Absolutely not! If the price is right go for it. That's how I came to own my 1st Les Paul it knocked $1200 off. And the guitar plays like a dream. The repair aesthetically is ugly but I think it gives it character. It's been through the wars.
I just bought a '70 sg special and it is great! Got a good price and the neck seems to have been done very early in it's life. I was going to buy a 61 reissue, but as soon as I played the axe, that was it. Made my best deal and took it home and I'm even more impressed. Through a twin it's articulate and full and tonight on my plexi with and without the tube screamer, this thing just growls! It took me about an hour to get used to the 'battle scar' on the neck and then I just forgot it. Bottom line. If you play it and like it, I say go for it !! :)
I have owned two over the eyars...so YEAH, if a decent repair is done, nothing wrong with them. BUT of course the price has to be considerably lower for me.
There are two reasons to avoid headstock repairs. If you want to flip it for profit (possible if you get a great deal but you might have to wait a while because collectors won't be interested) or if the repair is poorly done. If you want a great player at a great price then a refin or one with a well done headstock repair offers a great chance to get a model that might otherwise be out of price range. I wouldn't be scared of a headstock repair if it's well done. After all, any Gibson has some risk in the headstock, it's why so many break. So go for it.
