Now that Fender owns Jackson/Charvel

[Krash]

Do you guys think they will try to go after GMW for the Charvel copies, or does GMW have a licensing agreement with Fender?
Or has this already been discussed, & I just missed it?

[BLOOD SPLATTER]

Re: Now that Fender owns Jackson/Charvel

SSSSHHHH!!!! [img]graemlins/nono.gif[/img] Don't say that!!

[LesPaulCustom]

Re: Now that Fender owns Jackson/Charvel

[img]images/icons/shocked.gif[/img] Stimpy, you idiot [img]graemlins/evilimages/icons/tongue.gif[/img]

What you thinkin?? There are spys everywhere [img]graemlins/poke.gif[/img]

Mum is the word (I dunno, I always wanted to say that [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img] )

NOT A WORD [img]graemlins/nono.gif[/img]

[atomic charvel guy]

Re: Now that Fender owns Jackson/Charvel

why would fender want the rights to GMW's
meatball sandwiches. they are a great delicatessan, and the meatball recipe is all their own. i love the food from GMW. fender should just stick to making guitars instead of trying to compete with one of the better deli's in the world. someone tell lee to hide the meatball recipe.

tommy

[sully]

Re: Now that Fender owns Jackson/Charvel

my understanding on this sort of thing is that you're pretty much okay as long as you don't logo the headstock.

sully

[atomic charvel guy]

Re: Now that Fender owns Jackson/Charvel

oh, i see , saving the good scotch for the company eh sully? [img]images/icons/tongue.gif[/img] [img]images/icons/tongue.gif[/img] [img]images/icons/tongue.gif[/img] [img]images/icons/tongue.gif[/img] [img]images/icons/tongue.gif[/img]

[Fretburner]

Re: Now that Fender owns Jackson/Charvel

So if it's okay how come Wayne uses that ugly ass can opener looking headstock on his guitars? ha ha

[shreddermon]

Re: Now that Fender owns Jackson/Charvel

[img]graemlins/nono.gif[/img] Will the admins please consider deleting this thread? It might be preferable that such things not even be discussed openly, lest some knuckleheaded lawyer might get an idea. It's bad enough they made them clip off the you-know-whats from the website photos. That scares me, as they might be thinking about actually preventing the use of the you-know-whats. [img]graemlins/nono.gif[/img]

Leave GMW alone, please.

[img]graemlins/refuse.gif[/img]

[toejam]

Re: Now that Fender owns Jackson/Charvel

Originally posted by Fretburner:
So if it's okay how come Wayne uses that ugly ass can opener looking headstock on his guitars? ha ha

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You can get an uncut replacement neck from him and just have it cut for a Strathead. That's what I plan on doing with a Carvin neck I'm getting soon.

[ November 17, 2003, 08:16 PM: Message edited by: toejam ]

[peabuddy]

Re: Now that Fender owns Jackson/Charvel

i'm asking again, why does everyone want "that" headstock shape. to me the only j/c are pointies. if iwanted the "other shape" i'd buy the original maker. i mean, really it's about the neck profile not the headstock, right?i guess being a bass player, i'll never get it

[toejam]

Re: Now that Fender owns Jackson/Charvel

It's just a cool headstock shape with straight string pull that I really like. The one I'm having cut on my Carvin will actually have a slightly tilted back headstock so I won't need those stupid little string trees. I already own a Fender anyway.

[peabuddy]

Re: Now that Fender owns Jackson/Charvel

that's what i don't understand. what makes that shape "cooler" than the pointies?i guess what i'm saying is if you want a fender shape, why not buy a fender? i personally prefer the tilt back because there's no string retainer. i had a rick and the e string would pop off the nut with agressive playing

[~K~]

Re: Now that Fender owns Jackson/Charvel

Originally posted by peabuddy:
i'm asking again, why does everyone want "that" headstock shape. to me the only j/c are pointies. if iwanted the "other shape" i'd buy the original maker. i mean, really it's about the neck profile not the headstock, right?i guess being a bass player, i'll never get it

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Because the necks on charvels are different from Fenders in a bg way . . so why buy the fender if you prefer the neckshape of the charvel ...

[peabuddy]

Re: Now that Fender owns Jackson/Charvel

alright kev, that's what i want to know. i realize that the "real" san dimas strat heads are different but if gmw are making new necks, wouldn't you be able to get what profile you want regardless of headstock shape?i mean everyone keeps asking about strat heads but nobody says anything about the shape of the neck. hell, it really doesn't matter what the shape of the head is cause it doesn't effect playability,( well maybe a little)

[ November 17, 2003, 09:29 PM: Message edited by: peabuddy ]

[~K~]

Re: Now that Fender owns Jackson/Charvel

I've never played one but I hear the GMWs are good .. The thing about the older stratheads is they now have that old worn in feel to them. The thing I see a lot of people assciate C/J with the current headstock but the roots of the company started with the strathead and those guitars gave the company it's jumpstart so there's a bit of nostagia there too ...