# New Carvin/Kiesel headstock



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Aug 1, 2015)

It's... kinda...

Uh...








Seems to work better than the Dean one, though.


----------



## cardinal (Aug 1, 2015)

Well, their other headstocks aren't great, so it fits right in. Wish it wasn't so oddly pointy. I don't think it'll suit the TL shape very well.


----------



## Xaios (Aug 1, 2015)

Nope.


----------



## talon97 (Aug 1, 2015)

I will stick with the DC 4+3 when I get my DC700 build going some day...


----------



## capoeiraesp (Aug 1, 2015)

It looks really out of place on the single cut. Not a huge fan but I'm sure it'll find its place.


----------



## HighGain510 (Aug 1, 2015)

I saw that and immediately thought, "Well, Jeff just claimed the Dean inline headstock as his own. Wow."


----------



## Zado (Aug 1, 2015)

Dunno how,but the Dean looks better tooo,I don't like the tuners side to be curved


----------



## Andromalia (Aug 1, 2015)

Meh. I usually like the edge with the tuners to be straight for inline configurations. That means I like the Dean one better.


----------



## Lorcan Ward (Aug 1, 2015)

I liked it but it looks awful on that single cut model. It would look better on a DC700.


----------



## technomancer (Aug 1, 2015)

Honestly I don't mind it. It's not one of my favorite headstocks ever but I don't think it would stop me from buying a guitar with it. As for the Dean thing, how many ways are there to arrange a 7 string inline?  You change the angles slightly and it could be a BC Rich or KxK headstock 

I'm also guessing this is what was on the Becker 7 since they were hiding the headstock in all the photos.


----------



## ChrispyFinch (Aug 1, 2015)

Im just going to leave this here...


----------



## narad (Aug 1, 2015)

You don't need to leave that here - it's already almost exactly like the Dean headstock


----------



## kevdes93 (Aug 1, 2015)

I like the reverse 7 but im not feeling the normal one. I'll probably end up getting the reverse 7 on a dc7x one o these days


----------



## SpaceDock (Aug 1, 2015)

Their head stocks have always kept me away from carvin.


----------



## OmegaSlayer (Aug 1, 2015)

I like it.
Also the Aristides one is a rip from 1990 Yamaha headstocks


----------



## HighGain510 (Aug 1, 2015)

ChrispyFinch said:


> Im just going to leave this here...



That's not even nearly as close as the Dean headstock. The butt end of the headstock is concave on the Kiesel just like the Dean headstock is normally. The Aristedes is convex. Close but not quite the same thing.


----------



## ferret (Aug 1, 2015)

I still like their 3+3 pointy more... I'm not surprised by how generic it is, similar to Dean and to a lesser extent Ibanez. Too much marketing build up for something so meh though.


----------



## ihunda (Aug 1, 2015)

Meh, i am still waiting for them to do a parker style or blackmachine style headstock.


----------



## Shask (Aug 1, 2015)

I think that headstock would look good on a ST or Bolt model. Their normal inline was too rounded, and the 3+3 looks good on the DC, but kinda funny on the ST or Bolt.



Come on, 1 5/8" nuts and 25.5" neckthroughs next!


----------



## ferret (Aug 1, 2015)

Shask said:


> 25.5" neckthroughs next!



LPM and Vader are 25.5" neckthrough in 6 string.


----------



## Shask (Aug 1, 2015)

ferret said:


> LPM and Vader are 25.5" neckthrough in 6 string.



Those shapes are ugly. Only Strat styles, please


----------



## feraledge (Aug 1, 2015)

IMO, Carvin needed a new headstock design, but this isn't it. 
We deserve a new headstock, but this isn't the one we needed right now.


----------



## AryaBara (Aug 1, 2015)

the reverse one... kinda like it


----------



## kuma (Aug 1, 2015)

Honestly, at this point, any 'new' headstock is going to look like someone's. But the Dean one immediately came to mind when I saw it. Didn't like it on the Deans, and I'm still not a big fan. 

I'm guessing they were going for the 3x3 pointy headstock stretched to allow for inline tuners. It's not for me, but luckily they have a lot of other headstocks to choose from.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Aug 1, 2015)

It's so close to the Dean headstock that you have to stare at them for a while to notice the very slight differences. I realize it's hard to be original now days, but it's not so hard that an almost outright duplicate is necessary. I don't dislike any other their other headstocks, with the exception of the Holdsworth, though.


----------



## Jlang (Aug 1, 2015)

on a dc700 the reverse one wouldn't look terrible, but , not spectacular at all. I will reserve full judgment to see it on more colors/models.


----------



## Valnob (Aug 1, 2015)

It's really like a dean one, i agree

but, they still can't beat the ibanez headtock


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Aug 1, 2015)

Even though it reminds me of the Dean headstock, it actually works better than Dean's 7-string inline since it isn't a huge boat oar. 

On the other hand, Carvin's 6-string looks so dinky and cartoony. Doesn't look right.


----------



## Greenbrettiscool (Aug 1, 2015)

Fixed!
View attachment 47341


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Aug 1, 2015)

Greenbrettiscool said:


> Fixed!
> View attachment 47341



Congrats, you made a skinny Guerilla.


----------



## JD27 (Aug 1, 2015)

feraledge said:


> IMO, Carvin needed a new headstock design, but this isn't it.
> *We deserve a new headstock, but this isn't the one we needed right now.*



Hey, who made you the Dark Knight of headstocks!  I guess this would be awesome if you like Dean headstocks, but I don't!  Don't really love any of theirs, but the HR33 and 4+3 Pointed head stocks are alright.


----------



## bloc (Aug 1, 2015)

I think it looks great


----------



## ChubbyEwok (Aug 1, 2015)

I don't think it looks that bad to be honest.


----------



## ilyti (Aug 1, 2015)

Nothing is wrong with their 7 string standard headstock.


----------



## Vairish (Aug 1, 2015)

Not liking that at all. Kinda wish they just stretched out their regular 6 string headstock:


----------



## Seventhwave (Aug 1, 2015)

It's too similar to the Dean inline for my taste. I had figured it was going to be something a little more unique since they were making a big deal about it on social media the past week.


