1986 San Dimas #1268 is here {pics}

[Dave L]

Re: 1986 San Dimas #1268 is here {pics}

That´s one beautiful no-frills rockmachine! Congrats on a sweet score! It looks brand-new...talk about taking good care of a piece of gear.

Me want so bad! [img]graemlins/drool2.gif[/img]

[mr426]

Re: 1986 San Dimas #1268 is here {pics}

Hey hey. Very cool. i wonder if they did allot of guitars that way that year? I have #1251 and it is very similer. Strat with 1 hum, ebony board, dot inlays and well a trem. Although it's a Khaler.
LATER!!!

[Mr Graphic]

Re: 1986 San Dimas #1268 is here {pics}

It's absolutely NOT a refin.

[Chuckracer]

Re: 1986 San Dimas #1268 is here {pics}

I stand corrected on the trem posts, thank you gentelmen.

Shawn, the point would be that if the guitar came with a JT6, it aint a San Dimas.

If those posts are legit, and it seems they are by concensus, then the only thing left I question is the S/N vs W/O numbers and the date in the cavity vs. the S/N.
It's been generally accepted that the last San Dimas guitar was a bolt on Jackson with the S/N 1505, a long ways after this one which was alledgedly made in December '86.

That means either the S/N is wrong (swapped plate), or the writing in the cavity is bogus. Neither explains the huge span in numbers between the W/O number and the S/N.

Guys, I just find this interesting from an historical standpoint. I'm sure its a killer guitar and at the end of the day, thats the bottom line.

[Mr Graphic]

Re: 1986 San Dimas #1268 is here {pics}

As you can see...the work order # in the trem. cavity is "under" the "100% original Candy Apple Red "finish. As far as the neck pocket/neck heel markings/#'s...they look perfectly authentic to me.

[Jim Shine]

Re: 1986 San Dimas #1268 is here {pics}

According to the Jackson serial number chart, 1001-1505 are the bolt on serial numbers for all of 1986. Perhaps the theory of 1505 being the last San Dimas neckplate number is based on the idea that all 1986 guitars are San Dimas made?

[jonsgon]

Re: 1986 San Dimas #1268 is here {pics}

this might help, if thats an original floyd from that time period it will be very thin on the sides as opposed to the newer one which are much thicker.
the metallic black w/skull graphic jackson dinky that i had, serial #2430 had this very floyd on it.
hope this help.....by the way very nice looking guitar you have there

jon

[ October 24, 2003, 05:35 PM: Message edited by: jonsgon ]

[Mr Graphic]

Re: 1986 San Dimas #1268 is here {pics}

Here's a close-up...

[Chuckracer]

Re: 1986 San Dimas #1268 is here {pics}

Hmm...somethings not right here.

9488 is one hell of a high W/O number for that low a serial number. Out of all the ones I've had, I don't think I ever saw a work order number past the 7000 area, and that would include late '89s. The work order numbers generally followed the serial numbers with W/O numbers being a couple thousand ahead.

Why would it have a Floyd, yet have JT6 style studs?

On the same track, if it had a JT6, it would have the behind-the-nut string lock, not a Floyd nut.

Further more, if it had a JT6 (I keep going there because of the studs), it would have an Ontario cavity.

If it's an original Floyd guitar and someone simply changed the studs at some point and happened to use JT6 studs, that still dosen't explain the super high W/O and low S/N.

Something smells fishy in Denmark to me. I think it's a parts guitar at best.

[Top Jimmy B]

Re: 1986 San Dimas #1268 is here {pics}

[img]graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]
That's called raining on yer parade.
Sweet guitar - congrats.

[charvel750]

Re: 1986 San Dimas #1268 is here {pics}

Actually, Chuck, those are the period correct studs for Floyds. The original Jacksons used those larger studs (some were the old screw in and some were threaded) even with the Floyd trems. I have three San Dimas Soloists with the large studs but Floyds and Floyd nuts. Of course not all from that time were like that, the stripped down "natural" SD Soloist that you once owned had normal sized posts, but not all did. I am not up on my WO vs. SN knowledge, but I'll take your word for it.

[charvel750]

Re: 1986 San Dimas #1268 is here {pics}

But, one other thing is weird, the hand written date in the neck pocket is 12-12-86. No one has (to my knowledge) provided a definite date as to the move from SD to Ontario. We know by 1987 they were in Ontario. But when in 1986 were they there? I was under the impression that by the later quarter of 1986 the move had been made. Someone help me on that...

[Shawn Lutz]

Re: 1986 San Dimas #1268 is here {pics}

First off....Very sweet guitar.

I have never seen the studs like that used with an OFR from the factory. They look to be identical to the JT-6. I had replaced a few JT-6's before, including my Jackson SD Plated #2280 and left the JT-6 bushings and posts and just dropped the Original Floyd in there. imho that is what it looks like to me..sombody replaced the JT with a real Floyd...who cares...still a very nice guitar.

[shreddermon]

Re: 1986 San Dimas #1268 is here {pics}



See the above. Not the greatest pic to see them by, but those posts are absolutely original and period-correct for a late San Dimas / early Ontario Floyd'd guitar.

C750, I believe you are correct about the timing of the move to Ontario. Although I've heard several different dates, the general consensus seems to be somewhere around late summer (August) to 4thQ. I'd suspect that's really an Ontario guitar with a SD plate.

But who cares, it's damn cool. I wonder about the finish, though. Seems almost too clean. Maybe a refin? Congrats either way. A cool axe all around.

[jonsgon]

Re: 1986 San Dimas #1268 is here {pics}

well i'm not 100% positive but that trem looks like the newer ones, the one that was on my skull dinky was half that thick, whish i still had it to take a pic to show you
still a sweet score

jon