Reversed Headstocks

[yyz2112]

Anyone with a reverse headstock has got to be totally fricking backwards! :tard:
God, what a stupid look that is on a Strat. :dontknow:

As soon as I saw the first post of this thread, I knew it would come to this.
What's the point of it, anyway? You don't like it, fine. You like it, fine.
What good can come out of this thread?

 

[Schlieren]

here comes a FLAME WAR somebody better WATCH OUT and call the BURN WARD 

 

[DangerousR6]

Anyone with a reverse headstock has got to be totally fricking backwards! :tard:
God, what a stupid look that is on a Strat. :dontknow:

It's only for people that use their right brains...People that veer away from the status quo, the bland and very stale, and have the capability of thinking outside the box..  :icon_biggrin:

People that put humbuckers and pointy headstocks on Tele's.... :laughing7:

 

[Super Turbo Deluxe Custom]

I like 'em.  Don't know why.  I'm not really a Hendrix worshipper, and play bass mostly anyway.  My 2 basses have 'em, my guitars don't.  I've heard all of the myths about the string tension and the like, used to believe some of 'em, especially about the Low B's floppiness going away with a reverse headstock.  I don't know if it's ergonomically advantageous, you learn to do it either way.  The post about reverse headstocks warping is not founded.  With most standard set string gauges for guitar or bass, the treble strings have more tension.  This being the case, the reverse headstock should be less likely to warp.

 

[Kostas]

I love 'em, and as stated above when using the tuners it's ergonomically easier.... And they look bitchin'.... :icon_biggrin:

Agree :icon_thumright:

 

[baskruit]

Anyone with a reverse headstock has got to be totally fricking backwards! :tard:
God, what a stupid look that is on a Strat. :dontknow:

As soon as I saw the first post of this thread, I knew it would come to this.
What's the point of it, anyway? You don't like it, fine. You like it, fine.
What good can come out of this thread?

Everybody has a chance to rant which can feel good at times, and that's that. So far in this thread I don't see anybody being offended by other people's opinion. It's all no big deal.

 

[baskruit]

You know, if people would be really rational about this, nobody would consider a Fender-style headstock.
2/2 (bass) or 3/3 (guitar), angled headstocks make much more sense so in the end it's all a matter of taste...

 

[DangerousR6]

You know, if people would be really rational about this, nobody would consider a Fender-style headstock.
2/2 (bass) or 3/3 (guitar), angled headstocks make much more sense so in the end it's all a matter of taste...

That'a all it really comes down to anyway, is a matter of taste... :dontknow:

 

[DangerousR6]

According to some, string pull is better with reverse headstocks since the high E is closer to the nut which makes string tension more bendable   The rest are all trying to look like Hendrix........ :laughing7:

Jimi's guitar didn't have a rev headstock, he was using a right handed guitar.... :icon_biggrin:

 

[Death by Uberschall]

Put a locking Floyd on it and it don't matter which way what ever direction the strings go after the locking nut.  :toothy11:

 

[line6man]

You know, if people would be really rational about this, nobody would consider a Fender-style headstock.
2/2 (bass) or 3/3 (guitar), angled headstocks make much more sense so in the end it's all a matter of taste...

I've always kind of thought that 2/2 and 3/3 headstocks were weird. I shouldn't have to change the position of my hand to get all the strings tuned. It makes more sense that all the tuners be together as opposed to being split up.

You know, if people would be really rational about this, nobody would consider a Fender-style headstock.
2/2 (bass) or 3/3 (guitar), angled headstocks make much more sense so in the end it's all a matter of taste...

That'a all it really comes down to anyway, is a matter of taste... :dontknow:

Exactly.
Apparently some of you can't handle strong personal opinions though. This is a thread for people that don't like reversed headstocks, so I voiced my opinion.
Those of you that like reversed headstocks didn't have to read any further than the first post.

 

[imminentG]

I am not particularly keen on them, but I am skeptical about the kind of change in tone you'd get.

Wonder if they do reverse tele  :laughing3:

 

[exaN]

I am not particularly keen on them, but I am skeptical about the kind of change in tone you'd get.

Wonder if they do reverse tele  :laughing3:

A reverse Tele would look good imo!

 

[SustainerPlayer]

It is a matter of personal taste. And it is not to my taste.

But I do not see it as a problem - and it will certainly not deduct from my awesomeness.  arty07:

 

[taez555]

In my opinion certain guitars and certain shapes of headstocks look great with reverse headstocks, some don't.     

A great example of a good reverse is B.C. Rich.  I always thought their 6 in-line headstocks looked really dumb normal, reverse was the ONLY way to go with those.  That or Nuno Bettencourt's Washburn N4, can you imagine that guitar with a normal headstock?  yuck...

 

[baskruit]

You know, if people would be really rational about this, nobody would consider a Fender-style headstock.
2/2 (bass) or 3/3 (guitar), angled headstocks make much more sense so in the end it's all a matter of taste...

I've always kind of thought that 2/2 and 3/3 headstocks were weird. I shouldn't have to change the position of my hand to get all the strings tuned. It makes more sense that all the tuners be together as opposed to being split up.

I don't think I have to tune that often that this would bother me.  :icon_smile:

 

[CrackedPepper]

This should have been a poll

 

[jay4321]

Reverse headstocks look really '80s and very outdated to me, and not in a "classic" sort of way. It's probably because I associate them with those bright pointy guitars, and the people who played them who looked ridiculous wearning makeup and spandex. For the most part they made some terrible, terrible music. Even those guitars I did like somewhat seemed to look better with normal headstocks. Just my opinion... those were dark times. Not ready for the revival just yet.

The obvious exception is Jimi's setup, and I've seen a nice black tele reverse.

 

[tubby.twins]

I've always kind of thought that 2/2 and 3/3 headstocks were weird. I shouldn't have to change the position of my hand to get all the strings tuned. It makes more sense that all the tuners be together as opposed to being split up.

I'm thinking that every headstock layout is a compromise of some sort.  Inline headstocks give you the consistent hand position of reaching from one side (or the other) at the expense of putting all the tuners fairly close together, and making the overall headstock length longer.

Split headstocks (2+2, 3+3, 3+2, etc.) usually try to give you more spacing between tuners, and a more balanced symmetry of the overall headstock, at the expense of having to use different hand positions to tune each half of the strings.

I personally can't imagine using an inline headstock for a 5-string or 6-string bass.  I've seen some of the examples out there which did (i.e. Carvin 5-string basses in the late '80s) and they didn't appeal to me at all.

For a really wacky reverse headstock, check this auction:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=170432337370

 

[Super Turbo Deluxe Custom]

Technically speaking, I wouldn't call that Martin a reverse headstock.  The string paths are opposite a standard 6 in-line like a reverse headstock, but ultimately it's where the tuners are, right?  These tuners are still on top and tuned in the overhand position.