# Fender Strat headstocks: small vs large



## Vinsanitizer

Comments, preference, pros & cons...


----------



## SonVolt

small


----------



## Vinsanitizer

SonVolt said:


> small



Selecting a choice w/o saying why is like watching someone drive toward a cliff and suddenly cutting to a commercial before the fall.


----------



## johnfv

I suspect your age will affect this. When I was a kid, the guitar heroes often had older Strats with the small headstock and the '70s style larger ones that were at the music store were less desirable. For some younger guys today, since Fender has gone back to mostly smaller headstocks, they see a guitar hero with the large one and think "that's cool"! Small for me...


----------



## Vinsanitizer

When I played my '72 MIJ reissue in the 90's (large hs) I hated the look of small headstocks like whenever I'd see the popular Clapton model. After that guitar died I replaced it with a Strat w/a small headstock, and then I dug the "classic" look. But my new Strat has a large one again. I pulled my old '72 out from storage and there are some micro differences in shape, placement of the logos, tuner positions, etc.

I think I like the small ones more, not that it really matters. But I'm curious if there are any advantages to either design. I believe the thinking in the 70's was to go for more mass or something? Why did they change from small to large?


----------



## SonVolt

Got a pic of your '72?


----------



## Vinsanitizer

SonVolt said:


> Got a pic of your '72?



Here...


----------



## johnfv

Vinsanitizer said:


> ...Why did they change from small to large?


While many substantial things did change as part of the CBS switch, I believe headstocks were almost entirely cosmetic. Guitars also got 3 bolt necks. Amps went from blackface to silver (and many internal changes). Gibson (Norlin) went to maple necks and the big volute. These were "improvements"


----------



## Who

Small = good. Large = ugly. To me.


When I'm playing, I can't tell the difference.

To all non-players, they are identical.


----------



## SonVolt

Vinsanitizer said:


> Here...




oooooOOooooo I like it. What pickups are in it? Looks like the neck has some some good wear on it too.


----------



## Stringjunkie

I don't think it really matters but I like the smaller headstocks looks better.


----------



## drgordonfreeman

The small headstock looks sleeker and classier. 

I've debated the difference in aesthetics between the two headstocks time and again, and I always keep going back to the small one.


----------



## Vinsanitizer

SonVolt said:


> oooooOOooooo I like it. What pickups are in it? Looks like the neck has some some good wear on it too.



Thanks.

Uhm...

I bought it new in December of '92 (it's a '72 reissue MIJ). Came with a "Fender" hardshell case before gig bags were invented. Ha!

It was $489.00 with the case. I traded a black Les Paul standard, which I hated, for an even trade at a guitar shop. (The Les Paul cost $1,100 new, eight months prior.)

Original (cheapie) single coils, whatever came stock.

The bridge is a DiMarzio PAF (basic as they come - is it a DP103? I'd have awesome memory if I was correct).I always hated the color of that pickup.

The neck has lots of wear - the gloss is mostly gone. I lightly sanded it back in '92 for a more satin feel because my hand stuck too much when I played live.

It's all stock except for the bridge pickup.

The frets are so worn it's almost unplayable.

I was poor and had no tools in '93. So I used a hammer, flat-tip screw driver and a steak knife to gouge the bridge slot for the humbucker, and to cut the pickguard.

It's missing some paint in a few spots.

Notice how the G-GOTOH tuners stick out very far from the headstock, unlike today's models.

One day I thought I would sand all the finish off and repaint it. I started to sand the back, but after 20 minutes I couldn't even get down to the wood so I dropped the idea. So it's all scruffy back there.

On a dare, I slid it across a concrete warehouse floor one night, oh, maybe 30 yards. It was a contest with a buddy and his '68 reissue during 3rd shift work night, somewhere between '95 and '97.

I had a bunch of people sign it over the years, but then tried to wipe off all the black marker years later. It didn't work well.

I have played this guitar in front of roughly 500,000 people in its heyday, which was '93 thru '96.

