The Problem with Gibson Headstocks and How to Fix Them!
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ต.ค. 2024
- It's an open secret in the guitar world, Gibson headstocks break. It doesn't happen spontaneously but many Gibson guitar owners have suffered from the infamous headstock break from a drop. Why does this seem to disproportionately affect Gibson guitars over other brands? Today we will spell out the reasons and discuss what Gibson could do to fix them.
SHOP GUITARS: bit.ly/3jKZjx1
CHECK OUT OUR PODCAST, the Fretboard Confessional!
Listen on Spotify: open.spotify.c...
Listen on Apple Podcasts: podcasts.apple...
Listen on Audible: www.audible.co...
Shop Guitars - www.alamomusic...
Guitar Buyers Guide → bit.ly/2kssXsR
Interested in a different guitar? Talk to an expert here → bit.ly/findmygu...
__________________________________________________________________
TH-cam: Pianos and Keyboards - bit.ly/YTpianos
♪ Contact us: www.alamomusic...
♩ Call toll-free: (844)251-1922
♬ Connect:
Instagram → / alamomusic
Chris, I absolutely agree with you, as a consumer of guitars I like dealing with companies that have a long and successful history, but have learned over time how to improve their products. I hear too many guitarists go on about wanting vintage year specific reproductions of their models, without recognizing that perhaps guitar manufacturers have learned through experience over time what has worked and what should be improved.
One further reason for Gibson headstocks breaking is that they have a 17 degree tilt back, further shortening the grain in comparison to headstocks with lesser tilt backs such as Epiphones which are at 14 degrees. I’m not arguing that Gibsons should change the tilt back because the scarf joint is a much better solution, but changing the tilt back would be better than doing nothing.
The only headstock in the world to have a 🛎️ 🔚 to cover the truss rod. It’s high time that Gibson got this design fault sorted.
Y'all might want to check out this break! th-cam.com/video/u2Ei_seSreY/w-d-xo.html
Says the internet armchair expert :)
@@ShamanicSavant Indeed I do. Do you own a Les Paul?
If you want to make an argument for reducing the headstock angle, Epiphones are the LAST example I’d refer to. Headstock angle very much affects the tone of the guitar. I agree with you that a redesigned neck joint would be a better idea, but otherwise, I’d prefer doing nothing.
Just purchased an Epiphone Les Paul 1959 and was concerned about the headstock issues. Good to know the scarf joint is stronger. Appreciate the information.
I think you are 100% correct Chris. Gibson needs to listen to YOU /US ! Thanks for all you /Alamo Music does.🎸🎸🎸🎸
Would be interesting to know what percentage broken headstock vs total production is concerned...
I'd agree. Gibson would want to see some solid data around breakages before investing millions in new production processes. If it's 1:10000, might be worth floating the idea, but 1:100000, maybe not.
Right on…. Pkus they already do scarf joints in Epiphone necks and they look great! Old time ways aren’t better, they are just older.
Courageous, educational and well done! Thank you.
my friend's SG headstock broke when he was just playing it - bad design
That’s why I stay away from Gibsons. with tons of different brands now with better quality & better prices. and also that video of a guy here on youtube of proving that wood does not matter to tone that much when it comes to an electric guitar (Not acoustic). It’s mainly the pickups. Gibson is just lucky that the Guitar Gods of the past used their guitars & thats why that’s the only thing they keep hanging on. That’s the only thing that keeps them hanging in business, the past.
Great information Chris. I’ve owned three Gibsons that cracked. I never dropped them, always handled with care.
I’ve seen lots of comments about the angle, etc.
Maybe my issues were I rarely reduced the string tension when not playing. Or maybe the impact occurred during transit but wasn’t visible yet.
Thanks. Great information and video
This was a very interesting and informative video. I was a victim of the Gibson fault. In June of 1966, I bought a brand new "SG Standard". During rehearsal, our bass player asked me a question and I turned around rather swiftly to face him and our instrument necks collided. I didn't notice at first but my neck had a serious "V" shaped crack. I was 15 at the time and was in shock. I lived in a small city where there weren't any luthiers. So I spread that crack and applied Lepage's wood glue. I somehow clamped it. Well, I gigged with that guitar for 54 years. It still is playable. BTW Gibson used "Volutes" from 1969 thru 1981 on their standard models. I recently bought a Les Paul knock-off and it had a crack at the heel. Neck cracks don't really bother me anymore.
