Taylor solidbody headstock --

[ataylor]

Anyone think they'd look significantly better with the traditional/regular Taylor headstock as opposed to the slim R.Taylor style?

[cjd-player]

The story I read somewhere was that when they first came out they did have the standard Taylor headstock.  At the following NAMM show, folks thought they looked like Gibsons, so they put the R.Taylor headstock shape on them.

[ataylor]

The story I read somewhere was that when they first came out they did have the standard Taylor headstock.  At the following NAMM show, folks thought they looked like Gibsons, so they put the R.Taylor headstock shape on them.

That sounds familiar. I still think they'd look really nice with the full Taylor headstock. Although the double cutaways might be better with a narrower headstock.

All that being said, I think I'm more of a fan of the T3 in terms of aesthetics anyway.

[mescobar]

Anyone think they'd look significantly better with the traditional/regular Taylor headstock as opposed to the slim R.Taylor style?

Absolutely!

[Brian Swerdfeger @ Taylor]

The story I read somewhere was that when they first came out they did have the standard Taylor headstock.  At the following NAMM show, folks thought they looked like Gibsons, so they put the R.Taylor headstock shape on them.

I was me that had this happen to...

It was not NAMM, it was me playing a prototype at church and a guitar player friend came up after the service and asked about my new "gibson"...

[cjd-player]

The story I read somewhere was that when they first came out they did have the standard Taylor headstock.  At the following NAMM show, folks thought they looked like Gibsons, so they put the R.Taylor headstock shape on them.

I was me that had this happen to...

It was not NAMM, it was me playing a prototype at church and a guitar player friend came up after the service and asked about my new "gibson"...

Now that I think about it, I think I heard the story at a Doyle Dykes concert or maybe a Road Show.  I probably got confused about the NAMM part.
Good premarketing by playing a prototype at church, Brian.   

[leeasam]

actually IMO NO!   I wish the Acoustics would have the RTaylor headstock.  I like a straighter path from the nut to the tuning peg. One reason I like the PRS stuff. you get less binding and pinch at the nut with a straighter through string run.  They tune up nicer too.  Also Like smaller headstocks. less weight and such to dampen things. many look at headstocks for asthetics. I like functionality!

[michaelw]

i originally thought that the solid body had the smaller headstock for the reasons that leeasam stated,
so that the strings/tuning machine posts would have a straighter path to the nut slots & that perhaps
the size might have had something to do with the headstock mass, the balance & overall feel of the guitar

for me, if i didn't know that it was a Taylor electric guitar, then my first guess would've been a PRS

[Satsuki]

I have a PRS and it is sweet! It's the reason I haven't bought a Taylor Soildbody.

[bloosman1]

I am really surprised at how few people know about the new Taylor solidbodies. Once I played mine in the shop, it literally "picked me"! I do like being on the "untravelled road" though.

Cheers,
---J---

P. S. I like the headstock, to me, it looks perfect with this axe.

[Steve]

Also Like smaller headstocks. less weight and such to dampen things.

Bigger headstock = more mass
More mass = increased sustain

[tnfiddler]

I saw one in person for the first time the other day and that is one of the things that I don't like about them.  I really love the traditional Taylor Headstock.  I know that looks don't make an instrument play any better, but unfortunately for me, I am one of those people who like things to look as good as they perform, and that is one of the biggest turn-offs to me with some of the other guitars out there.  They just look sorta bland and the headstocks are just homely.  It's like a girlfriend or a wife, nobody wants to date or be married to an ugly woman!!

[Steve]

Here's a comparison of the R. Taylor and Solidbody pegheads:



I don't believe I've ever heard anyone be critical of the R. Taylor peghead, yet the two are virtually identical...

[michaelw]

i like the purfling lines on the headstocks -
to me, it looks much more detailed than the binding by itself

[ataylor]

I don't believe I've ever heard anyone be critical of the R. Taylor peghead, yet the two are virtually identical...

I don't love the shape in either case, but in context, I don't mind the R.Taylor look because it's supposed to be a different brand and seems to suit the GS and GC shapes nicely (I don't like the R.Taylor headstock as much on the DN).

As for the SB, I think the regular Taylor headstock would look better on the single cutaway models. Just a matter of preference. That said, I think the tapered "R.Taylor" style headstock is a better fit for the double cutaway than a normal Taylor headstock would be.

I'm just glad they kept the normal Taylor headstock on the T3, because if I ever get a Taylor electric, that's what I'd pick. Now if they weren't so darn expensive...

Not that it's unheard of for a company to use different headstock styles -- a pretty famous electric guitar company comes to mind...