----------



## Buffnuggler (Aug 1, 2015)

hmmm it looks better reversed at least. 

i like the reverse parker headstocks a lot, but for the major players, everything just falls into the inevitable category of "not as cool as ibanez."


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Aug 1, 2015)

It does look similar to dean's inline and to a lesser extent Ibanez. Considering it's legit like the only dean headstock I actually like, I'm a fan of it.


----------



## cardinal (Aug 1, 2015)

Vairish said:


> Not liking that at all. Kinda wish they just stretched out their regular 6 string headstock:



This would be way better.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Aug 1, 2015)

Now that I look at it, it looks like a hybrid between the Dean headstock and the extremely rare PRS Spitz 6-in-line headstock.


----------



## LordCashew (Aug 1, 2015)

I like it. 

It's not my favorite _ever_ but I think the reverse version will pair better with the DC700/DC7X than any of the current offerings.

I agree though, a 7-string version of the old inline would look better on the TL70 and DC727.


----------



## Erockomania (Aug 1, 2015)

I'm not surprised they screwed this headstock up too. Just my opinion, but I don't like any of their headstocks or body shapes. Something is just... off. Something to do with ratios and line angles.


----------



## 7JxN7 (Aug 1, 2015)

I find this design very underwhelming, Carvin already have some much better designs. But if this is the best aesthetics they can release for a new headstock, at least they still have the Vader


----------



## Alex Kenivel (Aug 1, 2015)

Valnob said:


> but, they still can't beat the ibanez headtock



 Ibanez and Fender for me


----------



## kevdes93 (Aug 1, 2015)

Curious to know what these will cost and when they will appear on the builder. I need to spend a few hours respeccing guitars, it's been like 3 days. I'm overdue


----------



## Dusty Chalk (Aug 1, 2015)

I still think they should have gone with rabbit ears. Or a tri-point, like the air force memorial:


----------



## jwade (Aug 2, 2015)

Man, fugly headstock. I would've expected something a little bit more interesting. It's a really boring shape, and stands out in a really negative way. 

Very poor design choice.


----------



## Mischief (Aug 2, 2015)

I think so far, I only like the 4x3 and 3x3 from Carvin.
They have some rather fugly headstocks.
The one Vairish posted is pretty decent too, but yeah, rather unimpressive this one is.


----------



## Stone Magnet (Aug 2, 2015)

I prefer a reverse in-line headstock, so while I'm happy to have an alternative to their 4x3 (and its inverse), I do wish it could have been what appears to be exclusive to the Becker models. I suppose this one is exclusive to Kiesel? Based on some merchandising that's my guess.


----------



## russmuller (Aug 2, 2015)

Funny... I don't care for it standard, but it looks alright to me when reversed.

If I ever order another DC7X, I'll be tempted.


----------



## Colin Trainor (Aug 2, 2015)

No bueno


----------



## cardinal (Aug 2, 2015)

Anyone here know Kiesler or an endorser? Seems like this shouldn't even be an issue. Why have an unattractive headstock? Seems like something a conversation and 30 minutes with a pen and paper could fix. 

Carvin built quality is great and they have nice wood selection, but all their shapes and headstocks are just a bit off. I'm not alone in thinking this, and I just don't get why not address it. It should be so easy, and I can only think would massively improve their appeal.


----------



## Señor Voorhees (Aug 2, 2015)

cardinal said:


> Anyone here know Kiesler or an endorser? Seems like this shouldn't even be an issue. Why have an unattractive headstock? Seems like something a conversation and 30 minutes with a pen and paper could fix.
> 
> Carvin built quality is great and they have nice wood selection, but all their shapes and headstocks are just a bit off. I'm not alone in thinking this, and I just don't get why not address it. It should be so easy, and I can only think would massively improve their appeal.



You're not alone in thinking they've got some uggo designs, but there are clearly plenty of people who do like the designs. Enough so where they are able to maintain business and constantly sell, so I don't think they really have much "getting back to the drawing board" to do.


----------



## Veritech Zero (Aug 2, 2015)

Not a huge fan, but some pictures of a BODY attached to the headstock may help sway my opinion. All I've seen are just pictures of the headstock itself. And I wonder how it would look on some of the less traditional body styles like the ultrav?


----------



## ferret (Aug 2, 2015)

Kiesel has apparently confirmed that these are not available on 27" models, since they won't fit in cases, so no DC7Xs or DC800s.


----------



## curlyvice (Aug 2, 2015)

I guess I'm the odd man out. I really like the new headstock and I'm also a fan of the 3+3 and 3+4 pointed headstocks. But who cares about headstocks anyways, it's Vader season, baby!


----------



## Rev2010 (Aug 2, 2015)

Meh, I think their original DC headstock is great as is. 


Rev.


----------



## Moser (Aug 2, 2015)

SpaceDock said:


> Their head stocks have always kept me away from carvin.



That's why Vaders are so popular


----------



## cardinal (Aug 2, 2015)

Señor Voorhees;4417563 said:


> You're not alone in thinking they've got some uggo designs, but there are clearly plenty of people who do like the designs. Enough so where they are able to maintain business and constantly sell, so I don't think they really have much "getting back to the drawing board" to do.



I doubt that the people who buy them now would stop if they tweaked their designs, but it would open the door to others who won't currently buy one. But, it's not my business/company.


----------



## Xaios (Aug 3, 2015)

Makes me miss this headstock:


----------



## Nlelith (Aug 3, 2015)

^Why would you miss it? It's still available. And it's still the best 7-string headstock they offer.


----------



## HumanFuseBen (Aug 3, 2015)

Yeah, not a fan. Feel like its a step backwards to early 2000's Carvin.


----------



## cip 123 (Aug 3, 2015)

Not really a fan of it, saw it on the new Jason Becker 7 string, honestly i'd just rather a JB200 design stretched out for a 7


----------



## russmuller (Aug 3, 2015)

ferret said:


> Kiesel has apparently confirmed that these are not available on 27" models, since they won't fit in cases, so no DC7Xs or DC800s.