Great video, Chris. Gibson (and retailers who ship) could also loosen the strings prior to shipping to reduce the pull on the neck during transport. No point in tuning a guitar before shipping as it will need to be tuned at its destination. Just a simple option to help the chances of the guitar being unharmed during transit.
Guitars are built to have tension on them.
Taylor do ship at lower tension.
Very good points, Chris. I never thought about the shorter grain. Enjoy your new guitar! I love my 335.
I agree completely with this video. I think changing the tilt back to 10 or even 14°, and doing some kind of scarf joint would greatly help things without changing the appearance of the headstock in a dramatic way
This touches on an interesting issue in many legacy guitar brands. It seems like they don't do their research to find out what modern features players want and what players don't want, like Fender. They have the best heel cut they ever put on the American Pro II line. But they try to reinvent that on Ultras, which is worse and requires an entirely different neck to work on it. That means you can't make a parts-caster from any Ultra guitar. People buy Fenders in part because they're so easy and fun to mod. Guilds are another great example. The one thing holding me back from buying a D55 is the vintage nut width. Give me an option with the 1.75" nut, which has become the modern standard. They make the M20 with a 1.75", so we know the factor has the tooling. There aren't many people now that prefer the so slim nuts of vintage Guilds; it's okay to change those. The robot tuners is definitely the pinnacle example of this though. Gibson was so out of touch it was laughable.
Fenders whole neck heel thing is weird. But for something like the guild nuts or whatever, Im sure a thin nut width probably is what draws some players to guilds in the first place. Thats what I tend to like. I also like other things like super small frets that most people arent a very big fan of. I think a lot of the companies should try and modernize for the most part, but they definitely need options for people who like the more vintage spec side of things.
Nice video.
I have one of my Rickenbacker 360/12 guitars next to my recliner and I was checking the “break angle”. No where near the angle the Gibson guitars have.
Wow. Played since 1986. Had two Gibsons. Never knew some of this. Thank You Very Much! for this information. You have done ALL of us a HUGE service by making this video. Best Regards and Best Wishes!
You nailed it. Great explanation for head stock designs and flaws. One you didn't mention though is the angle the strings run over the nut. I believe that all 3 per side tuning designs like Gibsons , Martins, Taylors and others are bad designs. Fender got that right.
I have owned many Fenders and Gibsons over the years and still own a few. But my main electric today is a mid 80s Hamer TLE. Its headstock has the best of Fender and Gibsons designs and eliminated the flaws of both. The neck is a 3 piece maple with a Rosewood fretboard. Very strong.The headstock is tilted back and with six on a side tuners, the strings run perfectly straight across the nut.
The neck is set into a mahogany body with a figured maple laminated top. Unlike a Fender Tele, the back of the body has a belly contour like a Strat. Very comfortable.
Although I wasn't happy with the pickup layout and made some modifications, I believe the body and neck are perfectly designed. This model was only produced for a few years and not all Hamers are like this. Not sure why it didn't catch on.
Thanks for a very informative video.
I've played Dean's for 30 years, never had an issue with the string path causing tuning problems.
Love your informative videos Chris. I love Gibsons to death but other than being vintage correct the headstock design is pretty much the worst of all worlds: 3x3 is more annoying than 6-in-line and the weak spot is made even worse by the tilt back. Many Gibson designs are also heavier on one side, and both contribute to the issue even more. I have a soft spot for a good 70s LP and was very disappointed that the recent Deluxe was literally just the 50s P-90 with mini-hums - no bigger headstock and no volute. A run of “proper” 70s inspired LPs and 335s might be another way to offer the volute in the USA line.
My Taylor and PRS guitars both have scarf joints. The one on my particular Taylor isn't very pretty because the grain doesn't match nicely but it's not an issue for me. The PRS one looks great on the maple neck, it's barely noticeable; I can't see why anybody would be unhappy to have the reassurance that their headstock is a bit more durable. Having broken one once I can tell you it's a horrible experience.
