carvin opinions

[pro-fusion]

Re: carvin opinions

They can't do the '88-89 imitation Jackson headstock anymore--that would attract the interest of FMIC's platoon of lawyers. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Instead, the 'new' pointy is a recreation of the '90-91 headstock that added a little bump on the bottom-end to get around the Jackson trademark issue. Around 1989, Jackson got medieval on the companies that were producing guitars with the J/C headstock--especially ESP and Carvin. Both companies switched to modified designs at almost exactly the same time.

Based on reading the Carvin forum, I had thought that the pointy option was a limited-time deal to appease a few pointy fanatics on that board. Oh well. If I were to order a new Carvin, it would definitely have the pointy headstock, as the new inline design is flat-out ugly.

I also agree about the old strat-body options. Those were the most attractive Carvins ever made, in my opinion. Today's round body option is ok, but it's not "metal" enough for me, dammit! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ChickenScratch]

Re: carvin opinions

[ QUOTE ]
Based on reading the Carvin forum, I had thought that the pointy option was a limited-time deal to appease a few pointy fanatics on that board.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey how ya doin' [img]/images/graemlins/drool2.gif[/img]

I'm actually one of those Carvin nuts who was posting up a storm and emailing the reps till they just gave in.

[toejam]

Re: carvin opinions

[ QUOTE ]
They can't do the '88-89 imitation Jackson headstock anymore--that would attract the interest of FMIC's platoon of lawyers. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]


[/ QUOTE ]
I think the imitation Jackson headstock Carvin used was stupid... it was too thin and anemic looking.

[toejam]

Re: carvin opinions

[ QUOTE ]
Here is my DC125 with my spray can paint job..I really dig this guitar. Excelent bang for the buck and plays great.

http://www.usacharvels.com/charvel/n...arvindc135.htm

[/ QUOTE ]
That's cool, but why does you website have it listed as a DC135? The DC135 would be H/S/S. [img]/images/graemlins/poke.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Inearthed]

Re: carvin opinions

My only recommendation would be to not buy a brand new one. Buy a used Carvin. They sell for really cheap on the 'bay and if you buy one brand new you're probably going to pay double the price and then some and get the same quality.

[pro-fusion]

Re: carvin opinions

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They can't do the '88-89 imitation Jackson headstock anymore--that would attract the interest of FMIC's platoon of lawyers. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]


[/ QUOTE ]
I think the imitation Jackson headstock Carvin used was stupid... it was too thin and anemic looking.

[/ QUOTE ]

Total opposite here. I really like it and wish that Carvin could have continued to use it. Of course, it didn't exactly work to distinguish Carvin as a brand, did it?

[lerxstcat]

Re: carvin opinions

I liked the Jackson-like pointy headstock too.
It didn't distinguish Carvin as a brand, but look at the 70s-early 80s, when their guitars were pretty Gibson-influenced or the DC200 to 400 were BC-Rich influenced. Then the V220 had the shortened Gibson type vee headstock on a reverse mutated star shape. They've always offered, not anything dramatically different, but refinements on existing brands, like the Gibson style DC150 and 160 - a Melody Maker with 24 frets, smooth heel, stereo outputs and
coil tap and phase switches. You couldn't get a Gibson configed like that without custom shop prices, and Carvin did it for 1/2 what a stock Melody Maker cost. They combined desirable features from other builders at a discount price; that's always been their niche. It's also why I think their Gibson and Jackson-looking guitars are more pleasing to me than the ones that are non-actionable in court, but just look blander for the most part. Toe, I do like your white one with the maple board reverse head though, that one does look awesome. The post-1991 models have just looked bland to me for the most part.

[pro-fusion]

Re: carvin opinions

[ QUOTE ]
The post-1991 models have just looked bland to me for the most part.

[/ QUOTE ]

I absolutely 100% agree with you on this. Sadly, however, Carvin was doing nothing more than responding to the direction of the market in the '90s. Bland guitars have been "in" for a long time now. Look at all the $$$ Gibson is making by churning out vintage replicas for old farts. Where's the excitement in that?

In retrospect, it's almost shocking how cutting-edge Carvin was back in the day, especially given that they made inexpensive guitars. They were making 24-fret guitars in the '70s, when that was almost unheard of (and long before J/C did so). The stereo electronics, Badass bridges, all-maple construction, and high-output pickups were all pretty exotic stuff by the standards of 1982.

To me, the only really "interesting" or innovative modern Carvin is the Holdsworth. It may be butt-ugly, but it is rather unique in its structural design, and gives you something you can't get elsewhere for anything close to the same price.

[toejam]

Re: carvin opinions

[ QUOTE ]
Toe, I do like your white one with the maple board reverse head though, that one does look awesome.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks. I really like it, too. I just had the C22s taken out and put in creme DiMarzios (Super D and Super 2). I've just got to get it back from the shop that's had it for like three weeks now! [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img] The guy had the pups in and the wiring done the way I wanted in like a day or so (inner coils on with the tap switches), but he didn't do it hum-cancelling with them both on and it annoyed me, so I took it back... it's just been sitting in there for three weeks or so now. I called yesterday and he said he was actually working on it and he'd call me when it was done. No call yet! It may be the last time I go to him for anything. It's a shame, too, because he's about a mile down the road from GC and I wouldn't ever let GC touch a damn thing.

[pro-fusion]

Re: carvin opinions

Check it out, I just got back in the Carvin Club:

1992 Carvin DC135

[j2379]

Re: carvin opinions

nice grab all maple, im like the sound of maple guitars alot. you may want to swap out that bridge tho. I found Carvin hardtail bridge sounds thin & bright & just not very good. i had one on a warmoth tele mutt, changed pickups a few times, finally swapped out the bridge & it was much better.

[pro-fusion]

Re: carvin opinions

I might do that--what bridge would you recommend? Since it's a pretty standard hardtail strat bridge, I suppose there are any number of available retrofits out there.

The hardtail is the biggest reason I got this guitar--I'm hoping to make it my main rhythm guitar for recording. I would have preferred a tune-o-matic bridge, but Carvin stopped using those as standard equipment in '92, when my guitar was made--that's actually how I can tell the year, since '92 was the first year for the FT6 hardtail bridge and the last year for the strat-shaped body wing option.

All-maple construction is really good for getting that intense, focused Iommi-like rhythm sound, even though you do have to play around with the EQ quite a bit. Especially Tony's sound from the Technical Ecstacy through Born Again era, when he was using an all-maple John Birch SG for much of his work.

I had an all-maple DC145 before, and I really regret having sold it--this was the right guitar at the right price, so I figured "what the f*ck", even though the wife's not gonna like it... [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[xenophobe]

Re: carvin opinions

I usually love all the old Carvins I play... 70's era seem like the best ones... natural koa or korina finishes.... mmm... I don't particularly care for their newer guitars.

Old school Carvin is great. \m/

[Model 88]

Re: carvin opinions

That is a nice score pro-fusion.Pretty unique with that headstock.I am also a Carvin fan.I have quite a few of them.My favorite is my 1991 DC145 strat body with pointy headstock.They also make a really nice bolt on neck guitar.I own there strat copy and 2 hum rear route with a floyd.

[pro-fusion]

Re: carvin opinions

Yeah, that's the only Carvin I've ever seen with the strat-body option and a 3x3 headstock. A somewhat incongruous look, I suppose, but I'm really more into function than form.