Is Fender trying to put Jackson out of business?

[rdamaral]

I got my GC monthly mag the other day and there was only 2 Jackson's listed in the entire mag, and they were the cheap JS models. Pretty sad

[Torment Leaves Scars]

Just purchased my first Jackson on April 22nd, which happens to be a JS32 Warrior. It scared me when I saw the sticker on the rear of the headstock that read, "Made in India," and scared me even worse when I found out they were now manufactured by Harmony. I can remember Harmony from the guitars they sold at Service Merchandise...not exactly positive reinforcement.

Well, to say the least, I really connected with it, and after giving it a VERY THOROUGH inspection, I pulled the trigger on it.

Prior to choosing my JS32 Warrior, I played a JS32 Kelly. Just last week, I also played a JS32 RR. I closely inspected each one of them, and found absolutely no flaws with any of them. They all stay in tune, they all play nicely, and dare I say, they also sound pretty damned good. The details are complete, and there are no sharp frets, no blemishes in the paint, no chipped hardware, etc.

Last Thursday evening, I returned to the store where I bought my JS32 and played the JS32 Kelly back to back with a KE3 Kelly, and honestly noticed no difference in the playability between the two. The biggest difference I was able to find was in the details, meaning the cosmetics, and the "Made in Japan" sticker on the back of the headstock.

Being the owner of a few nice guitars, and basically being familiar with the basics to look for, I must say, this JS32 Warrior is one Hell of a guitar for the money. I expected this guitar to be pretty much a "3rd stringer," but it's become my lead-off batter. It plays great, looks great, and sounds great. It just feels "right."

All in all, thus far, I am totally enjoying my experience with my first Jackson. I'm very pleased with it, and Jackson has grabbed up yet another fan. I'm now looking forward to a USA Select Series Warrior in the future.

[Hellbat]

Outrageous/expensive graphics were left as Custom orders (Saturn, etc) but the "easy stuff" like Lightning Sky or Ghost Flames or Bengal - stuff that can be done with templates and two swipes of an airgun - could be offered as a no-charge feature.

Not entirely true, most of the graphic finishes are a (reasonable) upcharge over a solid color finish.

[Inazone]

Just purchased my first Jackson on April 22nd, which happens to be a JS32 Warrior. It scared me when I saw the sticker on the rear of the headstock that read, "Made in India," and scared me even worse when I found out they were now manufactured by Harmony. I can remember Harmony from the guitars they sold at Service Merchandise...not exactly positive reinforcement.

Since nobody else asked, where did you get this bit of info about Harmony? Not that it has ever been said that the non-Japanese imports were necessarily built in Jackson's own factories, but I'm curious about this since I've never seen/heard mention of it before.

As for the import quality, my `97 JS1 was $220 brand new and completely flawless. I have no issue with the imports' workmanship, but I can definitely see where the lack of "bling" makes it tough to compete with the other big-name brands.

[Sephiroth]

In all fairness Newc; the Studios aren't that bad (thick 50's neck aside). Gone are the problems with binding issues that really popped up when Gibson moved production. The studio sounds more "metal" than a standard as you can hear in this vid (the first and third guitars using the exact same amp so the amp is a fixed constant):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcp5m...ayer_embedded#!

It's far from a grand guitar but for the money it'll work for those with the aquired taste for those thicker necks.

And I know it's about as expensive to produce in Japan as it is in the US now with the fall of the value of the US dollar, which begs the question: WHY DO IT THEN? WHY NOT FOLLOW GIBSON'S LEAD AND PRODUCE CHEAPER USA'S and make some of the pros right here? Even Fender has no problem churning out $1000 USA models.

And I don't ask for crap like abalone binding all along the body that's just pointless flash, but one anal thing for me is if a guitar costs more than $700 then I expect binding on the fretboard. But Ive heard binding across more models is finally coming, which is fine with me as long as it doesn't mean more price increases and is on the pro models (don't care for the econo models).