Taylor say that as well as being stronger it means they can use less wood so that's a plus for their costs and the environment
I appreciate your approach to this subject, where you still manage to show respect for those who prefer vintage specs and builds on their instruments. I totally agree with you that Gibson should offer BOTH headstock designs in their catalog. The weakness you describe is certainly valid, and the solution you offer is very much worth considering. I would be very interested in trying a Gibson with this type of improved headstock. However, it’s important to keep in mind that there are many parts to a guitar which make up the whole. Tweaking any one of these can, and often does, have an effect on the tone. It’s not a given that a redesigned headstock will sound exactly like the current design - that’s where a comparison would be really important. And since not everyone hears tone the same way, it’s why i also think it’s important to continue offering the current headstock design along with any new one. While I love my weight-relieved LP, I can definitely hear a difference in tone vs. those without it. It’s a trade off, and fortunately, Gibson continues to offer that choice to us. The headstock designs should be the same way.
They should totally update the design for their main-line guitars. Save the traditionalist designs for reissues where the cost to maintain legacy manufacturing techniques can be absorbed by a higher-margin instrument.
WOW! Very informative. I love my Les Paul Standard 60s but I would love it more with a stronger neck. I hope to buy an ES-345 in the future. I really hope they listen to your ideas before I buy one!
Thanks. Would have been nice to show a Gibson volute, and a Gibson neck without the truss rod cover. Got to get into ya'lls shop next time I'm in San Antone. I'm no expert, but I do think the changes you suggest would be well received.
Those valutes Gibson used recently in the custom shop looked badass. Reminds me of the valute on my HD28. Only Gibson I own with a headstock repair is my 1961 jr and it's great. I've yet to break one myself though. Owned Gibsons for 10 years now.
Very well said and explained! Hope Gibson hears you! Even Cort Guitars, Ibanez and other lower end producers do that joint or the volute...
I totally agree Chris. But keep in mind that Gibson, like so many other manufacturers of so many other products, believe they know best and really don't give a damn what their customers think. Granted, I have no idea what Gibson thinks of their customers but in the absence of any declaration from Gibson, people will think what they want. I mean, while they are wonderful guitars, they are way overpriced. And I own one! I'm just happy mine has never broken (mine is an acoustic J15) despite getting knocked from a "standard" guitar stand. There was finish damage to the edge of the headstock but luckily no actual break. Perhaps they still do it this way because they've always done it this way ... Sounds familiar, no?
I don't think that's it. More likely that Gibson purists would crucify them if they changed it.
Either way, if you just don't drop it, it isn't a problem.
Hey. You've convinced me. I'm gearing up to have a... 'single cut' ... built. It's already going to have some modern features. My luthier was trying to convince me to use a scarf joint. And this is a guy who's built a good few of those guitars in the original '50s style. I think I'm convinced now and will go with the scarf joint. The look will barely change for a lot of extra strength.
Scarf joint is needed if it's not quarter-sawn lumber.
You make too much sense. For that reason, they will never change.
If they change, a lot of snobs abd fanboys (who are the whale customers) will fall off.
Same thing happens to the Epiphone Les Paul. I have one that I purchased, second hand, and didn't notice any cracks when I purchased. However, when I took the strings loose to change, the head virtually fell off. (Cracked on both sides) I was devastated. Anyway, thanks for the explanation.
Very informative video. Thanks for this clear and complete explanation.
I agree with you and I have given this much thought.
But it just makes too much sense!
I bought a 1974 Gibson Grabber Bass. It has a scarf joint and a bolt on neck. 😮 I know it sounds crazy to some, but true. So Gibson can and has done it.
Theres a reason G in particular always goes out of tune, its the thin string with the worst angle going from tuner to nut.
That red thing on your shirt makes it look like someone has you in their sites. 🤣😂🤣🎸
I think Gibson should go with your suggestion 100%. And also, they should not do the frets up to the binding. The frets should be over the binding. Gibson is too far into their ‘iconic’ status to see what is practical.
