San Dimas Jacksons - What will be most collectible?

[jacksonluvr]

I've owned and played em all.. NO difference between the necks on pointy Charvels and pointy Jackson bolt necks through '89.

About the only differences are the hardware changes through the years.

As for the body changes, the larger route and the half-rear route for the JT-6 in the late 80's is about the only significant changes from a '83 Charvel pointy to an'89 pointy Jackson strat.

For the player, the way to go is a later Jackson.

For the collector the mystique and endorser connection of the Charvel name is the way to go.

At the end of the day, you had most of the same employees doing what they did in both Glendora and Ontario. There is no magic pixie dust in the air at the Glendora plant. The smart money for the average player looking to get "that feel" of a pointy San Dimas Charvel is to buy the USA Jackson strats of the late 80's. THe tooling and feel is identical. Only foolish collectors will tell you a San Dimas Charvel pointy neck is better than a USA Pointy Jackson neck.

[xenophobe]

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.

If you wanted a Floyd, you would have to spec a Floyd as a "customer supplied trem", if I recall correctly.

At the end of the day, you had most of the same employees doing what they did in both Glendora and Ontario. There is no magic pixie dust in the air at the Glendora plant. The smart money for the average player looking to get "that feel" of a pointy San Dimas Charvel is to buy the USA Jackson strats of the late 80's. THe tooling and feel is identical. Only foolish collectors will tell you a San Dimas Charvel pointy neck is better than a USA Pointy Jackson neck.

It's not that there was any "magic pixie dust". It's just that Glendora guitars weren't bad, but the late 80's Ontario guitars just felt like they did something more right than they had earlier. I've found far more Glendora guitars that were duds. The paint also seemed to change sometime in 86 as well. They went from thick hard clear coats that every 85-86 SD Charvel that I've owned and played has to much thinner coats. They also went from producing mostly full strat sized bodies to dinky bodies during this time period.

[jacksonluvr]

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.

I don't get the whole Charvel over te Jackson strats either.. I say save yourself a TON of money and buy a post '86 strat.

[xenophobe]

I don't get the whole Charvel over te Jackson strats either.. I say save yourself a TON of money and buy a post '86 strat.

I owned a few 85-86 SD pointy Charvels and played a bunch more. I don't see what the fuss is about... I prefer a Floyded Ontario Jackson any day.

[Axewielder]

I think using the work "stigma" to describe Ontario Jacksons is a bit strong. They did ramp up production quite a bit, and made a TON of strats starting in 1987. So, if anything, I think it is more a matter of bragging rights around having the Glendora models. But they are all fantastic. That being said, I think they slowly improved the strats over time and really perfected them when they came out with the JT590.

[shreddermon]

I understand some of you guys have an appreciation for the post SD / early Ontario-era guitars, and that's totally cool. They're very good guitars and, ultimately, this all comes down to preferences. And preferences can be argued about all day long, but it'll never make them "fact". LOL. Any position based on personal preferences, I mean, no matter which side.

However, in this discussion, one thing is an undisputable fact: San Dimas guitars are worth more money, and desired more by collectors, than early Ontario guitars. Pick another word for it if you like. But, in terms of collectability and value, Ontario guitars are much futher down in the pecking order. That's not to say they have no worth or value. They're just worth less.

[j2379]

They also went from producing mostly full strat sized bodies to dinky bodies during this time period.

I Don't think the Dinky body was that common before 88ish. I could be wrong but I haven't seen many SD Dinkys at all, charvel or jackson. when the model 88 came out, i really don't remember seeing that many dinky jacksons, IIRC that was one of the reasons i wanted an 88, granted it was a long time ago.

[xenophobe]

I Don't think the Dinky body was that common before 88ish. I could be wrong but I haven't seen many SD Dinkys at all, charvel or jackson. when the model 88 came out, i really don't remember seeing that many dinky jacksons, IIRC that was one of the reasons i wanted an 88, granted it was a long time ago.

If my memory serves, Dinkys started showing up around 87, and by 89 most of the bolt-ons were Dinkys. Too bad the member's gallery doesn't exist anymore. You very well could be right.

[neilli]

According to my records, Jackson #1111 is a dinky as is #1420 and they're both '86

Maybe my mind is playing tricks on me, but I have a feeling that there were a few Charvel dinkys from SD, so that would mean that they were around pre 87 also.

[roodyrocker]

I never sell any of my Jacksons or Charvels but I know that if I did I would not lose money on a single one. I have guitars from various eras of production and as far as quality I see no difference in any of them. So the San Dimas era guitars are desireable to collectors but its not because of better quality or magic pixie dust. Also, of all models the Rhoads has been the flagship from day 1. It will stay that way too. PCS and LTD models are always desireable and are great guitars. The reason you don't see an LTD selling at $7500 is because you can buy a Concorde Relic for not too far off that. And the Concorde Relic will be a highly collectible piece. After all its an accurate copy of Rhoads' own and built by Mike Shannon himself. Kahlers don't bother me and if I find early guitars with factory Kahlers for decent prices, I think they will appreciate in price over time. Jackson being a company that was founded on building custom guitars makes it so there are tons of rare Jackson guitars. One thing in their favor is they never had poor quality!

[Axewielder]

I think everybody agrees that the SD stuff commands a higher resale value than the early Ontarios, with all else being equal. The question is, will you see the resale value drop off a cliff like you see with 60's pre-CBS Fenders versus 70's CBS Fenders. I'm guessing the answer will be no. The same elements are not at play there.

[xenophobe]

According to my records, Jackson #1111 is a dinky as is #1420 and they're both '86

Maybe my mind is playing tricks on me, but I have a feeling that there were a few Charvel dinkys from SD, so that would mean that they were around pre 87 also.

Yeah, I know there are a few out there... but in 86, most custom bolt-on's were Strats, but during 87 they started appearing more frequently until some time in 89 when a majority of the custom bolt-ons were Dinkys. The Fusion was introduced with a Dinky style body, but wasn't very popular. A while after they started making batch guitars, the Dinky became a production model. Did it replace the Fusion? I'm not sure. My memory is kinda foggy.

[Ward]

A while after they started making batch guitars, the Dinky became a production model. Did it replace the Fusion? I'm not sure. My memory is kinda foggy.

I wouldn't say it replaced the fusion. I'm not sure about the batches, but in 90 when they started doing the production line (serial 000001) of bolt-on guitars dinkys and fusions were both available. They continued to make production fusions along with dinkys for a few (?) years. Not sure what year they stopped the fusion, but I've got a 92.

[shreddermon]

There were Charvel Dinkys done as early as '83, maybe earlier. After all, it's basically the bolt-on version of the Soloist. And we all know Soloists were being done way back then. But, yeah, the Dinky body style didn't hit it's production / popularity swing until much later, into the Ontario era.

[xenophobe]

The Dinky and Soloist bodies are a little different though. My '89 has slightly shorter and slightly thinner horns than a Soloist. They're very similar though. Someone did an outline that showed the difference a long while back. I'm not looking for it. lol