Help identifying recent guitar purchase

[confluence6]

Hey everyone, I've been reading these posts everyday for a while now, and finally decided to ask for some info on a Jackson RR that I purchased recently. First off, let me introduce myself.
My name is Doug(everyone calls me Hoss), and I reside about 5 miles from where Flight 93 went down. I am 34 with a great family and a few good friends. I'm a little bit socially retarded, so I pretty much just spend time with the family when I'm not working(Golf Course Asst. Superintendent. I'm pretty laid back, and I love older metal from 70's-mid 90's. I believe that although it seems sometimes that we live in a world of crap, there is always some good to be found. I really like seeing people help other people, and am always eager to help out just about anyone who needs it. So that's me, and on to my question.
I purchased a black RR from GC in Pittsburgh. (And no, I'm not looking for a value) I'm wondering what year it was made. Its got a bolt on, 22 fret rosewood board with sharkies. The headstock says Jackson Professional, with no model on the truss rod cover. Its got a licensed Floyd, one volume, 1 3-way toggle, and two hums. The Serial # is 503508.
What's been throwing me off is it had Duncan Designed Hums in it(which I very quickly swapped with some EMG's) Somebody told me that its a 95 EX, however, I thought they had dot inlays, and not sharkies. Also, I thought that the Duncan Designed pups didn't start getting installed til well after 1995. The neck plate isn't one of the straight black ones, its the one that is typical of the 80's through mid 90's, black with raised silver Jackson logo and raised silver outline. I wish I had a camera, but mine just broke yesterday. Any ideas?
Thanks in advance for any replies, and no, it's NFS!! I love the way it plays!! It is my first Jackson, after playing Epiphone and Ibanez guitars for the bulk of my 17 years of underachieving playing! The Jackson actually made me a better player IMHO.

[confluence6]

Sorry about the difficult read, This is the first time I ever posted on any site!

[Rich#6]

It could be a 96 RR3. The serial number suggests 95 but it could have been an early 96 that they used the left over 95 plates on. 96 they did have duncan designed pickups and sharkies on the bolt on rhoads.

[Sunbane]

If you take the neck off, there's a high likelyhood that both the model name and the production date is stamped on both the body and the neck. It does sound a lot like an early RR-3 though.

[confluence6]

Ok, I'll do that. Thanks for the quick reply!

[RacerX]

Welcome, Hoss! Early RR3 or mutt. Pics would be great.

[confluence6]

Thanks Racer!! I'll get some pics up as soon as I get my new camera.

[MakeAJazzNoiseHere]

I believe that although it seems sometimes that we live in a world of crap, there is always some good to be found.

This site will quickly change your mind about that!

J/K dude, welcome. Look forward to pics of the axe.

[confluence6]

Thanks man!! Looking forward to gaining some more knowledge of the Jackson/Charvels and the root cause of the sickness of not being able to just have one!!! Eying up a 1993 RR-Pro that's in the local shopper here. Will probably pick that one up this weekend. Can't wait!!!!

[m2pmd70]

Sorry about the difficult read, This is the first time I ever posted on any site!

Welcome to the interwebs! Nice guitar choice.

[confluence6]

Hey everyone, I just got my new camera and thought I would post a picture of my guitar. I haven't taken the neck off yet, I figured I'd do that when I change the strings. All clues point to it being a 1996 RR3 though.


I'm really happy with the guitar, and actually like the tone I can get out of the EMG-HZ's.

All in all, I got $180 invested, and have never had a guitar of this quality for even double that!! Now I'm hooked!!

I also picked up two more Jacksons over the weekend. I got this 1993 Rhoads Pro.


It needed a little work, but the paint was good, and the neck was straight. I replaced the Active Jackson Hum's with a SD TB-4 and SH2-N. I also replaced all the pots with CTS 500k pots, as well as the toggle. The original Schaller was gone, and it had a cheapo chrome lic. Floyd on it. So I bought a new Schaller Floyd, and installed it with a 37mm big brass block upgrade. All in all, an amazing friggin guitar!!! I love it, but to be honest, it doesn't play that much better than the RR3. Maybe it is because I'm no professional, but the only thing the Pro seems to be better at is hammer-ons and sustaining. Oh well!!

I also bought another Jackson from the mid 90's, and will post that one in a different thread, because I got an amazing deal on it, but also have a question about it. Thanks for the read folks, and have a great day!!
Hoss

[DonP]

I didn't know Pro's came with active electronics, but you sound like you know what you are doing. You sure they weren't just covered pickups - you did see a battery and stuff, right?

And BTW, Jackson never made active hums. They made booster circuits of different flavors, but the pickups were still passive. The Duncans would work with the circuits just like the Jackson pickups.

Bite your tongue - A Pro that's less than an RR3? Come back to this thread in a year to see if you still have the same opinion.

Must be nice having all of these Jacksons falling from the sky into your lap.

[confluence6]

I am stoked!!! I seem to be falling into deals all of a sudden!! There was a battery in the cavity, which I removed. So do you think I should re-attach the booster circuit? How much of a difference would that make in the tone?

I guess I should clarify that the build quality and playabilty is superior to the RR3, however, it seems like I can play the RR3 a little bit better. I guess that has to do with me transferring over from the Les Paul I had, because of the scale similarities. I imagine the more I play it, the more I'll dig it.

[john.w.lawson]

RR3 is not the same scale as a les paul...... ; 0

[confluence6]

RR3 is not the same scale as a les paul...... ; 0

The neck scale is different than the RR Pro, though, right? It definitely seems smaller to me.