whew! I read through all this stuff without comment. I still maintain that the 17 degree back angle of a Gibson headstock contributes to the awesome tone we expect from our Gibsons, and get. I still top wrap both my Gibson SGs, feeling that this MIGHT contribute to the awesome sustain that I get from both... and not caring much about nay sayers. I'm getting great tone, so I don't want to consider altering anything. That's my experience. To a Telecaster player, it's all meaningless. Telecasters sound awesome in spite of all that's been presented on this thread. I do own a Telecaster... it has a string through body, eliminating all concerns and/or hype from Tuna-matic users. My Tele has zero back angle on the headstock, but includes a pair of string trees which increase the pressure on the nut for the D, G, B and E strings. This is effective and contributes to the awesome Fender tone I get from my Tele. So it goes, eh? Cela, c'est com s'il va alors... I don't know any answers to this thread, but I do know what I like. And that includes Gibsons with a 17 degree back angle to the headstock, Epiphones with a 14 degree back angle, and Fenders with zero back angle but lubricated (by me) string trees which accomplish a similar effect. Rock on, comrades.
We get lots of thiskind of reflexion on this Colonel, hence my original question, which maybe should have been: Is there proven science behind that steep angle.
I like Gibsons generally, the neck angle is part of it I'm sure. But more importantly, "I know you are, but what am I?". That is always the most important question (thank you Pee Wee).
I regard the back angle as a proven instrument maker's tradition. Dunno what a real scientist might say on the subject, because the tradition might be founded on intuition rather than calculation. But I like the tone, Perfesser...
