Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Help! Mystery Jackson Soloist Prototype?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by VitaminG View Post
    I don't recall them direct mounting pickups as far back as 1990 either. Only remember that appearing around '94 with the Dinky Reverse, and not on any Soloist. And they weren't installing battery boxes back then either. EMGs weren't standard & because production guitars didn't have battery boxes, batteries were usually mounted (or floating around) in the control cavity when people installed EMGs. Earliest production EMG installations I can recall (and battery boxes) were when they revamped the DK1. That would have predated the MG series imports switch from HZs to proper EMGs in, what, 2002?

    The whole guitar feels post-2000 to me. Not much help but it's the vibe I'm getting

    Take all of the above with a grain of salt. My memory is for shit now and unlike back in the day, I'm not going to spend an hour digging through old info to confirm. Hopefully some of it is close to the mark
    Yep, I think you're definitely correct. The serial info Mudlark provided seems to date it to 2001, before the Fender buyout.

    Comment


    • #17
      Some more random thoughts after re-reading the thread on TheGearPage, I noticed there was one mention of speculation that it was a SLAT-3 prototype; unless the mystery Soloist has an arched top, which I don't see in the photos you've shared so far, it would not be a SLAT-anything. In the first photo, I see a forearm comfort bevel, which is absent on all SLAT models (no need for a forearm bevel on an archtop guitar since the entire perimeter of the guitar is thinner than the core of the body).

      Related to the above, that bevel, in combination with the flametop, suggests the flametop is not a cap, but a thin veneer that is bent to follow the contour of the bevel. I'm pretty positive this was how "flametop" Jacksons were done in the 2000s.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Number Of The Priest View Post
        Some more random thoughts after re-reading the thread on TheGearPage, I noticed there was one mention of speculation that it was a SLAT-3 prototype; unless the mystery Soloist has an arched top, which I don't see in the photos you've shared so far, it would not be a SLAT-anything. In the first photo, I see a forearm comfort bevel, which is absent on all SLAT models (no need for a forearm bevel on an archtop guitar since the entire perimeter of the guitar is thinner than the core of the body).

        Related to the above, that bevel, in combination with the flametop, suggests the flametop is not a cap, but a thin veneer that is bent to follow the contour of the bevel. I'm pretty positive this was how "flametop" Jacksons were done in the 2000s.
        Very possible, it's not an archtop but does definitely have the forearm contour. The flame top is nice but yes, pretty sure it's a veneer and not a thick maple cap. I'll double check when I pull the pickups.

        Comment


        • #19
          Until this mystery is solved, how 'bout we name her SLEMGMOPDMJT?XXX, it's gotta ring to it.

          Comment


          • #20
            I'm thinking since it has a production serial number on it, it could be from a small batch run. Musicians Friend and Sam Ash are known for doing these oddball spec'd runs.
            The mix of MOP logo, MOTO inlays, and the JT-500 trem, since the JT-590 was no longer in production for Jackson in 2001, it's most likely part of dealer exclusive run.
            -Rick

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by rjohnstone View Post
              I'm thinking since it has a production serial number on it, it could be from a small batch run. Musicians Friend and Sam Ash are known for doing these oddball spec'd runs.
              The mix of MOP logo, MOTO inlays, and the JT-500 trem, since the JT-590 was no longer in production for Jackson in 2001, it's most likely part of dealer exclusive run.
              Definitely possible, I've heard of the small runs done for Sam Ash, GC, etc...but the oddest thing to me is that I can find info on those runs (they're fairly well documented from what I've seen online), but no searches have ever led me to a guitar like this one. Gotta do some more sleuthing online...thanks for the reply!

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by rjohnstone View Post
                I'm thinking since it has a production serial number on it, it could be from a small batch run. Musicians Friend and Sam Ash are known for doing these oddball spec'd runs.
                The mix of MOP logo, MOTO inlays, and the JT-500 trem, since the JT-590 was no longer in production for Jackson in 2001, it's most likely part of dealer exclusive run.
                This is the first thing that came to mind for me too.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Carbuff View Post
                  This is the first thing that came to mind for me too.
                  It makes sense to me, but then the question is how do I go about verifying/ID-ing it as such? Plenty of documentation online about other special runs by Jackson, but nothing about this particular guitar...

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Customguitars87 View Post
                    It makes sense to me, but then the question is how do I go about verifying/ID-ing it as such? Plenty of documentation online about other special runs by Jackson, but nothing about this particular guitar...
                    Jackson doesn't track the runs, so you have to find the merchant that requested it.
                    I have a hard enough time trying to track down and verify MF runs, but any dealer can request a run if they order enough of them.
                    -Rick

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by rjohnstone View Post
                      Jackson doesn't track the runs, so you have to find the merchant that requested it.
                      I have a hard enough time trying to track down and verify MF runs, but any dealer can request a run if they order enough of them.
                      Yeah I think Matt's Music has done it and a few other stores too...just not sure how to go about making my way through the potential suspects . It doesn't help that this seems to really be a one-of-a-kind...I've been able to find plenty of examples and info on the Sam Ash limited runs and a few others so far, but that's it.

                      I just got it back from my tech so I'll take a few more photos tonight, dig into the cavities in the back and get some pics of the pots, trem, and anything else that may help. I did confirm the serial just now so this is definitely a 2001 (01XXXX). Really glad that it's a pre-FMIC too, I'm not a big fan of the direction the company took after Fender bought 'em.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Dealer run or non-North American model were my first thoughts.
                        96xxxxx, 97xxxxx and 98xxxxx serials oftentimes don't indicate '96, '97 and '98.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Ok, more pics to see if that helps anything. Definite ebony fretboard, definitely not played too much as evidenced by the plastic still on the back of the tuners...and interestingly enough Korean pots (though I guess that's not uncommon even if the guitar is made in Japan). Everything does look pretty stock, I don't think anything was ever modded on this guitar but I'm no expert.

















                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Thanks for the extra pics. I agree with everyone who previously guessed the tremolo is a JT500. You can read more about it here: http://audiozone.dk/index-filer/Trem...ject.htm#jt500 Interesting choice for a tremolo in 2001. The trem, and the plastic inlays, are the surprising "cheap" aspects of the guitar considering the contrast with the higher-end features like the EMGs with purposeful battery box, ebony fretboard, MOP headstock logo, and neck/headstock binding.

                            FIVE trem springs!

                            Not much more for me to diagnose but I'm staying tuned in case more definitive answers come along. There is the possibility this guitar may never be properly identified, but the hunt for information is part of the fun. The journey can be enjoyable as the destination.
                            Last edited by Number Of The Priest; 05-17-2018, 07:26 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Doesn't exactly look like the trem for that route, as it looks like the top rubbed against the wall and I can see slight chips near the the bass side trem post. And the intonation looks off with the saddles being too far forward.
                              I feel my soul go cold... only the dead are smiling.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by toejam View Post
                                Doesn't exactly look like the trem for that route, as it looks like the top rubbed against the wall and I can see slight chips near the the bass side trem post. And the intonation looks off with the saddles being too far forward.
                                Yea that's a good point with the trem, I actually hadn't noticed. Definitely possible that it was a replacement. As for the intonation, I actually just got it strung up real quick to check it out for a few days before I decide what to do with it. I have quite a few people who have reached out to me about buying it but I haven't had enough time with it to decide if it's a keeper or not...so it's fate is still up in the air. Haven't actually gotten a real set up done just yet, but should happen shortly.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X