Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why was the AT-1 so unsuccessful?

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

  • #16
    Re: Why was the AT-1 so unsuccessful?

    Obviously good enough to warrant it staying in the line another year (We wont get exact numbers, that´s confidential info) [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Why was the AT-1 so unsuccessful?

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

      [/ QUOTE ]

      I remember seeing it for sale on Ebay Ge.. it went not too low also if I remember correctly [img]/images/graemlins/scratchhead.gif[/img]

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Why was the AT-1 so unsuccessful?

        went for quite a high price, but it still hurt... I went into the studio to record with my guitars, not to be forced to sell them.... [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Why was the AT-1 so unsuccessful?

          I'll have to get a pic of mine, different body, mine looks like the new peavys,or a wolfgang?
          METAL, LIVE IT!

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Why was the AT-1 so unsuccessful?

            Actually, those are pretty sexy for a strat shape. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
            Hear the universe scream
            Bleeding from black holes
            Whom horns careless
            And whom God mourns

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Why was the AT-1 so unsuccessful?

              Didn't some come with a 4 + 2 headstock?

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Why was the AT-1 so unsuccessful?

                Yes those are very rare, I think 12 or less.I wish I could get one thats neck-thru with a 4+2 headstock.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Why was the AT-1 so unsuccessful?

                  I believe all AT-1's were bolt-on necks. No neck-thru. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Why was the AT-1 so unsuccessful?

                    The AT2Hs failed to and they are Friggin awesome, I have 2 of them and they play so sweet
                    Piney Hills New Site <------Clicky Clicky

                    CALL THE SHOP @ 318.232.3002

                    instock inventory

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Why was the AT-1 so unsuccessful?

                      It's not that they weren't a Metal guitar. Remember, there are other styles of music out there and Jackson was trying to branch out of the Metal market - probably because Jazz players had better jobs and could afford to buy more USA Jacksons than the factory-dwelling or club-touring Metalheads who were lucky if they brought home $250 a week.

                      Anyhoo, I'd guess the lack of interest was due more to the pointy headstock and Dinky body size. It coulda been the fat neck profile as well.
                      Or maybe it was just the age-old closed-mindedness of "Jackson!? That's one o' them hair metal pointy geetar brands".

                      However, the PC1 did manage to make it into the Country market, and at least a few Country/Bluegrass players seemed interested in the Jazz'R.

                      I dunno - maybe it's just me but there's always something about these non-metal models that Jackson seems to do wrong - the Jazz'R has a hard v-shaped neck which is not good for arthritics, the AT-1 had a fat neckshape which is great for classical but probably not good for anything else, and models that would compete openly with PRS and Gibson over here are stuck in the Japanese market.
                      I want to depart this world the same way I arrived; screaming and covered in someone else's blood

                      The most human thing we can do is comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.

                      My Blog: http://newcenstein.com

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Why was the AT-1 so unsuccessful?

                        Some days I think that the archtops are not terribly comfortable to play, the other days it is just fine. Go figure. Flat guitars are always right-on. May be that's part of the reason, if I'm not the only one like that.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Why was the AT-1 so unsuccessful?

                          what geetar you talking bout Matt? *he says knowingly
                          Piney Hills New Site <------Clicky Clicky

                          CALL THE SHOP @ 318.232.3002

                          instock inventory

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Why was the AT-1 so unsuccessful?

                            What other geetar is there? [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]
                            I want to depart this world the same way I arrived; screaming and covered in someone else's blood

                            The most human thing we can do is comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.

                            My Blog: http://newcenstein.com

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Why was the AT-1 so unsuccessful?

                              [ QUOTE ]

                              the AT-1 had a fat neckshape which is great for classical but probably not good for anything else...

                              [/ QUOTE ]

                              Only if you have poor technique. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

                              Probably 90% of the guitars I've sold were flipped because the necks were too damned thin to be comfortable for extended periods of time, including my nice-as-hell Fusion. My Soloist will probably have to go that way, too, because it has a Speed Neck-type profile. :^(

                              Does anybody have the exact specs on the AT1 neck? I like pretty hefty necks, but I've found that some folks around here view the Ibanez Ultra profile as a baseball bat.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Why was the AT-1 so unsuccessful?

                                The fattest necks I've owned were the JB Fender and a Steve Stevens Washburn USA model, both guitars had HUGE necks.
                                Charvel 7308 (TMZ 008), Charvel Pro-mod (yellow), Jackson Soloist Custom (Yellow), Jackson SL2H-V Natural, Gibson LPS DB, Gibson LPS EB, Gibson LPCC C, Charvel Model 2 (scalloped), Jackson DK2M (white), Charvel Journeyman, Fender Classic Player 60's strat, Carvin C66, Musikraft strat mutt, Warmoth Strat mutt, Fender MIM Jazz bass, Epiphone Classical, Takamine parlor. Marshall 2203, Marshall JVM 210H, Splawn Nitro, Fender Supersonic 22, Line 6 AX2 212, Marshall 4X12.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X