Announcement

**85 San Dimas** · 03-21-2009, 02:37 PM

Originally posted by Grandturk View Post

Here's where I disagree. Are todays strays and telex any less Fender because Leo isn't building them? Are todays Les Pauls and 335's any less Gibson because Ted Mcarty isn't in charge? Is a 1959 Les Paul not a real Gibson because Orville didn't build it?

I say no..

What if we start bolting-on the necks, would it be a Les Paul? Really?
An Indonesian Jackson is just as valid as a Shannon-built? it just costs less? Hmm. FMIC loves that kind of thinking. Gibson is stupid then. Put a Gibson logo on the Epis and add 5 bills to the MSRP. They'll be real Les Pauls just the same as the Nashville ones.

Originally posted by Grandturk View Post

Companies have to compete in the market place to survive and if that means increasing the number of price points you sell at, thebln that's what you have to do.

I'm not that big of a purist to fundamentally disagree with that, but a Gibson is a Gibson and an Epi is an Epi and there is a difference. They're made in in different places by different people with different parts. Sounds familiar to this discussion doesn't it?

"IF" it isn't the decal that is creating the demand then change the decal. FMIC can't because fewer people will buy that guitar with a So-Cal "by Charvel" logo on the headstock unless they plan to sand it off and put on a Charvel decal. FMIC understands this and that headstock/decal combo is appealing to ego rather than intellect.

Q: Is that decal selling product that would not sell in the same numbers badged any other way? Like Jackson, Fender, or Hondo?
Would a Mexican Strat sell less if it said "Esteban" instead?

Fender obviously believe the answer is "Yes", and that's the obvious marketing judgement. Otherwise these guitars would not exist. FMIC is trying to figure out what will be acceptable under the Charvel name and a line better be drawn somewhere.

If Ferrari is sold and production moved to Japan then its still a Ferrari (IMC Charvel) and could then only argue emotionally "they're not like the old ones so they're not real boo-hoo", but if they just open a 2nd plant in Texas (So-Cals) then the real ones are built in Maranello and the Texas ones are copies. Again, I don't mind the So-Cals but I don't like them being equated in any way with the real thing.

I understand your point, I agree with your logic. I just come to a different conclusion using that logic.

**ZippoTragedy** · 03-21-2009, 02:47 PM

From a consumer standpoint, the issue seems to boil down to 2 camps of thought:

1. Purist
2. Value

The over-arching theme is the business ethics involved, along with intention, not motivation. They're all motivated to make money, even Mike S.

Charvel's were about the go the way of the DoDo as of about 3 years ago.
Player base was shrinking, as was endorsement by active artists.

I still maintain that it's brand CPR. This is done all the time, the concept is called "loss-leader".

No offense, 85 San Dimas, but you're clearly in the purist camp. If I understood what you wrote, essentially you're saying that if Custom Shop didn't make it, it's not a Charvel. That means we all got snookered and own worthless instruments, and we're just paying hommage to the "brand" - like an idiot tax, or some such.

Just to clarify - who sets direction for Charvel's products? Mike Shannon runs the Custom Shop, but he gets his checks from Fender, just like everyone else. To say that Custom Shop are the only "real" worthy recipients of the Charvel name is a bunch of poo.

Let's put it this way, when all of these guys pass on (and they're human, so it's inevitable) - will no one ever have a "real guitar" any more? Kind of unlikely mate.

Have to agree with Grandturk on the summary (from a busines perspective).

For my own money (all $1,100 of it), that didn't really get me where I wanted to go with the guitar. I Plek'd it ($$), had it professionally setup by a top-luthier ($$), dropped some custom pups in it ($$$). Aside from the OFR (which I am now told is Korean) - and which I could swap out for $150 (it works fine imo) - what differentiates a Custom Shop guitar from mine? They don't hand cut the wood, which is about the only thing that I didn't touch.

Aside from neck-work, fret-work and setup, the only other variables are wood selection. Since they're all covered in paint, it would be pretty difficult to discriminate a CS from a USA, except through actual playing (and I would submit a lot of people buy sight-unseen).

I'd respectfully submit, not a lot of difference. If I add up the add-ons, the price point is about where a Custom Shop starts. This is exactly the strategy used by Custom Shops like Suhr, who take a Strat, Plek it, etc.

What it DID do was put a Charvel in my hands; I liked it so much that it made me a loyal customer.

And I'm filling out my Custom Shop order form as we speak.

And that's how you do Brand CPR, imo.

**Newc** · 03-21-2009, 05:37 PM

85SD - No personal inference taken, and I should state the same - it's a discussion, not a personal assault.

However, I maintain that Charvel's heritage cannot be equated with the "boutique" scene simply because ALL builders started out the same way - small.

