Pre -Fender

[scottd23]

It is starting to get a little irritating lately when I see some dealers and listings on ebay as Pre-Fender.
What do you guys think?

[OnlineStageGear]

Re: Pre -Fender

I hate it too. It will pass soon. The same people are still building them.

Matt

[Black Mariah]

Re: Pre -Fender

Yeah, but weren't the same people building the guitars right after the move to Ontario? AFAIK, the majority were the same people, but apparently the Ontario guitars are somehow inferior.

[YetAnotherOne]

Re: Pre -Fender

It'll pass soon but come back with a vengence ten or so years down the road.

[Metalcop]

Re: Pre -Fender

The main reason that Ontario guitars aren't given the respect as the San Dimas guitars, is in a word: Charvel. They stopped making the American made Charvels when the San Dimas factory closed. Terrible move, in retrospect. Even though the Jackson bolt-ons were identical guitars, made by the same people, they weren't Charvels. Had they kept making an American Charvel, possibly the mojo/mystique would have carried over. Only now is Jackson finally 'getting it' and making Charvels like they used to, right down to the logos and neckplates, and I aint talking about those crappy imported ones. Those imports are just another slap in the face to the Charvel name. Charvette, anyone?!

I also prefer the San Dimas era Jacksons for a variety of reasons. Non-recessed Floyds, real Floyds, Duncans, binding over the frets, those cool small control cavities, thinner urethane paints, 3 piece necks, this list could go on forever.

IMO, the Ontario guitars represent a cheaper, more mass produced Jackson. This is when we see the JT6 trem, Jackson pickups (only), Jackson Electronics, no binding over frets, no 3 piece neck construction, thicker paint jobs, plastic guitar cases, etc. These were improvements? Not in the slightest. Then later we have paint by numbers graphics, produced by the hundreds, another downfall. Only recently has Jackson returned to their roots and brought back real Floyds and Duncans, and the USA Select line, a step in the right direction.

At least as far as Jackson are concerned, the ones with better features, draw more money. Read: San Dimas. As far as Charvels, unless it has that gold logo, it will never be as highly prized as its Jackson brother, no real valid reason there.

[pro-fusion]

Re: Pre -Fender

I seem to recall that the Jackson line had eclipsed its "little brother" Charvel line by 1985--everyone wanted the exotic, mysterious Jackson (at least where I came from they did), where the Charvels were seen as more pedestrian, somehow. If the Charvel line had had the cache in 1985-86 that it does now, I doubt that Grover would have farmed it out to IMC for the Japanese line.

Obviously, the eventual production upramp in USA Jacksons has made the USA Charvels seem like rare and exotic commodities by comparison, but I don't think that was the perception back in the day.

[Newc]

Re: Pre -Fender

It's hype. A scant 2 years ago SD Charvels were on Ebay regularly for under $1500 (IIRC) - now you can't touch one for less than $2000 unless the seller is hurting or doesn't know what he's got.

Yes, the hypesters will eventually get the "Pre-Fender" thing pounded into people's heads just like the "San Dimas" thing and the "Pre-CBS" thing, making people think that "vibe" is tangible and "you, yes, YOU will look and sound like (insert former guitar god here) with this PRE-FENDER USA (or import, even) Jackson! Made with care and attention to detail before the Evil Axis took over and corrupted/diluted the line!"

I suppose that Mike Shannon's first ever guitar was way better than the current Soloist? I doubt it. Why should anyone think (or propogate the myth) that beginner/intermediate level luthiers made a better guitar than the same luthiers 10-20 years later? Vibe. It's all about the mysterious "vibe".
Honestly, you can't touch it, you can't see it, you can't smell it or hear it. Is "vibe" a psychological manifestation of the desire for there to BE a "vibe"? Given the right frame of mind, a person could run the Iditarod race and get the "vibe" of the original run that the race is named for. Do most Iditarod runners feel that vibe? No.
How many of the people who run the Boston Marathon get the "vibe" of previous years' competition? Maybe a handful.
Some will argue that vibe IS real and not just a psychological manifestation of their own mind, just as some will argue that the Pre-Fender Jacksons are going to have a higher resale value. I prefer to oppose both of those views for the simple fact that every force needs an equal and opposing force.
And, of course, so I can continue to buy used USA Jacksons for less than $800 [img]images/icons/tongue.gif[/img]

Newc

[charvel750]

Re: Pre -Fender

Newc's dead on. I currently have five San Dimas Soloists and have owned eight of them. I currently have seven Ontario Soloists and have owned twenty of them. While there will always be minor exceptions, none of the SD era guitars play better than the Ontario era. Nor do they feel better. Nor do they sound better. We have mentioned in this thread that the hardware and electronics were better in the SD era, but now in the modern Ontario era there really isn't a better guitar in the market. It is the "mystique" of owning a San Dimas guitar that makes them so valuable. People in this very Forum who have never even played an SD era are desiring to own one. And they will buy it sight unseen just to have that "elusive" SD. I myself still think that way. My oldest SD is a 1985, I really want one from 83 to have that earliest SD, the older the better, right?! Nope, it's not like that. Today's Soloists kick a$$ over the ones built 20 years ago.

