[M Berka (EmBee)]

Although by now I'm starting to get used to it, I still feel that Epiphone versions of original Gibson models should come with a Gibson-style headstock.

Here in Finland, Tokai-copies are sold legally using the correct headstock shapes, which could sway a customer to buy one rather than the officially licensed Epiphone-equivalent.

Epiphone's own bulbous shape is probably meant to effectively differentiate both marques from each other, so a Chinese guitar cannot be confused with a US guitar.

Still, I feel it's strange that the sanctioned copy comes with the "wrong" headstock...

[. . (Tightpants)]

Oddly, I've never had an objection to the Epi headstock, at least the one on the Les Paul and G-400's. The Dot headstock is a little on the larg-ish side for my taste, but I've grown used to it.

[T Manon (Tman5293)]

I hate the Epiphone headstock. When I see a Les Paul or an SG that I think looks cool I go to pick it up so I can try it out. But as I get closer to it and see the Epiphone headstock it's as if the guitar itself is screaming, "Hey look at me! I was cheaply made somewhere in Asia!!!"

[M Berka (EmBee)]

I wasn't putting down Epi's quality or workmanship.

IMHO Epi's range offers a lot of guitar for the money and their quality control seems to be stringent.

I was only talking about the headstock shape per se.

[L Hilditch (Liam_H)]

it may sound silly, but its the headstock thats stopped my from wanting an epi, i think it just looks silly, plus it would remind me, its an epi and not a gibson

[D Garden (Davie Bluesman)]

I agree kinda! If you look at an Epi, it's really a Gibson that you want so the headstock does put you off buying one. As for the quality of the build, Epi's are nowhere near as good as the real thing and you would only find that out by comparing the two at the same time or if you own either one then go and examine the other. I have had both Gibsons and Epiphones and I know the differences involved, for example, the Les Paul - Gibsons are much heavier, the pick ups are indescribably better and in reality the play much better. Don't get me wrong, you can get a 'bad' Gibson but they are very rare. My advice to any aspiring guitarist is when you have the money saved for an Epiphone, don't spend it, bite the bullet of temptation and keep saving then buy a 'real' Gibson, you won't regret it and with a Gibson you WILL get your money back if you have to sell it.

[G Justus (kommando84)]

I was introduced to the Gibson family through Epiphone, which was endorsed by many of the early Christian rock acts of the 1990s. As such, I have strong feelings about the Epiphone brand and its products, and I wanted to weigh in on this subject.

The Epiphone headstock on authorized clones of Gibson models (Les Paul, SG, Thunderbird etc.) should be identical to the Gibson model aside from the actual word "Epiphone." If the point of the Epiphone line is to provide an authorized budget model of Gibson products, it should accurately reflect the critical design components of the Gibson model, to include the iconic headstock.

Lately, some exciting things have been coming out of Epiphone (the Wilshire, the NanoMag pickups, the distinctive Prophecy series, etc.), and I feel like Gibson would be better served to end its use of the wacky headstock as a "Scarlet Letter" that immediately makes the owner of the Epiphone Les Paul feel like a second class citizen in the Gibson family for buying a budget model. Trust me, Gibson, your marquee products stand on their own merit, and players need no additional incentive to upgrade to the "real deal" when they can afford it.

As it is, the longer headstock on the Les Paul (the main model I've owned by Epiphone) forces you to buy an aftermarket or Epiphone case since it is too long for a standard Gibson one. Wouldn't Gibson benefit from having as much plug and play as possible to allow Epiphone owners to easily transition into the Gibson USA line? How many kids would jump at the chance to tote their budget Epiphone model around in a real Gibson case? Let's call that case a "down payment on a dream" to own a real Gibson guitar. The budget customer who feels welcome at the table would later come back and upgrade to a Gibson USA model, in my opinion.

[A Silva (A.M.Silva)]

I think we should look at old Epis for the headstock shape. I love asymmetrical shape on old Epis - used also on the Masterbilt acoustic models. It would look great on any LP or SG style Epi.

[A Silva (A.M.Silva)]

I agree with Justus. You don't see odd headstocks on Squiers or Sterlings.