Jackson needs to compete if it wants to actually sell guitars because there is a ceiling for how high prices can go before people start walking away and looking for alternates, and judging by the # of people I've seen playing crappy LTD knock-offs of RR's, I'd say Jackson has pretty much hit that ceiling now.

[Larz]

I don't think Fender would be looking to pull the plug on the brand. Does Fender own anything else that would be a substitute for a Jackson? Not that such a thing even exists. Nobody is gonna say "Oh well, I can't get a Warrior or Kelly so I'll get this telecaster instead."

Fender would be pushing money away to ESP or Dean or something.

[Newc]

In all fairness Newc; the Studios aren't that bad (thick 50's neck aside). Gone are the problems with binding issues that really popped up when Gibson moved production. The studio sounds more "metal" than a standard as you can hear in this vid (the first and third guitars using the exact same amp so the amp is a fixed constant):

While I'm not a Gibson snob, I will never accept a Les Paul Studio's existence. IMO there's only the Jr, Special, Standard, and Custom. Everything else is a knockoff. If Gibson can't get these affordable, then someone in a very high company position needs a reality check.

And I know it's about as expensive to produce in Japan as it is in the US now with the fall of the value of the US dollar, which begs the question: WHY DO IT THEN? WHY NOT FOLLOW GIBSON'S LEAD AND PRODUCE CHEAPER USA'S and make some of the pros right here? Even Fender has no problem churning out $1000 USA models.

They tried it once, though probably not with enough enthusiasm. The "2" models - RR2, DR2, SL2. USA-made with import hardware for bring the street price down.
However, they ran into the same problem - no fins, no flash, no appeal. Great guitars, to be sure, but they didn't really convince anyone to buy a Jackson.

And I don't ask for crap like abalone binding all along the body that's just pointless flash, but one anal thing for me is if a guitar costs more than $700 then I expect binding on the fretboard. But Ive heard binding across more models is finally coming, which is fine with me as long as it doesn't mean more price increases and is on the pro models (don't care for the econo models).

I do agree that binding seems like such a trivial and mostly-automated process that it *should* be a standard feature on Pro models - hell, the RR3 still doesn't have binding but lower models like the DKMG do? However, what *should* be and what *is* are two different things. What would have to be sacrificed to make it happen? "Only comes in Black"? "Pickups so shitty you wouldn't buy the guitar at all"? "Crappiest hardware ever"? "If you thought Indian rosewood sucked, wait till you see the new bound presswood boards"?
A company has to look at these individual components and the cost associated with each one, all the while keeping a close eye on how they compete with their own USA line.

Sig models like the Morton and whatnot that don't have a USA Select counterpart can go all out - extreme cuts on the Demmel, reverse head on the Tuck RR, ebony boards galore - at least to an extent. Even those have to be monitored closely to make sure they're not endangering the USA Select series.

Jackson needs to compete if it wants to actually sell guitars because there is a ceiling for how high prices can go before people start walking away and looking for alternates, and judging by the # of people I've seen playing crappy LTD knock-offs of RR's, I'd say Jackson has pretty much hit that ceiling now.

Another factor in this is the Popularity Contest. Had Jackson been able to deliver Alexi a new Rhoads in time, or had they been offering a 24 fret RR way back when, or had Alexi's agent not stolen/sold them to ESPee, then these CoB kids would be screaming for a Rhoads, and not an ESPee. If these new acts the kids are into went with the original instead of the imitators...IF If If.
The point is, they go to a show and see a Les Paul, they want a Les Paul. If it says Edwards on the headstock, Gibson loses a sale and gets pissed. If they see Laiho's guitar and see the ESPee logo on it, they want it. It's why people bought Rhoadses and KV1s and striped/Floyded/one-hum Strats - they want the look to get the sound to get the "mojo" of some guy they saw at a show.
While the money does go to whoever can get an artist sig to market, and Jackson doesn't exactly pursue this route, most of these "artists" are little more than flashes in the pan, and their sig models are generally off-the-shelf models that can be relabeled for the next guy.

