Why was the AT-1 so unsuccessful?

[jimchen]

I've owned my AT-1 since 1996, and it's one of my go-to guitars. I've never really understood its lack of popularity. It's a Jackson USA, made in the same shop as the custom shop guitars. It has Sperzal locking tuners, a great Wilkenson tremelo, flamed maple top, ebony fretboard and a rock maple neck. Top quality workmanship. AND GREAT TONE!!!!

Yet on the used market, it gets no love. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[jgcable]

Re: Why was the AT-1 so unsuccessful?

I love the AT-1 but my guess is:
It was heavy.
People didn't like the chrome covered Armstrong pickups.
The Wilkenson trem was good for vibrato but it wouldn't stay in tune for heavy whammy action
The headstock was not typical Jackson.
It wasn't that much cheaper than the PRS guitars it was copying when it came out.
People thought of it as a copy of a PRS CE series.

Great guitar BTW... I love em.

[npacheco]

Re: Why was the AT-1 so unsuccessful?

Because people are stupid and don't realize what a great guitar archtops are...look what happened to the SLATQH [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

[DenimBrigade]

Re: Why was the AT-1 so unsuccessful?

I think maybe because it was a little different. Its not exactly a metal looking guitar, so that turns off alot of potential buyers. It also had a different headstock and body shape. Both the AT-1 and the SLATQH were discontinued, so maybe the arch-tops were not something people wanted, although I love the SLATQH.

Maybe some others can chime in here with their thoughts.

[jcm800x]

Re: Why was the AT-1 so unsuccessful?

AT-1 is a very nice guitar, headstock turned me off and the slatqh is beyond what I want to spend.

[Inazone]

Re: Why was the AT-1 so unsuccessful?

I'm guessing it just didn't "scream" Jackson. Most people looking to spend that kind of money are expecting the trademark Jackson features: thin neck, sharkfin inlays, hot pickups and a Floyd.

I bought a then-new AT2T Pro, which was the Japanese version with a rosewood/dot fretboard and wrap-around Wilkinson TOM bridge. I loved the headstock shape, and to this day, that Armstrong neck pickup had the best clean tone I've ever heard out of a humbucker. I even spent the cash for some nice abalone inlays. Unfortunately, I developed a great dislike of TOM bridges and sold it to a friend, which I often regret.

[sambencuda]

Re: Why was the AT-1 so unsuccessful?

The AT? My guess is that the headstock and covered pickups killed it for most Jackson players

As far as the SLATQH goes, It was never a full blown production model. It was always a limited production even though it's listed with the USA select series on the website. I can't remember how many they made a year, but I guess in the end, they just decided to end it. I'm mot sure if I would call it unsuccessful though. I bought a brand new one in 2004 and it was only a few hundred more than an SL1, SL1T, SL2H and SL2HT. It was a no brainer for me.

[jimchen]

Re: Why was the AT-1 so unsuccessful?

[ QUOTE ]

People didn't like the chrome covered Armstrong pickups.

It wasn't that much cheaper than the PRS guitars it was copying when it came out.
People thought of it as a copy of a PRS CE series.

Great guitar BTW... I love em.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree about the Armstrong pickups. I ended up replacing the Armstrongs with....drum roll please....PRS Vintage Bass/HFS pickups. And guess what, it sounds just like a PRS CE!!! [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[jimjones]

Re: Why was the AT-1 so unsuccessful?

It wasnt a Metal guitar.
Simple as that.

[paulbag]

Re: Why was the AT-1 so unsuccessful?

Now my Death Angel, thats a fuckin' arch top. I love arch tops, but just pointy ones. Eventually I want to build a small army of them.

[jacksonaxes]

Re: Why was the AT-1 so unsuccessful?

Somebody post a pic of these, I think I have the jap version AT-2 3 on a side pointyhead, two hums, mine just has chrome pickup rings, les paul style toggle, and wilkinson trem, archtopped, with a big butt, and little horns, just a little ugly, is that it?

[Inazone]

Re: Why was the AT-1 so unsuccessful?

Sounds about right.

Although the "big butt, and little horns, just a little ugly" sounds like my mother-in-law.

[pebber]

Re: Why was the AT-1 so unsuccessful?

|__ [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] ..2nd time today..

someone requested the pic, here's the catalog page:

[Zerberus]

Re: Why was the AT-1 so unsuccessful?

I loved mine and was really hurt when I had to sell it.... AT-1s rock.

[Flatpicker]

Re: Why was the AT-1 so unsuccessful?

Those are nice. Never seen one before.
I kind os wish they would bring it back, but then again the SLS didn't sell either.
How are the SLSMG sales numbers? That seems to have stayed around.