Jackson 2003 Catalog Scanned and Online

[Newc]

Re: Jackson 2003 Catalog Scanned and Online

People cried foul (and still do) about a Floyd on a Rhoads V, and quote RR's disapproving opinion on an original Floyd (which was probably a single-locking unit, or one of the prototypes, or probably wasn't set up right).
On one hand I can fully appreciate Fender keeping Rhoads in the public eye, and wanting to make sure the current generation knows exactly why the Rhoads V has been in Jackson's lineup for 20+ years, but something about that layout just struck me as pimping - maybe I'm having an off day, maybe I'm right, we'll never know.
[img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img]

I don't view a 24 fret RR as sacriledge - it's innovation; the very thing that made Jackson and the lack of which pretty much killed Charvel - you can't carry two lines of the same guitar which only have a neck profile and a logo separating them.

As for the RR5 typo - it's going to be a costly one, as misinformed and unscrupulous dealers/Ebayers will use that to overprice that model, and a lot of people are going to end up being ripped off.

Surely Fender The Great could have found a person or group of persons who had the proper knowledge of these things [img]graemlins/scratchhead.gif[/img]
Everyone makes mistakes, the trick is not making mistakes that cost money to fix, or cause other people to lose money. I sincerely hope that when a newbie pops in here touting his new "USA RR5" and learns the truth that he doesn't drop the brand for false advertisement. That's not the sort of image Jackson needs.

Newc

[~K~]

Re: Jackson 2003 Catalog Scanned and Online

I don't view a 24 fret RR as sacriledge - it's innovation; the very thing that made Jackson and the lack of which pretty much killed Charvel - you can't carry two lines of the same guitar which only have a neck profile and a logo separating them.


While I understand your point it it is slightly inaccurate. If you go back to 1984/85 and look at the lines Charvel and Jackson they were very very different beyond neck profile and logo. All Charvels were bolt-on oiled necks. Basic Strat shaped. All Jacksons were neck through and even there strat shape was altered to introduce the soloist line. Because of the nature of the guitar the necks were painted and bound. The charvel line featured basic dots while the Jackson line was both. ... I guess my point was that .. this didn't kill the charvel line at all. Licensing out the name for import so you can release a less expensive line parallel to your USA line is what killed the charvel name.

[ranalli]

Re: Jackson 2003 Catalog Scanned and Online

Originally posted by skidd:
Not to bash Fender, but come on, It seem there building alot of there new ads around Randy. All of the mistakes are common knowledge. I glad there putting in the effort.But the research is a little off.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">[RANT]

I'll start off by saying that I was very anti-Fender at the beginning of all this but some of you guys are unreal.

What exactly is Rhandy Rhoads common knowledge?? It may be common knowledge to you or me but there are a good amount of guitar players that don't know much of that "common knowledge". Furthermore, for the purpose of sales, it's not going to hurt the company if a fact or two is wrong. They're selling guitars and trying to make them appealing to buy...not impress a bunch of fanatics like myself on a message board.

It seems like a lot of people like to b!tch regardless of what Fender does. I was very skeptical but I think they've done a good job so far. You got a new models, new colors, custom shop and USA selects are still of high quality for the most part. We're not being gouged with prices...etc.

The fact that people actually had the audacity to complain about that stupid Strathead Charvel bewilders me!!! Everyday for the past year there has been people p!ssing and crying about not having these stupid strathead guitars...now you finally got one and people are complaining about price and this and that. THEY GAVE YOU EXACTLY WHAT YOU WANTED!!! Did you expect it to be cheap??? They knew they had a money maker on their hands the way people on here rave about them. Instead of having Jackson go through the RnD trouble and marketing trouble you guys should have just gone to GMW or something. Cause if this guitar doesn't sell well, Jackson will probably be less apt to listen to us in the future if they know it's not worth the trouble.

[/RANT]

[ July 24, 2003, 07:52 AM: Message edited by: ranalli ]

[Newc]

Re: Jackson 2003 Catalog Scanned and Online

Kevin - I was speaking in terms of the entire history of Jackson/Charvel - including when you could get oiled-necked pointyheaded Strats with dot inlays and a Jackson logo. IIRC, these Jackson imports were phased in to replace the Charvel Model models? Or at least, the Charvels were given Jackson logos?