[RacerX]

Since nobody else asked, where did you get this bit of info about Harmony? Not that it has ever been said that the non-Japanese imports were necessarily built in Jackson's own factories, but I'm curious about this since I've never seen/heard mention of it before.

Probably from me! I know I have posted about the Harmony factory before. Jackson has always contracted with Harmony for the low end MII models. The factory is in Chennai. http://www.hmiguitars.com/?page_id=2

[Sephiroth]

While I'm not a Gibson snob, I will never accept a Les Paul Studio's existence. IMO there's only the Jr, Special, Standard, and Custom. Everything else is a knockoff. If Gibson can't get these affordable, then someone in a very high company position needs a reality check.

Eh. There's a GC-exclusive Studio with slim fast neck and better pups that's decent.

I do agree that binding seems like such a trivial and mostly-automated process that it *should* be a standard feature on Pro models - hell, the RR3 still doesn't have binding but lower models like the DKMG do? However, what *should* be and what *is* are two different things. What would have to be sacrificed to make it happen? "Only comes in Black"? "Pickups so shitty you wouldn't buy the guitar at all"? "Crappiest hardware ever"? "If you thought Indian rosewood sucked, wait till you see the new bound presswood boards"?
A company has to look at these individual components and the cost associated with each one, all the while keeping a close eye on how they compete with their own USA line.

Ditch the actives. I've never needed them because I don't own amps that suck, they've become a cliche to me, too many noobs think you can't play metal without them, too many metal guitar-makers are following the buyers and thinking they can't make a metal guitar without them, and I only really see them good for various CHUG-A-CHUG-A-CHUG-core genres of metal. For example, if they ditched the '81 in the RR24 (and the woodwork that goes with cutting out battery component) while tossing in a metal-friendly passive pup like an X2N then I think they'd free up enough working capital to add binding while still producing an awesome-sounding instrument.

Sig models like the Morton and whatnot that don't have a USA Select counterpart can go all out - extreme cuts on the Demmel, reverse head on the Tuck RR, ebony boards galore - at least to an extent. Even those have to be monitored closely to make sure they're not endangering the USA Select series.

NOTHING endangers the sales of the US series. This isn't the 90's when Jackson first introduced the Japanese models with a high-end Japanese Rhoads with nearly every feature of a US model selling for approx. $800 against a $1200 USA model. This is 2011 where a $600- $1200 import sells against a $2500+ model. The price disparity between US and import models has grown by a huge margin, and those seeking imports will more than likely not have the money for a US model at all in the first place. So they're not capable customers for the American guitars in the first place. Starving features of the imports won't make them cough up the cash for a US model because many of them just don't have it.

Another factor in this is the Popularity Contest. Had Jackson been able to deliver Alexi a new Rhoads in time, or had they been offering a 24 fret RR way back when, or had Alexi's agent not stolen/sold them to ESPee, then these CoB kids would be screaming for a Rhoads, and not an ESPee. If these new acts the kids are into went with the original instead of the imitators...IF If If.
The point is, they go to a show and see a Les Paul, they want a Les Paul. If it says Edwards on the headstock, Gibson loses a sale and gets pissed. If they see Laiho's guitar and see the ESPee logo on it, they want it. It's why people bought Rhoadses and KV1s and striped/Floyded/one-hum Strats - they want the look to get the sound to get the "mojo" of some guy they saw at a show.
While the money does go to whoever can get an artist sig to market, and Jackson doesn't exactly pursue this route, most of these "artists" are little more than flashes in the pan, and their sig models are generally off-the-shelf models that can be relabeled for the next guy.

