What's coming next then?

[pro-fusion]

+1 to everything pro-fusion & Rich said, but one good point I think he raised was "where are they going with it?"

That is a good question. As a fan of non-recessed trems, I'd hate to see future Charvels abandon them entirely, since it's one of the features that makes the new Charvels stand out. However, having some models with recessed trems makes sense.

To a degree, this raises the very basic question of "What is Charvel in 2010?" If the answer is purely a retro guitar, then I don't think it will last all that long. However, if they focus on making various kinds of metal-oriented Strats, including ones that aren't attempting to be authentic to San Dimas specs, then I think the brand has a future, since I suspect the Fender-badged guitars would move away from any metal-oriented features and leave that to Charvel.

One of the best things about the recent production Charvels has been their bang for the buck. They are basic, no-frills players' instruments for great prices. That needs to stay true, whatever FMIC decides to do.

One thing I think FMIC needs to be careful to do is maintain a clear distinction between Charvel and Jackson. That's why doing Charvel Stars and other such 'pointy' shapes (other that retro limited editions) is probably a bad idea. Leave the radical shapes on production guitars to Jackson, and keep the Charvel focus on hotrod strats. Keep Charvel production in the USA. Be bolder with import Jackson designs, so they can't be confused with Charvels.

That's pretty fair. I had a 76' Fender strat and i had a love hate relationship. The body, in comparison to my 05' USA standard, looked like was done fast and was lumpy looking. The three bolt neck moved around a lot would untune the guitar every 15 minutes. The tuners were pure crap. The bridge was a weird string through/hard tail and had no trem on mine, but then again the Neck had a beautiful feel to it, the pick ups had a crisp bell like tone and it was quite a sexy looking guitar. Black, black pickguard and pups with maple board. I guess you'd want to compare early Charvels to Suhrs from about 3 or 4 years ago or maybe Moser custom shops. People play them and the word is definitely out there, but they are very expensive and not every store will carry them. (nevermind that moser does have an import series that's reasonably affordable :P) I've only put my hands on a non strat head san dimas and a 475. Was close to getting a Model 6 too, but i don't think that these guitars had much with the originals.

Comparing the original USA Charvels to Suhr isn't entirely off-base, since Suhr now produces a fairly substantial number of guitars that are made to order and intended for pro-caliber players. Fender and Gibson stubbornly refused make sought-after variations to their models in the '70s (or were inept when they did try), and that's what led to the 'hotrodding' and custom-shop movements.

You could say that Charvel is the reason that Fender's Custom Shop exists now. And a modern USA Strat, with its slimmer 22-fret neck, big frets, flatter fretboard radius, and humbucker options, probably has more in common with an '80s Charvel than with your old '76 Strat. I don't even pick up '70s Strats off the wall at used guitar stores anymore, because I find them borderline unplayable for my style. The prices they're going for now amuse me.

Don't even bother talking about the import Charvels from the late '80s and '90s. The brand became nothing more than Jackson's budget line at that point and has nothing in common with the earlier USA Charvels. I'm a fan of the Japanese Charvels and have owned several, but it's really a different thing.

The funny thing is, I'm here talking up USA Charvels, when in fact the Jackson Soloist is my #1 guitar, and I don't even own a USA Charvel! I do have my eye on one of those slime green ones, though...

[tonemonster]

I totally agree that the import Charvels from the 89-92 years were NOT the same as USA Charvels of old, but they were great guitars in their own right. A totally different animal than the early 80's USA charvels entirely, but they were great guitars in every respect. SO its like dildoes and washing machines on spin cycle, while they both accomplish the same thing, you cant really compare the two. they are different in their own rights. AFAIC you cant beat the value of those 89-92 Jap Charvels on the used market. I picked up a dandy for around $350 that I repainted for my tiger strip guitar. its just a monster. $300 to $500 for a guitar of that quality? fuhgeddaboudit.

the USA charvels are tremendous guitars, just the prices are flat out insane on them. but thats just my opinion.

[Fender]

That is a good question. As a fan of non-recessed trems, I'd hate to see future Charvels abandon them entirely, since it's one of the features that makes the new Charvels stand out. However, having some models with recessed trems makes sense.

To a degree, this raises the very basic question of "What is Charvel in 2010?" If the answer is purely a retro guitar, then I don't think it will last all that long. However, if they focus on making various kinds of metal-oriented Strats, including ones that aren't attempting to be authentic to San Dimas specs, then I think the brand has a future, since I suspect the Fender-badged guitars would move away from any metal-oriented features and leave that to Charvel.

One of the best things about the recent production Charvels has been their bang for the buck. They are basic, no-frills players' instruments for great prices. That needs to stay true, whatever FMIC decides to do.

One thing I think FMIC needs to be careful to do is maintain a clear distinction between Charvel and Jackson. That's why doing Charvel Stars and other such 'pointy' shapes (other that retro limited editions) is probably a bad idea. Leave the radical shapes on production guitars to Jackson, and keep the Charvel focus on hotrod strats. Keep Charvel production in the USA. Be bolder with import Jackson designs, so they can't be confused with Charvels.



Comparing the original USA Charvels to Suhr isn't entirely off-base, since Suhr now produces a fairly substantial number of guitars that are made to order and intended for pro-caliber players. Fender and Gibson stubbornly refused make sought-after variations to their models in the '70s (or were inept when they did try), and that's what led to the 'hotrodding' and custom-shop movements.

