Mickguard Posted January 10, 2006 Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 So, I'm moving closer and closer to building my own neck... See my previous post about dropdown headstocks. The Preamble: I started wondering about downward pressure (keeping the strings in the nut slots) and headstock designs. Gibson solves this by adding an extreme angle to their headstock. Fender solves this by using a "dropdown" headstock and adding string trees. The Gibson headstock looks cleaner without the string trees--but they're more fragile and require thick neck blanks for a one-piece design. Which is solved by using a scarf joint (but I don't personally like scarf joints). You never hear of Fender headstock breaks...but you find plenty of Gibson breaks out there. Leads me to think that the dropdown design is more robust? But the dropdown headstock requires string trees to keep the strings in their slots. Or does it? The idea: Seems to me that one could solve this problem by adding extra thickness to the BACK of the headstock. Gibson and other guitars often add veneers to the front (which would only exacerbate the problem). But suppose you add some thickness to the back, thereby lowering the tuning pegs closer to the wood? You'd increase the string angle, providing greater downward pressure into the slots. And, by eliminating the string tree, probably provide better tuning stability too. There'd be no incidence on the tone of the guitar. And you'd have a variety of options for the treatment --such as, adding strips for the tuners to rest on. Or adding individual mounts for the tuners to rest on (You could even use washers for a base). Or you could add a veneer to the entire back of the headstock. Hell, you could even retrofit your existing headstocks to work. Your thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.