san dimas factory

[xenophobe]

Yeah, I had one eye open, it was late... it's been a good bunch of years since I've actually explained this theory... edited it for accuracy.

Here are two posts from 2006 that explain a little differently:

It's a Jackson. The fact that it has a Charvel plate doesn't make it a Charvel.

The logo says Jackson, the body would be typical for a Jackson, and if the factory wouldn't have moved and packed away the Jackson plates, it would have had a Jackson plate.

Right before the move they knew the Charvel USA line was going to be import only. They then most likely decided to put the Charvel plates on everything that left the factory for the last month or so before the move, because afterwards, the plates would be useless scrap and would have to be thrown away or destroyed. So, not wanting to waste their money, I assume, they decided to use as many of them as they could. Otherwise it probably would have had a Jackson plate. Since Jacksons were still going to be produced, and the abundance of SD Jackson plates, they decided to stop using them until the new factory was producing guitars.

Nice Jackson. Sorry, but everytime I see SD Charvel plates on 6 string Jacksons, the distinction being that they are more likely to have tone knobs like Jacksons, which was much more uncommon on late SD Charvels which a majority only had volume knobs.

Anyways, at that point in history, the name was already sold, and the end of the Charvel USA line was already signed in ink. If you want it to be a Charvel, by all means...

See, I've always held that they were Jacksons. Most of these "Charvels" that were single hum also had a tone knob... anyone that knows the differences between the one hum Jackson and Charvels at the time knows that most Charvels would not have the tone knob, and most Jacksons would. Of course there are examples that you can find that contradict this (as just about everything does in the C/J world).

If it left the Glendora factory with a Jackson logo'd neck and was one one of the last ones out of the shop, I say they all received Charvel USA plates so they wouldn't have to throw them away when the Charvel line was moved to Japan and the USA factory moved to Ontario. The Charvel USA plates would be scrapped, so they used as many as they could in the last days... And the possibility exists that the large bulk of Jackson USA plates (over 5000 of them) had already been packed up and moved.

If that's indeed the case, they are factory 'parts' guitars... which would be no different than a Suburban recieving both GMC and Chevy logos and emblems... it doesn't really change what the guitar is, a true San Dimas guitar... but calling it either a Charvel or Jackson isn't the case, it's really both (as a Jackson logo'd neck would have been built for a Jackson branded guitar).

[pianoguyy]

They used SD plates on jackson until 89 as far as I know. Jackson plates from 1001-1505 were in order but from 1506 on up were not all in order. Those ones in order were from the san dimas plant and when they got to ontario thats when they got out off order. Anyway, thats what I read a while back. I am not sure anymore about what I said because I have seen on ebay not to long ago a 86 jackson biult 7-24-86 that had a serial number 20xx. So, who really knows??

We need to build database. Not a rough estimate. Not for someone's personal use. An actual serial of each and every Jackson in sequential order.
The Kramer site has a real good one. I bumped into it one day while trying to buy a NightSwan.


People can crack open the trem cover to see work order numbers. Then we might be able to make sense of what was where with what numbers.

[Gartron]

, and I'll admit, I wish it did have a Charvel logo on the headstock...

I've been wondering for a while how prestigious the Charvel brand was in the US , which makes me wonder why they cheapened it and made it import only (which is where I first came across it), to me Charvel is to Jackson what Squire is to Fender. but clearly the brand is much more than that.

[algeriet]

I've been wondering for a while how prestigious the Charvel brand was in the US , which makes me wonder why they cheapened it and made it import only (which is where I first came across it), to me Charvel is to Jackson what Squire is to Fender. but clearly the brand is much more than that.

It definitely is not Jackson's Squire equivalent! I personally think its sad how Jackson/Charvel has lost its public appeal and let other brands like ESP take over the throne. I often shake my head dismissively when I see how Charvel are running their social network. Charvel's Instagram is an embarrasment! There are so many free tools for Jackson/Charvel to promote their name yet its dumbed down.

I just recently sold a Charvel Fusion V bass and, although I made money on it, it sucked that I couldn't compare the price to a Fender USA or an ESP bass even though the quality is most definitely on the same level if not higher.

[pianoguyy]

Jackson/Charvel is more like Gibson/epiphone.
Epi and Cha were both notable guitars on their own. They both got taken over by someone who rented space in the factory.

Squier was a string maker who's name was dormant for years until fender started making their own cheap knockoffs.

[j2379]

SPAZ
the serial#'s are NOT in order even 1001-1505 or whatever jacksons web site claims. for some reason all but 2 jacksons I've owned were 1986 builds, and the serial#s were all over the place, 1286 is dated 12/86, 1334 is dated 4/86 how are these in order. remember there are people here that have owned MANY Jacksons on this site, i tend to believe them over a web site, owned by a company at least twice removed from the original source.

