Chushin Gakki Build Quality over the Time?

[Mr. Lime]

Hi folks,

I'm wondering how you guys feel about the build quailty of japanese Jackson / Charvel guitars?
Being owner of 2 Jackson Stars and one Jackson Pro from 2006, I'm quite wondering if the older Charvels had better or selected tone wood?

I'm basically an Vintage Ibanez collector and personally think that the late 70s to mid 80s are the best ones and due to manufacturing costs they started with finish covering the wood. They also prefered screwed on necks and stopped neck bindings for the mass market.

Some years ago I had a Jackson Infinity Pro from 1992 which looked stunning but I didn't liked it's neck profile. I much prefer the Jackson Stars profile from around 2007 to 2008 and would like to know how my Jackson ASL TN01 LTD compares to a 90s Archtop Soloist Pro?
Is there a record when they started with compound radius?

Looking forward to your thoughts!

[Razor]

The MIJ Model, Contemporary, Classic and Professional series of the late 80's and early 90's were on par with the USA made Jackson guitars. Great guitars and used to be the best bang for your buck. Pricing for them has steadily raised over the past ten years especially. There's a reason a lot of the guys back in the day used them and it's because they were damn fine instruments. They're as good today as they were then.

[john.w.lawson]

Theeeeey're GREAT guitars. If you can ever buy a professional PRO for under a grand, DO IT!!!! I just did

[wrldeatr7]

I used to have some 80s Charvel. Kinda hard to compare it to my 2011 Jackson Pro. The Charvel is the regular Japanese Jackson: bolt on, huge neck joint, no neck binding, 22 frets in this case, Kahler fulcrum tremolo. I'll just say that the paint job is incredible on the Charvel, seems like it's got a ton of coats, and the guitar weighs quite a bit. The neck is also rock solid stable, no need to tinker with the setup. The Pro in turn I have to do setup adjustments often because of temperature changes.

[Mr. Lime]

The last decade I had a view other Jackson guitars as well. Two DKMG, a Dinky Professional DX and a RR3. The DKMG were fine and I liked the archtops. I wouldn't take the hardware into account as it is easily replaceable. The RR3 played nice but I had the feeling it is a mass ware product. Compared to a Charvel 750 XI I bought yesterday, I see the body of the Soloist models got thinner. The maple top seemed to be replaced by a maple veneer which might be a cost reduction as well. My 2006 Soloist Pro has an archtop as well but it's has been made flat in the pickup region which looks to me as another simplified manufacturing process.
There are some Jackson Stars Soloists that even have a fake binding on the body which require a maple top instead of a veneer.
I didn't like the Professional DX too much. It looked nice on the first view but then I realized it has a photo foil instead of a wood veneer on top. Although the headstock said "Professional", it felt a cheaper than the DKMG. Think the DX was around mid 90s?

Is there anywhere a ranking showing the hierarchy of japanese models?

[john.w.lawson]

Here some info on some stuff

https://www.jcfonline.com/forum/equi...-ever-seen-one

Early 90's trans finish professional PRO'S were Jackson's top of the line. Same features and woods of USA'S and built as good.

[john.w.lawson]

Yeah, like to change the professional PRO statement, there was more consistency in the MIJ

Sorry got they're there their mixed up Dak

[Dak]

Yeah, like to change the professional PRO statement, there was more consistency in the MIJ

Sorry got they're there their mixed-up Dak

I didn't see it until after the correction, so I was none the wiser.

[john.w.lawson]

I didn't see it until after the correction, so I was none the wiser.

I am aware of that, but self improvement starts with accountability. I will be posting a NGD that is relevant to this topic in a few days

[Mr. Lime]

Here some info on some stuff

https://www.jcfonline.com/forum/equi...-ever-seen-one

Early 90's trans finish professional PRO'S were Jackson's top of the line. Same features and woods of USA'S and built as good.

Thanks for the link!

Yeah I remember folks saying the early 90s Jackson MIJ were the best but what exactly did changed? I guess they were always produced in the same Chushin Gakki factory until it was closed. What differentiates IMC from FMIC era guitars in regards of quality?

[pianoguyy]

Yeah I remember folks saying the early 90s Jackson MIJ were the best but what exactly did changed? I guess they were always produced in the same Chushin Gakki factory until it was closed. What differentiates IMC from FMIC era guitars in regards of quality?

I thought that was what you meant in your original post. But I was late to the party, so I let everyone else go on and on about this that and the other.


See, in America, in some circles, imports get a bad rap - those cheap Asian imports.
But those in-the-know know that companies will make what they are hired to make. If you want something good, they will make something good. If you want something cheap, they will make something cheap. Which is why, when Grover Jackson hired them (even went overseas to over see) to make guitars, they were fucking fantastic. Here we are 36 years later, still clamoring about them. In fact, their reputation has gotten even better over the years because many people viewed them as 'cheap Asian imports' when they first came out, but after so long they have proven themselves to be worth every penny.
*not to mention, that some of us refused to buy them new, but have bought dozens on the used market. The used market allows many people to try things they never would try new.

So, then, as you ask - what happened?
Simple. Jackson told them to make them cheaper.
Not only that, but they also had guitars that were to be cheaper guitars anyhow. As example, no one expects a DXMG to be on the same level as the DK-2. They may still be made in the same factory, but that doesn't mean made by the same people with the same care to the same specs.


That's the answer - they made them cheaper.

[pianoguyy]

Is there a record when they started with compound radius?

Jackson has always used the compound radius.

[john.w.lawson]

Jackson has always used the compound radius.

No they didn't, not until around 82 and then floyd came out in 83 and it has to have at least a 10" compound radius. It was a guy named Wilson (a worker at J/C) that came up with the radius on Jackson and Charvel guitars.
But for the sake of this conversation, yeah it's on all the models mentioned. Which has nothing to do with neck thickness or shape

Now prove me wrong

[wrldeatr7]

Has anyone every confirmed that in fact Jackson fretboards have that compound radius? I'm not convinced frankly. Neither the 12 inch at the first couple of first frets nor the 16 inch at the last ones. But I don't have any radius gauges to check.

[Dak]

Has anyone every confirmed that in fact Jackson fretboards have that compound radius? I'm not convinced frankly. Neither the 12 inch at the first couple of first frets nor the 16 inch at the last ones. But I don't have any radius gauges to check.

If they don't that would be a pretty big case of false advertising as they have claimed to for years. Going by John's comment at least since '82.