Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Strange Soloist - only 400made?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Strange Soloist - only 400made?

    [ QUOTE ]
    [ QUOTE ]
    Serial number starting with J = MIJ.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    ?!?!? [img]/images/graemlins/brow.gif[/img]

    [/ QUOTE ]
    Well this is correct for an import neck-thru, isn't it? The japanese Charvel neck-thrus started with a "C" and then 6 digits. I have two of these, so that much is clear. I thought the same was true for the japanese Jackson neck-thrus, only "J" + six digits? Someone remind me here.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Strange Soloist - only 400made?

      J + 4 digits for an '80s era USA Soloist

      J + 6 digits for an import

      He hasn't said how many digits, but I'm still willing to bet it's a student model, because it wouldn't make much sense to get rid of the 5-way & put in 3 mini-toggles or to replace just about any trem with a JT-6.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Strange Soloist - only 400made?

        It´s not worth anywhere near 2000 Euros, I can tell you that much right away.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Strange Soloist - only 400made?

          Ahh, i missed the fact it has three mini switches... Can't be Japanese then, unless like Newc said, it's a model 5 with a Jackson logo [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Strange Soloist - only 400made?

            [ QUOTE ]
            JT-6 date it to before Japan production

            [/ QUOTE ]

            The use of the JT-6 dates to somewhere around a year after Charvels started production in Japan. During 87-89 the JT-6 was used on both Japanese Charvels and US built Jackson guitars.
            The 2nd Amendment: America's Original Homeland Defense.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Strange Soloist - only 400made?

              You are absolutely right, but I figured we were talking about Jacksons. Can't assume anything though, so I should've added "of Jacksons" there.

              Comment

              Working...
              X