Laiho is a whore and ESP pays more, so there's nothing Jackson could have done to help that situaiton. Plus f*ck him and ESP for putting his name on a clone of a fallen artist's model. NOT COOL. Plus let us not forget that 24-fret RR's have been available in Japan and Europe for years before the first one was ever offered to the US, so they could have gotten him one sooner to hold him over until a USA one could be made, and in the end, what's the difference between a Japanese Rhoads which he would not play (even though it's better) and a Japanese-made ESP knock-off?

Plus I still question how conveniently enough ESP was able to so quickly produce the customs for him when his Jacksons were "stolen." I don't mean to go off into conspiracy theories but that whole situation just stinks to me.

[church2224]

All I'm saying is Proffesional Series should be the standard guitar, no JS series bs, just the Pro, and the X series, then the USA's should be all custom, like back in the day. Some people may say I'm living in the past, but there's a reason Jackson was more respectable back then.


I love buying used as well, but sometimes you gotta pop the cherry on a new guitar.

If they go all custom for the USA models That might be the thing that tuns me away from Jackson. I love the USA Select series. I am all for more pro series models, but I want to see more USA select models as well. Not all of us can afford a Custom Jackson

Also I agree that Jackson does not get as much popularity due to the fact the ESP and Dean has every one and their brother as endorsers. Now, as of this year, Jackson does have Chris Broderick of Megadeth and kids follow him as if he were a god. Maybe. jsut maybe, he will gain Jackson some fame...

[Torment Leaves Scars]

Since nobody else asked, where did you get this bit of info about Harmony? Not that it has ever been said that the non-Japanese imports were necessarily built in Jackson's own factories, but I'm curious about this since I've never seen/heard mention of it before.

As for the import quality, my `97 JS1 was $220 brand new and completely flawless. I have no issue with the imports' workmanship, but I can definitely see where the lack of "bling" makes it tough to compete with the other big-name brands.

I contacted a guy on the forum by PM regarding his collection of Warriors, and he was kind enough to return a reply along with a video of the manufacturing process of the JS32s from beginning to end. In the video, it was mentioned that the guitars were being manufactured by Harmony Music International or HMI...something like that.

Unfortunately, I deleted the PMs, so I can't recall what his SN was, but I do remember his name was Simon.

[AlexL]

Personally, I wish they had never even touched the "cheap crap" market in any way, but instead stuck with the quality Japanese-made imports and USA models.

...because people who are financially strapped don't deserve a guitar with a name on the headstock other than First Act?

- E.

[Torment Leaves Scars]

...because people who are financially strapped don't deserve a guitar with a name on the headstock other than First Act?

- E.

While I'm not financially strapped, so to speak, I'm not at a point where I can shell out $2500 for a USA Select Series Jackson.

Personally, I'm glad Jackson has entered more affordable markets, because otherwise, I wouldn't own one. In fact, I didn't have any intention of owning a Jackson when I went looking for a replacement guitar for my old POS Ibanez EX180. All I was looking for was to ditch a POS for an el-cheapo. I already have two USA-made guitars (1994 Fender Telecaster Plus, Warmoth), which cost me good sums of cash. I just wanted to ditch the Ibanez because I didn't play it, and wanted a cheap replacement that I'd enjoy.

Why wasn't I considering Jackson? Well, because I'd played two USA models in the past (Soloist, RR), and I just didn't connect with either one of them. Does that mean I thought Jackson made crappy guitars? Of course not, it just meant that I simply didn't connect with them.

Well, I've always liked the shape of the Kelly, and I saw one, and figured, "Okay, I'll give Jackson another shot." I'm glad I did! I really liked the Kelly, but, then I saw my Warrior, and the price was right. I immediately connected with the Warrior when I played it, and that was that; I left the music store with a new Jackson JS32 Warrior.

What I'm getting at is this. Jackson just made $400 off of me, and now I find myself seriously gassing for a USA Select model, and even more-so, due to the fact that the neck profiles aren't much different from what I have. So, instead of Jackson making $400 off of me, what they've done is pick up a new fan, who in the end is going to hand them a grand total of $2900 ($2500 for a USA Select) in the near future.

