What corners were cut on the production models

[85 San Dimas]

..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.

[Grandturk]

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]

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.

[85 San Dimas]

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.

[beachjammer]

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.

[Newc]

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.

[ZippoTragedy]

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.

[85 San Dimas]

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.

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.

[mudkicker]

I have a solution to this thread if I'm following the it correctly. Why not re-logo the discount guitars:

So-Cals
by Charvel/Jackson,

It's neat, it's clean, you understand the heritage and you can't confuse one with a high end custom shop guitar. Everyone here knows as well as I do, people who don't know the difference could be taken for alot of money once these start flooding the used market in a couple of years..

[Grandturk]

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.

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.

[85 San Dimas]

Aren't we trying to compare the new Charvels to the originals, though? I mean the original Glendora-made that Warren and George were using back in 82/83.

We're also trying to compare the prices of those to the new ones, right?.

Not that I know of on both questions Newc. As far as I know it was what corners were cut to hit the So-Cal price point, and then whether that should have been done or not

Would Wayne or Grover have gone to CNC mass-production of rough body blanks if the machinery was more affordable? I say yes.

I'm sure you're right but they couldn't so they didn't. And so therefore modern day Charvel (what we call CS) and "San Dimas" , but not the "So-Cals" because the So-Cals are admittedly "different".

Why is it taboo for Charvel to do the same - simply because that's not the way Mike Shannon did it back in 82? That's utterly preposterous..

It isn't taboo Newc, it's just not consistent with traditional Charvel. Besides, Charvel is a boutique brand by all rights and has earned that place in the market. Shame to ruin that.

These are Charvels, not just because there's a Charvel logo on the head or because I say so. The specs determine the brand, not the history. Original USA Charvel specs - as I've read so often here from the experts like Tracy and Yogadork - were not carved in stone. You could have two guitars built one after the other with the same wood from the same pile by the same 5 people come out as two totally different-feeling guitars - different body contours, different neck profiles, different sound through the same amp and same player.

Maybe that's why these "aren't Charvels" - there' no traditional inconsistencies, they're more uniform, and they're better-built.

Ok, I get it now.

...yeah, and you don't get the traditional quality, or the traditional build either. In other words you don't get a Charvel when you buy a So-Cal.

They're better-built? So-Cals are better built than Mike Shannons Custom 83's, or 84's? Many would disagree and if you're right then lets close the Custom Shop because there is no reason for it to exist. I mean, Mike Shannon can't compete with these new guys so why pay him to fail? I've heard the same consistency noise from LP guys, better built than a real '59. Right. More consistent. Not as many "bad ones" and well not as many "good ones" either.

No Newc, you're heart is in the right place but I completely disagree (which like with grandturk rarely happens. I'm usually in agreement with you on issues). Specs do not determine the brand. That is why there is a distinction between "authentic" and "copy".

If it isn't built over at Charvel CS by THOSE GUYS then it isn't a Charvel. Period. It's a Charvel Copy wearing the Charvel name. Notice I am not making the case that the new Charvel (FMIC) is not real although that case can be made (by the most dogged purists). But if a core group of real Charvel guys are building them legally under the Charvel name to Charvel "specs" in a handmade fashion consistent with the originals then that qualifies and is good enough for me. But sanctioning Charvel copies that aren't made "there", and "by those guys" means it isn't the same and is therefore not "real". So-Cals could wear any other brand name just as easily. No brand is prohibited from contours or compound radius necks. Only the name and headstock shape is controlled (and it can be licensed out).

FMIC is "Fenderizing" the Charvel brand by building it's own low-budget copies and charging for the brand name. I want a Charvel, not a guitar that says Charvel on it. FMIC should back me up on this IMO. That's the value added aspect of the quality associated with the name isn't it?

Specs don't determine. If Mike Shannon cuts the lower horn off of a strat body Monday and the guitar gets finished then its still a Charvel. MY position is that these So-Cals aren't because they aren't built by Charvel except in the legal sense. It's a legal copy wearing the original name.

My true fear is that FMIC believes that this strategy is required for the Charvel name to survive economically (rather than this being a strategy of using these low-budget Charvels to simply replace worn out brand names in the stores), and if my fear is true there may not be a lot of long-term hope for Charvel at all. The bean-counters may be making the name pull its weight, and I don't know if there are enough people out there to do that in the end with the production limitations imposed by being a CS.
I'm afraid that if they take the Charvel name downmarket and burn it up the way IMC did then Charvel may not survive it this time. There may not be enough of us left to bring it back again.

And Newc, just to clarify: This isn't personal. I just view this differently.

[85 San Dimas]

I dunno,
You should see the shit that you find when you clean out a big warehouse.
I did it for a PC parts manufacturer a few years ago, and we were finding stuff that they didn't even know they made.

Oh, you're right I know, it's just sometimes amazing to me...

[thetruthguy]

The fretwork on my black one was immaculate.

On the red one, three frets had burs and I had to file them down, which took me all of 30 seconds to do. But one f the frets (I think it's the 11th fret) is slightly high and causes buzzing on two strings but only on one fret, so I can live with it for now. But I've had other USA guitars (including one Jackson) that had similar problems, so I'm not sure if it's bad fretwork or just one of those things. The remainder of the neck plays great.

[beachjammer]

You've answered nothing. You are in the same boat as the rest of us. Just a bunch of apes with bones in our hands, looking up at the Monolith. The question is...what is inside of the Monolith?!?

Ornery you are then... I don't know what the heck you're asking.

You asked about the frets and I told you about the frets or so I thought.

[Flatpicker]

What possesses a businessman to keep 2 pallet loads of something deemed "worthless" long enough for it to become "valuable"? Not for last 15 years years, I understand that. It's the first 10 I can't figure:think:.

Based on some of the stuff the last few years I think the biggest pack-rats in the world are the guitar manufacturers.

I dunno,
You should see the shit that you find when you clean out a big warehouse.
I did it for a PC parts manufacturer a few years ago, and we were finding stuff that they didn't even know they made.