Official Luthiers Forum!

One of this weeks posts on TLB is a look at headstock design:

http://www.theluthierblog.com/articles/ ... headstock/

How do you go about it?

Nigel

www.theluthierblog.com
www.nkforsterguitars.com

plot a center line using masking tape I can make marks to represent the tuner posts and draw lines to the nut so I can see the strings don't touch.

_________________
John Hall
blues creek guitars
Authorized CF Martin Repair
Co President of ASIA
You Don't know what you don't know until you know it

I normally locate my tuning pegs such that the strings run straight to the tuning-pegs. Then I establish where the buttons will turn and make the shape flow from there.

This guy is a tad "artsy" for my taste.

Bob

Since I usually build to spec, I make the peghead whatever shape the client wants.
In 30 plus years of building I've never had a "signature" peghead, or even put my name on an instrument.
Guess it's because I still think of myself as a repair guy who builds....

_________________
"Act your age, not your shoe size" - Prince

I just copy Larson, Stella or Holzapfel.

My designs have varied by instrument. I've designed headstock shapes that I can repeat. I currently have templates for arch top guitars, classical guitars, banjos and mandolins. All began with sketches, but all were modified for practicality--string lines, spacing of tuning knobs, etc. You just have to work this out on paper first. (Okay, I worked some of them out on my computer in Illustrator, but I still printed them, spray mounted them to quarter inch plywood, drilled holes, mounted tuners, etc. etc. etc. until I knew everything would work nicely.) I've given a lot of consideration to the artistic effect on my shapes, but I was always thinking of the grain orientation and wood strength in the remaining part of my shaped headstock. Frankly, I've seen some Fender-ish headstocks with tuners so far out on a narrow part of the stock that it scares the heck out of me. Headstocks need to be strong...and practical...and usable. They can meet those requirements and still be unique and pretty.

Too much attention given to headstocks. Its all been done before. Just choose one that works and put your effort into the instrument.

Watch out for trademark infringement if you sell the instrument, and advertise it.

_________________
Ken

For me, I really liked Bruce Petros' headstock shape, and knew I had to have the the convex curve at the bottom that flows into the handstop lip on the back side. Also the tuners spaced closer to the inside as you move up, so the strings are closer to straight in line with their nut slots. So that mostly just left the crest to play with, and in my innocence, I came up with one that can't be cut with a router, and is very difficult to bind I still like it, though. Also looks cool when skewed for fan frets.



Then for my first harp ukulele, I had to come up with a new shape because the planetary geared pegs I bought were 4 left and 4 right, and I needed all the lefts for the harp headstock. So the neck had to work with all the tuners the same direction, which meant having the holes offset toward the right. I just doodled shapes, using the spiral theme from the bridge and ended up with this:


I need to come up with a slot head shape for my next harp guitar. But the restriction to straight sides is giving me a hard time, plus I'd really like to use a single compression truss rod for light weight, but that needs the adjustment access to be at the headstock, which may make it too weak I may do something similar to this one by Bob Matthews, which is the best looking slot head I've ever seen (probably because the sides aren't straight )


Another thing I've wanted to do for a long time is come up with a 3 dimensional shape, like violins use. Since I'm not power tooling it anyway, there's no reason I need to restrict myself to router-friendly designs. I never did come up with anything good, though. Mark Hatcher has a pretty cool headstock with a bit of surface curvature http://www.hatcherguitars.com/gallery/, but it's still not quite what I have in mind.

1. Find one you like.
2. Copy it.
3. Change it slightly.
4. Get'r done!

_________________
Pat

Please don't copy other headstocks. That kind of attitude doesn't do much to advance the craft.
Do your best to create something of your own that is conducive to the overall design of your guitars.

I'm with Paul and the idea of not copying someone else directly. Got to find a way to make it your own.

When I came up with my headstock shape/size the priorities were a relatively straight string pull for each string, and a relatively simple but unique shape that could somehow be echoed or eluded to in the bridge design - so that those two elements looked like they belonged on the same instrument.

I'm just a hobby guy, will never be a prolific builder, and have no reason to build up a brand or create a logo. But I just totally love it that my instruments are recognizable to players and builders who pay attention to theses kinds of details. These small differences go almost entirely unnoticed by non-players or non-builders. But they serve as the signature of the builder in a remarkable way for those who are in the know.