[Newc]

Re: Pre -Fender

In addition, the switch from real Floyds in the 80's to Jackson copies in the 90's was largely due to Kramer holding the rights. If you wanted a Soloist with a Floyd, you had to supply the Floyd or pay a higher cost for Jackson to buy it from Kramer. Since Kramer saw Jackson as competition, they sold it for market price, not bulk/dealer/industry discounted price.
To ease that cost and hassle for the customer (and to keep prices lower than they were), they went with the licensed versions, with Schaller being the absolute closest thing to a real Floyd. There was still a hefty licensing fee to be paid on designs that were too similar to the Floyd, so the further away you could get from that design (i.e. JT-6) the cheaper the license fee. If you got to the point where you were only paying a fee for the locking nut system, you were saving a bundle. Since the single-locking design was practically universal (Bigsby, Fender, Kahler, etc) almost anyone could make a bridge that did not have locking saddles and pay only the locknut license.
This was also true for pickups and tuners. As competition between Gotoh, Grover, Schaller, etc heated up, the offers came in to all guitar companies to have their own branded copies made by these companies to suit their specs. Some Grover tuners have tall posts, others have short, for example. Tall tuners on a Fender (straight-pull head) would make the strings pop off the nut with heavy playing, whereas short tuners worked better, but short tuners on an angled head (Gibson, Jackson) meant too much tension across the nut.
These major differences as well as gear ratio were heavily considered by the buying public and were a part of the decision to buy or not, so guitar companies went with what worked best for their designs, as well as what their customers wanted.
As for pickups, since almost every player wanted something different (though the choices were limited in a sense) it would be impossible to include an "any pickup" option without raising the price, so they went with "good enough to get by on" pickups (Jackson logoed) so each individual player could swap them out or keep them, whichever they chose.
It was also better for the graphics to use covered pickups because there was less interruption in the graphic, as well as no paint in the coils. Gibson and Fender pickup covers left the screws exposed (except the Mini hummers) which meant wet paint/airbrush paint could get down into the coils.
You could pop the cover off a so-so Jackson pickup and slap in your favorite Duncan/Gibson/DiMarzio/MightyMite/Schaller humbucker and keep the cover to preserve the graphic, but retain your individual tone.

There's a lot more to it than that, and hardly any of it can be considered a stupid move (except for dropping the USA Charvel line) once you consider all these facts.
And regarding the Charvel USA line, once they switched to the pointyhead, the only real difference between them and the Jackson models was the Strattish body and the neck profile. I'm sure everyone who makes a Strattish body pays a license fee to Fender, and if you come up with a unique variation (Dinky) then it's all yours.
They could theoretically have kept the Charvel line as a USA production model and left Jackson as true Custom Shop only, but with the success of Rhoads and the rush to have a guitar with the same name on it being stronger than the rush to have a Hot Rod Strat (basically), something had to die, and it was the USA Charvel line.

The Model models also served as a great test platform for import guitars that had high quality at a low price. How many Ibanez RoadStar models are still in use today? How many Hondos are on the professional/semi-pro tour circuit? Were there any other Japanese companies at the time making high quality imports geared towards Hard Rock/Heavy Metal players? Nope. Once everyone else started copying the Jackson body styles (Dinky & Rhoads), the race was already won - by the Charvel Model series.

Newc

[toejam]

Re: Pre -Fender

Originally posted by Metalcop:
The main reason that Ontario guitars aren't given the respect as the San Dimas guitars, is in a word: Charvel. They stopped making the American made Charvels when the San Dimas factory closed. Terrible move, in retrospect. Even though the Jackson bolt-ons were identical guitars, made by the same people, they weren't Charvels. Had they kept making an American Charvel, possibly the mojo/mystique would have carried over.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Though, you could ALWAYS get a Custom Shop with a Charvel logo instead of a Jackson logo. Still can today! [img]graemlins/images/icons/tongue.gif[/img]

[Black Mariah]

Re: Pre -Fender

MUAHAHAHAHA! It's nice to see some SD owners saying it's all hype. I've asked people several times "What, as far as playability goes, is better about a $2000 SD Charvel than my $250 Model 1?" The answer was always "If you haven't played one, you won't understand." WHAT THE HELL KIND OF ANSWER IS THAT? It's one based on mystique, to tell the truth. Any properly set up guitar will play amazingly (please note that I'm not comparing the CONSTRUCTION of SD Charvels with the Model series. I can see how the SD would win that battle quite easily. However, is that $1700 worth of construction?). I don't see the point of paying that much money for something that was, in essence, a PARTS GUITAR. Haven't we all heard stories about the Charvel dudes buying up guitars from the local stores to use for parts?

I don't doubt for a second that SD Charvels are great guitars. Too many good players have told me how great they are for me to doubt them. But I don't know if I'd take one over a new USA Jackson.

[Jim Shine]

Re: Pre -Fender

I am very new to this field of interest. I have played Jacksons for years, but only recently got involved in actually looking for certain models. I currently have three Soloists (soon to be only two). I have a 1984, 1986, and 1993. I have also owned a couple of other Ontario models over the years. I can see that many changes occured to the guitars between 1984 and 1986 before they even moved to Ontario. I did like the change to the fret end overlapping the binding. I feel it looks better and feels better than the "nibs". However, I do prefer the 3 piece neck that vanished well before the move. I like the fatter feeling necks of the San Dimas era over the Ontario era. The thinner finish is another item I prefer hands down over the thick shell applied to the Ontario era guitars. Yeah, some if it may be hype, but in my case I honestly prefer the feel of the San Dimas era guitar over the Ontario guitars. I can see where some people woudl feel the opposite prefering wide and thin necks.

PS- There is no license fees charged on Strat style bodies. Leo Fender never secured body designs early on and even back then people were using it freely. The only body elements Leo secured all the rights to was the "offset contour body" design patent which was used to halt Gibson from making anymore "non-revrse" Firebirds as it was seen as an infringement of his patent.

[ April 17, 2003, 05:11 PM: Message edited by: Jim Shine ]