I figured as much. The DC7X is the only of my 27" instruments that can fit the ultimate soft case.


----------



## GXPO (Aug 3, 2015)

I really like it. Just thought I'd add that since everyone seems to hate it..


----------



## Tysonimmortal (Aug 3, 2015)

I like it in reverse.


----------



## LordCashew (Aug 3, 2015)

ferret said:


> Kiesel has apparently confirmed that these are not available on 27" models, since they won't fit in cases, so no DC7Xs or DC800s.



_Seriously_? That really seems like putting the cart before the horse. It seems like ordering some slightly longer cases (that undoubtedly already exist!) would be easy compared to all the design and programming parts of the process. I get that there would be more work to be done to make an 8-string version, but the case is the _only_ thing in the way of putting this on a DC7x? Hopefully this is something they're working on...

Shoot, put some extra padding in the body area of a bass case!


----------



## HighGain510 (Aug 3, 2015)

LordIronSpatula said:


> _Seriously_? That really seems like putting the cart before the horse. It seems like ordering some slightly longer cases (that undoubtedly already exist!) would be easy compared to all the design and programming parts of the process. I get that there would be more work to be done to make an 8-string version, but the case is the _only_ thing in the way of putting this on a DC7x? Hopefully this is something they're working on...
> 
> Shoot, put some extra padding in the body area of a bass case!



They likely have measurements for the longest guitar they make, so they ordered all of their cases in bulk like most companies. Not knowing how these will sell, I can't say I blame them for not assuming they'll fly off the shelf. You can see already that the headstock seems to be a bit polarizing from the initial responses.  It's not like they buy 20 of the cases when they order or something.


----------



## TonyFlyingSquirrel (Aug 3, 2015)

A bit like my TFS6, which I designed in 1984 and built in 1996.
I've been playing this guitar as my main sixer for nearly 20 years!


----------



## absolutorigin (Aug 3, 2015)

Like the Dean headstock, I think it could look cool reversed on certain models.


----------



## LordCashew (Aug 3, 2015)

Hey guys...







I somehow didn't notice until Jeff pointed it out on Facebook. The new design is the guitar version of the Xccelerator bass headstock.


----------



## a curry (Aug 3, 2015)

I like the reverse version. But I can't seem to imagine it on a ct7.


----------



## Matthew (Aug 3, 2015)

I knew it looked familiar!


----------



## cubix (Aug 3, 2015)

Hype buildup over the Vader was cool, but hype over a new headstock? Come on...


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Aug 3, 2015)

Matthew said:


> I knew it looked familiar!



And I still hate that headstock.  Thought it was bull.... how that one won.


----------



## Jaxcharvel (Aug 3, 2015)

Am I the only one who misses the complete Jackson ripoff headstock Carvin used to have?


----------



## VigilSerus (Aug 4, 2015)

Jeff posted this on his FB earlier today.


----------



## wannabguitarist (Aug 4, 2015)

^I think that looks pretty damn good actually


----------



## a curry (Aug 4, 2015)

Totally dig it


----------



## capoeiraesp (Aug 4, 2015)

Much better on an appropriate body shape. Meaty yet sleek.


----------



## areyna21 (Aug 4, 2015)

I think it works and I especially like the reverse better. I also think it works best on the super strat shapes.


----------



## downburst82 (Aug 4, 2015)

I dont get the hate, I really like it. I always did like the dean headstock too (just never the guitars it was attached to.


----------



## areyna21 (Aug 4, 2015)

Just found this picture and I think hands down the reverse is way better.


----------



## a curry (Aug 4, 2015)

CAn someone photoshop the reversed headstock on a ct7?


----------



## TamanShud (Aug 4, 2015)

Yeah that looks far better on a body. 

Also anyone been to the Carvin website and noticed they're already doing shirts with the headstock on them? Seems a little keen


----------



## FreakOfNature (Aug 4, 2015)

Here's another guitar from MickeyD (One of the Sales guys @ Carvin) showing off the reversed headstock. Looks much better on the SCB6 thant the non-reverse version did in the other pic:


----------



## cardinal (Aug 4, 2015)

Ahh please make it stop. 

If they're going to do an unoriginal headstock (and this one is), at least make it unoffensive and unassuming like the Kramer beak /Suhr /Anderson /Schecter inline headstock.


----------



## areyna21 (Aug 4, 2015)

Yeah it does look good on the scb6. I would like to see a scb7 with the reverse headstock as well.


----------



## areyna21 (Aug 4, 2015)




----------



## xzacx (Aug 4, 2015)

From the messy control layouts, to the slightly off shapes, to the Vader's forearm bevel (on figured tops), to the fact they even offer the sperm inlays as an option, there's SOME deal-breaking design element on almost every Carvin I see. I feel like Carvin is much better at manufacturing guitars than designing them.


----------



## bloc (Aug 4, 2015)

xzacx said:


> to the fact they even offer the sperm inlays as an option



Wait, what?


----------



## xzacx (Aug 4, 2015)

hahaha - not my picture, but I was referring to these.


----------



## lewstherin006 (Aug 4, 2015)

In jeff's video today he put on facebook he did a little redesign of the headstock. He shaved a little wood off the back of it. 

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1617493148533981&set=vb.1379760988973866&type=2&theater


----------



## Dooky (Aug 4, 2015)

Still don't like


----------



## Erockomania (Aug 4, 2015)

That bevel should have been done on the front.


----------



## cardinal (Aug 5, 2015)

Yeah the problem was not that the back of the headstock was flat. But it's actually encouraging that he'd be willing to just take a guitar over to a sanding drum and have at it. I wonder if he'd take a customer order to just round off the headstock's pointy bits.


----------



## ferret (Aug 5, 2015)

I like the added bevel, but it somewhat bothers me that Kiesel keeps making new product announcements and putting them up for sale, then altering the design after. Vader had a bit of this (Double ball end announced, but turned out their redesigned end cap prevented them), now this headstock with an added bevel.

I feel like they need a better grip on finalizing designs before they push them out the door...


