That analogy is terrible. Nobody gets hurt if a headstock breaks. While 99.9% of people buying a new car drive that car on public roads where an accident endangers other vehicles/people in addition to the vehicle/body of the negligent driver, probably fewer than 1% of guitars sold are used in a touring scenario, and likely way under 10% are used in a gigging scenario.
You sure as hell dont need to be on tour for a headstock to break. You dont even need to leave the house. The design flaw is not imagined. They simply break more often than not. Guitars being what they are will get bumped around and may take an occasional spill, even at home. It’s not unreasonable to expect it should have average structural integrity.
If you want to argue standing up for 2 or 3 sets with an 11lb guitar is somehow better than doing it with a 7lb guitar or the fact the guitar is structurally more fragile than all of its counterparts, go ahead but I dont think you have a good argument there. If you choose to look past those things, great. That’s entirely up to you. You’re certainly entitled to. It’s your money and your back. You are the captain of your ship, no one else. Nothing is going to stop other ship to ship communication over the course heading here, though. Everyone gets one opinion based on relevant facts of the case.
I don't want to argue that a guitar that is ill suited for your needs is not I'll suited for your needs. Nor do I think metro does either. Instead, what's being argued is that just because a guitar isn't designed to suit your needs doesn't mean it's a flawed design. But whatever.
I’m all out of analogies. Y’all can win. Peace!You're still not seeing my point: I'm not "Choosing to look past those things". They simply aren't things to me.
Weight doesn't matter to me. I never said heavier guitars are better, I just don't personally care. My Gibsons have survived all the same bumps, dings, drops, transport in a truck as all my other guitars and I've never noticed them to be any more fragile than any of my other guitars, so whatever structural fragility they may have is well within the bounds of acceptable for me.
If there were problems/shortcomings to me I would be using something different that fixed those problems. I don't typically look past problems in my gear. If there's a problem with something I'm using I find something else that works better for me. But I see no point in looking for solutions to problems I don't have...
No doubt. I’m not stereotyping anyone. I’m pointing out relevant facts about the instrument, itself. The facts I’m pointing out in this thread happen to be negative. I have good things to say about Les Pauls, too. A LPC was my main guitar for years and is covered in more beer and bar Wh*re than can ever be polished off. Trust me, I get Les Pauls and why some players will die with one in their hands. Aside from the fact the man himself played until he was 93 and I had the extreme honor of meeting him and having him sign all my shit. He was easily the nicest and most humble HUMAN I’ve ever met, much less musician.
1000%. You should do this at every string change. I also hit the saddles and I can even do deep dives on my floating trem, and it comes back in tune.
Just moving the angle by adding another friction point is poor solution . Lessen the string angle by winding the strings up and cut the nut to accommodate the angle and instead of adding friction you reduce it . The "Real" solution would be straight pull and a shallow angle but Les Paul players aren't going to allow that.I just ordered one. Praying it will help. I got the "V1" version, which is counter-intuitively newer than the V2-V5 versions (???) and basically looks like an oversized truss rod cover:
Agree this is the most likely issue and probably the best solution. I just don't have much faith in some random tech getting it right - and I'd rather not part with the guitar. Maybe it's time to order some tools and learn some new skills.
I get your point, but I think this oversimplifies things a bit. The friction point isn't just moved to a different place; the break angle on the headstock side of the nut is (in some measure) replaced by a wider radius part. (Some reviews imply that part rotates? Not sure.) I'm not advocating or defending this accessory; just making some observations. I'll know in a few days whether it's actually helpful.
Just because something is widely used doesn't mean it's perfect and can't be improved. Leaving emotions out of it, Gibson headstock is objectively bad design.
I remember in one of Andertons videos, when I was still subed to them, saying that Gibson headstock breakage is by far the most common repair they do in their shop.
