What is the original trem to a 650XL

[MetalMedal II]

I can see why you might think the trem is not original, since the routing for the tremolo on the face of the guitar doesn't quite match the Schaller trem. But I agree that it is most likely the original trem. Mine came with the same kind, and I'm pretty sure it's original.

On your pix, I can't read the engaving on the trem by the low E string. On mine it says "Jackson" with the "Made in Germany by Schaller" by the high E string. I have also seen The Jackson name replaced with "Charvel" on some guitars from this era. I haven't seen one with it saying "Schaller" as original on Charvels from this era, but they might have used these on the 1st models until Schaller started making them with the Jackson name engraved on it. Does your guitar have a low serial number on it from '89? If so, it could explain why it had the Schaller engraving on it.

[Deneb]

Re: What is the original trem to a 650XL

C000525, trem is a charvel schaller.

I got the action even lower without buzz, its an insanely nice guitar, I think I may be buying another one.

[Deneb]

Re: What is the original trem to a 650XL

the trem is a schaller, it just dont look right above that route.

[charvel750]

Re: What is the original trem to a 650XL

NOTE TO ALL FORUM MEMBERS: that is the 1989 route, the very first recessed route Jackson/Charvel ever did. I affectionately call it the "half a$$" route because it's unnecessary! By 1990, the route was modernized similar to how it is today, a true complete recess. The eBay "rounded horn" V had that route. I have a pair of 1989 Rhoads models with that route. I have a 1989 Dinky with that route, and a pair of 1989 Soloists with that route. So, that Charvel was originally equipped with a Charvel logoed Schaller Floyd.

[Tekky]

Re: What is the original trem to a 650XL

My Charvel Model 3DR has the same route.

[Deneb]

Re: What is the original trem to a 650XL

well let me tell you, its stupid looking.

The trem could be that much further down.

however, that does answer the neck angle questions I had with it.

So I take it this is an early one? (1989).

Sweet.

I think I may like a later one with a different route.

[1trussell]

Re: What is the original trem to a 650XL

My 650XL that I bought new in 1992 has the same route, and the trem says "Schaller", not Charvel or Jackson. It is the original trem and the original route. I agree that is does seem unnecessary. However, it is one of the best trems I have ever used.

[toejam]

Re: What is the original trem to a 650XL

Originally posted by Deneb:
well let me tell you, its stupid looking.

The trem could be that much further down.

however, that does answer the neck angle questions I had with it.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It's essentially the same as a trem that would be non-recessed (even though it's got the recess to allow for more pullback). Like Joe said, it's basically unnecessary. Ever see the tilt-back neck angle on a Les Paul with a TOM bridge, or a Jackson with a TOM bridge that's far off the body? It's basically the same concept on non-recessed trems... they need that angle. The exception to the rule is on a Carvin with a TOM bridge... they have straight necks and low-profile TOM bridges to be lower to the body. Any modern Jackson with a recessed trem, or other guitar for that matter with a full recess into the body, has a straight neck with no tilt.

[ October 03, 2003, 05:04 PM: Message edited by: toejam ]

[Jim Shine]

Re: What is the original trem to a 650XL

It looks like they wanted to keep the non-recessed angle, but wanted to allow for pull back, so they recessed just enough for the rear section of the tremolo to fall into the recess.

[pro-fusion]

Re: What is the original trem to a 650XL

Yeah, the rout is merely to allow for pullback, not recessing the trem. I had a 650xl just like yours, deneb, and I also was able to get the action ridiculously low. Nice guitar, although mine wasn't very resonant compared to my Model 5 and didn't have a very full tone (I suppose that varies on each instrument). Still kind of wish I had it though.

By the way, I think the 650 had that rout through its entire run from 1989-91, not merely in 1989. However, the Jackson Soloists, both USA and Japan, went to recessed trems in 1990, if I'm not mistaken.

[Deneb]

Re: What is the original trem to a 650XL

It feels a bit different to me because the bridge seems higher off the guitar, and even though it is, it doesnt mean higher action.

To me it seems stupid to be able to see the spring block off the back of the trem while I dont have it pulled back, like I can see it from the side.

I would like a model 5 next.

[toejam]

Re: What is the original trem to a 650XL

Originally posted by Deneb:
It feels a bit different to me because the bridge seems higher off the guitar, and even though it is, it doesnt mean higher action.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I actually prefer the non-recessed trems for the reason that it is up higher off the body and gives you more room. The neck needs to be tilted back to give you the same action as it would be if it were recessed. Also, be aware that the trem block is longer on the non-recessed ones compared to the recessed. If you ever want to replace the Floyd on it, make sure you get one with the longer 42mm sustain block as opposed to the 32mm block. I think there's also a 36mm block on certain models, not sure which ones, though.

[MetalMedal II]

Re: What is the original trem to a 650XL

My 650xl has the 36 mm trem block on it(actually, I think it measures closer to 37 mm). I thought for sure it would need to have the long 42 mm since it sits up high like a non-recessed (well, it pretty much is non-recessed). However, on the backside of the guitar there's more wood shaved away so the springs are angling inward into the guitar-body as they move toward the spring block, so the 36/37 mm shorter block works. There even may be enough clearance for a 32 mm block, but I never tried one.
I, too, prefer the trem sitting up high in non-recessed fashion. It just feels more comfortable to me.

[toejam]

Re: What is the original trem to a 650XL

Originally posted by MetalMedal II:
My 650xl has the 36 mm trem block on it(actually, I think it measures closer to 37 mm). I thought for sure it would need to have the long 42 mm since it sits up high like a non-recessed (well, it pretty much is non-recessed). However, on the backside of the guitar there's more wood shaved away so the springs are angling inward into the guitar-body as they move toward the spring block, so the 36/37 mm shorter block works. There even may be enough clearance for a 32 mm block, but I never tried one.
I, too, prefer the trem sitting up high in non-recessed fashion. It just feels more comfortable to me.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Thanks for the info, that's good to know! I knew there was a 36 or 37mm block but wasn't sure which model it was on. Maybe the neck's not tilted as much as the 42mm or is it just the way the springs are angled?

[Deneb]

What is the original trem to a 650XL

I bought this 650XL, and the trem that is on it is a Schaller trem.

The route for the trem is not for a Schaller trem. I mean this guitar plays excellent, and the bridge stays in tune, and I can do pull backs on it. The action is good as well, and the way the neck comes thru the body, it looks like it has a slight angle (intentionally from the factory) to accomodate something like this.

<center></center>

[ October 03, 2003, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: TEKKY ]