Charvel imports 1986-1991

[jackson1]

Charvel imports 1986-1991.
Did they come with quartersawn necks?

I always believed they were quartersawn. Still do. But where's the proof? If you can, point me to where it says that the necks were cut this way.

I wonder if this shot of a Model 2 neck is proof enough?...:

[jackson1]

The old catalogs says:

Neck / Fingerboard Composition:
Rock Maple Bolt-On / Quartersawn Maple.

Notice the slash. They are saying that the fingerboard is quartersawn. But that's just me, isn't it.. Reading it the wrong way?

[Rich#6]

I think they wrote it the wrong way. Don't know why you would qtrsaw a fretboard.

[dg]

The ones with rosewood boards say rock maple/quartersawn rosewood. Here's the '86 Model 3 spec page:

http://audiozone.dk/cm/displayimage.php?pid=188&fullsize=1

I think the necks are flatsawn. Since they went to the trouble to describe the fretboards as quartersawn, they would've done the same for the necks as well if they were too, imo. Some of them will look quartersawn because at some point in cutting the wood, a certain number of the pieces in the middle are going to have a quartersawn grain pattern. I've got a couple of bolt-on Model Series necks around, and I'll take a close look later.

[jackson1]

I just remembered that I have pics of my USA Charvel San Dimas Std. Notice the grains in this one, which is about opposite of the above... we're on to something!! :

[dg]

Yeah, H, that pic is what q-sawn should look like end-on. Looking at it from the backside, all the grain should line up parallel to the length of the neck. BTW, I just looked at my necks. My loose Model 2 or 3 neck is clearly flatsawn, and my Model 7 neck can almost, but not quite, pass for quartersawn. Probably cut from very near the center of the log.

-edit- here's a pic showing the differences in cuts:



"plainsawn" = "flatsawn". You can see how some of the flatsawn wood near the center will have close to a quartersawn grain pattern.

[Norton]

Come on Henrik, whaddaya know about guitars?

[jackson1]

I know a lot Ilker, that's why I digged this issue up, something you would NEVER have thought of

Cool, dg. I'm working on a small article on the Charvel imports and now I have to edit the hell out of it because of this


Here's Jacksons own drawing on the subject. It makes sense if you look long enough at it:



EDIT: oh, you got a drawing up now as well. Cool!

[Norton]

The picture explains a lot. Thanks.

[jackson1]

No bashing?

[Cygnus X1]

No bashing?

No, we can all learn together.
But, my Dad ran a sawmill, and we cut furniture grade lumber.
So, I know a bit of the difference. I just can't say what Jackson/Charvel put where.

[dg]

What I'd like to see is some input (better yet, pics) from folks who have stripped some of the neckthroughs. I've always been told that one of their biggest differences from USA Soloists is that they have flatsawn necks vs quartersawn on the USAs, and that the first import neckthroughs with q-sawn necks were the Soloist Pros (edit- and RR Pros too).


BTW, I think we're deep into geek territory here, Henrik. In fact, I just told my wife we were discussing the cuts of wood in the necks & she said, "It takes a special kind of geek to care about something like that. You're lucky I love you...":ROTF::ROTF:

[nhspike]

I think I get the concept of why one would be better than the other, but would (wood?) someone please type a bit as to why one would be better than the other?

And...

How it might be that the one that seems like it shouldn't be better, can be... in certain situations.

Very interested in hearing more about this.

ear ear ear ear ear

(all ears)

[jackson1]

Quartersawn = more resonate. More resistant to flexing. So the word goes. Also more wood goes to waste cutting it like this = more expensive.

[jackson1]

dg, you're going to make me strip my 1993 Rhoads Pro just to have a look.... which I have been this close to many o'times!

We need more geeks in here. It's what makes this forum spin.