I have thought about giving it a makeover, but hardly think it's worth it. Compared to many guitars I've had since this one, there are a ot better sounding/playing ones in my transom.


----------



## BlackSG91

The small headstock is classic, but the big one is funky and 70's disco. I prefer mine big & sculpted.


----------



## Vinsanitizer

BlackSG91 said:


> The small headstock is classic, but the big one is funky and 70's disco. I prefer mine big & sculpted.



I don't care _*who *_ya are, that's just downright artwork right there!


----------



## BlackSG91

Vinsanitizer said:


> I don't care _*who *_ya are, that's just downright artwork right there!



Thanks my fellow KitTEH. I got the inspiration from Mr. B. himself.


----------



## Dogs of Doom

This was discussed a couple months back...

According to Mr Stax, the move to the larger headstock, was merely a promotional campaign. They wanted the name to be seen on TV, so the larger headstock, allowed for a larger logo text.


----------



## Vinsanitizer

BlackSG91 said:


> Thanks my fellow KitTEH. I got the inspiration from Mr. B. himself.



As did Mr. Fender himself!


----------



## Vinsanitizer

Dogs of Doom said:


> This was discussed a couple months back...
> 
> According to Mr Stax, the move to the larger headstock, was merely a promotional campaign. They wanted the name to be seen on TV, so the larger headstock, allowed for a larger logo text.



OMG, really? That's so US commercialism!


----------



## 66 galaxie

Generally small, but I like the old style big headstock too. 

And, I dont buy into any headstock mass talk. I usually dont have an opinion on how this or that affects tone. But on this, I call bulldroppings.


----------



## SonVolt

Vinsanitizer said:


> Thanks.
> 
> Uhm...
> 
> I bought it new in December of '92 (it's a '72 reissue MIJ). Came with a "Fender" hardshell case before gig bags were invented. Ha!
> 
> It was $489.00 with the case. I traded a black Les Paul standard, which I hated, for an even trade at a guitar shop. (The Les Paul cost $1,100 new, eight months prior.)
> 
> Original (cheapie) single coils, whatever came stock.
> 
> The bridge is a DiMarzio PAF (basic as they come - is it a DP103? I'd have awesome memory if I was correct).I always hated the color of that pickup.
> 
> The neck has lots of wear - the gloss is mostly gone. I lightly sanded it back in '92 for a more satin feel because my hand stuck too much when I played live.
> 
> It's all stock except for the bridge pickup.
> 
> The frets are so worn it's almost unplayable.
> 
> I was poor and had no tools in '93. So I used a hammer, flat-tip screw driver and a steak knife to gouge the bridge slot for the humbucker, and to cut the pickguard.
> 
> It's missing some paint in a few spots.
> 
> Notice how the G-GOTOH tuners stick out very far from the headstock, unlike today's models.
> 
> One day I thought I would sand all the finish off and repaint it. I started to sand the back, but after 20 minutes I couldn't even get down to the wood so I dropped the idea. So it's all scruffy back there.
> 
> On a dare, I slid it across a concrete warehouse floor one night, oh, maybe 30 yards. It was a contest with a buddy and his '68 reissue during 3rd shift work night, somewhere between '95 and '97.
> 
> I had a bunch of people sign it over the years, but then tried to wipe off all the black marker years later. It didn't work well.
> 
> I have played this guitar in front of roughly 500,000 people in its heyday, which was '93 thru '96.
> 
> I have thought about giving it a makeover, but hardly think it's worth it. Compared to many guitars I've had since this one, there are a ot better sounding/playing ones in my transom.




Man that was hard to read without flinching. Steak knives? Concrete floors? Sandpaper? That makes my teeth hurt just thinking about it. That poor guitar.


----------



## guitargoalie

small, cuz clapton, gilmour, srv and the rest of my strat bros, Jimi I guess is allowed whatever.


----------



## stax

Dogs of Doom said:


> This was discussed a couple months back...
> 
> According to Mr Stax, the move to the larger headstock, was merely a promotional campaign. They wanted the name to be seen on TV, so the larger headstock, allowed for a larger logo text.



