jackson? charvel? which is the best?

[GodWentPUNK]

I've got Charvels/jacksons from all periods. Stangely, I'll play my charvels for a while then switch to my jacksons and say why did I put these down. I'll then switch back to my charvels after playing my Jacksons. Well needless to say, I go through this cycle about 2-3 times a year.

joe...

[skorb]

they are both great.
it's all in your preference.
I prefer Charvel.

[Confessor Townsend]

+1

If you really want to be blown away by a Jackson import, keep an eye out for one of the early '90s Professionals.

They were putting something in the water back then, don't know what is was but my Fusion Pro is the one guitar I keep coming back to.

[AdRock]

They were putting something in the water back then, don't know what is was but my Fusion Pro is the one guitar I keep coming back to.

My '94 Dinky rev. is my baby that will never leave. The smaller Dinky bodies and the super thin necks are so comfortable to me.

[j4vice]

CharveL

[jtr]

I've owned only Jackson's SD no Prepro. The Charvel Model series are nice but they're not Jacksons.

[Mr Metal]

If you're into neck-thru's, obviously Jackson would be the winner, as Charvel's only neck-thru's were the MIJ Models 5, 5, 550xl, 650xl......which are great guitars but not Jackson Soloist USAs. Now, if you throw in set neck 750xl , we might get some debates going

[xenophobe]

The Sandy MAsses are teh best! CARVEL FTW!!!11!!!

[XxKilgannonxX]

Charvel pwns noobs

[toejam]

If you're into neck-thru's, obviously Jackson would be the winner, as Charvel's only neck-thru's were the MIJ Models 5, 5, 550xl, 650xl......which are great guitars but not Jackson Soloist USAs. Now, if you throw in set neck 750xl , we might get some debates going

You forgot the Models 5A, 5FX and 6.

[Mr Metal]

You forgot the Models 5A, 5FX and 6.

Yep, you're right........They're so good though, they're impossible to forget. I guess they must have just slipped my mind while I was typing

[txrob779]

Here is my 10 beers worth. I gather you are talking about older C/J's. The Charvel bods are way more Fender-like. Just all the away around. The Jackson bods are different. The necks are different. It's like apples and oranges. Or, I can just be off my ass. But, I like Charvels better.

Unless your playing my Custom Shop Jackson 1987 which has a superstrat body, not a Dinky. Up until 1989/90 it was anyones guess what someone ordered. Some retailers would order 10 guitars, some Dinky, some Supers, some Single Hums, some solid colors , some graphic etc.....all hand made to the build sheet. Individuals could order 1 guitar built just for them per their order just as my guitar was. My Jackson has the same feel, same parts, same guys making it as a San Dimas pointy Charvel, it just happens to have a Jackson headstock plate glued to the head stock and a Jackson San Dimas neck plate. What I rarely read here on this board is when Grover moved from Glendora to Ontario he was stocked pretty heavy on necks, bodies, hardware and personel. He was also in the process of getting the import side if the brand going and pushing Jackson as the brand to have.

So, a lot of the Jacksons like mine were basically Charvels that had a Jackson headstock plate and neck plate to fill the orders fast and sell down the inventory. Hell it is documented that almost what, 4000 Jacksons have left over San Dimas plates before they tooled up Ontario, CA plates. So if you are in the 86,89 era, who knows right.
The question is really subjective. The early Charvels are the holy grail of the brand IMO. As the 80's progressed you tended to see more Jackson players. After the success of the Rhoads model, Grover wanted to brand Jackson as the premier brand. That is my 2 cents.

[txrob779]

Seems like you're mainly referring to import Charvels. Keep in mind that in '86 when the Model Series Charvels were introduced, all Jacksons were US made and they had just turned the Charvel brand into the import line. These imports covered a lot of ground and included models with traditional "Charvel" features like full-size strat bodies, etc., but there were also some models that were basically the first import Jacksons. The Model 5 & 6 were Soloists. The Model 4 had many of the same features as the Model 6, but a full-size strat body, so it kind of blurred the lines. Meanwhile, there were USA Jackson strats being made that filled the void left when USA Charvel production stopped. More blurring of the lines. In '89, when the "toothpaste logo" Charvel imports came along, the bolt-on models were much more like a Jackson Dinky than a traditional Charvel strat.

Comparing USA Charvels to USA Jacksons is all about personal preference. There were many specific exceptions (like the Jackson strats), but to keep it simple think of the Charvels more as hotrodded Strats and the Jacksons more as state-of-the-art shred machines, more likely to be neckthrough, more likely to have radical body shapes or dinky strat shapes, etc. One of the best analogies I've heard is to think of a Charvel as a badass muscle car, and a Jackson as a Ferrari. Apples and oranges. I refuse to choose, and love 'em all.

Well put and dead nuts on. For me if you put a soloist from 86 Ontario made and a 1982 San Dimas Charvel, I would choose the Charvel in a heart beat. There is something very VERY cool about those SD's, cool indeed.

[dironifish]

It's all a matter of personal preference. I wish somebody would break into my house and steal my Schecter, but if they touched my Jackson or my Charvel I'd have to KILL'em

[shredmonster]

Yep - preference. I have heard killer guitars by both. I have heard some killer MIJ Charvies also. A particular 750XL comes to mind.

My personal preference is the Bolt on Jacksons so take that!
I like the sleeker body styles.