Murray, what the hell are you drinking tonight? Can I have some?

I admit that you DO have point and that as you say, beauty IS in the eye and all of that. I have never thought of headstocks in quite the same terms as you did here and I think although your points have merit, my main concern in a headstock is resistance to cracking, which is both a function of the wood AND the design. When it comes to appearance however, I think many builders are looking for a trademark design as well. I never found the Martin to be especially pretty (it's a friggin' rectangle), but on the basis of form following function, it is, as you correctly put it, elegant.

Most High-Line guitars tend to follow the Martin idea. Collings has sharper corners, Larrivee is a bit broader with a rounded top, Lakewood is quite similar........Gibson and Guild have distinctive headstocks and appear better to some than others and are both larger than Martin. Grammer went the Gibson look to an outlandish size that looked just incredibly out of proportion and stupid although it gave plenty of room for inlay....and since the Grammer was an Opry favorite that made sense, They were thinner though and the extra size combined with that made them prone to cracking. Then there are the wacky acoustics like Breedlove.........

I dunno'..........I could sit here and write a critique of everyone's headstocks including electrics(Fly, reverse Fly, blah, blah, blah...),but if I had to pick an acoustic headstock that best proportioned to the guitar and had the classic and elegant Martin line, I'd go with Larrivee.

Spaw