----------



## morbidus (Aug 5, 2015)

Very underwhelming...I was expecting to be blown away but, nah. I am still trying to come to terms with their current headstock designs and I just can't get comfy enough with one to place my order. :/


----------



## technomancer (Aug 5, 2015)

lewstherin006 said:


> In jeff's video today he put on facebook he did a little redesign of the headstock. He shaved a little wood off the back of it.
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1617493148533981&set=vb.1379760988973866&type=2&theater



Ugh it was better without the pointless bevel


----------



## cardinal (Aug 5, 2015)

ferret said:


> I like the added bevel, but it somewhat bothers me that Kiesel keeps making new product announcements and putting them up for sale, then altering the design after. Vader had a bit of this (Double ball end announced, but turned out their redesigned end cap prevented them), now this headstock with an added bevel.
> 
> I feel like they need a better grip on finalizing designs before they push them out the door...



I think it's cool that he likes to tinker with things, but it's maddening to me that he hasn't felt the need to tweak things meaningfully. The headstocks all are bad and could use a nip-tuck, but not a pointless bevel on the back. The Vader design looks pretty cool, and they should adapt that thicker top horn to the DC line, instead of just further beveling the already too-thin DC top horn (which is what he did with the new K series). Etc.


----------



## Carver (Aug 5, 2015)

effit. just replace the whole damn headstock with an old pumpkin or some other gourd, maybe even a mans dieing hand.


----------



## VigilSerus (Aug 5, 2015)

Well in the video, he did say the bevel on the back of the headstock made it stronger... whether or not there's plausible physics behind it or not is another story.


----------



## stevexc (Aug 5, 2015)

It's kinda growing on me. It's not the BEST headstock ever, but it's a definite improvement (albeit a slight one) over the Dean it's clearly inspired by, and a good alternative for a less... Carvin looking headstock.


----------



## MAJ Meadows SF (Aug 5, 2015)

I like it on some models. It's fine. I probably will stick with the pointed 4 over 3, though.


----------



## chewpac (Aug 5, 2015)

MAJ Meadows SF said:


> I like it on some models. It's fine. I probably will stick with the pointed 4 over 3, though.



Agreed.


----------



## technomancer (Aug 5, 2015)

ShadowsfeaR said:


> Well in the video, he did say the bevel on the back of the headstock made it stronger... whether or not there's plausible physics behind it or not is another story.



That's what I like to call "marketing bull...."


----------



## LordCashew (Aug 6, 2015)

Hopefully he meant it made the headstock stronger than if the bevel were to be on the front... 

But I think putting it on the front (or even just cutting off the area he marked) would look really cool, and probably be strong enough. 

Poor Jeff. I wonder if he's sick of his customers' constant whining.


----------



## russmuller (Aug 6, 2015)

LordIronSpatula said:


> Poor Jeff. I wonder if he's sick of his customers' constant whining.



Running a business that's open to the public is certainly not for the faint of heart. If you want to please everyone or take things personally, you'll go mad. But I don't think that's Jeff at all; he doesn't seem to have any delusions about making everyone happy, he's running a business. Besides, it's hard to get down about complaints from personal taste when orders are flooding in left and right.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Aug 6, 2015)

Not bad, but I think the 3 + 3 (etc) headstocks look better on a lot of their models. I'm not sure why they needed a new one?


----------



## russmuller (Aug 6, 2015)

I think they had quite a bit of interest in a new inline headstock design, especially for 7's.


----------



## Halikus (Aug 11, 2015)

I think this kinda works reversed but as with all of Carvins designs there's just something slightly off about the proportions which my brain cant compute which is one big reason I have never and will never consider getting one. Seems all the well proportioned designs are taken copyrighted and patented till the end of time. Hurrah for headless.


----------



## Petar Bogdanov (Aug 12, 2015)

Konfyouzd said:


> Not bad, but I think the 3 + 3 (etc) headstocks look better on a lot of their models. I'm not sure why they needed a new one?



I imagine a lot of people prefer having all the tuners on the same side. Plus, nobody knows if you've reversed a 3+3 headstock or not.


----------



## kherman (Aug 15, 2015)

I'll stick with the older headstocks.


----------



## cip 123 (Aug 15, 2015)

kherman said:


> I'll stick with the older headstocks.



I don't see what Jeff didn't just make those headstocks 7's?


----------



## LordCashew (Aug 15, 2015)

The purple one was their best inline shape IMHO.  Looked great on the older DC guitars.


----------



## HaloHat (Aug 16, 2015)

Vairish said:


> Not liking that at all. Kinda wish they just stretched out their regular 6 string headstock:



What he said 
Thank goodness they decided not to charge for attending the announcement event at the factory lol

+1on the purple example above. I like that a lot...


----------



## dimitrio (Aug 23, 2015)

Some shop with CT model. what do you guys think? (going to order such combination soon  )






and the original with 3+3 pointy


----------



## BouhZik (Aug 23, 2015)

^ I don't really like the new headstock and I think the carved tops looks way better with a 3+3 HS. matter of taste....


----------



## jephjacques (Aug 23, 2015)

I think it looks cool reversed and Better Than A Dean non-reversed. Although it looks good on that green mockup- sort of an ESP vibe.


----------



## dimitrio (Aug 23, 2015)

jephjacques said:


> I think it looks cool reversed and Better Than A Dean non-reversed. Although it looks good on that green mockup- sort of an ESP vibe.



Exactly, reminds of my favourite esp horizon 
And to complete the mockups, here is a reversed one (I still like non-reversed more):


----------



## HumanFuseBen (Aug 23, 2015)

yeah, 3+3 on that headstock. Also, that finish is perfection.


----------



## big_aug (Aug 23, 2015)

3+3 is better

That new headstock looks absolutely terrible on the CT models. Just get a Vader and forget about the headstock


----------



## bloc (Aug 23, 2015)

Wow that green finish is really beautiful. Prolly doesn't look like that in real life though...


