Some questions regarding Custom Shop specs:

[Newc]

Ok, first, since I haven't played a recent SL-1, but I have played a recent DK-2, how do the neck backshapes compare? I know older Dinkys (imports) had a different shape than the recent ones - more like the mid-90s USA Dinkys.
Since the Quote Form only gives two standard backshape options (SL and KV), I need some idea of the current backshape for the SL. I know the KV shape - that hasn't changed from the KV DM Pro to the 97 RR1 I had.
Measurements of .xxx and .xxx at whatever frets don't mean anything to me - I need in-hand, direct comparisons please.
First question; Subpart J: - Anyone (Sully) got the measurements of the JCF01 Rhoads neck backshape (besides "f'n huge")? And what was the fret size besides "tall/skinny"? (i.e. 6102, 6100, 90125, etc). I'm thinking of going with that neck backshape and fret size if I don't like the SL1 profile.

Second - I'm thinking of going with a solid mahogany body and mahogany neckthrough with ebony board. Do I *need* the maple cap due to mahogany's darker tone, or is the maple cap just for looks and cost-reduction (for the non-figured maple caps like on solid-color LPCs)? I'll be using passive pickups.

Third - Regarding the Quote Form, is "Custom Block Lettering Under Logo ($90)" the option you select if you want the "Custom Shop" logo on the head?

Newc

[shreddermon]

Re: Some questions regarding Custom Shop specs:

The SL1 has a medium-thin backshape, somewhat round in profile. Imports like the DK2 are thinner and flatter, IIRC (haven't played one myself in a while). If that's what you're preference is, though, the closest USA production model is probably the DK1. Not quite as thin as the DK2, but probably comparably flat. (Although it's the thinnest USA backshape - check the catalog specs.) Or, you could specify the "wide and thin" profile, like a SD Charvel. That's be a tad thinner and flatter (...duh!). Bottom line: describe what you want or a model like it, and they'll do it. They'll likely charge you the "custom backshape" upcharge, though. (...If you have strong preferences, well worth it, IMHO.)

Can't help ya' on the JCF01 specs, though. And I'm confused by this, as I understood the JCF to have a very beefy and very round profile, which seems pretty the opposite of what you were asking for above with the SL1 & DK2. ...Maybe I misunderstood something? [img]graemlins/scratchhead.gif[/img]

No maple cap is necessary. If you want a warm dark tone, don't do it. If you want a pretty figured top, with slightly more bite, then do.

No, the custom block lettering option is not the "custom shop" logo. The latter is a freebie. But, if you do want it, make sure you ask for it.

[Newc]

Re: Some questions regarding Custom Shop specs:

Cool, thanks [img]graemlins/toast.gif[/img]

I'm actually torn between two backshapes. I've gone through several Soloists, and finally settled on a 1990 Pro with a stripped/oiled neck that I really like, but I get the feeling it was shaved a bit, as it feels better than the San Dimas, 1990 USA, and Archtop Soloist I've had (though the Archtop gets an honorable mention due to being oiled and 24 3/4" scale). I do like the JCF01 neck, but I didn't like the Firebird Pro neck, which was a bit fatter than the JCF01 neck.
Call me crazy, but I can blaze better on a classical profile like the JCF01 than on a Les Paul-style neck [img]images/icons/tongue.gif[/img]

Ok, so if the current DK-2 backshape is thinner than the current SL-1, I'd hate the SL-1 profile, as I find the DK-2 profile to be too fat (or uncomfortably fat). Guess I'll just stick with the 1990 Warrior backshape - it's close to my NASL, which I love (and is slightly thinner than the USA SLS I just sold).
Plus I don't have to send one to Jackson for them to duplicate [img]graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

I had a guitar with a San Dimas profile (Ash Custom Shop King V) and I have a real-live San Dimas Jackson neck - I don't care for either one - too Fenderish.

I do like the "flat-spot" Jackson backshape of the Warrior, though [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img]

Ok, that's settled [img]graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Newc

[Soloist1]

Re: Some questions regarding Custom Shop specs:

Matt if you want a neck like one of the early 90's guitars you would be better off telling them you want a shape similar to the Reissue Charvel Bullseye guitar. All the necks on all the new Jacksons I have played have been on the thick side. Including my custom warrior. And I told them I wanted that thin and flat. Still came out on the chunky side in my opinion. Since they used an old Charvel neck to size the reissues that would be your best bet since they have a template to go by. From what I have seen in posts here on the board the bullseye is the closest to the neck profiles of old.