The Jazzmaster and Jaguar already had a larger headstock pre-CBS, when CBS took over the Strat was about a year or so away from making a comeback thanks to Jimi. CBS figured that a larger headstock like that on the JM and Jag would fit a larger Fender logo on it and they made said logo black so it would stand out even more on TV.

Here is Leo Fenders large headstock logo and down below is CBS'.


----------



## HOT TUBES 70

The only time you would want small in this case ...


----------



## Willsy182

Large for me, purely asthetic. It's also why I bought a Tele Deluxe, i just love the big headstocks. I don't like small Strat or normal Tele headstocks.


----------



## FFXIhealer

I'd prefer small, but the American Special Strat I got came with a big one.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands




----------



## illwood

My '79 strat has the large headstock and I really like the look of it. I don't have anything against the small headstock strats, but there is something funky about the large.

Also, IIRC that the 3 bolt "micro tilt" neck plates weren't a CBS invention, but rather Leo Fender himself as it showed up on G&Ls of the same time (and some MusicMan).


----------



## Blacque Jacque

Small.

The large one looks bloated, clubby & unbalances the look of the guitar.

The small one looks neat & compliments the lines of the rest of the guitar.

And while we're at it, the Telecaster headstock is butt ugly too, Teles look MUCH better with small Strat heads.

/retires to a safe distance to wait for the bang


----------



## Stringjunkie

I concur. Tele headstocks are fugly.


----------



## TwinACStacks

MAPLE *ALWAYS*. Large Preferably. Small/Vintage is nice as well. A lot of players have trouble with vintage frets though.

TWIN


----------



## Kaptain_Krunch

Small for me 


I only have one strat so I'm a bit biased


----------



## BlackSG91

I like the reverse-headstock look myself.


----------



## SteveGangi

Stringjunkie said:


> I don't think it really matters but I like the smaller headstocks looks better.


 Ditto. It's purely a cosmetic, "what I'm used to" thing.


----------



## poeman33

VIN...they are both cool. I have both, I like them both. I don't need to explain why. I don't ask myself why I like women of different shapes and colours...I just do.


----------



## BlackSG91

If the lettering is placed right on the large headstock like this (my '02 Squier Standard) and on the Fenders, then it makes the headstock look better. I don't like some of the black silkscreened logos where they say Squier STRAT. I like the full word STRATOCASTER on the large headstock. On the small headstock it's not so much an issue. On some guitars the black silkscreened lettering is offset a bit and it makes the large headstock look fugly as fugly can be.


----------



## Vinsanitizer

poeman33 said:


> VIN...they are both cool. I have both, I like them both. I don't need to explain why. I don't ask myself why I like women of different shapes and colours...I just do.


 
Now that you said that, I realize I like them both too.


----------



## slide222

robin trower believes the big headstock has more tone - that's good enough for me


----------



## anitoli

Large, it compliments the bodys lines better.
Most of my strat heros played the large ones.
Tone wise IDK. If you think it does then it does.


----------



## Odin69

I have one of each. I like the small headsock more but, just for visual reasons.


----------



## Tone Slinger

Blacksg91, that is a sweet ****in customized headstock 

I remember the first time I saw the Scorpions 'In Trance' album cover at a record store. That white strat just stuck in my mind (the chick wasnt bad either ). This was also right before Malmsteen hit the scene (around '83ish). The big headstock just looks more 'artsy' or something, OR, maybe even more 'classic', like a fancy headstock on a violin thats 300 yrs old or something. I know that the smaller one is older, but I dig the big one more. 

