Conceptual Discussion - Why is this NOT a Charvel?

[shreddermon]

Why is this NOT a Charvel? I mean: bolt-on, maple neck, strathead, HSS,, Floyd etc. IMHO, the specs scream "Charvel" in the traditional sense.

Recall that the PC1 first arrived around the mid-to-late 90s. Right around the same time that the mid-90s Charvel Reissue line was being phased out. I'm going to venture a guess that, when first designed, it actually might've been intended to be a Charvel. But, when J/C decided to kill off those Charvels, they changed it over to the Jackson line instead.

What do you think? What makes it a "Jackson" instead of a Charvel?

(Oh, and the first wisenheimer who says "because it has a Jackson logo and neckplate" gets a swift Ron-kick to the arse. )

[MEX3]

USA Jacksons sell. USA Charvels don't. It's always been that way and it always will. Simple as that.

[ejs0614]

I agree that it smells like it should have been a Charvel. The only thing I would add to the discussion is that I don't ever recall seeing Phil play a Charvel;but Jacksons yes...(prior to the PC1)

[dg]

24 frets and a Dinky body are more Jackson-like features, imo. Yeah, you could order a Charvel with those features, but how many do you see? I also think of the mid-90s reissues more as Jacksons with a Charvel logo.

[shreddermon]

The only thing I would add to the discussion is that I don't ever recall seeing Phil play a Charvel;but Jacksons yes...(prior to the PC1)

Well, that would be due to the fact that (when Phil was actively playing his custom Jacksons back in the late-80s to mid-90s) the Charvel line was pretty much left to being imports only. At least, until the mid-90s Reissues came along, that is. Pretty much no-one was playing Charvels during that period.

And I have seen at least one Charvel in his stable. It looks like a mid-90s blue Charvel Traditional, but with a Floyd.

[dg]

USA Jacksons sell. USA Charvels don't. It's always been that way and it always will. Simple as that.

Interesting point, but I'd make it Production USA Jacksons sell. Production USA Charvels don't. Customs and limited runs have sold very well. The Sears headstock models that were nothing like the originals and the recent flood of plane-janes with v-trems did not sell until they were sold at closeout prices. Even the EVH Art Series took a nosedive when they made too many. Charvels aren't meant to be production guitars. Another reason why the PC1 is more like a Jackson, imo. It's a production axe.

[shreddermon]

I also think of the mid-90s reissues more as Jacksons with a Charvel logo.

That's a good point, dg. I'm sure many of the "old school" Charvel guys agree, too. And, from a certain point of view, I kind of agree myself, as well. But, IMHO, only insofar as the USA Charvel line was killed off in 1986.

I guess what I mean by that is that is the mid-90s Charvels are more "Jacksons" only insofar as the USA Charvel line had no opportunity to evolve at all. There's a clear "bright line" of when Charvel ended: 1986. A "Charvel" was only what was made prior to that date. Predominantly strat bodies, 22 frets, etc.

But imagine, if you will, that the USA Charvel line didn't cease to exist in '86. What would it have eventually evolved into with time? IMHO, it would've naturally evolved in a direction towards what the mid-90s line became: more Dinky body styles, 24 frets, recessed Floyds, etc. This is what became popular with bolt-on superstrats after the mid-80s. I'm not saying they would've been exactly what the mid-90s Reissues were. But, most likely, Charvels would've evolved into something pretty similar to them. And, by extension, the PC1, too.

...Like I said, a conceptual discussion.

[dg]

Now that is food for thought. Say Charvels had stayed custom-only and they had never stopped making them (yes, I know you could order a Charvel-logoed guitar all along). I think you have a good point that people probably would have ordered them with more updated features, especially if the brand had stayed popular and new blood had started placing orders. I still think there would have been lots of full-sized strats made, though.

Staying conceptual here. All of this would be in a world where grunge never happened, of course...

[Bengal65]

One could say that a Charvel is not a Charvel after Wayne sold the business to Grover. Grover started or had already started modifying and adding features to the old Charvel design to create the "Jackson" line. With Wayne gone the guitar models started taking on more of the Jackson look, except for the imports. By the time Phil and Jackson came up with the signature model, Wayne had long departed and thus the guitar resulted in more of a "Jackson" guitar. Good discussion.

Funny thing, the PC1 is my favorite "Jackson". One in which I have several.

[dg]

Wayne left in late '78, before they even made their own bodies & necks.

[Bengal65]

Wayne left in late '78, before they even made their own bodies & necks.

That's a good point that I forgot to mention. Another reason for the guitar's being Jackson's. He left early on.

[Zerberus]

^^ Yes and no. If you really want to get down to it, you can essentially say there´s no such thing as a Charvel since after Wayne left by the same reasoning.

This would mean that every guitar ever produced with a CHarvel plate and logo is still a Jackson

[slash]

Too many knobs and switches to be a Charvel

[shreddermon]

Yeah, well that issue could be easily resolved by J/C. i.e., Go back to the original layout without a tone knob and replace the two mini-toggles with a single mini-3-way, instead. ...If only I was one of their product planners.

[Rich#6]

Charvels have to have at least dot inlays. how else can you tell the real ones from the fakes.
The HSS pickup config to me is Jackson. Rarely did you see that on a charvel. Charvels should be one single humbucker or two humbuckers. Hots rods are simple . Sustainer on a charvel - never.