I was stringing up a nice Jackson guitar the other day, and had a thought. With all the things that us Fender lovers go thru to keep our guitars in tune at the headstock( graphite nuts, roller nuts, string trees, graduated height machine heads), why not just angle the headstock like Jackson, Gibson and many other makers. It makes sense to me. I guess Fender likes the original design, and can use one peice of wood for the neck.
What do you think.....

'Have had the same thought, especially when addressing top-liners like the American Deluxe, where an extra $20 in wood would not mean boo-boo to the total cost.

Only thing which seems a valid explanation is, Fender wishes to remain true to their heritage and design philosophy.

I think you are right there JSJH even as the Strat has been modernized it has mantained the integraty of the originl look.

_________________
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

Thomas Jefferson

yea but Eric Johnson would disagree, he doesn't even use string trees

Fender's straight headstock make their guitars among the least to have decapitation accidents. As long as i keep my guitar in proper set up, I have no tuning issues, so I kinda like it.

I have a constant fear in the back of my mind of one of my angled headstock guitars falling and my having to try put the headstock back on.

_________________
I'm not an expert, but I play one on the internet.

Twelvebar is correct -- angled headstocks are more likely to break. Not out of weakness, necessarily, but because the guitar doesn't always sit flat on a floor or table. Makes it easier for accidents to happen, especially if there are intoxicated people around! I had a couple of Ibanez guitars in the early '90s which were very nice instruments, but I always felt a bit uncomfortable with the angled headstocks. Particularly when combined with a Floyd Rose-style locking nut.

Each to their own, I guess, but I've always got good results just from making sure the strings on my strats are wound to the bottom of their posts... just a turn or two above the hole in the post to secure it. That provides enough of a break for me (I don't use string trees), but may not be for everyone.

In addition to being harder to break, straight line headstocks aren't as labor intensive and expensive to make. Shhhh, if you start angling the headstocks on Strats all you'll have is another Jackson!

String trees aren't a big inconvenience and I don't have trouble keeping my Strats (or my Tele) in tune.

_________________
"Life is like eating jalapenos. What you do today may burn your arse tomorrow"

One or more of the books says that Leo designed the Tele neck so that the entire thing could be machined from a single piece of timber of dimensions that were apparently a standard cut at the time. It was the post war period when materials were a little restricted and custom milling added cost. It's a neat bit of industrial design.

By the time the Strat came along the company was prepared to run to a wider timber blank, which allowed for the larger headstock shape, but the depth of the timber was the same. It only permitted the flat headstock shape, and so the stringtrees are necessary to create a steep enough breaking angle over the nut on the upper strings.

Ibanez have a tilted back headstock: certainly Fender stick to their flat one out of tradition. However, Eric Johnson's Strat has a mil or so shaved off the front which, in combination with staggered tuners, is just enough to mean no stringtrees are required.

To my personal taste, along with the screw-in trem arm, the stringtrees are one of the few less than ideal aspects in the design - a bit of a functional compromise. I'd be happy if Fender went the EJ route with more of their guitars.

I'm probably in a minority, though...

Cheers - C