Has anyone ever reshaped the headstock of a Guild?

[chazmo]

Maybe you are a spy and work in New Hartford, Dave?!

This happened in January, at least that's when the first New Hartford (Kaman-made) D-55 models were released in time for the NAMM show. Basically, they made that decision (for some reason) and jettisoned the gold Grover Rotomatics. Dunno why, but I suspect for the same reason that you did, Dave.

 

[kydave]

Yeah, I went back to their website and it looks like the entire "Traditional" Series has open back Gotohs now.

 

[cuthbert]

Maybe you are a spy and work in New Hartford, Dave?!

This happened in January, at least that's when the first New Hartford (Kaman-made) D-55 models were released in time for the NAMM show. Basically, they made that decision (for some reason) and jettisoned the gold Grover Rotomatics. Dunno why, but I suspect for the same reason that you did, Dave.

Personally I think they're just trying to follow the "fashion" of the open back tuners that Martin started in the last years.

Nobody ever complained about the Rotomatics and they were used for I think 30 years in virtually all the models of this brand.

 

[kydave]

Nobody ever complained about the Rotomatics

Once again, we share different sources of information apparently... :wink:

 

[kydave]

Thanks Graham.

As most of you know, the weight, per se, is not the objection. It's a matter of balance and comfort, which is different for different people.

I like the balance of a less weighted headstock, so I'm taking steps with a guitar which I truly enjoy the sound of to make it feel (and look) to me, as good as it sounds. I thought this forum would be a good place to get useful advice along those lines.

It's like with a .45, and I have an issue I go to a 1911 Forum (or a Peacemaker Forum, depending). Having trouble with a research issue in law, I go to one of my groups for that...

I've gotta get Hans' book, I think. I know from what I've found online, that Guild's headstocks have changed off & on. It'll be interesting to see what they've looked like through the years.

Dave

 

[cuthbert]

I didn't realize you were a luthier. I'm just a guy who's played guitars for the past 44 years, much of that for a living. I've got a few luthier close friends who have given me much of the information I've relied on over the years. I do agree about fashion waves in guitars. I see that in Martin land with the 1 3/4" nut nuts. :lol:

Open back tuners as well as closed come in vary degrees of quality. As I said, I've never had issues with Rotomatic quality.

I'll take that as a joke from across the pond. :wink:

1)Yes I were and I still work when it's necessary to give an help. I didn't need to use as an argument but just to tell you that I didn't have people who gave me information, all the information that I have I learned by myself.

2)I also forgot to mention that my real job is mechanical design engineer. Ironically, I design powertrains, therefore I'm a little familiar with gears like tuners etc...
Would you drive your car without a proper lubrication of the drivetrain?I guess no, open tuners are the same thing, I think it's necessary to explain the difference between sliding friction and rolling friction, it is true that in the Gotoh 500 they tried to add some low friction material around the pivot of the bevel gear but it will NEVER work as good as a pinion and crown when they're lubricated, if you don't believe, ask any professor of tribology...

3)Yes it was, still I don't understand why people become so obsessed by "retro" things, up to the point to convince themselves that technologies that were abandoned 50 years ago can be better, while in the 50s when self lubricated tuners became available they professionals upgraded their instrument.

For the weight problem, I invite you to play three hours standing on a stage with a Norlin Les Paul, and then I can listen to the Importance of chopping off a ounce of weight froma Guild headstock... :wink:

 

[cuthbert]

Thanks Graham.

As most of you know, the weight, per se, is not the objection. It's a matter of balance and comfort, which is different for different people.

I like the balance of a less weighted headstock, so I'm taking steps with a guitar which I truly enjoy the sound of to make it feel (and look) to me, as good as it sounds. I thought this forum would be a good place to get useful advice along those lines.

It's like with a .45, and I have an issue I go to a 1911 Forum (or a Peacemaker Forum, depending). Having trouble with a research issue in law, I go to one of my groups for that...

I've gotta get Hans book, I think. I know from what I've found online, that Guild's headstocks have changed off & on. It'll be interesting to see what they've looked like through the years.