On another note, some kid is going to see his favorite hero playing a Jackson, and he's/she's going to want one. Mommy and Daddy may fork out that $400 for that "same" guitar that Randy played, but they're not going to fork out $2600. This puts a "RR" in "Junior's" hands, and "Junior" winds up a Jackson fan for life. What's "Junior" do? He turns 16, gets a job, saves his money, and buys a $2500 USA Select guitar. Then, the ball just starts rolling. Soon, he'll/she'll be wanting his/her own Custom Shop model, and will drop yet another $5000.

We're all guitarists, and we all know that the "I promise, it's the last one" line we feed our spouses is complete bull. We all know that as soon as we get that "dream guitar," we want another, and another, and another...

IMO, if anything, if Jackson is wise, and I think they are, they will enter cheaper markets, and provide products which are a cut above the rest. I've played $400 Ibanezes, $400 Fenders, $400 Epiphones, $400 LTDs, $400 B.C. Riches, etc., and lemme tell ya, the Jackson JS32 is heads and shoulders above the rest of them, not only in quality, but in sound and overall playability, regardless of where they are built.

[PowerTube]

...because people who are financially strapped don't deserve a guitar with a name on the headstock other than First Act?

- E.

If Jackson was pioneering the entry-level guitar market, I would feel differently about it. But they're not and never have. Even when every Jackson was a "Made in USA" one-off custom, you had the Series 10's, Hondo's, Squiers, and a whole range of companies selling in the $150.00-$250.00 range.

But here's the thing. Your "First Act" example may be a bit extreme, but I have to ask; is a JS series really any better than other guitars in that price range? I've played some Squiers, for example, that were pretty decent for what they were, as well as some LTD's and a few others. So in light of this, has Jackson really benefited from selling n that range? I say no. The most logical argument is that "it gets the name out there." But on the other hand, if that once-proud name is associated with cheap JS series guitars, then what's the point?

At least Gibson and Fender had the wisdom (and I hate using that word in relation to Gibson) to keep the Epiphone and Squier labels on their cheap junk and midrange stuff instead of tainting the real thing. If Jackson had done the same with a separate brand for selling the typical Guitar Center crap, then the Jackson name would still mean something closer to what it did in the Eighties.

[Torment Leaves Scars]

If Jackson was pioneering the entry-level guitar market, I would feel differently about it. But they're not and never have. Even when every Jackson was a "Made in USA" one-off custom, you had the Series 10's, Hondo's, Squiers, and a whole range of companies selling in the $150.00-$250.00 range.

But here's the thing. Your "First Act" example may be a bit extreme, but I have to ask; is a JS series really any better than other guitars in that price range? I've played some Squiers, for example, that were pretty decent for what they were, as well as some LTD's and a few others. So in light of this, has Jackson really benefited from selling n that range? I say no. The most logical argument is that "it gets the name out there." But on the other hand, if that once-proud name is associated with cheap JS series guitars, then what's the point?

At least Gibson and Fender had the wisdom (and I hate using that word in relation to Gibson) to keep the Epiphone and Squier labels on their cheap junk and midrange stuff instead of tainting the real thing. If Jackson had done the same with a separate brand for selling the typical Guitar Center crap, then the Jackson name would still mean something closer to what it did in the Eighties.

I totally disagree, because Squiers have "Squier by Fender" labeled on them, and pretty much everyone knows Epiphone is Gibson. The names of the actual manufacturers are still present and accounted for on the instruments.

IMO, the Jackson name isn't tainted and synonymous with junk. Most people here who own USA Select Jacksons probably got turned on to them in the 80s. IMO, when I see a guitar with the Jackson name, it automatically registers that I'm looking at a quality instrument, regardless of the price point.