----------



## TheWarAgainstTime (Aug 23, 2015)

The reverse version is definitely better, but I'm just not crazy about this headstock in general  

The regular and reverse 6-in-line, Holdsworth, and 3-above-4 DC 7 string headstocks are still my faves by far  I want to order more Carvins just to have at least one of each


----------



## technomancer (Aug 24, 2015)

Still not a fan of the inline on a double cut like that


----------



## canuck brian (Aug 24, 2015)

Ive seen more people from Sevenstring flip their wigs over someone making a somewhat similar Blackmachine headstock. Carvin outright rips off Dean and barely anyone bats an eye.


----------



## russmuller (Aug 24, 2015)

canuck brian said:


> Ive seen more people from Sevenstring flip their wigs over someone making a somewhat similar Blackmachine headstock. Carvin outright rips off Dean and barely anyone bats an eye.



People wanted an inline headstock, so Kiesel made an inline version of the 3+3/3+4 and Xccelerator headstocks he has introduced over the past few years. It just happens to be almost identical to one of Dean's headstock designs. Notice how every side is concave (while Dean's actually appears to be straight on one side). It's a consistent design over the past few years. 

If they didn't already have multiple headstocks that follow that design theme, I might find the claim of "ripping off" Dean to be persuasive. It's not like they looked at Dean's headstock and said "let's tweak it just a tiny bit." Now if they put out a headstock like this one, then I'd call shenanigans.


----------



## ferret (Aug 24, 2015)

canuck brian said:


> Ive seen more people from Sevenstring flip their wigs over someone making a somewhat similar Blackmachine headstock. Carvin outright rips off Dean and barely anyone bats an eye.



Maybe we read different threads..  Seems like every other post is about the fact that it looks like Dean.


----------



## canuck brian (Aug 24, 2015)

ferret said:


> Maybe we read different threads..  Seems like every other post is about the fact that it looks like Dean.



I just see the difference being "hmmm....it's kinda similar" when discussing the Dean headstock and "get the goddamn pitchforks and torches" when it's the Blackmachine one.


----------



## Mike (Aug 24, 2015)

canuck brian said:


> Ive seen more people from Sevenstring flip their wigs over someone making a somewhat similar Blackmachine headstock. Carvin outright rips off Dean and barely anyone bats an eye.



Because Carvin is worshiped here. You'll be hard pressed to find anyone outright badmouthing Carvin. Someone may say they dislike a model or a particular feature, but there will never be any torch and pitchfork grabbing.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Aug 24, 2015)

Mike said:


> Because Carvin is worshiped here.



And Dean is almost-universally hated.


----------



## canuck brian (Aug 24, 2015)

Mike said:


> Because Carvin is worshiped here. You'll be hard pressed to find anyone outright badmouthing Carvin. Someone may say they dislike a model or a particular feature, but there will never be any torch and pitchfork grabbing.



I'm aware - ive been here a while. 

It just looks like because people hate Dean that it's ok to copy their headstock and its' really not. It's unoriginal. I highly doubt that someone at Carvin didn't notice this. The new Carvin headstock isn't kinda similar, it's almost identical.


----------



## dimitrio (Aug 24, 2015)

canuck brian said:


> I'm aware - ive been here a while.
> 
> It just looks like because people hate Dean that it's ok to copy their headstock and its' really not. It's unoriginal. I highly doubt that someone at Carvin didn't notice this. The new Carvin headstock isn't kinda similar, it's almost identical.



I would say proportions are different. Dean's looks a bit too oversized to me.


----------



## Señor Voorhees (Aug 24, 2015)

Mike said:


> Because Carvin is worshiped here. You'll be hard pressed to find anyone outright badmouthing Carvin. Someone may say they dislike a model or a particular feature, but there will never be any torch and pitchfork grabbing.



Then let me be the first to say that Carvin/Kiesel has some of the fuggliest guitars I've ever seen. Multi-colored fret boards, gaudy paint jobs, goofy shapes. (I'm looking at you Vanquish, Xccelerator, X220, Ultra V Classic, and pretty much all of their accoustics.)

On top of that, almost all "Kiesel edition" guitars built because Jeff just felt like it, (ie: not ones specifically commissioned by customers) are hideous, imo. 

With all of that said, the headstock shape isn't unique like the blackmachine was once upon a time. I don't even like blackmachine's and I'm indifferent to Kiesel. The headstock shape just isn't worth getting worked up over. People won't see this headstock and mistake the guitar for a Dean like they would mistake a Fender, Dean (with the giant V thing), or Blackmachine if you cloned those headstocks. It's just not a special shape.


----------



## russmuller (Aug 24, 2015)

Mike said:


> Because Carvin is worshiped here. You'll be hard pressed to find anyone outright badmouthing Carvin. Someone may say they dislike a model or a particular feature, but there will never be any torch and pitchfork grabbing.



Can't really argue with that.


----------



## russmuller (Aug 24, 2015)

canuck brian said:


> It just looks like because people hate Dean that it's ok to copy their headstock and its' really not. It's unoriginal.



You say "copy" as if they looked to Dean for their design. They didn't (<-I assume, because I believe Jeff has more integrity than that). Yes, they look very similar. But do you not see the similarity to their existing headstocks from the past few years years?


----------



## dimitrio (Aug 24, 2015)

Señor Voorhees;4430076 said:


> Then let me be the first to say that Carvin/Kiesel has some of the fuggliest guitars I've ever seen. Multi-colored fret boards, gaudy paint jobs, goofy shapes. (I'm looking at you Vanquish, Xccelerator, X220, Ultra V Classic, and pretty much all of their accoustics.)
> 
> On top of that, almost all "Kiesel edition" guitars built because Jeff just felt like it, (ie: not ones specifically commissioned by customers) are hideous, imo.
> 
> With all of that said, the headstock shape isn't unique like the blackmachine was once upon a time. I don't even like blackmachine's and I'm indifferent to Kiesel. The headstock shape just isn't worth getting worked up over. People won't see this headstock and mistake the guitar for a Dean like they would mistake a Fender, Dean (with the giant V thing), or Blackmachine if you cloned those headstocks. It's just not a special shape.