[M Riddle (stickyfiddle)]

I'm another one who is put off by the epi headstocks. I bought a Burny over an Epiphone largely because of the headstock

[D Garden (Davie Bluesman)]

What point some of you are missing here is that Squire guitars for example are made under licence from Fender outside America in an effort to combat foreign makers from producing 'copies'. Epiphone was a company that Gibson 'bought out' so Gibson are actually producing Epiphones outside of America but producing them as Epiphone and not Gibson. Epiphone were producing the typically shaped bodies for most models before and at the same time as Gibson so Gibson are in fact carrying on the Epiphone name and good for them for doing so. Some old Epiphones are as good as if not better than Gibsons and are highly sought after.

[j waldo (BadBluesPlayer)]

It's fine. It has to look different than the Gibson headstock to maintain brand identity.

Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference from a distance.

[R Iavarone (RichCI)]

I like the Epiphone headstock; it's very classic looking. Before Gibson bought Epiphone, they were big competitors and the Epiphone headstock style was already in place.

[G Justus (kommando84)]

D Garden (Davie Bluesman), on 16 July 2010 - 04:30 PM, said:

What point some of you are missing here is that Squire guitars for example are made under licence from Fender outside America in an effort to combat foreign makers from producing 'copies'. Epiphone was a company that Gibson 'bought out' so Gibson are actually producing Epiphones outside of America but producing them as Epiphone and not Gibson. Epiphone were producing the typically shaped bodies for most models before and at the same time as Gibson so Gibson are in fact carrying on the Epiphone name and good for them for doing so. Some old Epiphones are as good as if not better than Gibsons and are highly sought after.

To clarify my earlier remarks, I do agree that when Epiphone models exist that have no real Gibson precedent (Wilshire, Casino to some extent), they should maintain their own headstock and identity. I'd like nothing more than for Epiphone to become more like Gretsch is to Fender--owned by them, but with distinct models and history all its own. As such, I'm not advocating that all Epiphones be somehow sanitized to one Gibson standard.

I guess what I mean is, with models that aren't Epiphone originals that are really just cheaper Gibsons, why not give the buyer an instrument that looks like the real deal? The Squier analogy is good in this regard, I think.

[J Ulch (DetroitBlues)]

There was a short time where Epiphones being produced in Japan had the open book Gibson headstock. I'd purchase one of those just because it looks more like a Gibson and not a cheap knock off. Let Epiphone keep the headstock on their hollow body series, not their Gibson remakes.

[S Gillespie (Kerosene)]

I have no problems with the headstock on my Epi SG. It's an Epi, It's not a Gibson. There should be differences. And I know I'm probably going to get flack for this but anyone that would not buy a guitar because of the headstock intead of an issue with the sound or feel......that's just weird.

[M Kvasic (Ferrarimk13)]

hey, us gibson owners deserve to get our own headstocks for the premium we pay for an american instrument! I don't have a problem with the epis having a different one. You aren't buying a gibson, why get a gibson headstock?

[A Cravero (korngold)]

Honestly, it doesn't matter to me that they're not Gibsons...they're not supposed to be. But, there is something about the headstock shape itself that is unsightly. I know that it seems like a silly reason not to own an instrument, but I have shied away from most Epis because the headstock shape.

I'm not saying it should be a Gibson shape, but plenty of other guitars have cool headstock designs: old Electras with the "fan"; Gretsch/Electromatics, PRS, just to name a few...

[D Kuther (kuther)]

A Cravero (korngold), on 16 July 2010 - 05:01 PM, said:

Honestly, it doesn't matter to me that they're not Gibsons...they're not supposed to be. But, there is something about the headstock shape itself that is unsightly. I know that it seems like a silly reason not to own an instrument, but I have shied away from most Epis because the headstock shape.

I'm not saying it should be a Gibson shape, but plenty of other guitars have cool headstock designs: old Electras with the "fan"; Gretsch/Electromatics, PRS, just to name a few...

I don't think it's unsightly on a Casino or other 'proper' Epi but I will admit it looks odd to me on a Les Paul or SG

[D Thompson (rockstar232007)]

It reallty doesn't bother me, as I understand that each design represents the history of each brand (Gibson/Epiphone). Not to mention the fact that Epiphone is a "budget" brand, and making the headstocks the same as Gibson's (with the "wings") would require more material/labour, which would in turn add to the overall cost of the guitar, so I say, leave it or like it!