Gibson switched to a 14 degree angle in late 1965, then switched back to 17 degrees in 1982. With the exception of the SG's angle that went back to 17 degrees in 1973. Les Pauls had volutes from 1970 to 1981. From 1975 to 1981, they also had 3 piece maple necks with volutes & 14 degree headstock angle. So they have done everything except the scarf joint, which, IMO, would be the best solution.
My 1972 Les Paul that I have owned since 1979, has held up fine with it 3 piece mahogany neck with a volute & a 14 degree headstock angle.
Another solution would be PRS. Very similar to Gibson: one-piece mahogany neck, angeled headstock with a truss rod pocket, but with a much shallower headstock angle. They still do break, but less often than Gibson guitars.
The Volute does NOT solve the problem! The Norland era LP's and SG's had volutes for a time and just as many headstocks broke! The short grain issue still exists. It just has a carbuncle on top of it! A major reason they break is Mahogany is not a very strong hardwood. BTW, many Asian scarf jointed LP style guitars still break. The phenomenon with scarf joints is the breaks are much shorter (cross grained like you hit it with an ax) and harder to repair. BTW I've been repairing guitars professionally since 1977. If you want to own a Gibson, learn how not to drop it.
Interestingly, the break on scarf jointed necks seems to sometimes run along the jointed pieces. Which to me suggest a bad glue job rather than a design failure. But then again with enough vertical.force you can break every neck.
When you say you're more careful with temp and humidity what are you looking for? Are you looking for more humid or more dry? You've got me really nervous now about my 1991 J-45 that's in like new condition.
I have 3 guitars and each has a different approach. I have a Taylor with a scarf joint, a Furch where the truss rod adjustment is in the body like a Martin, and a Kasuga (1970's Japenese) which has a volute.
I've owned over a dozen Gibsons and never broke a headstock. I have one Martin acoustic and the headstock broke while in the case. So, there's that.
Thats why I prefer the 79 thru 81 Les Pauls because they have the volute.
They did make a Les Paul with and explorer headstock in the 80s. Pretty rare to find one.
Volute does nothing.
Interesting points. Somebody who buys a reissue from the '50s actually has a certain mystique and won't like changes to the model. I would suggest: put the guitar back in its case when not using it, avoid stands and tune it down 1 step for transit. For those who accept changes, yes, a scarf joint is like a pre-glued 2 piece neck at the headstock, but much neater and already faetured. The esthetics won't maybe look as good as a one-pice neck but it will be much more solid. A wheel truss rod at the bottom of the neck can be another improvement. Mahogany is a much softer wood than hard maple. In the '70s, Gibson used a 3 piece maple neck WITH a volute on their LPs. I had one that fell on the head flat down on the floor and nothing happened ! Goes to show, maybe they should offer a line with this structure ?...
The best arguments are that additional cost will be offset by more efficient use of materials for the neck, and the “don’t do it like 2015”. There aren’t enough people to say ew a scarf joined headstock to ruin it.
You mentioned Martin, the D-28 has the "diamond" feature on the back side of the neck, the D-18 does not (if I remember right, keep me honest)...one idea would be keep a "faux" adjustment cover and move the adjustment to the guitar body end...I've also heard that fixed Les Paul's necks were stronger...so, break the neck at the factory along a marked line and fix it be before boxing and shipping...in fact before you even put the neck on the guitar!!! Speaking of angle change... Gibson should test at say 15-16 degrees and see if anyone notices or number of broken necks goes down...just saying.
Exactly you should be able to choose.
If the necks are already done by CNC, why can’t they include the Scarf Joint in the initial cutting?
Doesn't Epiphone also use a slightly shallower neck angle? Another improvement to throw in the mix.
Makes perfect sense.
Evolution.
Chris, it sounds like a good idea. I own a lot of Gibson guitars and I get paranoid about breaking them.
They also make a sort of reinforced design on the Les Paul Access guitars as well, I’m not sure if it’s actually stronger although it certainly appears to be, at least to me. Knock wood, I’ve never damaged a Gibbie headstock and I own 5 of them ( I probably just jinxed myself by saying that too here LOL! ).
