock. I really thought it was hilarious. Now I can refer to my old PC1 as the "ballsack guitar" and the new one as the "PC1". I can't get them confused now. Still LMAO!

[Oregon Jason]

I am the owner of the sackstock guitar...

It is actually far more high tech than I could tell from the original pics before I got the guitar. There is actually an offset route on the back of the headstock where the tuners go in. Lee told me this was done to keep the guitar better in tune. I can say that I have played the crap out of it for the past 24 hours and it has stayed in tune...so there may be something to the whole sackstock design.

The headstock has grown on me already in the past 24 hours.

It is a great playing guitar, and as always, the wood and finish is flawless.

Jason

[Chameleonfong]

. Now I can refer to my old PC1 as the "ballsack guitar" and the new one as the "PC1". I can't get them confused now. Still LMAO!

1 +

[83SanDimas]

Ahh the headstock dilema. I can say from past experience, do not judge a guitar by its headstock.

Please do not take this the wrong way. When I was a young giggiing guitarist I played my Charvel and Les Paul. I wanted another Charvel but was so dissapointed in the new "Pointy" headstock. I was a strathead guy. My idea of guitar tallent was Eddie and Malmsteen, not Metalica. I did not want to associate with anything pointy. Years later I finally play them and I am amazed at how outstanding they are. Also, Suhr and Andersen have survived the Fender headstock. They are the owner groups deepest with talent. I am not in love with the Jackson pointy or Suhr or GMW headstock, but I think they would not effect my purchass decision. If What I see on Jasons guitar is what I think, that PC1 looking headstock has some innovation designed in.

We are a tough crowd to sell to. I wish Lee luck