Matching headstocks - like or not?

[Jimi75]

I had an offer for a nice 60's custom shop Fender. Took a look at the pictures and then discovered the matching headstock. I remember many years ago, I really liked the look, but now my taste completely changed. I find it odd looking when the headstock is painted.

What's your opinion?

[Jipes***]

I had an offer for a nice 60's custom shop Fender. Took a look at the pictures and then discovered the matching headstock. I remember many years ago, I really liked the look, but now my taste completely changed. I find it odd looking when the headstock is painted.

What's your opinion?

I also don't like them usually the colors are a bit too flashy for my taste

[Katastrophe]

Depends on the model... I like the painted headstock look on a black strat with a maple board, and seafoam green looks pretty cool, too. On Teles, the only painted headstock I like is on a black Tele with a rosewood fingerboard... I don't know why.

Fender headstocks should be left bare, I think. They just look better that way.

[sunvalleylaw]

Usually not. I suppose there could be an exception, but generally I like the look of the wood.

[ZMAN]

Interesting thought. Gibson headsotcks are basically all black. Nobody seems to care if they have a Red, Black or White guitar with a Black headstock. Fenders on the other hand are usually natural wood color. I think it is what you are "used" to seeing. I am one of those that think that all Fenders should have maple fretboards and headstocks with vintage tint, no rosewood. To be a painted headstock on a Fender looks a little "clownish". And in the same vein I think a maple board on a Gibson looks awful.

[Eric***]

I usually don't notice, but on a lot of Carvins they have it painted to match the body, which I don't prefer 9 times out of 10.

[marnold***]

I liked the silver headstock on my former Fender just fine. My Spector bass' headstock is painted black just like any other. I guess I'd have to say "it depends" but I don't have any strong feelings.

[sunvalleylaw]

Zman, I was thinking about the Gibson thing as I answered too. I guess with that style, they are mostly painted black, which I think looks good. My Hag is that way too. But it seems Jimi's query was more fender style based. Those I almost always prefer the wood and not paint. To me, painted headstocks that match the body on those guitars look like cars that have had some or all of their wheels painted to match the body. Too "Hot Wheels" for me.

[Eric***]

To me, painted headstocks that match the body on those guitars look like cars that have had some or all of their wheels painted to match the body.

I think that's almost exactly how it looks to me most of the time. Good analogy.

[hubberjub***]

Interesting thought. Gibson headsotcks are basically all black. Nobody seems to care if they have a Red, Black or White guitar with a Black headstock. Fenders on the other hand are usually natural wood color. I think it is what you are "used" to seeing. I am one of those that think that all Fenders should have maple fretboards and headstocks with vintage tint, no rosewood. To be a painted headstock on a Fender looks a little "clownish". And in the same vein I think a maple board on a Gibson looks awful.

For the most part I agree with you, but I always liked the looks of the 70's Gibson L6-S. Maple everything. Neck, body, and fretboard. I'm not saying it was a great guitar, I just thought it looked cool.

[deeaa*]

Yeah, I guess I prefer them either natural or black, at least when the neck back is natural. Just last night I pondered what shape I'm gonna make the headstock I'm working on, and I think I'll paint it black although the back is natural. Just seems best to me this time.

I think if the guitar has a flashy like metal flake color, a matching headstock and natural back might look cheap, but on some individuals that works too. Hard to say why exactly, it depends on the color. A silver one works well, but usually some candy apple red just looks cheap applied also on headstock.

Another matter entirely when the neck back is also the same color; if the whole guitar is dark blue for instance, neck and all, I'd expect the headstock to be too. Then again, I think I saw some bright road signal orange neon superstrat with all maple neck but matched headstock front and it was exactly as it should have been.

I think a big factor is what the fretboard is; all maple works pretty well with colored headstock, but rosewood doesn't. Yes, I think that's the key, rosewood or otherwise dark fingerboards require a maple or black headstock, or they look cheap. Too many colors going on with body color, rosewood and maple back...that looks cheap.

[wingsdad]

I think it's a Gestalt thing. Like, keeping your eye on the doughnut & not the hole.

If it compliments the overall look of the particular guitar, such that if you take a step or 2 back and you get a strong sense of good kharma, that it fits rather than conflicts, it's unconciously positive and all good.

[markb]

On the whole I prefer naked maple. Some colours look OK like seafoam or lake placid blue because they were popular in the very short period in the 60s when Fender offered the coloured head option. Black just looks wrong to me. It's a purely aesthetic thing.

[mapka]

I also believe in the maple neck/bare headstock for Fender theory.

[Gibbo]

I also think bare wood is the only colour for a Strat headstock. Painted headstocks, to me, just don't look right. I guess its just a question of aesthetics, you either like 'em or loathe 'em.

[Brian Krashpad]

I like the look, but have never owned one.

[sunvalleylaw]

I think I am more open now. It would depend on the guitar.

[Highway1fan]

Nah, I like plain maple