Remember in the 2000s when Jackson versus ESP was a hot topic?
There was contentious debate surrounding each company's more affordable guitars, Jackson with their Pro/MG/X Series, and ESP with their LTD brand.
One observation of LTD was that their guitars were equipped with high end hardware, such as real EMGs, real Duncans, real Tonepros TOM bridges, locking tuners, etc. Another was that LTD put more thought into overall cosmetic appearance with the use of their neck/headstock binding, and consideration in matching black/chrome/gold hardware where each color was appropriate for a particular guitar.
Meanwhile, the import Jacksons had "second-tier" pickups (EMG-HZ and Duncan Designed, at least until 2006-2011 when they received real EMGs and real Duncans), non-locking TOM bridges, and non-locking tuners. There were also frequent complaints that the lack of neck/headstock binding and always-chrome hardware made the import Jacksons "look cheap" (at least until 2006-2011 when they received black hardware).
I seem to recall some (Newc perhaps?) championing Jackson's approach, claiming that Jackson used quality woods and impeccable construction (because those things can't be "improved" by a user), passing on the savings to the customer who would likely swap the "cheap hardware and electronics" anyway, versus LTD's approach of attracting customers based on hardware and cosmetics. Does this claim seem valid today?
Let me just say that I enjoy guitars from both product lines from this era. In particular, the 2000s Jacksons are some of the best and most plentiful bang-for-the-buck guitars available on the used market, especially when you consider they are Japanese built. In Canada, it is not difficult to find a 2000s Japanese Jackson for around CAD$300. In Canada, it is somewhat difficult finding a 2000s LTD for even CAD$500, and they're not even Japanese (no disrespect to Korea's World Musical Instrument Co. Ltd. who makes fine guitars for LTD and others).
There was contentious debate surrounding each company's more affordable guitars, Jackson with their Pro/MG/X Series, and ESP with their LTD brand.
One observation of LTD was that their guitars were equipped with high end hardware, such as real EMGs, real Duncans, real Tonepros TOM bridges, locking tuners, etc. Another was that LTD put more thought into overall cosmetic appearance with the use of their neck/headstock binding, and consideration in matching black/chrome/gold hardware where each color was appropriate for a particular guitar.
Meanwhile, the import Jacksons had "second-tier" pickups (EMG-HZ and Duncan Designed, at least until 2006-2011 when they received real EMGs and real Duncans), non-locking TOM bridges, and non-locking tuners. There were also frequent complaints that the lack of neck/headstock binding and always-chrome hardware made the import Jacksons "look cheap" (at least until 2006-2011 when they received black hardware).
I seem to recall some (Newc perhaps?) championing Jackson's approach, claiming that Jackson used quality woods and impeccable construction (because those things can't be "improved" by a user), passing on the savings to the customer who would likely swap the "cheap hardware and electronics" anyway, versus LTD's approach of attracting customers based on hardware and cosmetics. Does this claim seem valid today?
Let me just say that I enjoy guitars from both product lines from this era. In particular, the 2000s Jacksons are some of the best and most plentiful bang-for-the-buck guitars available on the used market, especially when you consider they are Japanese built. In Canada, it is not difficult to find a 2000s Japanese Jackson for around CAD$300. In Canada, it is somewhat difficult finding a 2000s LTD for even CAD$500, and they're not even Japanese (no disrespect to Korea's World Musical Instrument Co. Ltd. who makes fine guitars for LTD and others).
Comment