I agree that the Bob Matthews head stock is a real show-stopper. It has all the attributes that I mentioned above: It's light but strong, it offers great string paths to the nut, it's original, even these large knobs have plenty of room to turn and it's beautiful.

francisco simplicio minus the carving. i like the proportions. the overall design of the guitar has to be balanced. imo too many builders find interesting way to add "craftmanship" that end up looking out of place on the instrument as a whole. on many occasions simplicio was one of them, but he was working in the spanish style which kinda demands ornateness. take away the insane relief engraving and imo the basic shapes are still sound.

somehow i feel we're all advertising nigel's blog

Do as you like, please but don't be telling me what I should or should not do. Classic copies are viable, nothing wrong with copying originals. I find most "original designs" pretty gross. I would rather make subtile changes to the looks of a great classic guitar than than make some goofy looking thing.
Something to think about is that more advancement to the craft is made by changes INSIDE the instrument. I would rather advance the tonal qualities than make "steampunk" looking guitars.

Every original design I come up with seems to look a lot like something out there already somewhere. Especially true of a headstock, there just isn't much room there to get too unique.

I'd probably be more likely to come up with the same design as someone else if I was working in a vacuum, as opposed to taking one I like and modifying it to specifically avoid copying. But even then, there's a high probability of landing on the same result as someone else.

At least our craft has more variety than violins

Even Petros' design likely derived from Larsons...



Really nothing much new under the sun.

I seems as though you are misunderstanding me. Certainly, start with something you like, then make it "yours". That's exactly what we all do, regardless if we intended to or not. We likely saw something at one point and it lodged itself into our subconscious, and that's what we pulled from.
My comment was directed specifically toward flat-out copying a headstock because one simply doesn't want to make the effort of designing their own.
In my opinion, a guitar needs to be 100% designed by the builder. That's not to say that it can't have started somewhere or been inspired by something. But I feel the design process needs to be made with every aspect of the guitar so that it "works" as a cohesive unit. There are an enormous number of guitars out there that have simply overlooked this process, and it shows.

It wouldnt be bad if we all used the Martin design. It works if you skush the A peg a bit over. It doesnt hurt the guitar nor does a "unique" design help a guitar. I like what Haans said above.

I'm still tweaking my headstock design. I work on it by making hand sketches and then, once I find something I like, moving to Adobe Illustrator and laying out my tuners, string paths, etc., at the actual size.

Quote:

"somehow i feel we're all advertising nigel's blog."

Agreed. Nigel, I'm not Lance and maybe this is totally okay with him, but these posts that pull eyes away from here and over to your sponsored blog seem a little weird to me.

_________________
George :-)

I'm sorry you feel that way George.

The blog is a blog and the forum is a forum. I think it's much better to have the discussion here, a great established place for makers to talk, then Lance gets the traffic and the folk on the forum get to discuss some topics that are a little different from the usual. Over the past few months we've had a number of great discussions here on the forum about posts on TLB.

It also helps me in that I don't have to moderate comments on TLB. All the discussion takes place here and on other forums. And I get some great ideas for things to write about from the comments in the threads. But, if you're not happy, maybe speak with Lance, or just skip a thread if you see it's TLB related.


Nigel
http://www.theluthierblog.com
http://www.nkforsterguitars.com

I have my own design for classical and flamenco but for some reason when it comes to steel string guitars I'm always changing it. I like simple on the steel string guitars like a straight Martin style and more complicated for classical. I think I've ironed one out for the Selmer guitars too. I know it the past I've come up with simple designs only to find out they have more or less been used before. So I agree with those who say it's kind of difficult to be very original there unless you just want to make it so unique that it looks awful.

I think there is a lot more to this than merely the shape of the crest or getting nice clear string runs to the posts or rollers.
Indeed I've seen many designs from makers anxious to come up with something unique which were, shall I say, unfortunate.
Here are a couple of drawings i made perhaps twenty five years ago to lay this out in an attempt to come up with something that had a pleasing proportion between the tip, tuner portion and the base of the peghead. I also wanted something that I could machine, thus the simple arch on the crest (which was also a bit of homage to one of my favorite classical makers Manouk Papazian).
This first drawing was based on the idea that the center roller should be midway on the peghead:

This second drawing adjusted the proportions for a more pleasing look:

Of course over the years changes in tooling have modified it a bit but I'm still using this same basic design:

Build it differently!