Haha, exactly my thoughts! imho there are just a few decent models from design perspective (don't get me wrong, quality-wise carvins are one of the best guitars I tried). The most fugly to me are rounded edges on majority of models, mehhhh  However some recent ones are quite good - DC7X, DC600 .. and of course CT series .. All IMHO


----------



## Spicypickles (Aug 24, 2015)

I like the carved tops and super strats, but I don't care for the beveled edges and I absolutely DESPISE the treated fretboards. It's way too over the top.


I can definitely see why people like them, but to me it reminds me of the old 1000 series ltd's with their miles of abalone purfling.


----------



## russmuller (Aug 24, 2015)

dimitrio said:


> Haha, exactly my thoughts! imho there are just a few decent models from design perspective (don't get me wrong, quality-wise carvins are one of the best guitars I tried). The most fugly to me are rounded edges on majority of models, mehhhh  However some recent ones are quite good - DC7X, DC600 .. and of course CT series .. All IMHO



I agree. The quality and premium woods are top notch, but a lot of the designs don't turn me on much. The DC7X and DC700/800 were a big improvement over the radiused DC bodies. I like the bevels on the Vader and the K6/7 guitars. They're moving in the right direction I think.


----------



## spudmunkey (Aug 24, 2015)

Halikus said:


> I think this kinda works reversed but as with all of Carvins designs there's just something slightly off about the proportions which my brain cant compute which is one big reason I have never and will never consider getting one. Seems all the well proportioned designs are taken copyrighted and patented till the end of time. Hurrah for headless.



Funny you say that, because there are many models which I PREFER to the originals. They are a bit more streamlined and modern.
- Bolt versus Stratocaster
- JB versus Jazz Bass
- CT versus PRS
- CS versus Les Paul or PRL Singlecut
- UltraV versus Jackson or Gibson's Vs.

That said, I don't like the SC90 as much as the Washburn Idol, or a Les Paul, but I like the SCB better than the SC90...but I like PRS's "beveled" top value models better, I think.


----------



## Señor Voorhees (Aug 24, 2015)

russmuller said:


> I agree. The quality and premium woods are top notch, but a lot of the designs don't turn me on much. The DC7X and DC700/800 were a big improvement over the radiused DC bodies. I like the bevels on the Vader and the K6/7 guitars. They're moving in the right direction I think.



Even on those models, particularly the Vader and if I recall the k6/7's, they lack proper drop tops. I personally don't mind that, in fact I don't even mind the rounded DC shapes, but it's an obvious gripe people have with them.

I don't want to come off like I hate Kiesel, but I do think they're far from infallible. Haha! On topic, I don't think their use of a pretty common shape for a headstock counts towards them in a negative way.


----------



## bloc (Aug 24, 2015)

spudmunkey said:


> Funny you say that, because there are many models which I PREFER to the originals. They are a bit more streamlined and modern.
> - Bolt versus Stratocaster
> - JB versus Jazz Bass
> - CT versus PRS
> ...



I have a guitar obsession just as much as the next guy but I JUST learned about their CT models today. Before, all I knew was Vader Vader Vader lol. But I'll be damned if their CT model is just a more customizable and less expensive PRS. I've always wanted a PRS but if I can get some more customizability and save some cash, hell, a CT it is!


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Aug 24, 2015)

spudmunkey said:


> - Bolt versus Stratocaster



I agree with this, and I'll take a CS just as much as any other singlecut...

But man, I can't stand the CT anymore. I liked it when they first released the 7-string model, but after awhile, it just started to look REALLY off. Not sure if it's because the ass-end is too flat or it's because the horns are too long.


----------



## cardinal (Aug 24, 2015)

The only shape they actually got right IMHO is the TL. Except they didn't bother to offer a headstock that looks right with it. All their other shapes are just "off." It'd be easy to fix, but apparently they're not interested.

There's no reason Carvin can't reboot to be seen as an equal to Anderson and Suhr and anyone else offering high quality CNC guitars with a deep bench of options. But I definitely don't see them getting there if they don't make the lines of their guitars actually attractive.


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Aug 24, 2015)

Why would they want to reboot though? They've made a name for themselves doing things how they are, and they're making decent cash doing it. Just because some people are turned off to some of their shapes is no reason to panic and start over.


----------



## cardinal (Aug 24, 2015)

They're already trying to reboot with the Keisel thing IMHO. Just because they've been successful to a large degree despite their poor aesthetics isn't a reason not to tweak their aesthetics in the hopes of becoming even more successful. This wouldn't be a massive sea change to their designs or brand or way of doing business. It'd just tweaking the horns and headstocks and such.


----------



## SnowfaLL (Aug 25, 2015)

Mike said:


> Because Carvin is worshiped here. You'll be hard pressed to find anyone outright badmouthing Carvin. Someone may say they dislike a model or a particular feature, but there will never be any torch and pitchfork grabbing.



But look back at almost every post earlier than 2012, Carvin was consistently bashed here.. The fact that Carvin first off is creating new models basically catering to the people of SS.Org, have representatives who post here and listen to their customers on this website (and others) has gained them the respect they finally deserve. 

It's not a coincidence that Carvin is beginning to be worshiped around here when you can get an amazing top quality guitar that beats out all these "boutique small luthiers" without the 3 year wait and sketchy business practices... I don't know about you, but I trust giving my hard earned money to a real company rather than some guy in his basement promising things they can't deliver, just because a certain "djent" artist says this guy's stuff is the best ever.

When is the last time Dean even asked what sevenstringers want? Not to mention, their "original headstock" is just a rip off of BC Rich, and other companies too.


----------



## Mike (Aug 25, 2015)

SnowfaLL said:


> I don't know about you, but I trust giving my hard earned money to a real company rather than some guy in his basement promising things they can't deliver, just because a certain "djent" artist says this guy's stuff is the best ever.



Yeah I trust them with money too since I own 3 of them and have had 5 in and out of my hands in the past couple years. Any praise they get is rightfully deserved. I'm not bashing the praise they get, just stating they get a lot of it here (Over the past few years, currently, and for the foreseeable future).


----------



## spudmunkey (Aug 25, 2015)

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> I agree with this, and I'll take a CS just as much as any other singlecut...
> 
> But man, I can't stand the CT anymore. I liked it when they first released the 7-string model, but after awhile, it just started to look REALLY off. Not sure if it's because the ass-end is too flat or it's because the horns are too long.