The only LP style guitar I bought, came with a broken headstock. It was Epiphone LP standard 50s. This has never happened with any of my strat style guitars.
Just add Murphy Labs pre-broken and repaired headstocks as an option. Play authentic. (And it’s stronger)
Put the truss rod adjustment in the pickup cavity?!
I really need someone to explain to me what they are doing to their guitars to break these?? I own 13 Gibsons and have sold probably about 20 others over a matter of 38 years. They have been gigged some of them abused They have been on airplanes They have been in the back of cars and trucks in moving vans etc etc. Please, once and for all tell me how you guys are doing it?
I wish they brought back the volute, especially on less vintage looking instruments (studios, modern…)
Very informative. Yes, Gibson should use your suggestions.
I like a valute on the back of my acoustic guitar neck. Thanks, Chris
Hey Chris, Why don't they put the truss rod adjustment inside the guitar body on their acoustic guitars? I had to gate check my J35 and an airline luggage ape dropped it. I almost cried when I saw that headstock peeled back. I love the sound of that guitar but I'll never buy a Gibson again unless they fix that problem.
if I can have a volute on my afforable import Guild so why they can't do this on whole gibson usa line ( improvment on one model will be cost more that to do this on all the guitars, and left the original design for some limited edition or for custom shop option for some period correct reissues.... ( p.s. I don't hate Gibsons, I had them, played them, pleyed on some very wanderful and so inspiring ones but I don't think they will be has less wanderful and inspiring with improvement ( like volute) on this weak spot) !) Chris 10000% agreed with you!
YES!! Modern Gibson Les Paul thinner, belly cut, maybe arm cut! Lighter, more comfortable, and maybe cheaper!! YES!! Several other companies are doing it!
Steam the profiled, flat, neck blank and bend at the nut.
Then the long grain would be continous end to end.
Never heard this topic come up. Good to know!
I love you, Chris. I love your reviews. I love that you said this your “opinion.” Gibson created the perfect storm for breaking necks which earned them a well deserved reputation. If Gibson changes the design, then it won’t be a Gibson any more. I understand your frustration as a marketer. But you’re tilting at windmills. You and Mr. Greenberg do great reviews. Keep up the good work.
Thank you for the information. Your suggestion is excellent.
So, I have a new “1960s” Standard with a valute. Does this mean the neck is still one piece of wood and the valute is carved in and the neck still susceptible to breaking?
The volute is purely decorative, it does nothing to prevent breaks.
14:55 Put in splines and that could beef it up big time. 😊 (twoodfrd) (lol)
Gibson did fix it in the 70’s with a volute, but the cork sniffers didn’t like it because it’s not 1950’s accurate. 🤨
Love my SG, but in hindsight I’d have preferred to support a company that manages to address issues (neck dive, vulnerable headstock) that have been well known for many decades.
Or frivolous litigation.
My 1964 Gibson LG-1 headstock broke and I had it repaired. The problem is well known as this problem and the fix is permanent, intonation and playability are fine. However the resale on this is basically is really down even though it will likely never break again. Gibson, what can I say.
Yes, go with the scarf joint!
Brillant exposé, merci Chris.
I have played Gibsons for 30 years with no problems. I once was handed my J45 with the strap, the was twisted. The guitar came loose and hit headstock first, I trapped the body against knee. Susan is still fine.
Also the electric guitar is heavier so the speed of the fall is maximized. So the Shock is greater. Do their acoustic headstocks break at the same ratio?.
What does Cooper think?
yes I totally agree, Traditional design is great until your beloved instrument is in 2 bits because of a design issue that other companies have long since put behind them. Uless you are super rich you have to live in the real world so it;s worth saying that Gibson is also losing sales because many buyers don;t want to shell out serious money on a guitar that scares you to death for the terror of it falling over once too often. I won't buy a Gibson for that very reason, it would break my heart, my guitar and my bank account
Perhaps why new manufactures have it over old, the basis design. Why earthquakes devastate structures not built to withstand. Good video!
