Were older Jackson pickups wider than SD or Dimarzios?

[Jackson-Charvel]

For some reason I recall the pickup or the mounting ring to be too wide to swap in my SG back in the late 90's, without re-drilling holes, which I wasn't about to do. I did route out a strat in order to fit a J90c in.

[Jackson-Charvel]

Re: Were older Jackson pickups wider than SD or Dimarzios?

I meant to say in the late 80's. Typo there.

[fuel0707]

Re: Were older Jackson pickups wider than SD or Dimarzios?

Unless you buy a special mounting ring, a regular DiMarzio or Duncan pickup will be a little undersized for a Jackson humbucker rout. But I believe a Forum member actually makes a specialized ring that will make up for the size difference between a Jackson and a regular-sized hb and save you from having to drill new screw holes.

[xenophobe]

Re: Were older Jackson pickups wider than SD or Dimarzios?

The Jackson pickups had covers on them that made them look similar to EMGs... yes, they're wider than most pickups and need different rings. If you take off the plastic cover, they're standard sized pickups.

[Jackson-Charvel]

Re: Were older Jackson pickups wider than SD or Dimarzios?

I'm just curious how people added Seymour Duncans to their Charvels/Jacksons without drilling new holes. I see alot of Jacksons with aftermarket SD or Dimarzio pickups.

[vklobucar]

Re: Were older Jackson pickups wider than SD or Dimarzios?

By simply using the original mounting rings.

Once you got past the 80's and perhaps early 90's models the mounting rings were more of a standard width.

[Toby]

Re: Were older Jackson pickups wider than SD or Dimarzios?

My 1991 Ontario Charvel with Jackson JT590 double locking tremolo (made by Schaller, i.e. it's a Schaller FR) originally had a Jackson J-50B humbucker at the bridge. I replaced it by a Seymour Duncan TB-6 trembucker. The Duncans (afaik all SD humbuckers , regardless of spacing) are wider than the J-50B. The pickup route in the guitar was wide enough for the TB-6, but the original mounting ring was to narrow for the TB-6- Nevertheless, the Duncan came with a wider mounting ring. The wider mounting ring also requered new, wider spaced, drillings for the mounting ring.

[Jackson-Charvel]

Re: Were older Jackson pickups wider than SD or Dimarzios?

So regardless of the year Charvel/Jackson, to replace Jackson pickups with aftermarket standard sized pickups, drilling is required or a new ring added? I'm just curious why Jackson chose to use specialized, non-interechangeable parts, and if they still do this.

I have a Charvel Fusion Deluxe? and a Jackson Kelly Professional and they look to the eye to have smaller pickups and rings than the older J90c and J95 I bought back in the late 80's.

I recall buying these pickups back in the day and intending to use them in other guitars that had Dimarzios in them till I found out I'd have to route out the body to fit the pickups.

SInce the pickups with the covers are wider than standard pickups, will removing the cover make the pickup the same dimension as a normal pickup? I seem to recall the height adjustment screws were quite a bit wider on the Jackso baseplates, so a different beast entirely.

[Jackson-Charvel]

Re: Were older Jackson pickups wider than SD or Dimarzios?

Originally posted by Toby:
My 1991 Ontario Charvel with Jackson JT590 double locking tremolo (made by Schaller, i.e. it's a Schaller FR) originally had a Jackson J-50B humbucker at the bridge. I replaced it by a Seymour Duncan TB-6 trembucker. The Duncans (afaik all SD humbuckers , regardless of spacing) are wider than the J-50B. The pickup route in the guitar was wide enough for the TB-6, but the original mounting ring was to narrow for the TB-6- Nevertheless, the Duncan came with a wider mounting ring. The wider mounting ring also requered new, wider spaced, drillings for the mounting ring.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually I think you have it backwards. The Duncans I sized up to the Jacksons were smaller not larger or wider.

Also if the Duncan came with a wider ring, why would it then need wider spacing if it was already wider than the Kackson J50b?

[Toby]

Re: Were older Jackson pickups wider than SD or Dimarzios?

