Charvel Bass Serial Number Help!

[RedRacer]

Can anyone tell me what year this bass was built in, the guy selling it claims it to be and 80's Charvel. Serial number is "256995", seems alittle high to me for this to be true, but I haven't been able to find a reference for bass serial numbers either... Any info is appreciated......... RedRacer

[Chowderboots]

A fine Charvel 1B you have there!

Serial numbers for the Charvel basses of this era are very difficult to decipher. For a while, we thought that the 3rd number in was the last digit of the year it was produced (making yours an '86, which makes sense, since that was in the middle of the period when this type of bass was produced), but that doesn't always hold true.

In any case, probably made between and '83? and '89. I think that's the most common era for this type of bass. Mid 80s without a doubt. Does that help you?

Charvel made slew of "B" basses--1Bs, 2Bs, 3Bs, and 4Bs over the course of the 80s. They're predecessors to the modern Jackson "Concert" style bass. The difference is what electronics (j2000 preamp and/or a Jazz pickup to supplement the ubiquitous middle position Precision PU) and construction they are made of. The shape of the horns varies slightly, as does the tuning machines (on the 3B in particular), as amimbari can attest.

Help you at all?

[RedRacer]

Thanks for the info Chowderboots, it helps alot. Backs up the other thread I saw with the white 1B, figured it was pretty close to that one. Thanks again... RedRacer

[Chowderboots]

Great! Glad I could be of service

I'm not sure if anyone else has anything to add. Possible that I missed something or another.

Anyway, that's a beautiful bass! In incredible condition, too! Enjoy it, man!

[Franx]

The "Model series" were introduced in 1986, your's is a 1987 1B !

http://audiozone.dk/cm/displayimage.php?pid=267&fullsize=1

[RedRacer]

Thanks for the additional info and the catalog pic, Franx, awesome. Yeah she is in great shape, thats part of the reason I was skeptical on the year it was made. To good to be true...lol RedRacer

[rjohnstone]

Serial numbers for the Charvel basses of this era are very difficult to decipher. For a while, we thought that the 3rd number in was the last digit of the year it was produced (making yours an '86, which makes sense, since that was in the middle of the period when this type of bass was produced), but that doesn't always hold true.

Don't know where you're getting your info from, but it's completely wrong.
Serial numbers on the bolt on Model series were strictly sequential.
The digits are just that, digits.
They have no other meaning built into them and Jackson never tracked them.
Neckthru Models did use the first digit to indicate year of production.

In any case, probably made between and '83? and '89. I think that's the most common era for this type of bass. Mid 80s without a doubt. Does that help you?

The Model series were only made from 1986 and 1989.

[amimbari]

hey now...that looks familiar



your pic is the one on ebay right now for 279+shipping thats kinda on the high side, but well within reason.

however, here's the auction I bought mine from last week:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT&item=300286426661

and honestly it is as mint ( never played condition ) as that one for 279.00 but was a LOT cheaper...

[amimbari]

I forgot to add this ----

RJ is right only 4 years worth of the "model" series. serials are just numbers as I also found out a while ago, while trying to figure out what exact year they were made which was impossible...

except for the damn 4B I searched for for a long time. I know they didnt make them until 88 and that was the only year, and very hard to find out there anymore.

correct me if I am wrong please RJ about the 4B dating.

here's my family pic of the whole series

model 3,1,4,1,2.

honestly I just play em and don't care when they were made

[rjohnstone]

You are correct, the 4B was only made in 88

It's basically a 3B with a different electronics package.

[amimbari]

You are correct, the 4B was only made in 88

It's basically a 3B with a different electronics package.

yep. I never saw a catalog of 89 with the 4 in it, so I assumed one year only.

3b bodystyle but bolt on version....although it does have the same j2000 like my 3 as I have been in there to change the battery.

I like the family pic, as it distinctly shows the 1-2 body differences compared to the 3-4, especially around the horns/cutaways.

[rjohnstone]

Yep... the neckthru vs bolt as well.
You can tell I don't keep up on the specs too much.

I do prefer the 3-4 body style over the 1-2. Cleaner looking lines.

[amimbari]

now when RedRacer chimes in, just so you know RedRacer, this white one is still available, if you pass on the red one....I can hook you up with the guy's email if your interested, as it is cheaper than the red one on EBAY your looking at... ( NO it is not the white one on EBAY that the seller wants 400.00 for )

I only wanted the B series, and I just got the extra red one to swap necks with the model2, so I have 2 black and maples, and throw the rosewood neck on the red 1B, so I can say I have a "MUTT" << charvette 400's were a 1B with a rosewood neck, so it would say Charvel on the sticker, but basically be a Charvette.

[RedRacer]

Thanks for all the help/info amimbari, much appreciated. Sweet stable of basses you have there. I'll definitely keep the white one in mind, but i'm gonna try for the Red one, yeah its alittle high, but I'm partial to the red/maple, and its in darn good shape. Might kick myself later, RedRacer

[Chowderboots]

Don't know where you're getting your info from, but it's completely wrong.
Serial numbers on the bolt on Model series were strictly sequential.
The digits are just that, digits.
They have no other meaning built into them and Jackson never tracked them.
Neckthru Models did use the first digit to indicate year of production.



The Model series were only made from 1986 and 1989.

Makes sense. I'm getting lots of stuff mixed up...sorry about that

I realize that the serial numbers aren't interpretable. I'm not being incredibly clear and not checking my sources. It's what you get, huh? Thanks for correcting me, man. I like learning from my mistakes. Enough bullshit on the internet without me adding to it.