As for people b1thcing about Fender's mistakes - hell yes! Fender stated at the beginning of the buyout that Jackson would remain a separate division, and not have a "by Fender" stamp on it. To me this includes the catalogs. It is insulting to say that a division is autonomous yet catalogs must be approved by the parent company, and it is even more insulting ( to BOTH companies) when the parent company does not double-check certain important details; it gives the impression that either company doesn't know its ass from a big yellow school bus.
Yes there was a lot of bad-mouthing going on when the buyout announcement was made, and there as a lot of it prior to NAMM. There's going to be more over the catalog.
Given that those Charvels are LTDs and true Custom Shop models, the pricing is correct, even though I personally feel it doesn't have enough features to make it worth that much. Solid maple? Yay. Vintage "vibe"? Hoorah! Neither of those give me a boner. If intangible value is actually translatable in US Dollars, I'll be rolling in millions as soon as I can find a few sentimental items to sell.

I seriously hope Jackson does not pursue a Fender/Gibson-esque "true vintage/historic" market. From what I've seen of those people, it's a scary "scene" to be near.

Newc

[Rhoadsfan67]

Re: Jackson 2003 Catalog Scanned and Online

Originally posted by Newc:

I don't view a 24 fret RR as sacriledge - it's innovation;

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hmmm...I would have to dispute that. There are certain guitar designs you don't mess with, and the Randy Rhoads is one of them. It is, was, and always will be, the flagship of the Jackson line. To alter that in ways that it was not originally designed just doesn't seem right. It's bad enough that they added a Floyd to it, but to further change the actual design...? [img]graemlins/refuse.gif[/img] Not to re-hash this argument from another thread, but if it was good enough for Randy, it's certainly good enough for me... I think if you want 24 frets, buy something like an SL2, or order a custom shop.

I just believe strongly in the integrity of that design and what it stands for, and they should not mess with it on a production basis. Of course, this is only MY opinion....

[~K~]

Re: Jackson 2003 Catalog Scanned and Online

Well the fact is that a lot of potential customers have asked for a 24 fret Rhoads. So what as a company do you do .. go after market share? ..or worry about what a few people will think

[skidd]

Re: Jackson 2003 Catalog Scanned and Online

Guitar Player and Guitar World have both done tons of storys on Randy and his guitars. Are you trying to tell me no one left at Jackson could of told them before it went to print or just done some online research. I'm sorry it's not that hard.

Strats head,well I hate old style brass trems, I about sh!t myself when my old one of my guitar sold for 175.00 bucks. I am a floyd guy and never asked for a strat head.

[Rhoadsfan67]

Re: Jackson 2003 Catalog Scanned and Online

Kev -

You are right on that note, but again, from a purist point of view, that model will ALWAYS be their trademark, no matter what they come up with from here on out. And correct me if I am wrong, but I'm pretty sure the regular standard Rhoads still sells as well, or better than, most other Jackson models. So, rather than screw with a proven design that has pleased, and continues to please, countless players, why not just keep it an option for the custom shop to cater to the few that would like a 24 fret version? Do you really think there are that many people clamoring for the additional two frets to justify the change? It would seem to be a relatively small percentage of people. Just curious as to what you think...

[Newc]

Re: Jackson 2003 Catalog Scanned and Online

Jackson was founded on innovation - to bring a purist point of view to the table defeats the spirit of innovation and what the company stands for. This is not Gibson or Fender. There is no room for a Puritanical perspective, regardless of the model in question. To deny the spirit of innovation in regards to the very first Jackson model (Rhoads) is, in my opinion, close-minded.

-"If 22 frets was good enough for Randy"
And just how many guitar companies made a 24 fret guitar back in 1980? How many of those were readily available? How many of those did RR check out? Wasn't Carvin still doing Gibson LP Jr copies and such back then with only 21 and 22 frets?

-"If Randy didn't have a Floyd, the RR1 shouldn't"
Again, how many finished Floyds did Randy try out, and were they set up to his preference? I doubt it seriously.

