SX basses now have ugly headstocks?

hotrodperlmutter · Post by **hotrodperlmutter** » Sun Jan 03, 2010 12:27 am

went from this:

to this:

hotrodperlmutter · Post by **hotrodperlmutter** » Sun Jan 03, 2010 12:28 am

also gross!

it appears all the sx guitars also do not have beakstocks anymore as well. interesting.

NickS · Post by **NickS** » Mon Jan 04, 2010 1:26 pm

hotrodperlmutter wrote:also gross!

+1
Just plain WRONG
(hmm, what would a Les Paul look like with a Strat tremolo bridge on it?)

astro · Post by **astro** » Mon Jan 04, 2010 3:21 pm

NickS wrote: (hmm, what would a Les Paul look like with a Strat tremolo bridge on it?)

A PRS, not Gibson. But you can see that it is also gross.

astro · Post by **astro** » Mon Jan 04, 2010 3:22 pm

hotrodperlmutter wrote:went from this:

to this:

Fender's lawyers got on Rondomusic's case, perhaps? I don't know how similar a headstock has to be to trigger a lawsuit.

SKC Willie · Post by **SKC Willie** » Thu Jan 07, 2010 1:30 am

I also wondered if Lakland had anything to do with it. I don't figure they actually have the head stock copy righted too but I feel like those headstocks were closer to Lakland than Fender.

iCEByTes · Post by **iCEByTes** » Thu Jan 07, 2010 1:51 am

sued maybe

NickS · Post by **NickS** » Thu Jan 07, 2010 10:32 pm

astro wrote:A PRS, not Gibson. But you can see that it is also gross.

Thanks. I don't think it's quite as bad but, like you say, wrong.

sonicmansuperb · Post by **sonicmansuperb** » Fri Jan 08, 2010 4:14 am

I actually like the strat with tune-o-matic, you don't have to set your trem up, and if a string breaks, you don't go totally out of tune. Les Pauls with strat trems, just plain wrong. A design built for sustain shouldn't be giving a bridge design that destroys sustain.

hotrodperlmutter · Post by **hotrodperlmutter** » Fri Jan 08, 2010 5:30 am

if a string breaks on your strat, and you go totally out of tune, your shit is set up wrong.

Dave · Post by **Dave** » Fri Jan 08, 2010 8:56 am

The Laws of Physics wrote:
hotrodperlmutter wrote:if a string breaks on your strat, and you go totally out of tune, your shit is set up wrong.
Unless by 'right' you mean so the bridge rests flat on the body this is not true. 'Totally' no, but with a floating trem pitch of all strings will be impacted to varying degrees fo sho yo. If you know a way to stop that beyond those tremstop devices lemme know yr secrets naow!

Haze · Post by **Haze** » Fri Jan 08, 2010 9:02 am

^ i see what you did there...

I highly doubt they were "sued"
Last i heard fender lost some case or lost their copyright or SOMETHING HELL ITS LATE I DONT REMEMBER. it has to be near identical in shape in order for fender to even bother with it and it clearly isnt

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Fri Jan 08, 2010 9:08 am

hotrodperlmutter wrote:if a string breaks on your strat, and you don't go totally out of tune, your shit is set up wrong.

fix'd.

Love me some floating trem action.

SX basses now have ugly headstocks?

SX basses now have ugly headstocks?

Re: SX basses now have ugly headstocks?