Why did Jackson and Charvel both exist?

[Deadlock]

I was just thinking, what was the point of Charvel and Jackson guitars existing at the same time in the 80's and 90's? Many guitars had the same shapes,specs and prices. And Jackson/Charvel was one company right? So why two brands?

[neilli]

I guess both brands existed because it was felt like there was a demand for both products, and because people wouldn't automatically jump to Jackson if Charvel disappeared.

Jackson came about because Grover didn't want to 'jeopardise' the Charvel name when he built guitars for Randy Rhoads as these were a radical departure from what Charvel were known for. Obviously the RRs were popular and so that begat the Soloist etc etc and for a while both Charvel and Jackson brands were made in the USA.

Then in the mid 80's USA Charvel production was stopped (I guess because demand had dropped?) and for 10 years or so, Charvels were import only (though there were probably a few Custom orders kicking around). There were some USA made 'euro-stratheads' released in the early 90's and then the orignal 'San Dimas Reissue' series came along in the mid 90s.

Of course, in the early 90's, Jackson started an import line as well.

[tanpsi]

It's true, for the period you mention and the 2 examples in the picture, not much different, kind of like Caddilac and Oldsmobiles got very similar at certain times. I guess they didn't have an Harvard MBA around to "focus the brands" or what ever Harvard MBAs do. But now they are logically organized and seperated.

[dg]

That '89 - '91 period (Charvel toothpaste logo timeframe) was at a major transition point for the company. In '89, all Jacksons were still USA-made. Charvel had been the import line since '86. In '90, they started the MIJ Jackson Professional line and there was a year or two of overlap with Japanese Jacksons and a few very similar (but not identical) Japanese Charvels. Starting in about '92, the remaining Charvel imports were less similar to Jackson models overall.

[slowhand66]

My understanding of the history is that Grover Jackson worked for Wayne Charvel initially, and in the late 70s bought the company from Wayne. The Charvel name was getting well known (after the release of VH 1), so there was no desire to change it at that time. Jackson built the RR guitar and put his own name on it because as mentioned above he didn't want to jeopardize the name. And well, the rest is history...

[sixx_ gunner]

Always wondered that one myself, but didn't want shoes thrown at me!

[Newc]

According to interviews I read in magazines at the time, Grover moved the Charvels to Japan in the mid 80s to be the import/bolt-on models, leaving Jackson as the USA/neckthrough models. Later, he did the Model 6, which was an affordable version of the USA-made Soloist.

Somewhere in there the USA-made Dinky/Fusion came about, which were of course bolt-ons. Grover stated in an interview around that time that he wanted to keep Jackson neckthrough-only, but since IMC was at the wheel at the time, he had to go with what the "committee" decided, and that was USA-made Jackson bolt-ons with ebony fretboards as counterparts the import Charvel bolt-ons, which had rosewood and maple fretboards.

Once Jacksons were being made in Japan alongside the Charvels, and the features between the two brands were similar, all they had to separate them were headstock logos, so Charvel was moved even further down the list to the Charvette sub-brand, and then basically dropped later with the exception of small-batch runs here and there just to keep the name alive.

That's why it's vitally important the new Charvels do not start adopting Jackson features such as Dinky bodies and pointy headstocks: it wouldn't take much for history to repeat itself.

[DonP]

The more space you can use up showing off your products in a store the more chances you have of selling something, and you reduce the shelf space of your competitor.

[tanpsi]

That's why it's vitally important the new Charvels do not start adopting Jackson features such as Dinky bodies and pointy headstocks: it wouldn't take much for history to repeat itself.[/QUOTE]


I agree with that, right now it seems the brands are differentiated clearly.