Gitfiddler Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 OK, I'll admit it. I prefer the look of a bound Heritage headstock. In fact I prefer the look of most guitars with bound headstocks. To me very few of them look finished with unbound headstocks. That is why my one and only Heritage custom order included a bound headstock. It cost a few bucks extra, but it gave the guitar the look I was after. After receiving the guitar, I could not imagine it without a bound headstock. It just looked right to me. Currently all of the 140's, 150's, 525's, 530's 535's and Eagles (I'm certain I'm leaving a few out) come standard with unbound headstocks. What do you guys think? Should Heritage upgrad them all to bound headstocks standard, leave it as an upgrade, or what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 OK, I'll admit it. I prefer the look of a bound Heritage headstock. In fact I prefer the look of most guitars with bound headstocks. To me very few of them look finished with unbound headstocks. That is why my one and only Heritage custom order included a bound headstock. It cost a few bucks extra, but it gave the guitar the look I was after. After receiving the guitar, I could not imagine it without a bound headstock. It just looked right to me. Currently all of the 140's, 150's, 525's, 530's 535's and Eagles (I'm certain I'm leaving a few out) come standard with unbound headstocks. What do you guys think? Should Heritage upgrad them all to bound headstocks standard, leave it as an upgrade, or what? I do not think that Heritage should automatically go to a bound headstock. It would be a bad business decision due to the increased customer cost of a base line guitar. I would suggest that they keep it as an option, as it currently is on those guitars made without it as standard. I do, however, think the the silk screened logo is ridiculous on a guitar like an H150, or the H535 and 530. With the level of quality that those guitars represent, they should have the inlaid MOP logo as standard and not have it reflected as a price increase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fxdx99 Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Yup - bound on 150s and 535s for sure. Would be an excellent move - looks much better and worth the price increase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kbp810 Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 I love the look of the bound headstock as well; but to me it doesn't make it look like an unfinished guitar though. All three of my H's are lacking a bound HS, and it hasn't bugged me one bit. I also love the MOP inlay as opposed to silk screen, but again it's not somthing that actually bugs me (just as long as it says Heritage I am one happy camper!). 2 of mine are silk screened, my 140 is inlaid. - Though for me, if I had to choose I'd take the MOP inlay over being bound... but either way, H #4 for me will be bound and inlaid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halowords Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 I'm not sure from a business model which option would be better. I will say I GREATLY prefer the look (and slight nick-and-chip protection) of a bound headstock. I also like the looks of the slightly wider headstocks on the archtops. So a bound and bigger Heritage headstock would be something I'd prefer. Overall I love the shape, but with the binding it looks a LOT nicer and with the dimensions of a Sweet 16 or 576 (not sure if they're all the same, but that slightly wider/fatter looking headstock) I would like it much, much, MUCH better. Not that anybody asked about that specifically or anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big bob Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 It depends on the guitar, My 575 non cutaway has a rosewood headstock veneer with no binding and looks great. My 170 with the 555 headstock looks great too.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halowords Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 It depends on the guitar, My 575 non cutaway has a rosewood headstock veneer with no binding and looks great. True. When I see pictures of your 575 non-cutaway, if there is one thing I DON'T think, it's "man, this needs some binding." That's the one with no inlays and no biding, right? For some reason that guitar just looks great and very classy/understated. I really love the looks of that. Not that I would not like it any less with binding but love the minimalistic look. On that guitar, I think they stopped adding stuff at the right point. So to totally contradict myself, maybe it does depend. Which makes for a very noncommittal answer to the poll question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genericmusic Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 I'm a plain Jane kind of gut. The less bling or flash the better. Let the guitar speak/sing for itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tulk1 Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Got single bound, multiple bound and unbound. I like all 3. But of the 3, I prefer the single bound. I also prefer no binding on the back of guitars. As for the boys, I figure they should decide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjkrause84 Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 I prefer unbound, myself. Just looks more 'natural' that way to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TalismanRich Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 I think the binding make the headstock look "right". Got the multiply binding on the 157 and the Milli LE. The 535 and 140 are plain. I think for the 140 it looks ok, but the on the 535, if I was ordering new, it would have the bound headstock with inlay logo. Heck, why not go ahead and bind the 140 as well.... it might look like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pegleg32 Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 I like bound headstocks. 