Need some Jackson USA soloist advice please!

[Acapulco Gold]

pics are up few posts above

[neilli]

Try one of the facebook groups.

..

[Number Of The Priest]

OK, your photos finally appeared in Post #7 above. I can see two photos of the 1986 San Dimas Soloist Custom. That is VERY nice. I can't recall the last time I've seen a Floyd-equipped 2-hum San Dimas with the modern control layout (1 volume, 3 way switch, 1 tone) far away from the bridge like on a DK1. I can see why you assumed it was an "SL2H" because it does resemble one in many respects. Wow. It's practically an SL2H with a non-recessed Floyd and far-away DK1 controls. I love this a LOT.

Unfortunately the photos of the 1997 SL1 aren't working.

Still waiting to see photos of the 1990 Ontario Soloist.

I don't blame you for relying on the forum itself for hosting your photos, but when you have a time-sensitive issue such as these three guitars on which you needed to make a decision that night, sometimes you need to take matters into your own hands; in this case, the matter was to find an alternative way to host the photos. Like I mentioned in my instructional post above, there are some hosts that don't require registration. The https://imgbb.com/ host I provided simply allows you to upload directly, and then copy the link to this forum. Two quick clicks that you could easily do while you were working, that would have taken less time than posting about waiting for our moderation team to approve your photos here. You would have received quicker answers from us because we were very eager to help you score a great time-sensitive deal.

[Acapulco Gold]

Thank you. The 1997 SL1 pics are working for me, maybe it's because they're from my inbox but I have already made a decision for the 1986. It's rare and I feel I would play better on a non-recessed tremolo as I do rest my hand over there, and had some issues with strats and floating bridges. In addition, I already have a spare JB like the 1997 SL1 has and the 1986 has EMG's, which I technically don't like but I have never tried them and I do like Metallica's and Zakk's sound. If I don't like it I can always pop in the spare JB. Also, being a 1986, from the middle of the heavy metal hey-days seems special. Serial number is low 2000's. Here is what the seller said about it:

This is a wonderful guitar, made in the San Dimas Charvel / Jackson factory in early 1986.

Seriously. It's lovely.

Now we've established that, we'll move on.

This was made shortly before the San Dimas factory was moved to Ontario, so is a proper, old-scholl San Dimas build. It has a factory-installed Floyd Rose trem (with an old-school screw-in arm), which is mounted on large hex-nuts, which gives away its age, as does the vintage-style 'TM' waterslide logo, with the 'Made in USA' below the 'Jackson' script, not after it. The nerds amongst you should pull up a picture of a modern one (now called the SL-2H) ... there are differences. The control cavity is the correct old San Dimas shape (new ones have the now standard big-assed control cavity), but the fingerboard binding has no 'nibs', which would have dated it a little earlier.

It is fitted with EMG pickups (81 & 85, thought to be factory-installed). Which scream. Like a stabbed pig. Which, just so we understand each other, is a good thing. It also came with a bee-yooo-tiful ebony fretboard ... as dense as I've ever seen and as black as night. Its very hard to come by ebony this good these days. But to be fair, its very hard to come by a GUITAR this good these days.

There are no modifications, as far as I can tell, except for the requisite strap-locks. Everything else is bone stock 1986. Most soloists from back then had Kahler trems by the way, which are ok (I've got lots of those around here), but the factory Floyd install makes this a little bit special. Also, the Floyd isn't recessed into the body, but floats over the top like a proper old-school Charvel should.

A beautiful guitar from the halcyon days of guitar building, which came shipped from the States in its original case. Its bloody heavy, by the way. As far as tone, some would say that its robbed of some clean ability by the EMG's but ... you know what ... I can't imagine ever needing to get a really nice clean sound out of this. If you want to play jazz, I'm guessing that you're not going to want to play this. It was built to do quite a particular job. And it does it very nicely.

[Mudlark]

Crap, I can't see them.

[neilli]

What's the serial number of the 86?

[Acapulco Gold]

not exactly sure yet but it's around 2120

[Number Of The Priest]

Thank you. The 1997 SL1 pics are working for me, maybe it's because they're from my inbox

There is the culprit. Inboxed images cannot be hotlinked, unfortunately, hence the need for a third-party host (which you insisted be this forum, but which I recommended be www.Imgur.com or www.ImgBB.com).