Is a USA Select SL1 not a true Jackson because it wasn't built from a Custom Shop Order Form someone filled out at their dealer? I hardly think so.

Same with Charvel, who started out as a parts supplier, as I've read, then became slightly organized.

Is my SoCal better than a Mike Shannon-built '83 San Dimas? Depends on which Mike Shannon-built '83 San Dimas you compare it to, specifically because of the inconsistencies of those older models.

I still don't equate pushing a plank through a bandsaw or milling lathe or other powered industrial equipment with "hand made". I equate "hand-made" with unpowered tools from raw blank to paint room.

Yes, it took a hand to push the blank through the lathe or bandsaw, but it also takes a hand to set those blanks into a CNC rig, so therefore if the machine does more than the hand, it's not hand-made.

By your reasoning on the "boutique" issue, Gibson and Fender should go back to being "by order only" builders as well, since that's how they started out.

If the company charter established Charvel as a boutique/non-production builder way back then and that charter wasn't changed, then yes, they're clearly in the wrong today.

However, I'm sure that wasn't the case (unlike Anderson), so therefore Charvel represents a break from the "traditions" established by Gibson and Fender and Gretsch back in the 50s. To move forward and keep pace with new technologies would therefore be inline with the Charvel "heritage", while keeping the Custom Shop options open for those who want finer attention to detail and other-than-standard options in woods, colors, configurations, and the like.

**beachjammer** · 03-21-2009, 06:41 PM

I can see both points from 85 San Dimas and Newc.

The only thing I can recommend is for the purists not to buy one.

For those of us that do, then let us enjoy them for crying out loud. Heck I was half feeling ripped off for buying one after reading some of these posts thinking my So-Cal wasn't a Charvel... That's a crock though. I've played enough real San Dimas guitars to know what they feel like. For my money it's a FANTASTIC Charvel and I love it. I think they're a good bang for the buck and reguardless of how they're made, they are made in the USA. That means alot to me since my job went South of the border a year ago.

**85 San Dimas** · 03-21-2009, 07:52 PM

Originally posted by beachjammer View Post

I can see both points from 85 San Dimas and Newc.

The only thing I can recommend is for the purists not to buy one.

For those of us that do, then let us enjoy them for crying out loud. Heck I was half feeling ripped off for buying one after reading some of these posts thinking my So-Cal wasn't a Charvel...

IMHO I don't think you should feel it isn't a Charvel. This line of argument developed as the result of some ambiguity about the origin of the parts (which has never really been totally cleared up), and how FMIC hit the price point. Some made the case that it was all legit USA (exc. OFR), and that corners had not been cut. Some of us argued that there was no way it could be and the discussion developed from there. You have damned good parts and a damned fine guitar. it's just built to a different QC standard in a different way in a different facilty....that's all. The discussion is philosophic more than anything. The post above about spending money to bring it up to "snuff" speaks volumes. You have a damned fine guitar. We've been discussing Superman vs. Batman when either one is capable of kicking your ass.

**85 San Dimas** · 03-21-2009, 08:09 PM

Originally posted by Newc View Post

By your reasoning on the "boutique" issue, Gibson and Fender should go back to being "by order only" builders as well, since that's how they started out.

However, I'm sure that wasn't the case (unlike Anderson), so therefore Charvel represents a break from the "traditions" established by Gibson and Fender and Gretsch back in the 50s. To move forward and keep pace with new technologies would therefore be inline with the Charvel "heritage", while keeping the Custom Shop options open for those who want finer attention to detail and other-than-standard options in woods, colors, configurations, and the like.

In this case Newc Charvel is embracing the mass-produced Fender technology rather than breaking away and this has been a huge part of my position. The Charvel heritage is to make it better than the products Fender (and to a lesser extent Gibson) does. Charvel is embracing nothing new with this move.

As for being on the brink of collapse....I understand the business problem, but I don't see watering down the product line as being positive. it's what Grover did in 1986...also to survive and it really didn't go well long term. it sucks, no doubt.

**Grandturk** · 03-21-2009, 09:28 PM

I'm working off my iPhone here otherwise I would have lots to say. This take too much effort to get a meaningful post in.

Here's my position going forward: I'm going to get an Adrian Smith Jackson instead of the white San dimas. Hopefully that's a real Jackson and not a rebranded Socal.

That was supposed to be said tongue in cheek.

**85 San Dimas** · 03-21-2009, 09:52 PM

..and I think its read that way. I also think the reference to "Adrian Smith" is probably timely, and from an Iphone on a Saturday no less. That's dedication to the JCF and worth a shout-out. LOL.

**hippietim** · 03-23-2009, 12:14 PM