Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

San Dimas Jacksons - What will be most collectible?

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

  • #16
    I'm fast approaching the mid-life crisis/trying to chase the dreams of my youth stage :-)
    About 10 years ago I was in a store that had a mid-70's strat going for about £500 - nice condition, pretty much all original. They were a tough sell back then and I didn't give it a second look. Likewise, they had a 80's JEM in pink going pretty cheap too. The fickle finger of fashion was not pointing kindly on these 80's rock guitars or 70's strats back then. Then last year someone tried to sell me a god-awful mid 70's strat for £3,500 as it would 'pay-off my mortgage in a few years' (yeah, right). With second-hand Jackson values depressed at the moment the plus side is that you can pick up a great player for reasonable dough - and then if it goes up, it's just a nice bonus.

    As more of the 80's Jackson models get lost/customised a clean original model could end up being desirable as time passes, especially as the new models are becoming more and more expensive.

    Comment


    • #17
      I just bought a guitar to stash away... for two purposes really. The first is because I want a pristine untouched new guitar, and hopes that once it stops production, it'll become more desirable.... it's a big risk because it's a high dollar item. The second is because if I end up starting a project with mine, I'll want to have one saved in case it's ever needed. It's not a Jackson or Charvel either. I just bought another M8M. Yes, they really are that special, and Ibanez has a pretty good track record when it comes to high end "collectibles".
      The 2nd Amendment: America's Original Homeland Defense.

      Comment


      • #18
        Any reason so many of the early Jacksons had kahlers? I'd love to own a San Dimas-era Jackson but almost every one of em I've ever seen is either Kahler or TOM. Sucks for someone like me who doesn't like kahlers...

        Comment


        • #19
          As I understand it, Kramer had an exclusive contract with Floyd Rose, so to get a Jackson with a Floyd, the customer had to buy the bridge from a store and send it in.
          Popular is not the same as good
          Rare is not the same as valuable
          Worth is what someone will pay, not what you want to get

          Comment


          • #20
            I still think the 90's transition to the select series is a bigger deal than the 86 transition from Glendora to Ontario as far as collectibility goes.
            _________________________________________________
            "Artists should be free to spend their days mastering their craft so that working people can toil away in a more beautiful world."
            - Ken M

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Axewielder View Post
              I still think the 90's transition to the select series is a bigger deal than the 86 transition from Glendora to Ontario as far as collectibility goes.

              Atleast feel and play wise +1
              I know the old saying that the value of an opinion is generally inversely proportional to the strength with which it is held.

              Comment


              • #22
                I think for me, one of the 'problems' of the move from SD to Ontario was the JT6 and associated string lock. If more Ontario guitars had Floyds top and toe, then I think there would be less of a 'transition stigma'. I also dislike the enlarged control cavity, which I just don't see the need for (after all, the current DK1 uses the SD style). On top, Ontario seems to have been where we started seeing lots more 'plain' Jacksons - rosewood / dots and so forth.
                Popular is not the same as good
                Rare is not the same as valuable
                Worth is what someone will pay, not what you want to get

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by neilli View Post
                  I think for me, one of the 'problems' of the move from SD to Ontario was the JT6 and associated string lock. If more Ontario guitars had Floyds top and toe, then I think there would be less of a 'transition stigma'. I also dislike the enlarged control cavity, which I just don't see the need for (after all, the current DK1 uses the SD style). On top, Ontario seems to have been where we started seeing lots more 'plain' Jacksons - rosewood / dots and so forth.
                  Yeah I dunno, the SD Jacksons were mostly Kahlers with some Floyds, while the early Ontarios were mostly JT6's with some Floyds. I'd have to call it a wash.
                  _________________________________________________
                  "Artists should be free to spend their days mastering their craft so that working people can toil away in a more beautiful world."
                  - Ken M

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    As far as investment, I think the SD non-kahlered stuff will be the best. The best bolt-ons they produced were post 86, IMO. As far as collectability, for some reason there's some stigma attached to Ontario.
                    The 2nd Amendment: America's Original Homeland Defense.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by xenophobe View Post
                      The best bolt-ons they produced were post 86, IMO. As far as collectability, for some reason there's some stigma attached to Ontario.
                      the Charvel guys might fight you over that statement.... funny right now all of the jacksons i own are from 86' in some way. even the 2 mutts i have, have 86' necks on them.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Seems to me like the early Ontario-era guitars will always have a stigma associated with them. It's not about their build quality, those were relatively comparable to SD-era guitars. But the stigma seems more associated with the perceived lower-quality hardware introduced to the USA guitars then. JT6 trems, in-house Jackson pickups and electronics, etc.

