What in the heck is this? I am stumped!!

[sirpixalot]

Sorry I had to put these pics on craigslist. I am not selling it. I just had to post them on their. I am having a problem with exporting. I have looked in every Charvel Catalog that can be found and I can't seem to find out which model CX or what other model it might be. I have never seen one of these with the Humbucker on an angle.

http://phoenix.craigslist.org/evl/msg/903952272.html

What Year? 89-91?

Thanks,

Sirpix.

[dg]

Looking at the scans, I'm guessing that that is an STX Custom that fell somewhere between the harpoon headstock model (with the exact same body, pickups & control config) in the '90 - '91 catalog:

http://audiozone.dk/cm/displayimage.php?pid=695&fullsize=1

and the model in the '92 catalog with same headstock as yours, but with a dinky body & regular humbucker in the bridge:

http://audiozone.dk/cm/displayimage.php?pid=747&fullsize=1

[sirpixalot]

Looking at the scans, I'm guessing that that is an STX Custom that fell somewhere between the harpoon headstock model (with the exact same body, pickups & control config) in the '90 - '91 catalog:

http://audiozone.dk/cm/displayimage.php?pid=695&fullsize=1

and the model in the '92 catalog with same headstock as yours, but with a dinky body & regular humbucker in the bridge:

http://audiozone.dk/cm/displayimage....747&fullsize=1

Thanks any info helps. I wonder if it was left over parts made by an employee at Charvel?

[sully]

highly doubtful. most likely a transition model.

[dg]

You never know. I was thinking maybe it was a parts guitar at first, but notice how the others with that headstock have the model name on them with the logo. That's one reason why I'm leaning more to it being a transitional model or just a model that fell between catalogs. There were quite a few other examples of that type of thing.

*typed while Sully was posting

[sirpixalot]

You never know. I was thinking maybe it was a parts guitar at first, but notice how the others with that headstock have the model name on them with the logo. That's one reason why I'm leaning more to it being a transitional model or just a model that fell between catalogs. There were quite a few other examples of that type of thing.

*typed while Sully was posting

Does this make it a little more rare and collectible? What about the serial # dose it give us an exact date that it was made?

Thanks again.

[CharvelRocker]

Does this make it a little more rare and collectible? What about the serial # dose it give us an exact date that it was made?

Thanks again.

To be honest... not really. A lot of those "lower end" Strats have horrible resale values because they were either ugly, of sub par build, or not held in high regard. I think my CX391 plays as good as any Model series Charvel, but it's resale is down there with Squiers and what not. It would be a cool and unique guitar, but not real collectible despite being fun to own. The serial also doesn't really tell you much either.

That guitar does look well equipped though. Those are fast playing necks, and it appears to have a JT590 trem. I would offer between $300-$450 and see where it goes.

[Carbuff]

I dunno. Im thinking its a $200 max guitar on a good day.

[CharvelRocker]

I dunno. Im thinking its a $200 max guitar on a good day.

That's true I guess, though it seems to be NOS... I would pay over 50% more for NOS, but I guess that is up for the TS.

[sirpixalot]

I dunno. Im thinking its a $200 max guitar on a good day.

So even being a 9.5/10 you think it is only worth $200. So I guess the Japanese stuff must be shitty quality. So this most have been a real piece of crap kinda like a Westone quality guitars.

[Franx]

So even being a 9.5/10 you think it is only worth $200. So I guess the Japanese stuff must be shitty quality. So this most have been a real piece of crap kinda like a Westone quality guitars.

I don't think so ("piece of crap") !
The headstock looks weird to me and I don't like the slanted bridge pickup, but other than that, I would pay 200 for the parts (JT-590 !) !

[sirpixalot]

I don't think so ("piece of crap") !
The headstock looks weird to me and I don't like the slanted bridge pickup, but other than that, I would pay 200 for the parts (JT-590 !) !

Ok.

[CharvelRocker]

So even being a 9.5/10 you think it is only worth $200. So I guess the Japanese stuff must be shitty quality. So this most have been a real piece of crap kinda like a Westone quality guitars.

Price =/= Quality. And no, my CX391 is not a piece of crap despite it's probably $160 market value thank you

[85 San Dimas]

+1 not crap

IMHO..

They aren't "crap". It's just like the model series, the tootpaste logos and the like weren't "crap". They were however the entry level models of their time. That doesn't mean cheap. My 375 deluxe was on the wall for $799 in 91? or 92.
What you have is a guitar that is not widely popular amongst people who like Charvels and Jacksons because they are least like the guitars we/they love. Whether it's crap or not isn't as relevent as what it's place is the J/C world actually is. Remember, a '57 Gibson LP Junior was a crap guitar compared to a '57 LP Standard. if it's good for you then it's good, it's just not very desirable to afficianados because it is felt that as a group the CX's aren't as good (or as unique) as other imported C/J's were. Like Norlin-era Gibsons are considered "lesser" guitars.

[Carbuff]

Basically, What he said. Its not a bad guitar,just not a desirable model.