European Charvel Jackson 625D Electro Acoustic?

[Dutchcloggie]

Hi

Waaaaaay back when I was young (somewhere in the early 90s), I bought an electro acoustic Charvel Jackson 625D in The Netherlands. I have tried to find information about this one but I cannot find a single one like mine on Google. Mine only has 20 frets. It does not have the extra few frets over the sound hole. It also seems to have a different pre-amp than other ones I have seen.

Was this specifically a European guitar? Does anyone know how I can find more info about this guitar? I am selling it on eBay/Facebook and I want to make sure I describe it accurately and don't sell it for too much/too little.


Here is the current eBay listing with pictures. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/175277514744

[Mechayoshi]

Forgive me, I’m on mobile. Is this it? What info is missing?

[Dutchcloggie]

OMG yes. That is it.
I'd love to see the whole brochure. I want to know what's special about the guitar, since I can't find it anywhere. It has a different fretboard and pre-amp than the other 625 models. Was it made for a different market?

Also, is it worth any specific amount? I mean, it is rare but I don't know what that means in terms of resale value.

Thanks!

[Mechayoshi]

I think it was this one.

https://www.vintagejapanguitars.com.br/en/charvel-1995-acoustic-electric-guitar-catalogue/

if not, there are other acoustic catalogs on that site you never see posted anywhere else. Excellent resource!

[Number Of The Priest]

Also, is it worth any specific amount? I mean, it is rare but I don't know what that means in terms of resale value.

Here are the Reverb.com "sold" listings for the Charvel 625 search query: https://reverb.com/marketplace?query...ue&ships_to=XX

Below are some observations, stated as objectively as possible. (Keep in mind I love Charvel and Jackson, and have never seen a 625 in person, so who am I to judge?)

1) Charvel and Jackson are/were not a renowned builder of acoustic guitars.

2) I think these were made in Korea.

3) In the acoustic world, tonewoods actually mean something for the production of sound. The top is the soundboard of an acoustic guitar which makes the most important contribution to the tone when comparing a solid wood top versus a laminated wood top. While a laminate top might not sound "bad", a solid top is desirable at a minimum for a "good acoustic guitar". Backs and sides made of laminate wood won't have as much effect on tone compared to solid backs and sides, but again, solids are still desirable when available. If the specifications don't explicitly state "solid" anywhere in the woods that comprise the top, back, and sides, they are automatically assumed to be laminate woods. Note that the catalog scan seen above does NOT say "solid sitka spruce" nor "solid mahogany back/sides" for the Charvel 625. I would be very surprised if the Charvel 625 had any solid woods anywhere for its body.

Objectively, a Korean-made acoustic whose body is comprised entirely of laminate woods and made by a "shred guitar company" will never fetch a value comparable to an American-made, solid wood guitar from a renowned builder steeped in acoustic guitar tradition. This is the reason Martin, Gibson, and Taylor are the "big three" dominating the acoustic market. Even then, Taylor is a relative newcomer, and even Fender with its storied history, strength, and success in the electric and amplification market has never been able to meaningfully penetrate the acoustic market, even with their own Fender brand acoustics or when they owned acoustic-making companies like Guild and Tacoma.

I would not buy a "shred guitar" made by Martin when there are better, more well-established options. I would not buy an acoustic made by a "shred guitar company" when there are already great acoustic companies who know what they are doing.

That being said, if you love the guitar and it sounds good to you, don't let anyone stop you. Though, there are plenty of affordable acoustic guitars that at least have a solid top and will outcompete the Charvel 625, such as the Yamaha FGxxxS or FSxxxS (the "xxx" denotes any numerals in the model number, and the "S" at the end of the model name denotes "solid top") series, or basically any Taylor (even the cheapest Taylors come with solid tops and I don't even think laminated-top Taylors exist.)

I can only picture the Charvel 625 "being worth something" to someone who either reveres the Charvel brand and/or doesn't know better about what a "good" acoustic guitar should be.

The one advantage of a laminate acoustic is that it is less susceptible to environmental conditions. Appropriate for the campfire or cottage (or chalet, cabin, vacation home, or whatever is the correct terminology for this type of dwelling in Europe) where you don't care what happens to your acoustic and you can leave your prized solid Martin or Gibson at home or in the studio.

[Dutchcloggie]

Thanks for the extensive reply :-). I noted that there are plenty of 625D guitars for sale but they are not the same as the one I have. Mine has a slightly different fretboard and I have no idea why this is as the model number is the same as the ones you are finding on Reverb. The ones on Reverb also have a different pre-amp. Mine is clearly a variant of the 625D but it does not have a different model number. So a different guitar but with the same model number. Makes it hard to find more info.

Anyway, people can pay whatever they feel like paying :-) I am happy to have found the guitar actually exists in other places in the world and not just in my living room :-)

[pianoguyy]

I noted that there are plenty of 625D guitars for sale but they are not the same as the one I have.

I think that can be explained the same as our our little 98x serial conundrum, or why there are so many DK2's listed.
It is because people are lazy and stupid, therefore are more than willing to repeat the same lie they were told instead of finding the truth.

[toejam]

There have been plenty of models that were never shown in a catalog or just plain available in only a certain market/country and not another.