Sorry, but neither of those arguments hold water - you cannot have respect for the "original intent" of the design yet disapprove of changes made to it as the original intent of the design was to be innovative, not close-minded and Puritanical.

Newc

[toejam]

Re: Jackson 2003 Catalog Scanned and Online

Originally posted by Hamner1:
From a purist point of view I would think if it wasn't dead on to the original, then it just isn't right.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yeah, and the purist Fender freaks also think it's not right to put humbuckers in Strats. [img]graemlins/eyes.gif[/img]
Heh, the only reason I bought my Strat is BECAUSE it has humbuckers (Double Fat Strat), but it would be nice if it also had 24 frets. Not that 21 or 22 is a big deal, but it does drive a lot of people crazy not being able to have a certain guitar with a full two octaves.

[sully]

Re: Jackson 2003 Catalog Scanned and Online

wow....i don't have time to sift through this, but i'd like to share two things with you:

the "fender" guys are Jackson guys.

and here's a bit of little known fact about the rhoads/floyd issue:

randy has said a few things about floyds; one of them being "you don't need floyd rose" if your trem is set up properly. he's also been quoted as saying that no trem stayed in tune perfectly unless it was a floyd. randy had plans to have to total of 4 (yes...FOUR) guitars made. one of which was to have a floyd. this is info that came from mike shannon while we were researching the jcf yce project.

sully

edited for spelling

[ July 24, 2003, 04:38 PM: Message edited by: jsullysix ]

[Newc]

Re: Jackson 2003 Catalog Scanned and Online

Then I guess Randy's v-trems were not set up properly, as he definitely went out of tune on Tribute and the After Hours show when he used the trem on the Sandoval. [img]images/icons/tongue.gif[/img]

Newc

[pitboss]

Re: Jackson 2003 Catalog Scanned and Online

Not to change the subject, but is there a string-thru dinky in the catalog ( other than the slatq )like the one someone had pictures of from NAMM ?

[RacerX]

Re: Jackson 2003 Catalog Scanned and Online

Only on pgs 38-39

SLSMG, DK27, DKMGTFF

[lerxstcat]

Re: Jackson 2003 Catalog Scanned and Online

Originally posted by Brian:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Newc:

I don't view a 24 fret RR as sacriledge - it's innovation;

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hmmm...I would have to dispute that. There are certain guitar designs you don't mess with, and the Randy Rhoads is one of them. It is, was, and always will be, the flagship of the Jackson line. To alter that in ways that it was not originally designed just doesn't seem right. It's bad enough that they added a Floyd to it, but to further change the actual design...? [img]graemlins/refuse.gif[/img] Not to re-hash this argument from another thread, but if it was good enough for Randy, it's certainly good enough for me... I think if you want 24 frets, buy something like an SL2, or order a custom shop.

I just believe strongly in the integrity of that design and what it stands for, and they should not mess with it on a production basis. Of course, this is only MY opinion.... </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I feel Randy would be apalled at people
using his alleged "godhood" to justify
never changing the Randy Rhoads model from the version he was involved with for such a short time before he died. AS Newc said, who made 24-fret guitars back then? To make one correction though, my
1980 Carvin LP Jr. copy DOES have 24 frets, so THEY were already doing it, but
Ginson and Fender weren't, and they were the "Big Two" builders then. So much music today is written requiring 24 frets to play, to NOT offer a 24-fret Rhoads is
rather odd. I'm sure they'll always make a 22-fret version too, so why should we
have to pay Custom Shop prices for 2 more frets just to not upset the "purists"?

I feel Randy would himself see that as close-minded, and he might well be devoted to a 24-fret board himself, had he lived to see and hear others using them. If amp and processing technology
had stopped at Randy's death too, it'd be
a ****tier-sounding world. I'd bet he wouldn't be using an MXR Distortion+ today if he were still around, since there's so many better distortions made
today. If he'd been as conservative as
his devotees, the Randy Rhoads model would look like a Les Paul. You think he'd do one innovative thing, then hunker down with it? I don't think he would've.