Hows about the headstock on EVH's Franky (1st album cover era). It has chaerecteristics of both


----------



## BlackSG91

Tone Slinger said:


> Blacksg91, that is a sweet ****in customized headstock
> 
> I remember the first time I saw the Scorpions 'In Trance' album cover at a record store. That white strat just stuck in my mind (the chick wasnt bad either ). This was also right before Malmsteen hit the scene (around '83ish). The big headstock just looks more 'artsy' or something, OR, maybe even more 'classic', like a fancy headstock on a violin thats 300 yrs old or something. I know that the smaller one is older, but I dig the big one more.
> 
> Hows about the headstock on EVH's Franky (1st album cover era). It has chaerecteristics of both



Uli Jon Roth is an amazing guitarist and one of my favourites. I sure love his white Strat from the Scorpion days. This guy knows how to play guitar big time. I really dig his Sky guitar...now that would be the ultimate guitar to own, even though it has more of a Samick style headstock.






[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nqEwJGL3pI]Scorpions - Speedy's Coming (1974) TV - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

For being such an extravagant instrument, it sure does have one of the most bland headstocks in existence.


----------



## sccloser

I don't know why but I often think that the larger headstock strats look out of balance somehow. I prefer the small. I have had both. I had a couple of 70's strats back in the 80's and 90's with the larger ones, but I have always preferred the smaller. I could have gotten about any used US strat I wanted in the 80s with a large headstock for $300, but I paid nearly $700 to get a US 57 Reissue because I just preferred that look.


----------



## yladrd61

I like the large headstock on the Maple or Rosewood veneer 4 bolt neck, I don't like the 3 bolt neck with bullet truss rod. I like the small headstock on the slab board rosewood neck. I like the vintage 7.25" radius with vintage size frets on a maple board, and jumbo frets on a rosewood board.


----------



## 6StringMoFo

This one.


----------



## dreyn77

I disagree! the tele is a guitar that the headstock shouldn't have a circle/round end! It's normal head stock matches the body shape as best as it can.

I've said it before these strat headstocks are from designs that are century's old! neither matched the body of the guitar. but they are curvey so people accept that they match. 

the big design is bold decortation. like the puffy shirt! pirates would play that design. 
but they would want a 'wooden plank deco' for the body instead of the high polished white/cream. maybe some hand made/knotted fringe on there somewhere.

I think the headstock shape should be brought into the same century as the body shape. 
and It should get modern tuners, ie NO buttons protruding off the side! 
it should also have a edge that has a molding/3d decoration instead of a 90degree flat edge. 

the big headstock looks and feels and sounds better. there is something to bigger mass headstocks. try a dime guitar or the karl sandoval v. 
the string vibrates better with more mass.


----------



## dreyn77

but don't forget the tradition of the heastock crest represents the maker. the theory is, you can tell the maker from the shape/silloette. fender is stuck with it now!


----------



## crossroadsnyc

dreyn77 said:


> the big design is bold decortation. like the puffy shirt! pirates would play that design.



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjFjD11zOCM]I don't wanna be a pirate - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## duncan11

I prefer the small, pre CBS headstocks. That's how I've always remembered 'Fender'. The CBS large headstocks of the latter 60's and 70's just looked odd to me. I'm the same way with Epiphone headstocks. I don't care if you bought a top of the line, excellent top Epiphone, that headstock going in the way it does, just kills the looks for me. Same with a large head Fender.


----------



## tubes

66 galaxie said:


> Generally small, but I like the old style big headstock too.
> 
> And, I dont buy into any headstock mass talk. I usually dont have an opinion on how this or that affects tone. But on this, I call bulldroppings.



I sometimes wonder about this.

But at least it *is* something that could be decided by scientific experimentation.

Somebody could easily attach a kilo of brass to their headstock and show us side-by-side examples of notes played - so we could determine whether the extra mass makes any difference to a guitar's tone and sustain.


----------



## BlackSG91

6StringMoFo said:


> This one.



That one.


----------



## Tone Slinger

Some like dogs, some cats,I completely understand. BUT, there are REASONS for this. Typically the bridge hb'er of a Les Paul is celebrated as is the neck pu of a strat. I'll take a strat ANYDAY to a Les Paul, even for heavy tones.