I have already made a decision for the 1986.

Congratulations. That 1986 looks to be in quite good shape from the two photos you shared and from the seller's description, so if true, then yes I can see why you are deciding to buy it. Looking forward to a review and photos after you take possession.

If the other two guitars are in similar or better condition, assuming no other issues, I would also consider buying them. Those are "Deal Alert" prices for North America; those would be "Hot Deal Alert" prices for your local UK market, given everything is generally more expensive in the UK. Though not uncommon by any means, they're not exactly abundantly found at those low prices in North America, so I can imagine that kind of pricing being even rarer in the UK.

Mudlark, try these photos, which I re-linked slightly (tweaked the URLs to hopefully display the true images):

[Acapulco Gold]

The 1990 I kinda passed on for now as i see it has jackson pickups and a jackson branded trem. The color is weird, black to blue, but not burst form, horns and neck are blue and the bottom of the body turns to black. It's got some dings and cracks in the finish which is why the low price.
The 1997 SL1 is in some dark burgundy color, it looks nice but I'd prefer even more red, in the end I decided to go with the 1986 but I am considering getting the other one after Christmas

[Mossezhoffen]

Congrats! I think you made the right choice. I think I've seen the same specs only on Soloists made for Doug Aldrich and even
they had a kahler. Well one had a floyd but that was Ontario SL2H. Really cool! Most SD Soloists were SL1 HSS and with a kahler.

[neilli]

Good choice - the 86 is definitely what I'd have picked, and it looks like a great example. Don't see many 2 hums with factory floyds..

[Mudlark]

Yip, I concur with neilli.

[DonP]

I would have got the 86 as well.

[Acapulco Gold]

I finally got it and it's great! Easy to play, not as heavy as I thought and the pickups are pretty good. No complaints anywhere. Some of the finish has got imperfections, like dots, you can feel but it doesn't get in the way of playing. There was no battery when I got it and plugged it in but there was still some weak sound, replaced the battery and pickups came to life! Serial number is 2125 and a factory Floyd with double EMG's would have certainly been a cool guitar back in 1986 and it's still cool today

I will now need to learn how to replace strings on Floyds as these feel a bit sticky. It was pretty much in tune, had to adjust to low E but it's been in tune since then. One question - if I want to tune to E flat, can I just use the fine tuners for that? Want to jam to some Metallica with these EMGs!

I'll give if a few more days, but I don't see anything I don't like in this guitar and am really glad I got it. But now I want the other 1997 as well!

[Number Of The Priest]

Congratulations!

There are dozens of great tutorial videos on Youtube that cover Floyd Rose tuning and setup topics. Basically the understanding that, if the Floyd is fully-floating (ie - not encumbered by a block or blocking device in the tremolo cavity that impedes movement in either direction), there is a "tug of war" that needs to be balanced. This war is between string tension (exerted by your six strings) and spring tension (exerted by the tremolo springs in the tremolo cavity).

When you tune down to E-flat, the strings will slacken, resulting in the springs "winning" the tug of war. The springs will pull the bridge down toward the body. To counter this and re-level the bridge, you will need to decrease the spring tension by slightly loosening the screws holding the tremolo claw in the tremolo cavity. Then attempt to tune to E-flat again. And repeat these steps until the tug of war is balanced, with the bridge leveled out.

"Leveled out" on a guitar with a recessed trem and zero neck angle means the baseplate is parallel with the body; "leveled out" on a guitar with a high-perched trem and a 4-degree neck angle like I suspect exists on your guitar, to me as an owner of such a guitar myself, also means the baseplate should be parallel with the body. I've seen photos where owners of such guitars have the bridge parallel with the strings (and thus angled 4-degrees up off the body) but I prefer to have the tremolo knife edges perpendicular with the tremolo posts, which by extension means the tremolo is parallel with the body. I don't want my knife edges resting at an angle to my trem posts. So, my simple rule is, tremolo should always be parallel to the body.

The repetition of cycles is where new Floyd owners bemoan that the Floyd is difficult to tune and very time consuming. I can see why it's intimidating or tedious at first. It's straightforward once the understanding is there.