Originally posted by Jackson-Charvel:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Toby:
My 1991 Ontario Charvel with Jackson JT590 double locking tremolo (made by Schaller, i.e. it's a Schaller FR) originally had a Jackson J-50B humbucker at the bridge. I replaced it by a Seymour Duncan TB-6 trembucker. The Duncans (afaik all SD humbuckers , regardless of spacing) are wider than the J-50B. The pickup route in the guitar was wide enough for the TB-6, but the original mounting ring was to narrow for the TB-6- Nevertheless, the Duncan came with a wider mounting ring. The wider mounting ring also requered new, wider spaced, drillings for the mounting ring.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually I think you have it backwards. The Duncans I sized up to the Jacksons were smaller not larger or wider.

Also if the Duncan came with a wider ring, why would it then need wider spacing if it was already wider than the Kackson J50b? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I still have the old J-50B and the original mounting ring, so I still can compare. The TB-6 (both my Charvels have a TB-6) are slightly wider than the J-50B. The TB-6 doesn't fit into the original mounting ring of the J-50B.
The screw holes of the TB-6 mounting ring are more apart then the screw holes of the J-50B mounting ring. This required me to do new mounting screw drillings for the Duncan mounting ring into the body.

Since English is not my main language, maybe my original post was not precisely enough.

[micha]

Re: Were older Jackson pickups wider than SD or Dimarzios?

get yourself one of budmans rings.
they're awesome!! [img]graemlins/headbang.gif[/img]

[Budman68]

Re: Were older Jackson pickups wider than SD or Dimarzios?

Toby, I have a question for you, was your J50B a covered pickup with the painted on Jackson logo(not the raised plastic logo)? I've noticed that Jackson pickups went through a change in their pickup design around 90 or 91. The pickups went from the larger oversized covered pickups that had the raised Jackson logo molded into the cover,then changed to the skinnier covered pickups that had the Jackson logo silkscreened or painted on the cover. I think member Jackson-Charvel is talking about the older oversized pickups and you may have had the skinnier ones. Is this correct?

Dave->

[Toby]

Re: Were older Jackson pickups wider than SD or Dimarzios?

Originally posted by budman68:
Toby, I have a question for you, was your J50B a covered pickup with the painted on Jackson logo(not the raised plastic logo)? I've noticed that Jackson pickups went through a change in their pickup design around 90 or 91. The pickups went from the larger oversized covered pickups that had the raised Jackson logo molded into the cover,then changed to the skinnier covered pickups that had the Jackson logo silkscreened or painted on the cover. I think member Jackson-Charvel is talking about the older oversized pickups and you may have had the skinnier ones. Is this correct?

Dave->

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, the J-50B was not covered. There is no logo on the front of the pickup, the back of the base plate is stamped with the Jackson (R) logo and has a J-50B sticker. The guitar was built in May 1991.

[Jackson-Charvel]

Re: Were older Jackson pickups wider than SD or Dimarzios?

Toby what model Charvel do you have? I checked the catalog for model year 1991, on Jackson Museum, and the pics are blury and dark but I couldn't find a pic clearly showing un uncovered J-50b with no logo to boot. I could be wrong so I don't want to come across as a jerk.

Just confused how a mid/late 80's J-50b or J-90c for that matter, could be wider than Seymour Duncans and then a few years later Grover Jackson decides to downsize the pickups, but this time he sizes them SMALLER than conventional pickups. Doesn't seem logical.

[pro-fusion]

Re: Were older Jackson pickups wider than SD or Dimarzios?

I've never had a problem replacing Jackson pickups with Duncans or DiMarzios using the original Jackson pickup rings.

Jackson humbuckers made before about 1992 or so were regular-sized humbuckers--didn't even have wide Floyd spacing. The pickup COVER that was used before 1992 was huge and required the big mounting ring, but the pickup itself did not. And I have never had any problem mounting a Duncan/Dimarzio (even a wide-spaced Duncan) in the Jackson pickup ring, even if it looks a little funny with that bit gap between ring and pickup. However, if you want to use a covered Jackson humbucker, you will obviously need the big mounting ring, or you will have to remove the cover--which supposedly improves the sound, anyway.