The return of the student series

[guitarnut1980]

Who here besides me would like to see thereturn of the USA student series guitars? And maybe USA model soloist (dinky) archtops

[Devotee]

I would, as long as they didn't have dot inlays.

[xenophobe]

I think I'm happy that era is over. Sorry, no.

[neilli]

If you want one, just order one. That's what people did back in the day after all...

[shreddermon]

+1

[Animus]

Would the student series be the equivalent of some of the import models today?

[CowboyFromHell]

I think that may be exactly what the brands need. Sure the pros here may talk down on them because they're "too good" to play one but it would do a lot towards bringing younger players in that may otherwise go for another brand that they can better afford. I doubt many people here started out on a high-end guitar.

[neilli]

Problem is that sacrificing binding and sharkfins and swapping to rosewood isn't gonna make the guitar half the price of a USA Select

[CowboyFromHell]

No, but there are quality Jacksons/Charvels that aren't USA selects, and there's no reason a decent quality guitar can't be made to fill a gap in the product line that REALLY needs filling. Jackson/Charvel has needed an entry level guitar for a while now. I enjoy the hell out of my RR3 and haven't yet been privileged to owned one of their high-end models (I will one day when this damn economy picks back up) but I see the need for an entry-level guitar to bring in younger people trying to learn as well as build brand loyalty among those younger players. If Jackson/Charvel doesn't fill this niche in the market, more and more people just starting out will be doing so on Squires, Epiphones, LTDs, etc. leading to brand loyalty when they step up to Fenders, Gibsons, ESPs, etc.

Don't fool yourself into believing that just because Fender owns Jackson/Charvel now that they're going to push it as being equal to their flagship brand. Until Jackson/Charvel start REALLY pushing themselves in the market as well as offering an entry-level product, their share of the market is going to stay what it is, if not decline.

I don't see why they can't build a guitar with quality wood, without binding, with simple dot inlays, maybe a slightly lower model trem, pups, tuners, etc. (most things that can be upgraded as the player grows). As a player gets good enough to realize the need for these better parts, they can upgrade the individual parts to make their existing guitar better at minimal cost (compared to a new guitar) as they save towards a higher level guitar, all while building loyalty to the brand.

While I'm thinking about it, Charvel, learn how to put the damn trussrod in the neck the correct way. That's just one more thing to make entry-level buyers more weary of an otherwise great brand. I have yet to understand the advantage of putting the trussrod in "backwards". Maybe theirs something I'm missing there, but I'd venture to bet that most people would have no clue why they do that and I just don't see the present way of doing it as having a major advantage over the normal way of installing a trussrod. Do they not realize how "arguably" having to remove the neck to adjust it would steer many people away? I know some people can do it without having to, thus why I put the "arguably". Point being Jackson/Charvel CAN make a pretty good entry-level guitar, why don't they do it?

[Devotee]

Hold your horses Cowboy, you obviously have no idea what you're on about. Apart from the USA Select series, at this point Jackson pretty much has ONLY entry-level guitars with the JS series and the new X-series. What they need to do is fill in the gap between the higher end (and also somewhat unreasonably priced with a sparse variety of features i might also add) made in USA stuff and the lower-end made in India stuff. The made in Japan stuff like the Pro and MG series were bridging that divide but apparently now they've done away with it which is severely disappointing.

[Devotee]

As for the trussrod being the 'wrong way', it's a 'vintage' spec and yeah most users here find it a pain in the ass, but either way it's a moot point since an entry-level player wouldn't be purchasing a $1000 guitar to learn the first riff of "Smoke on the Water".

[xenophobe]

/facepalm

The reason they had Student models at the time is because everything else was custom. With the introduction of the USA Select Series, Student models became redundant.

/thread

[Newc]

I've always thought they should follow Gibson's model and have Special, Standard, and Custom models, with features that follow accordingly.
The Special lines would have dots on rosewood, and no binding and a limited range of finishes and hardware/pickup configurations (Students without graphics option).
The Standards would have maple/rosewood boards and better-than-dots inlays (the sharkeyes, but without the abalone center) with more finish and hardware/pickup options (the Student models with MOTO/Ebanol options).
The Custom would be just like they were in the SD days - ebony, binding, MOP fins/other inlays, fancy tops, more/better finish options, etc.

Then you'd have the Custom Shop on top of that.

Do away with the Professional line and make that the Special/Standard USA line - built not as good as the Custom or CS, but better than an Epiphoney or LTD or RG.

[CowboyFromHell]

Ok, I stand corrected then. I mistakenly thought USA select and X's were middle of the pack. I didn't make it to NAMM and haven't had the chance to get my hands on any of them in person. That being the case, maybe they doing what I spoke of above about making a good entry-level guitar that parts of could be upgraded as they save for a better one but it's a bit more difficult to jump from buying a $300 guitar to a $1000 one. Your post certainly opens my eyes to a different aspect and I definitely see the hole in the lineup you mentioned. The backwards trussrod still makes no sense to me though.

[Newc]

Fender put theirs in that way eons ago because otherwise it meant you needed a tilt-back head or a visible hole at the top. Plus with a 1-piece neck and board, you cut a slit in the back of the neck and put the rod in, then cover it with a skunk-stripe. Since that's how they did it, everyone who built a guitar based on that design thought it should be done that way and that way only.

It's often referred to as "vintage-style" in an attempt to pay tribute to those long-gone days, ignoring the benefit of having it adjustable at the head.

I've had 8 USA Pro Mods, and one import Pro Mod neck, and none of them *as they come from the factory* allowed access directly to the trussrod without removing the neck from the body, so this "arguably" business is questionable to me.