First Jackson guitar...not good.

[guitarsjb]

Another vote for pics, please.

[MetalDaze]

[Grim]

So got my first Jackon SL2H soloist today. Upon first inspection everything appeared solid, but on closer inspection things got dissappointing. The first thing I noticed was that on the underside of the headstock dried glue had leaked from the black panel on the top of the headstock and into the binding. There are three spots where that panel was glued and each leaked into the binding. Its very noticable when you flip the guitar over.
The other major thing was another issue involving the binding. The section on the headstock near the locking nut has binding that goes straight up the neck that converges with diagonal binding that goes around the headstock. On one side its perfect, flush and seamless...as it should be. On the other side the point of conversion between the two bindings is very ugly. First its not flush, you can see where the two pieces of wood were glued together; second, the binding that goes around the headstock was flattend at spot of conversion making a pocket of empty space where the straight binding "overhangs" creating a disjointed look. The flattened portion looks as though someone pushed too hard on soft material of the binding, perahps to hold in place during construction and instead of simply doing it over...said "F-it!" and left it.

To add insult to injury, in the pocket of empty space there is dirt or lint trapped under the finish which makes it looks as though there is a permanent spot of dirt on the binding. I thought USA Jacksons were known for their handmade, quality controlled products. Leaking glue? disjointed binding with lint trapped under the finish? ACKKk...very dissappointed. The guitar plays fine...but the reason I paid for the USA model was so that I could get a well made instrument.. I guess someone had to get the one where the luthier was in an "well, its good enuff" mood.

Does the warranty cover this? Or should I just return it? I'm not that picky of a person, but this BASIC stuff - leaking glue?? binding disjointed?? was too much for me on a guitar at this price point.

And don't bother GTWGITS.

[Newc]

This thread is worthless anyway, pics or not. I've seen the type of "issue" he's trying to describe, and it's Olympic-standard nitpicking. I mean if there was an Olympic Nitpicking event, this type of thing would guarantee a Gold.

Seriously, for only $2K you're crying about something that has no effect on tone, sustain, playability, or the structural integrity? Seriously?

[Fender]

Some people like to polish their guitars. I don't get it lol. I used to, but back then i could barely play so what else could i focused on. If i could choose been a scratched up SL1 for 1400$ instead of a 2000$ mint SL1, i will go with the scratched up one. I wont care about the nicks, all i care about is the neck , fret board, bridge and pick ups! A guitar that looks good, won't make it through the album. A guitar that plays and sounds good will definately be heard on a record.

But then again, we're all different. I agree that 2000$ is alot. If it were me, i'd just ask to be partially refunded. Cause you didn't get what you were supposed to for 2k, but maybe for 16-or 17k would be more like. either way,Someone is just going to pay less for it and get a still very capable guitar that just happens to have a small flaw.

[MakeAJazzNoiseHere]

People care about cosmetics. People care about quality assembly and matching joints.

Now, if it's "a little off" it's one thing. Most stuff if I don't have to get my glasses out to see it, it's sloppy IMO. If I put my reading glasses on and get 4" away from it, everything's a piece of shit, including the stuff I put together.

That's why we wanna see pics.

[MakeAJazzNoiseHere]

Some people like to polish their guitars. I don't get it lol. I used to, but back then i could barely play so what else could i focused on. If i could choose been a scratched up SL1 for 1400$ instead of a 2000$ mint SL1, i will go with the scratched up one. I wont care about the nicks, all i care about is the neck , fret board, bridge and pick ups! A guitar that looks good, won't make it through the album. A guitar that plays and sounds good will definately be heard on a record.

You act like these things are mutually exclusive... A guitar that plays, sounds AND looks good is one you will keep for life. You can actually "have it all."

[Fender]

But i dont care about it looking good. I abuse my gear . I'm not a pansy. The only nice guitar i have is an 05' Fender American Standard Stratocaster that my father gave me when i graduated high school. Other than that, i got rid of all my clean looking guitars. Why? i never played em', i was always trying not to scratch them. I don't like playing like a pansy. Thats why i don't cuddle after sex. I put my pants on, leave 5$ on the pillow and leave

[MakeAJazzNoiseHere]

You sound like a dickhead. Your opinion is void.

I get scratches on my guitars, I get scratches. I don't beat the shit out of them on purpose or not care if they're not carefully put together when I get them just because they might get a scratch.

You let the salesman put a couple of door dings in your Camaro before you buy it? Just to save you the trouble of getting over it? Good for you. You're a special snowflake who doesn't care about anything.

[Anatar]

If one person buys a $2000 model that is 99% flawless, I don't see the reasoning behind assuming someone who pays the same $2000 and gets that same model obviously flawed (cosmetically or otherwise) deserves any derision from the people on this board for being honest about it and wanting a return. What, has brand loyalty clouded people's minds? Pics would certainly help us better understand what we're talking about here, but assuming the original poster isn't a troll then I see no point in ragging on him/her. $2000 is a lot of money for some people, myself included, so to infer that you get what you pay for if you're only paying 2k is a bunch of shit, and everyone knows it.

I'll probably get hammered for stating as much, but come on.

[Musician78]

I agree. If I buy it brand new I want it flawless. I would be annoyed as well. Probably more than annoyed.

[MakeAJazzNoiseHere]

Yeah, but it's cool to be indifferent to what your guitar looks like. It shows that you know how to play, not just polish your guitar and stuff.

[Musician78]

I absolutely agree and in fact sort of wish I was like that. Life would be a hell of a lot less stressful. But Im not. Not even close.

[Fender]

I might be a dick, but you're a pussy. Pussies hate dicks, because pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck Assholes! If dicks didn't fuck assholes once in a while, you'd get your dick and your pussy all covered in SHIT mwahaha... but seriously though...

You're comparing a 2000$ guitar to a 40 000$ sports car? You do see the difference between a fancy sports car and a guitar right? Does anyone take you seriously lol? I was just messin' around with you anyways dude. I agree, in a way. You just have to admit some lucky sucker will get a nice axe for a lower price. He'll be posting about it here, might mention the issues and everyone will say ''hey nice guitar dude''....

Oh well, different strokes for different folks.

[MakeAJazzNoiseHere]

Nah, I'm not serious. It's just what certain people would like you to believe, that if you care what the guitar looks like then it means something negative about you, because you're supposed to be a guitar PLAYER not a guitar LOOKER.

IMO, you can not care what your guitar plays like, and just look at it. Or you can not care what your guitar looks like, and just play it. Or, you can do both. It's not so black and white.

To the OP:

You paid money for a Jackson guitar, which is supposed to have legendary tone and playability AND fit and finish. If you are not happy with it, THEN WORK WITH YOUR DEALER, and make sure that Jackson knows why you are returning the guitar.

Accepting half-assed shit with glue dripping out of joints and then painted over isn't helping anyone.