San Dimas vs Ontario

[Alissarr]

Any reason people tend to prefer the San Dimas shop over when they moved everything to Ontario?

[neilli]

Mystique. And when they moved to Ontario they introduced the JT6 bridge and string lock, the larger rear rout and oversize humbuckers..

[xenophobe]

I like earlier SD guitars but I never really liked many 85-86 guitars. I also really hated that thick poly coat or whatever they used to use. A couple years after the move to Ontario, late 87-88ish when all of their production just seemed to be getting better and better, and by 89 they were just doing something really right. 88+ is when bolt-ons just seemed to start peaking... and I really like the 93-97ish neck thru customs, those were kind of peak years before QC issues started getting bad. I know Axe and a few others would agree with me about the bolt ons though.

[shreddermon]

Pretty much agree with Neilli on this. To expand on it a little, the San Dimas years are all great. There are individual dogs in any era, though. I'm not a fan of the early Ontario years, but mostly because of the hardware used then - JT6 trems and Jackson PUs. OK stuff, but original Floyds and Duncans are better. IMHO the mid-to-late 90s Ontario guitars were a peak for quality wood, figuring, and finishes. If you're a fan of cool trans-tops and tone woods, Jackson and Charvel were hitting some home runs during these years. PC1s, the Charvel San Dumas series, original DK1s, KE2Ts, the SLATs, and pretty much any custom shop guitars from then. Some of them put PRSs to shame.

[Alissarr]

I have at least 1 Ontario that is a killer. My only SD is a student soloist and it rips, but it's just not the same. Any of the real early stuff I come across has Kahler and I decided I would never buy another one with that bridge system.

[Axewielder]

I like earlier SD guitars but I never really liked many 85-86 guitars. I also really hated that thick poly coat or whatever they used to use. A couple years after the move to Ontario, late 87-88ish when all of their production just seemed to be getting better and better, and by 89 they were just doing something really right. 88+ is when bolt-ons just seemed to start peaking... and I really like the 93-97ish neck thru customs, those were kind of peak years before QC issues started getting bad. I know Axe and a few others would agree with me about the bolt ons though.

I do agree. I have a couple of 86 strats that are titans, but the ones that have absolutely flawless build construction and really stand out tend to be the 87's or 88's.

[bombtek]

The only thing I disagree with in this discussion is the comment that Duncan pickups are better than those old in house made Jackson USA pickups. Those are some of the best metal pickups ever produced IMO.

[DanzoStrife]

Which ones? j50, J80? j90?
I might of had broken J50s but they were very low output compared to when i changed to a Seymour. But the wiring could have been already old and decayed.
Well, whatever was in that Kelly Performer sounded paper thin.

The only thing I disagree with in this discussion is the comment that Duncan pickups are better than those old in house made Jackson USA pickups. Those are some of the best metal pickups ever produced IMO.

[x_zac10]

I do agree. I have a couple of 86 strats that are titans, but the ones that have absolutely flawless build construction and really stand out tend to be the 87's or 88's.

My '87 is phenomenal. I consider selling it occasionally just since I don't play it a ton (because I don't love bolt-ons and their heels), but then I think about how little I'd get for it in comparison to how good it is, and figure it's worth just having to have.

[bombtek]

J80, J90, and J95 are my favorites
J50 is AWESOME when used in conjunction with the Jackson active circuitry (nomenclature escapes me), but does sound thin without it.

[Alissarr]

My '87 is phenomenal. I consider selling it occasionally just since I don't play it a ton (because I don't love bolt-ons and their heels), but then I think about how little I'd get for it in comparison to how good it is, and figure it's worth just having to have.

I also have a really hard time parting with any of my US stuff. Got about 4 of em I just don't play enough to keep but at the same time the cash wouldn't make up for how fantastic they play. In particular my 1984 student soloist rips, but it has the kahler and no fins so it is less appealing as an everyday guitar.

[j2379]

for me I wanted them as a kid & couldn't afford them. I like the Ontario ones as long as its pre recessed floyd...thats all preference. Still great guitars.

[pianoguyy]

I really like the 86-89 era guitars.

But, why do people sell the idea of San Dimas over Ontario - the same reason they sell the idea of pre-Fender. It is nothing more than a sale's pitch.
Sure, there has been design changes through the years. But those are a matter of personal preference more than build issues.

[len]

I just like the smaller cavity covers on San Dimas era guitars.

[j2379]

yep, that why i don't mind the early ontario's w the non recessed floyds. after years of playing & learning on those guitars, recessed trems the strings just feel so close to the body its weird....same reason why i don't like fender hardtails.

I really like the 86-89 era guitars.

But, why do people sell the idea of San Dimas over Ontario - the same reason they sell the idea of pre-Fender. It is nothing more than a sale's pitch.
Sure, there has been design changes through the years. But those are a matter of personal preference more than build issues.