The horns are indeed longer, but that's in keeping with their commitment to well-balanced guitars. With those longer horns, the body also needed to be slender-ized a bit so that it looked better, proportionally, with those long horns. With those two changes, dare I say it's almost more like carved-top Schecter models than PRS, which is much more "squat" with it's shorter horns and wider body, and I've always hated that upper fret access cutaway.


----------



## GenghisCoyne (Aug 26, 2015)

this kiesel fella sure likes his bevels...


----------



## Erockomania (Aug 26, 2015)

Agreed with all folks that think the designs are "off". Some things just naturally look "right" to the eye (whether it's golden proportions -if you believe that- or something else) and literally none of Carvin's designs look right to me. They are ok. They COULD be great with only a little work from someone with a better eye for proportions. There is no denying they have solid builds (fretwork, however, on some of the vaders look barely dressed and uncomfy on the edges) so it's actually a little frustrating that they always seems to come to the table with 85% there.... I'm always thinking DAMN... so close! But I'd never own it.


----------



## Hollowway (Aug 26, 2015)

For me, it's a fool's errand to design a good inline HS. IMO, there's the balckmachine HS, and then there's everything else. It's like when the iPhone came out - it was on a whole other level. I mean, I know it's just me, but the reversed BM HS (and I think they're all reversed, yeah?) is the hottest design ever. I don't think it's good for other luthiers to copy it, but DAMMIT did Doug hit it out of the park on that one!


----------



## HaloHat (Aug 26, 2015)

GenghisCoyne said:


> this kiesel fella sure likes his bevels...





The Kiesel bevel addiction started with an SC90 for Derek Song of Pinn Pinelle. I don't know if Derek asked for the bevels or Jeff had an ah ha moment if asked to come up with something different. I'd love to know the answer to that. If Derek thought of it Kiesel should give him some props at the least.

While I suppose I may buy a 7 string 27" scale Vader someday it will not before Kiesel offers a seven string extended scale V, on which I 'd love to see bevels. I'd buy an extended scale TL7 before a Vader as well and I am hoping, with not much real expectation of it happening, for the new Bolt Neck 7 string to offer an extended scale too, which I would also buy before a Vader. I could live with more than one of the current Carvin/Kiesel head stock shapes on any of them. 

Honestly, it is all about the neck/board/frets/scale for me. I don't care much how the head stock looks though I am not sure I could live with the Dean V shaped head stock which looks pretty awful to me.

It will be interesting to see what head stock Jeff does the first Kiesel Explorer type guitars with but if ever there was a shape made for bevels, the Explorer style is it. I'd buy that if offered in a 7 string extended sacle too.


----------



## russmuller (Aug 26, 2015)

Hollowway said:


> For me, it's a fool's errand to design a good inline HS. IMO, there's the balckmachine HS, and then there's everything else.



I actually love the Ibanez inline headstock too. But the BM (and Ormsby/Skervy/other bandwagoners) style seems to be king at the moment.


----------



## Spicypickles (Aug 26, 2015)

ESP's inline (both the knife edge and the classic) are awesome, IMO


----------



## xzacx (Aug 26, 2015)

Hollowway said:


> For me, it's a fool's errand to design a good inline HS. IMO, there's the balckmachine HS, and then there's everything else.



I actually think some of the derivative versions are better than the original - I don't like how it widens at the top.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Aug 26, 2015)

Hollowway said:


> IMO, there's the balckmachine HS



Even _that_ headstock isn't original.


----------



## SnowfaLL (Aug 26, 2015)

Erockomania said:


> Agreed with all folks that think the designs are "off". Some things just naturally look "right" to the eye (whether it's golden proportions -if you believe that- or something else) and literally none of Carvin's designs look right to me. They are ok. They COULD be great with only a little work from someone with a better eye for proportions. There is no denying they have solid builds (fretwork, however, on some of the vaders look barely dressed and uncomfy on the edges) so it's actually a little frustrating that they always seems to come to the table with 85% there.... I'm always thinking DAMN... so close! But I'd never own it.



The way aesthetics work is basically whatever you are used to seeing (ie which band you love the most) is what you will find the most attractive. Of course, thats why most people want Les Pauls and nothing else; they grew up listening to GNR, Clapton, other bands who all use Les Pauls. For Carvin, They definitely have different designs than the originals (which is needed, or they get sued) but since I grew up listening to primarily Carvin artists (Becker, Friedman, MacAlpine) they became aesthetically pleasing to me. Of course, there's a few models that will always look odd to me, but thankfully they have a large catalog so I have my favorites.

For example, I have no idea how anyone would ever want one of those Schecter Synester Gates models.. yet theres so many guys who own them. There are a ton of guitars I find completely ugly (for instance, a lot of the guitars that people find attractive here with the super super pointy-ness) but everyone likes different things. The Carvin CT model is my absolute favorite, although its slightly twisted from the PRS, which I like also.

Carvin has a model that "resembles" all the classic guitars; The Les Paul (CS) - Strat (Bolt) - PRS (CT) - Tele (TL) but they are all slightly modified in bodyshape in order to not be sued. Since you are used to seeing those guitars in their original form, you will think the Carvin models are slightly off until you start seeing them often enough.


----------



## Erockomania (Aug 26, 2015)

No, I don't think that's it at all (with all due respect)... there is a sort of science to what GENERALLY looks attractive. Certain proportions... symmetry.... asymmetry. Some designs just have the right curves... ratios... etc.. and some don't. However, I do believe what you say can be true as well, but I think they are outliers. I like tons of designs... some very atypical... but there is something about how things come together as a package that makes it work. Carvins miss it somehow. 

There are lots of studies on this. Here's a quick read:
Do Our Brains Find Certain Shapes More Attractive Than Others? | Science | Smithsonian


----------



## SnowfaLL (Aug 27, 2015)

Eh, well I disagree. A lot of aesthetics are definitely subjective. Some people will like it, some people won't. I dont get the BlackMachine aesthetic love, but its clearly the most popular guitar shape on this site that spawns multiple copies/ripoffs. The big flat butt is very off to me.