150 on the left, 535 on the right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 My preference is unbound on a dot neck, bound on anything else. Someone else here mentioned a slightly larger headstock and I must admit that I often thought that the headstock on the H-516 I had would have looked great on my thinner-headstocked 150, 170 and 535. There are some pics in my gallery of the headstocks side by side. I'd like a MOP headstock inlay but not of 'The Heritage' - I'd just like the stylised 'H' they used to have on the archtop tailpieces but that's because I'd like a guitar with my 'name' on it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dano4kix Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 My guitar is the H-120. Very plain - very basic guitar. A bound headstock would look odd against the overall simplicity of this axe - but - bound headstocks are cool otherwise and should be an available option (for a nominal fee) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halowords Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Here is another thing for me. I think bound headstocks look better on most Heritages for two reasons. One, it makes the heads look a bit wider, which to me is a plus. Sure, it makes it a big more polished looking, but the dimensions (real or perceived) of a bound headstock on most Heritage models are just a better fit. While I personally love the shape of the regular headstock, the slender dimensions just seem a bit too sleek and slender for the traditionally larger sized bodies. That's why I like the larger Archtop-styled headstocks. The dimensions and profiles go together better in my opinion. The second thing is continuity with the neck. I think that's why I LOVE Lance's unadorned non-cutout 575 so much. With bound necks but unbound headstock, it's like they stopped before they were finished. There is that lack of uniformity in design of the guitar. Whereas on the totally un-bound guitar, it all flows nicely. On my H-159, Prospect, and the H-535 I had, it was like this very nice guitar but the lines of the binding just stopped prematurely. To me it interrupts the flow of the guitar. So I think I'd almost rather it be all-or-nothing in regards to binding because I don't get that same feeling looking at a totally unbound guitar with no neck or headstock binding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skydog52 Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Here is another thing for me. I think bound headstocks look better on most Heritages for two reasons. One, it makes the heads look a bit wider, which to me is a plus. Sure, it makes it a big more polished looking, but the dimensions (real or perceived) of a bound headstock on most Heritage models are just a better fit. While I personally love the shape of the regular headstock, the slender dimensions just seem a bit too sleek and slender for the traditionally larger sized bodies. That's why I like the larger Archtop-styled headstocks. The dimensions and profiles go together better in my opinion. I agree bound does make them look larger. I have an order in with a archtop type headstock bound on a H-170. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DetroitBlues Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 I think the binding adds a touch of class.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark555 Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 On a personal level I am not a fan of bound headstocks, (and here I am owning a 555) and I am also going that way about binding on the neck. My feelings come from years of gradually changing my mind, and concluding that plastic is not an organic material. I like the way PRS bodies appear to be bound, but they are in fact wood. On another topic, I believe all Heritage guitars should had mother of pearl instead of silk Screen on the headstock. One thing I will give to Gibson, is that when they do it right, their brand name on a headstock in MOP does look beautiful. Peter Green (forum member) has a beautiful 335 that just oozes class with it's simplicity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gitfiddler Posted February 25, 2011 Author Share Posted February 25, 2011 After reading several posts here, I tend to agree with the suggestion of a MOP 'The Heritage' on ALL of their headstocks, bound or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dano4kix Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 After reading several posts here, I tend to agree with the suggestion of a MOP 'The Heritage' on ALL of their headstocks, bound or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hfan Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 On a personal level I am not a fan of bound headstocks, (and here I am owning a 555) and I am also going that way about binding on the neck. My feelings come from years of gradually changing my mind, and concluding that plastic is not an organic material. I like the way PRS bodies appear to be bound, but they are in fact wood. My much beloved binding is plastic? I never considered how it was done, but my bubble is now burst. Please tell me it is a rare, aged, meticulously formulated, installed with great precision ,exotic polymer... Actually I like my bound and inlaid headstocks (575,157 and 535) although the plain jane 150 is fine as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredZepp Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 If you're going to put binding on a headstock, it should really be a 5 layer ... don't you think? ... (and some inlay is nice too) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steiner Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 If you're going to put binding on a headstock, it should really be a 5 layer ... don't you think? ... (and some inlay is nice too) Aye! Seconds that: Love 'em but Lust that F-style Centurian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredZepp Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 Nice Porn, Steiner. Your Heritages are quite a photogenic bunch... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steiner Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 You got to love the head-porn! Thank you for the kind words FredZepp - I promise to get it right from now on CENTURION Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.