Jackson/Charvel is more like Gibson/epiphone.
Epi and Cha were both notable guitars on their own. They both got taken over by someone who rented space in the factory.

WTF are you talking about, who rented space in the charvel factory? if your talking about Grover, do some research and get back to us.

[pianoguyy]

SPAZ
the serial#'s are NOT in order even 1001-1505 or whatever jacksons web site claims. for some reason all but 2 jacksons I've owned were 1986 builds, and the serial#s were all over the place, 1286 is dated 12/86, 1334 is dated 4/86 how are these in order. remember there are people here that have owned MANY Jacksons on this site, i tend to believe them over a web site, owned by a company at least twice removed from the original source.




WTF are you talking about, who rented space in the charvel factory? if your talking about Grover, do some research and get back to us.

It was a generalization. Not a dictation of fact.

[spaz]

Your right, The neck plates were not in order even from 1001-1505. At first I was going by what the web site said but after checking they are not in order. Most of them seem to be close but they are some that are out of order. I do know that jackson used SD neck plates up to 89. I have owned several 89 jacksons and they all had SD neck plates.

[Axewielder]

Yeah, I had one eye open, it was late... it's been a good bunch of years since I've actually explained this theory... edited it for accuracy.

Here are two posts from 2006 that explain a little differently:

Hey Xeno the bit about "most" 1H Jacksons having tone knobs is a bit off, at least in my experience with Jackson strats. Most of the Jackson strats with factory tone knobs are HSS/VTT and have the active preamp, but I've only owned three like that. I've seen a couple examples with VT controls and without the preamp, but don't own any (they are hard to find). The vast majority had 1V controls with 1H/HH/HS/HSS pups and remained that way right through the early 90's when they were sort of phased out.

[xenophobe]

Hey Xeno the bit about "most" 1H Jacksons having tone knobs is a bit off, at least in my experience with Jackson strats. Most of the Jackson strats with factory tone knobs are HSS/VTT and have the active preamp, but I've only owned three like that. I've seen a couple examples with VT controls and without the preamp, but don't own any (they are hard to find). The vast majority had 1V controls with 1H/HH/HS/HSS pups and remained that way right through the early 90's when they were sort of phased out.

Yeah, I guess using that word is a bit misleading... From what I had seen up until that point, many that I had seen or owned seemed to follow that general guideline. If it were a Charvel, it was less likely to have the tone knob, with the Jackson it seemed more likely. And yes, that's somewhat of a blanket statement because a lot of the guitars from that time period were true custom and others were just standard stock configurations ordered by stocking dealers.

With thousands of guitars produced and the number that we all have actually seen, each person's experience could be vastly different with my own. And yeah, I guess I'm blurring the line between opinion and fact, but I'm also basing it from my experience. You probably know more than I, and I admit I've forgotten a bunch, and I'm fairly certain you don't agree with my assessment of the last batch of Glendora guitars, but it's all good.

Who really knows what actually happened during that last few months... I'm sure it was so hectic even the people that were there wouldn't remember.

[spaz]

I wonder When jackson started making bolt-on jacksons? I guiess probably 85 but I could be wrong.

[Axewielder]

You probably know more than I, and I admit I've forgotten a bunch, and I'm fairly certain you don't agree with my assessment of the last batch of Glendora guitars, but it's all good.

Charvels with Jackson logos, Jacksons with Charvel plates, dogs and cats living together...are they Jacksons, or are they Charvels, or are they mutts...I don't really think there are many definitive answers out there! :think: :dunno:

[xenophobe]

Charvels with Jackson logos, Jacksons with Charvel plates, dogs and cats living together...are they Jacksons, or are they Charvels, or are they mutts...I don't really think there are many definitive answers out there! :think: :dunno:

Nope. But there are a few people out there that it really matters to. Everyone knows a Pre-Ontario Charvel has much more mojo and prestige than a Pre-Ontario Jackson. And those are so much more sacred than Pre-Fender.

[Axewielder]

Nope. But there are a few people out there that it really matters to. Everyone knows a Pre-Ontario Charvel has much more mojo and prestige than a Pre-Ontario Jackson. And those are so much more sacred than Pre-Fender.

Ha! So I do believe that some of the very first Jackson strats in '86 were otherwise identical to and/or rebranded versions of the Charvel pointy. I'm not sure if we disagree about that? Of course the Jackson strat evolved each year after that (as did all the other models). Regarding mojo, frankly I feel they refined that guitar each year (say what you will about the JT6) and perfected it in '89 or so when they introduced the JT-590. Some of those early SD OFR routes were rough, rough stuff.

[spaz]

I have noticed that the earily jackson bolt-ons are pretty hard to find. Especially the ones that come with a real floyd.