I like a small headstock too, but I'm gonna be 43 in April, so all the 'Fender' type strats I was seeing in the '70's and '80's were the Large headstock versions. I only was aware of the small headstock type on the Charvels that Warren DeMartini, George Lynch & Vivian Campbell were playing. Dave Murray from 'Maiden was the only dude I was aware of with a small headstock Fender at that time. I like both.


----------



## BlackSG91

Tone Slinger said:


> Some like dogs, some cats,I completely understand. BUT, there are REASONS for this. Typically the bridge hb'er of a Les Paul is celebrated as is the neck pu of a strat. I'll take a strat ANYDAY to a Les Paul, even for heavy tones.
> 
> I like a small headstock too, but I'm gonna be 43 in April, so all the 'Fender' type strats I was seeing in the '70's and '80's were the Large headstock versions. I only was aware of the small headstock type on the Charvels that Warren DeMartini, George Lynch & Vivian Campbell were playing. Dave Murray from 'Maiden was the only dude I was aware of with a small headstock Fender at that time. I like both.



Hey, I'll be 43 in May...I think we're twins. So you are saying you never heard of Stevie Ray Vaughn or Eric Clapton in the 80's who btw played small headstock Fenders? Both were commercially very successful during that time period. I would say there was a mixture (half & half) of large and small in the 80's. Fender re-introduced the small headstock back in the early 1980's so you would have seen some prominent musicians use them if they played Fenders. I've always liked the headstock on Jimi's white Strat he used during the Woodstock festival. Upside down looks better.


----------



## dreyn77

I think the upside down feels better too!

I had a guitar with a neck crack after the locking nut. I played it like that for years. then I glued the crack and the plucked string sustained for a noticeably longer time and with more vibration in the neck. the sound was 20% better. 
SO I went out and found a dime guitar and I played it and it had that extra vibration and sound I heard from my guitar but slightly more because that dime headstock is bigger again than my guitar's.


----------



## BlackSG91

dreyn77 said:


> I think the upside down feels better too!
> 
> I had a guitar with a neck crack after the locking nut. I played it like that for years. then I glued the crack and the plucked string sustained for a noticeably longer time and with more vibration in the neck. the sound was 20% better.
> SO I went out and found a dime guitar and I played it and it had that extra vibration and sound I heard from my guitar but slightly more because that dime headstock is bigger again than my guitar's.



I've always wondered if the Fat Finger was a snake oil theory or true. I think there's something to it, but nothing major but more subtle.








But check this out. This looks like the next level of Fat Finger that adds some more serious weight by the looks of it.







here's a Fat Head for Gibson user's.







And another one for a small headstock Strat to sound more like a large headstock Strat.


----------



## dreyn77

WOW never seen that on guitars! 
I like the really thick version! I might try that one day.


----------



## Tone Slinger

Well,yeah I was aware of the smaller Fender headstock, and actually got a Tokai TST '56 (black/maple neck) brand new in June '84 which had a post lawsuit headstock. To me, it looked like Dave Murray's. I really wasnt aware of Jimi's 'Black Beauty' BOG strat or Erics 'Blackie' at that time. 
I still have this strat and its been my main guitar over the years. It has a 'fullerplast' clear prime coat that is all but inpenatrable, but it is bookmatched, center seamed Alder. It has been painted several times. Currently its about to enter its 'reliced white 1971' era . The early '71's had the 4 bolt still, and the necks briefly went to walnut plug at the headstock, like the '50's era maple necks. Basically a one piece '50's style neck BUT with the large headstock. Blackmore had one. Fender was retooling for the 3 bolt, bullet rod,micro adjust era. Only a few of these '71's were made.


----------



## Odin69

BlackSG91 said:


> I've always wondered if the Fat Finger was a snake oil theory or true. I think there's something to it, but nothing major but more subtle.


 
I have a fat finger on my bass and it does change the tone of the guitar. It's a minor difference but, seems to make it more mid heavy. It also, affects where it's placed on the headstock. 

I've never seen those other items you posted.  They seem interesting?


