san dimas factory

[j2379]

honestly i dont think there is much difference between late pointy charvels and the early jackson bolt ons. IMHO you see more maple maple charvels, and more RW and ebony jacksons, and yes the OFR route did evolve some. some of my jacksons almost look like they had to have the route enlarged or at least slightly modified at the factory for the floyd bar bushing. back before i got the BCR bug i played mostly charvels, when i started getting back into them is when they went nuts price wise. found a good deal on an 86 jackson strat and i was hooked. mojo whatever, they have that feel. the original gunslingers and ST3s come close, but not. strat heads arent included for the most part my experience is strat head necks are usually a bit different feel than the pointys.

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 2 san dimas charvels and 2 earily bolt-on jacksons and they play identicle. All 4 have original floyds and I love them. I took 14 years to find them. Your right not much different between them. I just noticed that they are very hard to find. Most of the bolt-on jacksons are 87-88 on ebay and have a high price on them. They either have kahlors or jackson JT-6 bridges on them. not many with original floyds on them.

[pianoguyy]

I prefer my early bolt on to my early neck thru. They definitely play differently...


Oddly enough, my bolt on is everything mentioned in the last few posts.
Single humbucker. 3 knobs. Jt6

I've seen more single knobbed single hb's than i have 2 or 3 knobs. In fact, mine is the only 3 knob I've seen (in person).

I have 3 (maybe a 4th) different Jackson licensed trems. The jt6 is the most accurate i have.

[xenophobe]

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.

Yeah, the late '86 Jackson strats were mostly identical to the earlier '86 CJ strats. The finish did change though. They used to use that really thick stuff that used to crack around the neck pockets... I only owned one late '86 Jackson strat, it had a very thin paint, it shrunk much more gracefully than the early '86 Charvels I've owned.

And yeah, I agree with you, the pinnacle of the Jackson strat was 89. My 89 dinky strathead was mostly identical to the other 89 strats in terms of overall togetherness. They just felt better and played better than the earlier strat body guitars, IMO. Not really sure how to qualify that feel of the end-run of strats, but they were just better. Until you showed up here, I thought I was alone in this thought....

[AIC70]

Always wondered about this. I have 1722 - Jackson strat, San Dimas Jackson plate, maple board, single hum with just a volume knob. Date inside the pocket says 3/6/87. The paint is cracked on both sides of the neck pocket. Thing weighs a ton. Love history threads!

[CowboyFromHell]

Maybe this isn't the place, but isn't there some way manufacturers could come up with a different neck pocket design that doesn't crack? I've never had it become an issue as far as functionality goes, but damn near every bolt-on I've ever seen has those neck pocket crack issues.

[Axewielder]

Maybe this isn't the place, but isn't there some way manufacturers could come up with a different neck pocket design that doesn't crack? I've never had it become an issue as far as functionality goes, but damn near every bolt-on I've ever seen has those neck pocket crack issues.

Actually I think Jackson bolties are excellent in this regard. It's something I've rarely seen in my collection. Now Ibanezes are another story!

[j2379]

a lot of it is the finish, not always the pocket itself. harder more brittle finishes will do that more, and the way they finish the edge. later BCR bolt ons had a large chunky heal transition on the bass side, no cracks but it looked cheap. My jacksons are pretty good, my promod the clear coat cracked right off, the 2nd time i adjusted the truss rod.

Maybe this isn't the place, but isn't there some way manufacturers could come up with a different neck pocket design that doesn't crack? I've never had it become an issue as far as functionality goes, but damn near every bolt-on I've ever seen has those neck pocket crack issues.

[straycat]

I've had a few Ibanez RG 550's and they had neck pocket cracks so its in the paint not the body.

[MPI]

San dimas factory

Maybe this isn't the place, but isn't there some way manufacturers could come up with a different neck pocket design that doesn't crack? I've never had it become an issue as far as functionality goes, but damn near every bolt-on I've ever seen has those neck pocket crack issues.

Tom Anderson Wedge. It holds the neck in even without the neck bolts

[BLOOD SPLATTER]

Re: the late serialized Charvels w/Jackson logos....Charvel neckplates & Charvel serial #s....makes them CHARVELS....IMO!!

[lepard]

And yeah, I agree with you, the pinnacle of the Jackson strat was 89. My 89 dinky strathead was mostly identical to the other 89 strats in terms of overall togetherness. They just felt better and played better than the earlier strat body guitars, IMO. Not really sure how to qualify that feel of the end-run of strats, but they were just better. Until you showed up here, I thought I was alone in this thought....

Man, I'm right there with you. I have a bunch of 89's, both bolt-on's and neck-thru's. The thing about 89's that is totally unique to just 1989 is that 89 was the last year for non-recessed trems BUT the 1st year for the ashtray cutout. Then of course you have the Schaller JT-590 trem that replaced the JT-6. 1990 brought recessed trems, which to me makes the whole guitar feel different. I just always find that I play better with a non-recessed trem.

[spaz]

I used to have a bunch of 89 jackson bolt-ons and they were all recessed

[lepard]

I used to have a bunch of 89 jackson bolt-ons and they were all recessed

They weren't recessed, they just had the cutout and you though they were recessed. The cutout is there but the neck angle is still the same as the non-recessed guitars. It's the best of both worlds, 1989 only.

[pianoguyy]

They weren't recessed, they just had the cutout and you though they were recessed. The cutout is there but the neck angle is still the same as the non-recessed guitars. It's the best of both worlds, 1989 only.

Please explain the difference between recessed and not recessed but almost recessed.

I think i know, but i want to make sure. And others may not be clear either.