[shreddermon]

Re: Some questions regarding Custom Shop specs:

Originally posted by Newc:
I had a guitar with a San Dimas profile (Ash Custom Shop King V) and I have a real-live San Dimas Jackson neck - I don't care for either one - too Fenderish.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Soloist1 makes a good point. And I'm not sure this came through in my original post, given what you said above. The neck profile of a San Dimas-era Jackson is very different than a SD Charvel (which the Bullseye Reissue replicates). The Jackson will be similar to the current SL1. The SD Charvel is much thinner and flatter.

Mention the Bullseye as a good reference point, if that's what you want. However, I wouldn't necessarily assume that they still have this profile as a template. I hope they do, but am not 100% confident that's the case. ...I say this because I had heard that the new 'vels at NAMM did not have quite the same shape (pointyheads, I mean) and that they were subsequently copying the neck from an old SD that one of the guys in the custom shop owns for finally rolling out the new Charvel line (making them true to the originals). Those two things make me wonder if the Bullseye template wasn't "saved". ..But, given the work that's happening, they should be able to replicate it anyway.

[sully]

Re: Some questions regarding Custom Shop specs:

i don't have the neck specs for jcf 01 anymore, but it should be on your work order. i can tell you though, that the backshape and size were for sure, identical to the firebird pros of the late 90s.

sully

[ranalli]

Re: Some questions regarding Custom Shop specs:

Regarding the maple cap and brightness...keep in mind that the ebony will definitely add brightness to your guitar as well.

[j2379]

Re: Some questions regarding Custom Shop specs:

Matt as long as its not a very light piece of mahogany its will be fine the lighter stuff can sometimes sound muddy. I think the bridge type you choose will have more of an effect on tone than a thin maple cap would. what scale length are you going with & what type of finish. a thinner finish like oil or natural or trans color that doesnt have a ton of primer under it will brighter & more resonant. i have found mahogany necks to be more sensitive to the weather, so you may want to opt for a 3 piece neck. the only fret #s i know is 6100 JUMBOs biggest fret out there as far as i know. 6105 slightly smaller in hieght but alot thinner my favorite size. there is one between them height wise but its also wide like the 6100.

[Newc]

Re: Some questions regarding Custom Shop specs:

Sully - IIRC, the work order only said "tall/skinny". I'll check again.
As for the neck shape - I coulda swore the FB Pro I had was "Vintage Tele Fat" and the RR is more "Classical" fat [img]graemlins/scratchhead.gif[/img]

Since I've not played a Bullseye, I can't compare it to anything I do have or have played. The more I think about it, the more I'm certain that my NASL's neck profile is like the KV DM Pro and RR1 I had. Guess I better go with it [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img]

It'll be a solid-color with graphic, not a trans, so it seems pointless to pay extra for a figured maple cap that will never be seen. The bridge will be a recessed OFR.

Did '76 Gibson Explorers have a maple cap, or were they solid mahogany? I know those have a very heavy tone (especially for rhythm) but my Explorer is Alder (I think) - very light and bright like Alder - not really any noticeable darkness to the tone (even with a Distortion).
Then again, mahogany bodies also produce a fairly thin lead tone, correct?
Guess I better stick with a more tonally-balanced body wood like Alder and Poplar, and maple for the neck since it's a bit more sturdy than mahogany.

Thanks fellers - an open discussion was just what I needed [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img]

Newc

[sully]

Re: Some questions regarding Custom Shop specs:

nah, what i meant about the work order was that i thought that the neck dimensions were on there. sadly, the old jcf threads are long gone, so i can't get them off of that. i thought that it was .875 at the 3rd fret and 1.0 at the 12th, but i could be wrong.

i distinctly remember the profiles the same as the fb2 tho; i had both at one time, and i remember showing it to jeremy and he was laughing over it.

sully

[sully]

Re: Some questions regarding Custom Shop specs:

hmmmm....why not a maple body/wings with a mahogany cap? plenty of sustain, and it's not as bright as you'd think.

sully

[Newc]

Re: Some questions regarding Custom Shop specs:

Ah ok, I get it.

Still, maybe it was the edges of the neck back (as it rounds off to the board) that were/are different, cuz I also had an FB2 last year that I couldn't stand the neck of [img]graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]
Then again, could be that the tall/skinny frets suit the RR neck better than the jumbos of the FB?

Newc