What corners were cut on the production models

[Grandturk]

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrggggggh!!!!!!!!!

From my phone. Expect more later.

[jet66]

it pains me to think that someone who may be on the verge of switching from some shitpile like Ibenhad or ESPee LTD

As a side note, what is interesting is that there is a fair amount of ESP vs. LTD bias. 'LTD's aren't real ESP's' kind of fights, if you will.

[Newc]

I fail to see how they're not "real Charvels". Simply because Wayne and Grover and Shannon used to do it "the hard way"? Because they're made inside a building owned by FMIC? Because they don't have the inconsistencies of San Dimas-era Charvels? Because you can't get a ton of options for your $1000 like you could back in 82 (completely ignoring the obvious fact that $1000 in 1982 converts to about $2800 in 2009 terms)? Because Ed is not setting the world on fire with a Charvel? Because Hair Metal is long dead and no longer supporting the Charvel name? Because we know so much about the history of Charvel and who owns/owned/did/didn't do/said/was rumored to have said/sold/bought/stole/gave away/killed for/died for over the years? Because Reagan isn't President? Because Rhoads is dead and Jake's a drug-addled burnout?

Explain to me, and everyone else, once and for all, in clear, specific terms, providing irrefutable evidence, just why the hell my brand new USA-made Charvels are not "real Charvels", or let this thread die, because as the most-important site on the internet regarding Jackson and Charvel, it pains me to think that someone who may be on the verge of switching from some shitpile like Ibenhad or ESPee LTD or Epiphone would come here for our "expert advice" only to see a thread on the new Charvels saying they're no better than the same Indo-Chinese-made pieces of shit they're currently using "simply because" they're not giving away a $5000 guitar for $1000 or living up to someone else's twisted view of what a "real Charvel" is and is not.

FFS.

[85 San Dimas]

+1 Charvel Pointy and Big Ed71

The production series is built in the Fender factory.

One of my original points was if these are "real" then how do you justify the 3K ones? No one will be upset if you say that........least of all FMIC. They'd love nothing more than to increase So-Cal production. it's just cheaper and with less hassles.

Like Gibson guys say "oh Gibsons are are expensive to make because of the set-neck construction, blah, blah, blah"....Explorers cost 1100 new so....Gibson guys please explain this more expensive process to me......over a So-Cal or a Strat. IF its more expensive to build than a Fender then the parts must be cheaper to hit the price point. Gibson is a mess. As for a post that said that Fender might have taken less profit to make these affordable.......no way IMHO. Dollar-wise sure, but percentage-wise no. FMIC doesn't work that way. They built these to increase Charvel/FMIC profits based on capitalizing on the brand names reputation.

I think BTW Grandturk did a good job of listing the cost cutting items (which were every piece on it, LOL). I went over to the store and looked at them again...and side by side with a Wolfie. I still say the Wolfie is a So-Cal..........

One post said the So-Cals are being bought "to play" as opposed to whatever we do with the rest of them. Just kidding. I know what you mean though. I just don't let FMIC off the hook that easily. No one accepts these as being real (it shows in nearly all posts pro or con), but it doesn't mean they aren't good. Still, no one hums w/strat heads...........

Glad to see the thread still going. As he said..."these go to 11"

[biged71]

For me its like this. I have several PRS vintage and newer, I have custom made Suhr's, I have Gibson R9's and R8's, I have owned two Waynes, and currently several Jacksons, a 2005 Charvel SD RI, and 2 CS Charvels.I know I am going to upset some folks, but I don't think the CS Charvels are worth 2 to 3 times as much as the production models. I admit I played a few before I found a good one that met my demands for playability, attention to detail, and fit and finish. That being said, my Demartini, and a new USA Soloist both had stripped screws securing the FR locking nut that I had to repair because it made a popping noise everytime I used the trem. My SD-1 nut is fine. This guitar is what it is. Unfortunately 900 bucks doesn't buy much guitar these days, but for this style guitar, I think it represents a good option at this price point. Its a chance for a guy that can't or won't spend 2 to 3 grand on a CS job to get some of that cool old Charvel vibe. Its still a Charvel, just like the C and E classes are still Mercedes. I bet a lot of kick-ass records were made by some awesome guitarists on guitars that were far worse than these production models. Its a hot-rodded strat with a great neck, meant for rock and roll mayhem. What is the Charvel spirit if its not that?

[thetruthguy]

This is the Bugera thread all over again!

[Grandturk]

Well, I have a headache after all that...I guess it's time for the leaches

Tone-sucking leaches?

[Rupe]

Bottom line is that "Charvel" is a brand name...nothing more, nothing less. Brand names are used to create recognition in the marketplace that in turn create sales. FMIC has brand managers who are responsible for and measured on bottom line metrics. It is the way of the corporation in today's marketplace...there is no reward for remaining true to a particular heritage if doing that doesn't pay dividends.

