Binding

[MartinBarre]

If binding is such a big luxury thing, how come you get it on the DK2M?
What's so good about binding anyway?
I have an Epiphone Black Beauty which has "triple binding" or some crap - looks nice, but doesn't play any better than my SL3 with no binding.

I don't get it. What's the deal with binding, other than the fact it looks nice?
If a guitar as cheap as a DK2M can come with binding, why can't the SL3, KE3, RR3 or whatever?

[bobafer]

binding is so kickass, got it on my dk2.... who knows, these 3 models end in "3" so maybe those series just dont have binding, the way 2's and 1's have.

[Newc]

It takes more work to trim a fretboard and head for binding, so by not including it on certain models, you can put that same amount of labor/material money into higher quality wood or more expensive construction techniques like neckthrough and not effect a price increase. Adding binding to the RR3 would move it up in the price range, though IMO the KE3 and RR3 should be in the DK2 price range and include binding simply because the RR2/KE2 numbers were already taken by USA models, just like the SL2, whereas there was never a USA-made DK2.

The RR3, KE3, and SL3 should be the models just below the USA Select line, however, that's what the RR5 and new KE5FR are doing. Still, they should have binding.

If they moved the DK2 to the USA line and had the original DK1 (H-S-S) and DK2 (H-H), then they could do a DK3 import which would be the current DK2M, or make the DK2 H-S-S and the DK3 H-H, and offer both with the M option.

However, USA Production models are generally based on Custom Shop requests (as I understand it) - whatever's most-frequently requested from the Custom Shop (i.e. Soloist with H-S-S and H-H, Floyd, etc) becomes a production model. If there's not enough Custom Shop DK H-S-S ordered, or if more orders are for H-H, that's the USa Select specs.

I'm assuming that's why the DK1 went to H-H.

[adoxtater]

I think the answer you're going to get will depend on the person, as this is a very "personal preference" type of thing if you ask me. Personally I like bound necks for the feel as well as the looks. I think cosmetically it adds to the guitar, but thats my opinion. And as I said I also think a bound neck feels better, but that could be in my head LOL. Cosmetics is mostly where it's at I think.

[adoxtater]

It takes more work to trim a fretboard and head for binding, so by not including it on certain models, you can put that same amount of labor/material money into higher quality wood or more expensive construction techniques like neckthrough and not effect a price increase. Adding binding to the RR3 would move it up in the price range, though IMO the KE3 and RR3 should be in the DK2 price range and include binding simply because the RR2/KE2 numbers were already taken by USA models, just like the SL2, whereas there was never a USA-made DK2.

The RR3, KE3, and SL3 should be the models just below the USA Select line, however, that's what the RR5 and new KE5FR are doing. Still, they should have binding.

If they moved the DK2 to the USA line and had the original DK1 (H-S-S) and DK2 (H-H), then they could do a DK3 import which would be the current DK2M, or make the DK2 H-S-S and the DK3 H-H, and offer both with the M option.

However, USA Production models are generally based on Custom Shop requests (as I understand it) - whatever's most-frequently requested from the Custom Shop (i.e. Soloist with H-S-S and H-H, Floyd, etc) becomes a production model. If there's not enough Custom Shop DK H-S-S ordered, or if more orders are for H-H, that's the USa Select specs.

I'm assuming that's why the DK1 went to H-H.

EXCELLENT response dude!

[Grandturk]

Binding adds the "!!!" to "Metal!!!"

[Advv]

Binding is a big thing for me. I probably wouldn't have got the DK2M if it didn't have binding. It just makes a guitar neck look so much more complete.

[Rich#6]

I like the look of binding but the feel of guitars without especially J/Cs.

[Jayster]

and what about nubs?

[MartinBarre]

I must admit, binding on the headstock looks way cooler than without, on Jacksons at least.

[shadowcat]

Looks and feel.
Especially in the looks department it makes a big difference.

The last Jackson I bought was a Limited Edition Sam Ash Archtop Soloist. Still has the rosewood board and MOTO inlays, but unlike the SL3 (etc.) this one does have binding. Makes it look like it's worth its price (which is less than a USA, but still a decent sum of money).

[_koppen]

Yah, it's just cosmetic, but an unbound Jackson neck just dosen't look right to me.

[BeëlzeM]

Jacksons without binding on the neck and headstock is just not a Jackson. Simple as that. It makes it look so much better and more complete and sturdier and of higher quality.

No binding on a Jackson looks cheap and ugly.

[MartinBarre]

Jacksons without binding on the neck and headstock is just not a Jackson. Simple as that. It makes it look so much better and more complete and sturdier and of higher quality.

No binding on a Jackson looks cheap and ugly.

On that logic, the DK2M is a better guitar than the SL3. And this isn't "really" a Jackson:



Everyone stop GASsing for one! It's not really a Jackson!


What I don't understand is - if putting binding on costs more, how come the DK2M is still cheaper than an RR3, despite having the same electronics?

[Rich#6]

What I don't understand is - if putting binding on costs more, how come the DK2M is still cheaper than an RR3, despite having the same electronics?

because then can. It's more popular.

No binding on a Jackson looks cheap and ugly.

yea those old charvel model series guitars and the early san dimas guitars are so ugly.