You could say that Charvel is the reason that Fender's Custom Shop exists now. And a modern USA Strat, with its slimmer 22-fret neck, big frets, flatter fretboard radius, and humbucker options, probably has more in common with an '80s Charvel than with your old '76 Strat. I don't even pick up '70s Strats off the wall at used guitar stores anymore, because I find them borderline unplayable for my style. The prices they're going for now amuse me.

Don't even bother talking about the import Charvels from the late '80s and '90s. The brand became nothing more than Jackson's budget line at that point and has nothing in common with the earlier USA Charvels. I'm a fan of the Japanese Charvels and have owned several, but it's really a different thing.

The funny thing is, I'm here talking up USA Charvels, when in fact the Jackson Soloist is my #1 guitar, and I don't even own a USA Charvel! I do have my eye on one of those slime green ones, though...

+1 for the slime green one. They might look kind of boring, but the sd1 i played was nice. I dig the color on it and the fact that they are really cheap for a new USA made guitar.

I'd rather invest my dough on my own continent where the money goes to the company based in the US down to the people who designed it in the US to the people who built it in the US and the people who distribute them In the US or in my case Canada, but our economic statures are dependent on each other. My dad has been working for Ford for 25 years and when shit hits the fan in the US, it stressed all out at home too, but i digress.

[srommes]

+1 for the slime green one. They might look kind of boring, but the sd1 i played was nice. I dig the color on it and the fact that they are really cheap for a new USA made guitar.

I'd rather invest my dough on my own continent where the money goes to the company based in the US down to the people who designed it in the US to the people who built it in the US and the people who distribute them In the US or in my case Canada, but our economic statures are dependent on each other. My dad has been working for Ford for 25 years and when shit hits the fan in the US, it stressed all out at home too, but i digress.

Well said Fender. It is true that you are Canadians and we are US citizens but we are both North Americans and impact one another in many different facets. Someone made the analogy(I can't remember if it was on here or some other forum) that Canadians are like the nice family that lives in the attic of a motorcycle club. Thought that was kinda funny!

[Fender]

Well said Fender. It is true that you are Canadians and we are US citizens but we are both North Americans and impact one another in many different facets. Someone made the analogy(I can't remember if it was on here or some other forum) that Canadians are like the nice family that lives in the attic of a motorcycle club. Thought that was kinda funny!

I liked the one where it says we're not just America's Hat hehe

[Twitch]

I agree with the initial poster, pointy headstocks all the way!!

[Twitch]

''That's where you look to know it's good...right there''

Oh please, thats staged, like a (place major chain store name here) would go so far as to have a customer look down the neck to check the neck. Would be surprised if some of them even knew what the neck even is. Youd have to tell them its where the colored buttons are.

[Fender]

Oh please, thats staged, like a (place major chain store name here) would go so far as to have a customer look down the neck to check the neck. Would be surprised if some of them even knew what the neck even is. Youd have to tell them its where the colored buttons are.

Aren't those some of the dixie chicks. I hear they're endorsed. I didn't check...and i won't.

[Hellbat]

I believe it's Nancy Wilson from Heart.

[dg]

+1

[The Rossness]

I agree with the initial poster, pointy headstocks all the way!!

Screw the headstock. Let's add a steinberger trem and go headless.

[Twitch]

Yeah then their pitch could be "...if you thought you werent getting enough head before, think again!"

[aceinet]

[QUOTE=pro-fusion;1338017]That is a good question. As a fan of non-recessed trems, I'd hate to see future Charvels abandon them entirely, since it's one of the features that makes the new Charvels stand out. However, having some models with recessed trems makes sense.

To a degree, this raises the very basic question of "What is Charvel in 2010?" If the answer is purely a retro guitar, then I don't think it will last all that long. However, if they focus on making various kinds of metal-oriented Strats, including ones that aren't attempting to be authentic to San Dimas specs, then I think the brand has a future, since I suspect the Fender-badged guitars would move away from any metal-oriented features and leave that to Charvel.

One of the best things about the recent production Charvels has been their bang for the buck. They are basic, no-frills players' instruments for great prices. That needs to stay true, whatever FMIC decides to do.

One thing I think FMIC needs to be careful to do is maintain a clear distinction between Charvel and Jackson. That's why doing Charvel Stars and other such 'pointy' shapes (other that retro limited editions) is probably a bad idea. Leave the radical shapes on production guitars to Jackson, and keep the Charvel focus on hotrod strats. Keep Charvel production in the USA. Be bolder with import Jackson designs, so they can't be confused with Charvels.


While I would like to see another Pointy Charvel to me it makes sense if Fender makes the Charvel line the "metal Strat." Keep the strat headstock but offer more modern metal paint colors (you know black, off black, goth black, etc, etc), more Rosewood & Ebony fretboards, Mahogany wood, different pickups (such as EMG and anything besides JB and Tone Zone) and maybe even a string thru model. While some of those options might cross over to the Jackson line keep the frets to 22 (damn those who say you can't shred on 22 frets). Try to get some modern rock/metal artists to endorse the brand to get the word out that if you want a metal Strat, Charvel is the place to go. If you want an over the top metal axe, Jackson is waiting as well.

Yet keep a San Dimas or So Cal line going to offer more traditional old school styles (like the JB, Tone Zone pickups) brighter paint colors, etc.

Just my 2 cents....

[tonemonster]

why cant some guitar company make guitars with duckies and bunnies on them?

[Fender]

why cant some guitar company make guitars with duckies and bunnies on them?

Does these count :ROTF:











Ask and ye shall receive your stupidities . I can't believe i found these, then again google can be a mindfuck once in a while.