I completely understand the romantic notion that a Charvel should be a hand built instrument like they were in the past, but unfortunately it's an unrealistic expectation. The cool thing is, there is still a Custom Shop that will build those instruments for that type of enthusiest (and sometimes they even get the workorder right ). Saying that the production models really aren't Charvels is akin to suggesting that anything that Ford built after the Model T really isn't a Ford (I'll bet there are a few of those guys out there ). FMIC owns the brand...whatever they stick that logo on is a "real Charvel". It may not meet everyone's expections of what a real one should be, but nobody in the board room is losing sleep over it.

Pricing/value are all in the eye of the beholder. Can you get equal quality for less money? I'm sure, but I was rather pleased with the playability, sound, and feel of most of the ones that I've laid hands on (there was one absolute dog). Does the sticker on the headstock mean more than the quality of the components and build to some people? I'm sure of that as well...and that's who will buy these. As a builder of parts guitars, I know I can assemble a better guitar for less money, but for the player who doesn't like to "turn a wrench", these are a good option to have a very playable "superstrat" at a reasonable price.

As for the CNC discussion...what's the issue? The technology was too expensive back in the day so most builders didn't use it. Now that costs have come down, most do. Why anyone thinks that "hand cutting" somehow equates to higher quality I'll never understand. CNC can cut bodies and necks to tolerences that a hand builder could only dream of. Today's top production builders (Anderson, Suhr, etc) all use CNC machinery in their manufacturing process because it producing a more consistent instrument. Old school is is usually "old school" for a reason...it's typically not the best way to do something.

Well, I have a headache after all that...I guess it's time for the leaches

[Dogbone]

I remember ^^^^^^^ bought my Les Paul Standard (cherryburst) back in 84 for 400 bucks, with an Anvil flight case It was used, but looked like new
I guess that is why I have a hard time justifying what they cost now

[charvel pointy head]

You are not taking into account for the intangible.
The Fender name commands more $$$ than the Charvel name.
It's a legitimate factor when comparing two similar products.

I'm sure the "parts" used to build both lines have similar upfront costs involved, but a guitar is not just the sum of it's parts in the open market.

If that were the case, there are some kick ass no name Japanese and Korean LP copies that should be priced in the same range as a production model USA LP.
And some of these imports absolutely smoke most off the shelf Gibson LP's when it comes to build quality and attention to detail.
I'm not talking CS or limited edition LP's, just regular production crap.

Who remembers back when they could not give Les Pauls away, real ones, customs. Used to be available in early to mid 80's for UNDER 800 here in kc just to get them out the door. Frankly you guys want to talk about an overpriced guitar. well there is your les paul built today, with it's fake pearloid greenish tint markers, orange peel finish quality, oh and it's 3 THOUSAND dollar price tag that goes out the door with everyone they make. It's a vibe think. If you ask me, a cnc machine makes a more consistant product, whereas a pin router engenders inconsistancy, at least potentially. Oh, and I'll bet if you go to Nashvile, they use cnc machines on teh les paul line.

[Spivonious]

Oh yeah, welcome to page 11.

Spinal Tap reference anyone?

Middle of page 4 for me

[straycat]

To be honest mine is a very high quality guitar IMO. Nice flame maple neck,awesome fret work,tight neck pocket.Very resonant body,perfect paint no dips or flaws anywhere.The floyd works great and is not an issue.No pickguard on mine so no issue there.
Set up was decent for a line guitar.
Being a very early production guitar may have something to do with it I don't know.

[Jacksonite]

the way the wood is chosen,

type a wood (the regular stuff) is sent to the mass produced guitars
type b wood (the good stuff) is sent to the deluxe produced guitars (fender deluxe stuff)
type c wood (the better stuff) is sent to the hand produced guitars (jackson production)
type d wood (the best stuff ) is sent to the custom shop (jackson/charvel/gretsch)

the biggest corner cut, is the non "select" wood, and the fact that they are made on a production line with a machine that cuts 8 necks and 8 bodies at a time, instead of pablo cutting 1 body at a time in the custom shop. they are painted on a production line, and not one at a time. they wire em up in an assembly line fashion istead of a "workbench" (i may be wrong about this, i get to go to the factory soon)

Mike,
Correct me if I am wrong

[Grandturk]

Fender traditionally used Ash for bursts and Alder for solids. Nobody wants to see ugly, bent wood.

[AndyK]

It's not substandard. But, it's probably not as visually appealing for a clear stain.
It may have mismatched grain or a couple of knots that don't hurt the tone or playability, but dosen't look good stained.

Which is what ANY guitar company does with not-so-pretty wood, solid color it! Gibson definitely does it with the Gold Tops, and I guess Fender does it too.

So if the wood is just fugly, but the same quality, that's one less corner cutting move.