Dave

Confrot is mostly a psychological thing, how much can you thinkg to move the center of mass of a guitar that weights, to say 5 lb eliminating 1 oz on the headstock? If you really want to change the balance of one instrument, you should use a lighter truss rod, or thinning the neck, or adding a counterweight on the other opposite of the guitar, like the DTAR: that preamp, along with two AAA batteries, can make more difference than the tuners.

 

[Graham]

FWIW I don't care what you do to your guitar. You've been playing long enough to know what sound you like and how it should feel to you.

If it ever came up for sale on Ebay we would mock it and the person that did whatever to it, we do that, but that would be a tiny thread that would disappear into the back pages.

Obviously that is of no concern to you and you have been playing for nearly 50 years.

Please keep us posted on what you do and the results you receive pics are always great.

You've handled your self very well through this thread! :mrgreen: I don't know why someone would intentionally try to antagonize you, but to each their own.

 

[kydave]

I invite you to play three hours standing on a stage with a Norlin Les Paul

Ouch! I never cared to - I was a Strat guy, but I feel your pain. :lol:

how much can you thinkg to move the center of mass of a guitar that weights, to say 5 lb eliminating 1 oz on the headstock?

Actually the 6 oz more the Rotos weight than the open back Grovers (using luthier Bryan Kimsey's figures) out on the end of the neck is certainly a significant enough change that most people could notice the balance shift.

 

[hansmoust]

Come on everybody, lighten up!

As some of you may have noticed I will hardly ever take part in any discussion that has a big percentage of 'opinion' in it. I don't have time for that.
However, this thread is way too long for what it really is about; or I should say ... was about!

So, here's my opinion:

If I read through all the postings I understand that kydave wanted to reshape the peghead of his Guild guitar for two reasons:

1) To 'somewhat' solve the weight/balance problem
2) To get slightly better access to the knobs of his D and G tuner

Now changing the machineheads already helped a little bit as far as the weight was concerned.
Reshaping the headstock might sound a little drastic to most people, but if it will solve kydave's problem, why not.
As far as the Guild identity is concerned, I wanted to mention that Guild changed it's headstock many times, so there's not really one Guild headstock.

I made a quick shot of a '64 Guild 'center raised' headstock and pasted it on top of a Tacoma D-size guitar photographed at the same scale. Here it is:

As you can see the Tacoma headstock has quite a bit more mass than the old Hoboken headstock.
I don't have the slightest idea if trimming down the Tacoma headstock to 'Hoboken' size will completely solve kydave's balance problem, but it might help a little bit ( just like the tuners).
It will also improve the access to the D & G tuner knobs and best of all, it will still look like a Guild.

Come on kydave! Get out your hacksaw and show us the results when you're done!

Sincerely,

Hans Moust
http://www.guitarsgalore.nl

 

[West R Lee]

Come on everybody, lighten up!

As some of you may have noticed I will hardly ever take part in any discussion that has a big percentage of 'opinion' in it. I don't have time for that.
However, this thread is way too long for what it really is about; or I should say ... was about!

So, here's my opinion:

If I read through all the postings I understand that kydave wanted to reshape the peghead of his Guild guitar for two reasons:

1) To 'somewhat' solve the weight/balance problem
2) To get slightly better access to the knobs of his D and G tuner

Now changing the machineheads already helped a little bit as far as the weight was concerned.
Reshaping the headstock might sound a little drastic to most people, but if it will solve kydave's problem, why not.
As far as the Guild identity is concerned, I wanted to mention that Guild changed it's headstock many times, so there's not really one Guild headstock.

I made a quick shot of a '64 Guild 'center raised' headstock and pasted it on top of a Tacoma D-size guitar photographed at the same scale. Here it is:

As you can see the Tacoma headstock has quite a bit more mass than the old Hoboken headstock.
I don't have the slightest idea if trimming down the Tacoma headstock to 'Hoboken' size will completely solve kydave's balance problem, but it might help a little bit ( just like the tuners).
It will also improve the access to the D & G tuner knobs and best of all, it will still look like a Guild.

Come on kydave! Get out your hacksaw and show us the results when you're done!

Sincerely,

Hans Moust
http://www.guitarsgalore.nl

:lol:

Thanks Hans.......great info as always.

West

 

[kydave]

Thank you Hans!