4:20 Fenders are maple which is much better for strength as apposed to Gibson which is usually mahogany or something. No? 😊 (My ‘74 SG broke in ‘78. Ugh. Stills sounds great but, you should see the repair! Lol )
If properly quarter-sawn lumber is used, species doesn't matter.
Easy......
Gibson USA need to go all scarf jointed (like what Taylor does) necks and give people finally a long neck tennon as a compromise, even just medium tenon like Japanese copies use
It's not difficult gibson
Even cooler idea is before adding the fretboard nut and headstock overlay, they route an area for a carbon fiber rods that go from the 20th fret down to into the headstock! (The carbon fiber rods pre bent to go rite into the headstock and the rods would need to be rectangular shaped to slot tightly into the neck)
That'd make them NEVERRRR! BREAK!
The Epiphone "Excellente " has a 7 piece neck. I don't think it will ever break or warp. Gibson may want to use a portion of this idea in the weak point of their necks.
Having said that. The Gibson and Strat are beautiful models.
Maybe Gibson should think about this: I will be buying a new acoustic guitar this Spring, probably around the $3,000 price point. I once felt a sense of loyalty to Gibson, maybe because I’m from Kalamazoo, MI. When Gibson left Kazoo for Nashville (leaving a lot of people without jobs), that blind loyalty changed. Gibson almost lost their acoustic guitar business because of that decision. I already have been factoring in Gibson’s notoriously weak neck/headstock design into my decision process. Right now I’m leaning toward a CEO-7, a 00-18, or a 00-28 instead of a Gibson L-00 or LG-2. I suspect that I’m not the only one considering this issue in their guitar choices.
In the end, it’s about sound. The headstock issue doesn’t enter into it for most of us. Gibson acoustic guitars are some of the best sounding guitars made, period. If you find something that sounds as good or better, go for it. But if the sound isn’t there, I certainly wouldn’t let a broken headstock phobia influence my decision. At the end of the day, there are certainly a lot more Gibsons out there with their headstocks intact than with broken ones.
i might be wrong with this... but haven't gibson tried to make changes to the neck in the past but got severe backlash
I think the weight of some of their LPs have given them severe backlash.
Funny how people keep talking about Gibson headstocks. Many think scarfjoints are cheap.
I see a lot of guitars with angled headstocks being repaired. Gibson style or scarfjoint.
People need to take care of their instruments.
Never broke a headstock in my life. People shure love to bash Gibson for it.
I fixed multiple accoustics (non Gibson)
Soon my mate his bass with a broken headstock.
Is this an issue with classical instruments? They are fragile or maybe the musicians take proper care.
Headstocks don’t snap of out of nothing.
Gibson used multiple piece necks in the 70’s but thise guitars were always bashed at being bad.
I've owned several Gibson guitars (two 335s/four LPs/two 12 strings over the last 50 years and I've never had one break on me despite 27 years of gigging. I also currently own a 1946 mirrored glass Christmas ornament that my grandparents gave me when I was 6 and it has never been broken either, despite being used almost every year for the last 64 Christmas's. The best way to keep a Gibson (or any guitar) in good working order is to treat it like glass. (An expert tech/roadie and NO stage theatrics, they weren't built for it!) Carl Wilson had an Epiphone Riviera 12 string with 11 headstock repairs but he kept touring with it cause he loved the sound so much. (but he was kind of hard on his instruments)
Check's in the mail, yes I'll respect you in the morning and I work for the government and I'm here to help you. The top three lies. Great vid. I have a Sheraton II pro. Does it suffer from the same thing as the Gibson? I'll look into the scarf joint. Great information kiddo.
Who engineered that thing? 🎸
I "fixed" my Gibson......I bought an Explorer. I think PRS got it right with a near straight pull 3+3; I always liked the looks of the Music Man 4+2, but I'm heard they trademarked that so nobody else can do 4+2.
A modern Les Paul 50-60's with classic aesthetics is essentially what PRS did with the McCarty 594. Traditionalists are holding back progress at Gibson and Fender. Those companies are bound by them. You shouldn't have to pay for a custom shop to get a guitar that doesn't have some of the problems the standard does. If you have one, you have to essentially put away another $700 for a future neck break. Yes, people can go a lifetime and not have a break, but accidents do happen and the cost is high for an accident involving a Gibson.