                        These were previously associated with the Charvel import line. At the time, it smelled of cost controlling / cheapening of the brand. Combine that with the effective loss of the Charvel brand name on USAs, and it felt like the Jackson line was getting cheesed out. Dots, no binding, and rosewood started appearing on USA Jacksons. And. - combined with the hardware and electronics changes - the perception was this looked like the brand was getting cheesed out. But the reality was these were just the "new Charvels" now with the Jackson logo, instead.

                        From a collecting value standpoint, going to be hard to overcome those long-standing perceptions. Reality or not. LOL

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          86 -89 Jackson bolt on guitars are some of the best they ever built, of course that is my opinion but the QC at that time was spot on.
                          Essentially a SD Charvel and built the same way.
                          I see these as great buys right now and you can snag them at a fair price.Just have to continually look for them.
                          My 85 soloist custom is a really outstanding guitar and I don't think the Kahler hurts the value at all its how it rolled out of the factory.
                          Floyd equipped Jacksons are a bit rarer from that time so I see your point.
                          Last edited by straycat; 10-18-2012, 02:07 AM.
                          Really? well screw Mark Twain.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by j2379 View Post
                            the Charvel guys might fight you over that statement.... funny right now all of the jacksons i own are from 86' in some way. even the 2 mutts i have, have 86' necks on them.
                            Yeah, of course the Charvel guys would fight over those words. Then there are the guys that only worship pre-pros or 5 digit plates. Those guitars really don't do much for me. I can appreciate them for what they are, they're just not for me.

                            I still think 87-89 is the peak of bolt-on production. Things changed when they introduced USA Selects. I also think the neck-thrus peaked in the early to mid 90's.

                            I know there aren't many of us, but I know I'm certainly not alone believing this. This is just my experience owning 60-70 C/Js over the years, certainly not as many as a lot of people here, but from my experiences owning a fair share of Jacksons, I know I can pick up a late 80's bolt-on or mid 90's neck-thru, and those are the eras that just do it for me and seem to have the least issues.
                            The 2nd Amendment: America's Original Homeland Defense.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              I have had my share of them too xeno and I have to agree.
                              Really? well screw Mark Twain.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by neilli View Post
                                As I understand it, Kramer had an exclusive contract with Floyd Rose, so to get a Jackson with a Floyd, the customer had to buy the bridge from a store and send it in.
                                That, or Grover Jackson himself went and scrounged up a Floyd off of a Kramer (I think he had some kind of "arrangement" with Guitar Center about that). Obviously, that was during the SD period. I assume Jackson later bought OFRs at full consumer cost during the Ontario period, when Jackson production ramped up significantly. The Kramer deal meant that Jackson couldn't get Floyds at OEM prices, but they could obviously buy them at retail just like anyone else.

                                Originally posted by neilli View Post
                                I think for me, one of the 'problems' of the move from SD to Ontario was the JT6 and associated string lock. If more Ontario guitars had Floyds top and toe, then I think there would be less of a 'transition stigma'. I also dislike the enlarged control cavity, which I just don't see the need for (after all, the current DK1 uses the SD style). On top, Ontario seems to have been where we started seeing lots more 'plain' Jacksons - rosewood / dots and so forth.
                                At least on Soloists, I've noticed more variation in quality control on the early Ontario guitars. They also cheapened things beyond just using the JT6. For example: the body contours became less sharply and uniformly cut, the control cavity went from a brass base plate to a few pieces of copper tape, and they stopped doing Gibson-style binding "nibs" except for special orders. The reality is that they were a victim of success--the number of orders outstripped their ability to build guitars at the original level of quality. Also, I suspect there must have been pressure to nickle and dime things, since Jackson had become an established brand.

                                That only lasted a couple years, though. By 1989, it seems like Jackson got their ship righted, and I consider the 1989 Soloists (non-recessed Schallers w/pull up routs, huge frets, better quality control) to be the best guitars that Jackson ever produced. For my tastes, Jackson ruined the formula the very next year by recessing the Floyds and getting rid of the neck angle. Those '89 Soloists are awesome.
                                Last edited by pro-fusion; 10-20-2012, 10:48 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X