----------



## cardinal (Aug 27, 2015)

The classic "Strat" shape, and maybe the Tele shape, are available to use, I believe. I think because Fender screwed up and didn't protect them aggressively enough years ago (they still control their headstock shapes, though). So that's no excuse for Carvin not making their copies look "normal". (The LP shape and maybe the PRS shape are not public domain). 

And I get what you're saying: we like what we're use to, and we're all really familiar with the classic Strat proportions. 

But consider this: the Strat may have become "classic" only because it's design is inherently attractive. There were tons of other, somewhat similar double and single cut designs out there in the '50s, and most are relegated to the dust bin (or to hipsters). The Strat survives because it nailed the design while others did not.


----------



## xzacx (Aug 27, 2015)

Erockomania said:


> No, I don't think that's it at all (with all due respect)... there is a sort of science to what GENERALLY looks attractive. Certain proportions... symmetry.... asymmetry. Some designs just have the right curves... ratios... etc.. and some don't. However, I do believe what you say can be true as well, but I think they are outliers. I like tons of designs... some very atypical... but there is something about how things come together as a package that makes it work. Carvins miss it somehow.
> 
> There are lots of studies on this. Here's a quick read:
> Do Our Brains Find Certain Shapes More Attractive Than Others? | Science | Smithsonian



I totally agree with this. And the fact that Carvin is altering existing designs, rather than creating their own, is what makes it worse. That's not to say you can modify a design with success - take a Soloist/Dinky or RG for example. They're still Strat shapes at the end of the day, but because proper design principals were followed, and they're proportioned correctly, they look great and become their own thing. I just think whoever is designing over at Carvin doesn't have a very good eye for it, and by adding things like bevels and dyed fretboards, it makes the already off-looking designs become gaudy.


----------



## ThePIGI King (Aug 27, 2015)

I think some of you guys are taking this a little far...
I like it. To each their own...


----------



## ferret (Aug 29, 2015)

From Mike Jones on the Carvin forums, he went back and snapped a bunch of photos of in progress builds... No body shots, just headstock.



Mike Jones said:


> Next question.



I want to see the rest of that guitar with the ebony, gold, and red inlay.


----------



## LordCashew (Aug 29, 2015)

Anyone else see a syringe in the Kiesel logo?


----------



## dimitrio (Aug 29, 2015)

ferret said:


> From Mike Jones on the Carvin forums, he went back and snapped a bunch of photos of in progress builds... No body shots, just headstock.
> 
> 
> 
> I want to see the rest of that guitar with the ebony, gold, and red inlay.



I think they look awesome. Btw, from what are those colored inlays are done? Did not see much of them.. Maybe only once the green blocks on kiesel racing green dc7x...

upd: actually just found a topic on carvinbbs..


----------



## DISTORT6 (Aug 29, 2015)

http://www.elderly.com/items/images/30U/30U-13399_headstock-front.jpg

This image is a bit large. I'll just leave the link.


----------



## stevexc (Aug 29, 2015)

DISTORT6 said:


> http://www.elderly.com/items/images/30U/30U-13399_headstock-front.jpg
> 
> This image is a bit large. I'll just leave the link.



Yup, that was mentioned back on page 2.

I gotta admit, it's kinda starting to grow on me. I'd be sold if the tip was flat instead of that "scoop" but still.


----------



## DISTORT6 (Aug 29, 2015)

After I saw all those pics from Carvin, I couldn't UNsee the image of the Spitz headstock.


----------



## Herrick (Sep 1, 2015)

No sir, I don't like it.


----------



## Mathemagician (Sep 4, 2015)

That reversed version on a 7. Yuuuuup.


----------



## Ray7x (Sep 6, 2015)

Haters gunna hate...
I think its a pretty nice headstock. then again my dean RC7s have the same style lol.

love em big ass head stocks. add some weight to er. maybe that's just me though lol


----------



## Stuck_in_a_dream (Sep 7, 2015)

The new headstock is ok, but it's not great. In any case, using the open-source tool Inkscape, here:https://inkscape.org/en/
Actually I only used the Bezier curve tool. That, and a few mins. to sketch some headstocks. They may not be realistic or up to scale, but it gets my point across, that is anyone can design his own headstock.

So, why don't we have a headstock contest > a headstock A-list for guitar companies to adopt. Long shot? Maybe, but how far are we from a guitar company that would take the customer designs & make them into actual guitars? I hope that is not far off into the next century or something 

Anyway, here's what I have for now.


----------



## Edika (Sep 8, 2015)

Seeing the photos above have changed my view of the headstock for the better. It seems a bit thinner than the original photo that works in it's favor. Maybe it's the angle of the photos making it look one way or the other.


----------



## Stuck_in_a_dream (Sep 10, 2015)

I thought my post above would get more feedback (than 0 that is). Anyway, let me reiterate that I come in peace , was not trolling, just asking an honest question. How easy/hard for Carvin or a custom guitar company in general having non-proprietary headstock designs made by their customers? Maybe under a CC license?


----------



## ferret (Sep 15, 2015)

Stuck_in_a_dream said:


> I thought my post above would get more feedback (than 0 that is). Anyway, let me reiterate that I come in peace , was not trolling, just asking an honest question. How easy/hard for Carvin or a custom guitar company in general having non-proprietary headstock designs made by their customers? Maybe under a CC license?



The short answer is, "CNC programming is expensive." They cut everything via CNC, so sending your own design in is unlikely to happen. If they DID agree to cut it by hand, it'll be done by Jeff probably, and would cost you.

That's basically their answer for custom inlays too.


----------



## celticelk (Sep 15, 2015)

Stuck_in_a_dream said:


> I thought my post above would get more feedback (than 0 that is). Anyway, let me reiterate that I come in peace , was not trolling, just asking an honest question. How easy/hard for Carvin or a custom guitar company in general having non-proprietary headstock designs made by their customers? Maybe under a CC license?



I think you'd have the same problem that's appallingly evident in the color/wood combinations seen on many Carvin/Kiesel builds: most guitarists are not designers.


----------