----------



## Biddlin

Best place to add mass for sustain on a Strat is the knobs.




Pewter with abalone chips. 
;>)/


----------



## Biddlin

BlackSG91 said:


> I've always wondered if the Fat Finger was a snake oil theory or true.



Here's a fat finger !





;>)/


----------



## BlackSG91

Odin69 said:


> I have a fat finger on my bass and it does change the tone of the guitar. It's a minor difference but, seems to make it more mid heavy. It also, affects where it's placed on the headstock.
> 
> I've never seen those other items you posted.  They seem interesting?



That's what I thought...the Fat Finger will add an extra resonance, but nothing super noticeable. I might consider the fat finger or even make my own design...hell, all I need is some metal that I can shape. I can do that.



Biddlin said:


> Best place to add mass for sustain on a Strat is the knobs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pewter with abalone chips.
> ;>)/



Legendary Blues Man Bo Biddlin from northern Californ-I-A, you have a beauty Stratocaster and I really love your abalone knobs. They are true tone monsters.



Biddlin said:


> Here's a fat finger !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ;>)/



Fat fingers are even more effective for a Dirty Sanchez.


----------



## pbmw

I'm a fan of small head stocks myself.
I started playing in the early 60's and, to me, the large ones seem out of proportion


----------



## Tone Slinger

The 'dirty Sanchez' frickin hilarious


----------



## Hector

small!


----------



## custom53

Small Head Stock.. For sure..


----------



## blackone

Nathan Brown said:


> The large headstocks really describe Jimi Hendrix as a large but humble player. even though he was on drugs he was still humble. so why not have a guitar with a large headstock? It is not compensating for something no. but with a matching amp you would have to appreciate the values of these things. For example if I had got given a Hendrix played guitar from a relative I would get it valued and then probably documented.


 What the hell is this kid smoking?


----------



## BlackSG91

blackone said:


> What the hell is this kid smoking?



I think he's smoking the weed of wisdom. He's only talking from experience.


----------



## Far Rider

I can't believe I missed this thread. Large and in charge!


----------



## Amp360

I will say small, but let me quantify my answer.

I am not interested in any of the garbage FMIC of today makes. Even a lot of the CS guitars I have played over the past couple years have been a letdown, as these have moved from what's now "Masterbuilt" to production runs with less units.

The best Stratocaster guitars I own are a '61, a late '54/early '55 and a '63. In that order.

I have some other ones that are cool - a 64, 65, 72, and a few of CS/modern ones.

I wouldn't buy any production Fender Stratocaster made after 1993 unless it was CS and if it were recent I doubt I would buy that.


----------



## Kris Ford

Vinsanitizer said:


> Comments, preference, pros & cons...


BOTH!!


----------



## ricksconnected

either one is fine by me.


----------



## Gunner64

I have both.


----------



## tubes

Kris Ford said:


> BOTH!!



Fair enough too. And you have resurrected the past.

I think I like large, not that I collect Strats.
Large amounts to more mass. In my thinking more mass is good for tone.
I know, it's just a simple rule that does not take other factors into account.


----------



## Far Rider

I love necro-posts. I'll double down-


----------



## Kris Ford

tubes said:


> Fair enough too. And you have resurrected the past.
> 
> I think I like large, not that I collect Strats.
> Large amounts to more mass. In my thinking more mass is good for tone.
> I know, it's just a simple rule that does not take other factors into account.



Sometimes it's good to shake the dust off the casket..


----------



## slide222

many believe the larger headstock adds to the tone - I have 2 strats , 1 of each


----------



## GIBSON67

I like them both, but currently I only have a small headstock on my Classic 50's.


----------



## SteelLucky

Small headstock. It just looks better.


----------



## JimiRules

I have three strats. Two with the small headstock, and one with the large. I like both, but if I had to pick one I would go with the large.


----------



## liontato

Love be them both. I just fell prey to an old post.


----------



## Kris Ford

Naw, just think of it as an _*ongoing post*_, that hasn't been replied to in a few years.

