Why will no one give this a home?

[Gartron]

I have a question fellas, this JJ has been on e-bay for donkeys, seems to me incredibly cheap for a U.S. Jackson.

I like it ,it's been on my watch list forever .. but as one of the worlds biggest tyre kickers that's where it will stay.

is there something fishy about it that i'm missing, or is it just a guitar with a very "selective" appeal?

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/American-USA-JAckson-JJ-1-Scott-Ian-signature-guitar-Serial-0009JJW-/111228602557?pt=Guitar&hash=item19e5bdc8bd

[j2379]

yep selective appeal, and the fact its an early pointy not the 3 on3 which is the more common JJ.

[straycat]

Its been there a long time.Logo is pearl too.

[etepbbb]

Pretty limited interest in JJ's, other then the JCF. I am not crazy about them, and I would guess others are not either. Also, look what he has for sale on Ebay, he tends to have very high asking prices. I know that one was about $200 higher previously. He offered it to me as a trade sometime ago through a CL post, like I said, not my cup of tea. He did have a Soloist XL, but was asking $1000. Again great guitar, just asking more then the market would bear.

[Axewielder]

I have a question fellas, this JJ has been on e-bay for donkeys, seems to me incredibly cheap for a U.S. Jackson.

I think "Donkey" is the key word here. Ee-aww!

donkey-300x225.jpg

[DK2M92]

I always see it but just does nothing for me. Not a huge fan of JJs personally.

[straycat]

JJ's are great players I guess kind of a love hate thing.
They aren't your normal Jacksons but this one I would say the neck profile is closer to a normal Jackson profile.
Most of the ones I've had had a beefy neck.

[leftykingv2]

I would buy it if I was right handed. It's a USA made guitar for a dirt cheap price. Like I've said a thousand times before looks come third for me on all guitars. Playability and tone come first and second always. It looks legit to me but I am no expert on JJ's. One thing I'll tell you though is if it's good enough for Scott Ian it's good enough for me.

[Newc]

Needs a Floyd.

[markD]

I like the JJ with the 3+3 headstock - NOT the 6 inline pointy. that kills this one for me.

[rattlehead74]

My opinion, it's an ugly guitar. Like those Washburns he was playing but different strokes for different folks.

[Gartron]

Thanks guys some interesting points, just goes to show one mans treasure..

I prefer the pointy look on this one rather than the 3 a side (and I hate the logo on the 3 a side as well) , to me it looks a solid , fun guitar for no money..if I wasn't tighter than two coats of paint I would happily give it a home!

[PallarAndersVisa]

1. It's ugly. That's subjective of course
2. Even the nicer looking JJs don't go for that much. I bought a USA JJ-2 Scott Ian sig (dice, flames, correct headstock) for $350. It was hard enough to get rid of.

Other than Jackson guitar freaks, I doubt anyone would buy this thing for that kind of money. Sucks, its a USA model and probably feels great, but people would rather spend 6-700 bucks on a dumb ass Les Paul Studio.

[DonP]

Looks too much like a late 50s / early 60s double cutaway LP special. Never like these double cutaways, they always seem to have neck to body joint issues. SGs fixed this by adding a little more meat.

[dvscool]

its just fugly...but I bet plays cool. Someone should scoop it up just for the fact that its a USA Jackson!!