But, they don't care so much because they understand people buy the brand, regardless of its quality. Too many guitar brand loyalists willing to accept questionable quality hold a company back from improving. Why should they? Gibson didn't stop selling guitars, even though the "rough years."
I was torn between the PRS and the Gibson, and while the Gibson is classic, and nothing sounds like one, I couldn't get passed the very shaky fret work I can see in the HD pictures on Sweetwater. Just zoom in on it, the frets are so messy on a $2700 guitar, something that is remedied in the $6000 models.
I don't mind blemishes on used guitars I'm not paying full price for, and was put there by a player, but to come straight from the factory with shotty work, is unacceptable to me. A guitar for $2700 doesn't have to be 100% perfect if it's a great guitar, but it should be pretty close to it.
Very informative thanks
Hi guys love your channel, i'm looking for a good affordable guitar, have you guys ever reviewed the Epiphone J-200EC Studio Acoustic-Electric Guitar - Vintage Sunburst
Chris, I agree with you 100 percent. Because Gibson necks are so weak, I use Epiphones when I play out. The are normally three piece necks and have a shallower neck angle. And while we’re on the subject, I would prefer a poly finish, one that doesn’t check after only a few years.
If you like a crappy, tone-killing poly finish, why not just continue playing the Epiphones? I sold my Epiphone LP some years ago and bought a Gibson LP for this very reason. It’s impossible to get a good LP tone out of a guitar that’s basically encased in plastic. There’s a reason why the top manufacturers still use nitro on their guitars - it just sounds better. Of course, if you’re more concerned with appearance than with tone, poly is the perfect finish. Checking doesn’t negatively affect the tone - ask anyone who owns (or has been lucky enough to play) a vintage Gibson LP.
Love what you said. your dead on the money and accurate in the information you gave and this is coming from an experienced luthier. now let me tell you why i think Gibson hasn't corrected there problem and they know about the problem. This is from a business perspective. why should they fix it? they dont have too because people are still buying there guitars, there still popular and they probably sell more guitars by not fixing the problem. somebody breaks a headstock and doesnt know a good luthier or know that this can be repaired, what do they do? they buy a new gibson because they love gibsons. .gibson is still popular and still selling there guitars. theres no reason for them to fix the problem. I would never do what gibson does to people to any of my customers because my names on the guitar and its a matter of pride that Gibson doesnt have. they dont give a fuck. for them all that matters is the love of the o'mighty dollar. i tell people all the time. i build better guitars than gibson for less money,
This is the main reason I don't own a Gibson.
It's a .. bad design I think?
This is a big issue for me as my fav acoustic .... I've broken MANY times .. and it's a gibson style head.
I've also Fender headstock guitars. They don't do it. None broken.
It's annoying!
One thing I don't have to worry about with my Tele....I am convinced my Tele could beat me in a fight tbh
this is the exact reason i dont own a gibson. im not shelling out that kind of money. i like the idea of putting the truss rod adjustment at the bottom of the fretboard
Umm, just don’t drop it.
Do you go around dropping your coffee mug, or your royal dalton figurines?
Watch what you’re doing imho.
Btw, lots of folks don’t have broken headstocks. (I don’t, knock on wood).
Guitarists aren’t really big on change as you know. I guess they could try and make a alternate neck and make both types. I’m not interested but I’m just one opinion in a sea of opinions lol
Besides, I don’t need another guitar. My ‘59 reissue suits me just fine.
You forget that everything is Gibson's fault these days because their guitars are pricey.
@@rexrathtar3893 ahh yah, I forgot. Bad bad Gibson. Lol
I agree with you, the neck design should have evolved to a scarf joint, the volute carve, or also a laminate neck like Guild jazz guitars.
It's true Gibson necks are too fragile. I find absurd that Gibson justifies this design because of tradition, because it creates its signature sound (selling nonsense, no significant difference ), and maybe don't want to change production rigs or templates, but in the end would benefit the company overall. Too entrenched mindset. No surprise why innovators like Seth Lover and Bill Lawrence left Gibson.