Any 4-5 pager seems to be an ongoing one to me..

Because, guaranteed, if someone started a new thread on this, some asshole would _*have*_ to say "We have done that before"...or some other stupid or rude comment.

I found it on a search myself.


----------



## MarshallDog

Large all the way...just simply looks better IMO!!


----------



## chiliphil1

I prefer the look of the small, to me it's just more "classic" and also looks better with the body. 

That said, I do love the large ones too!


----------



## tubes

slide222 said:


> many believe the larger headstock adds to the tone - I have 2 strats , 1 of each



Cool. So.... your finding about the tone is...????


----------



## Kris Ford

Why choose? Life's too short for that shit..




tubes said:


> Cool. So.... your finding about the tone is...????



They both sound like Strats!


----------



## Gunner64

I agree, why choose?


----------



## Kris Ford

I see you have fine taste as well my good sir.


----------



## slide222

tubes , it was robin trower who said the tone was better with the large headstock , and do you work hard to be a pri(k or doe's it come easy


----------



## Gianni

The larger the wood, the greater the pleasure... but here’s a nice pic for those of you who like the small ones:


----------



## slide222

and doesn't the big headstock look even better up side down , jimi knew it and robin was a follower of the jimi tone , well aren't we all , wait ! , proberly not the ultra gain posse masive


----------



## paul-e-mann

I've owned both and still own a small headstock Strat. I guess it doesn't really matter, I never made a distinction between the two. If I were to buy a Strat today its not a feature I'd be looking at, whats important is the finish and sound and feel and price of the guitar and if the headstock came one way or the other it wouldn't matter as long as it fit all my other requirements.


----------



## Far Rider

slide222 said:


> tubes , it was robin trower who said the tone was better with the large headstock , and do you work hard to be a pri(k or doe's it come easy


I think Tubes is the last person on Earth who could be called a prick. Cerebral yes. Prick? No.


----------



## Las Palmas Norte

pedecamp said:


> I've owned both and still own a small headstock Strat. I guess it doesn't really matter, I never made a distinction between the two. If I were to buy a Strat today its not a feature I'd be looking at, whats important is the finish and sound and feel and price of the guitar and if the headstock came one way or the other it wouldn't matter as long as it fit all my other requirements.



Well said, and fits my take on this subject as well.


----------



## jimmyjames

Onya Far Rider  (I like the little'uns)


----------



## Dogs of Doom

slide222 said:


> do you work hard to be a pri(k or doe's it come easy


...

we don't need any trouble. It's ok to disagree or whatever. I didn't see him provoking this response. He's just asking what your findings are, since you have both...

Are there any discernable differences?


----------



## tone seaker

slide222 said:


> tubes , it was robin trower who said the tone was better with the large headstock , and do you work hard to be a pri(k or doe's it come easy



SRV had small and his tone is great 
I prefer small
________57_________________________________________62


----------



## dptone5

Small...


----------



## SG~GUY

-MASS=SUSTAIN-

-besides, it looks cooler!


----------



## tone seaker

SG~GUY said:


> -MASS=SUSTAIN-
> 
> -besides, it looks cooler!


seems like unless your playing open strings the headstock and nut are out of the picture


----------



## crossroadsnyc

I've had both / like both


----------



## lordquilton

From the perspective of making music who gives a damn.
From the perhaps shallower perspective of it's appeal as an object, I do like the smaller headstock with the gold spaghetti logo.
The larger one gives me the impression that the guitar is a Japanese knock off somehow.


----------



## Kiko

I like both but slightly leaning towards the big headstock from the 70s  

As far as tone is concerned, i dont think there is a significant difference, both can sound great.


----------



## Derek S

Dull post coming at ya...but I have no preference, small, large, standard, reverse, whatever...strat headstocks are timeless and all look great to me.


----------



## Gunner64

What he said..I do like the spagetti logo though, I wish they all had that.


----------



## R.Kandy

Big resinates better..... at least that's what I think.


----------

