Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

what is this jackson... a fake.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Newc View Post
    The control cavity is shaped like a Jackson "Ontario" route, yes, but look at the holes for the covers - they're on the surface, not in a recess that surrounds the cavity. .
    My JDR-94 doesnt have recesses for the covers, although they are standard Jackson size.
    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Steven-A.-McKay/e/B00DS0TRH6/

    http://http://stevenamckay.wordpress.com/

    Comment


    • #17
      Did you just buy that? Saw it on PHX CL..
      Every man dies... Not every man really lives!!

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by MartinBarre View Post
        My JDR-94 doesnt have recesses for the covers, although they are standard Jackson size.
        I've got one of those bodies. It's not exactly a neckthrough, is it? :p

        Anyone know if the SL3 or SL4 had surface-mounted control cavity covers? I'm sure more than a few import neckthrough models had surface-mounted trem cavity covers.


        All that aside, there's just entirely too much wrong with this guitar to be a Jackson. I could be an ESPee, an Arbor, a Hondo, a homemade, or a Chinese fakeson. No matter what it is, it's not a Jackson. If it can't take a reputable known tremolo, it's useless. If it sounds like ass, it's useless. If it can take a reputable known trem and sounds good, it's a good guitar.

        As for the post holes being offset, I'm assuming you mean in relation to the slot position, and not the alignment across the slot edge (closer to the slot on one side). That's typically a sign of a trem with a bar that screws into the block, like a Fender or Takeuchi.
        I want to depart this world the same way I arrived; screaming and covered in someone else's blood

        The most human thing we can do is comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.

        My Blog: http://newcenstein.com

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by MartinBarre View Post
          My JDR-94 doesnt have recesses for the covers, although they are standard Jackson size.
          Then you don't have a JDR-94.
          Every JDR I've owned had recessed covers. (I've had 3, including one that I bought new in 1995.)
          -Rick

          Comment


          • #20
            Google images show many JDR 94's with a recessed control cover, but a non-recessed tremolo cover.
            96xxxxx, 97xxxxx and 98xxxxx serials oftentimes don't indicate '96, '97 and '98.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Mudlark View Post
              Google images show many JDR 94's with a recessed control cover, but a non-recessed tremolo cover.
              Correct... the trem cover is not recessed, but the electronics route is recessed.
              -Rick

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by rjohnstone View Post
                Then you don't have a JDR-94.
                Every JDR I've owned had recessed covers. (I've had 3, including one that I bought new in 1995.)
                Could be that the control cover IS recessed, can't recall and can't check just now. I DO know the trem cover isn't recessed though and, to answer your question Newc the SL3 covers are both recessed. I just checked my spare SL3 trem cover for size against my JDR-94 cover and both are exactly the same size even though the JDR isn't recessed.
                http://www.amazon.co.uk/Steven-A.-McKay/e/B00DS0TRH6/

                http://http://stevenamckay.wordpress.com/

                Comment


                • #23
                  I had to double check myself (pulled guitar off the wall). Electronics route is recessed, trem cover is not.
                  -Rick

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X