The REVERSE headstock support thread! Read this!

[MakeAJazzNoiseHere]

I'm not being negative, I dig the idea, it's just that the overwhelming majority of people on this Forum are not in a position to buy a new USA Soloist, that's all.

I don't think Jackson is going to count on a guaranteed sale for every positive response to the thread.

So, if Jackson does offer this, I want all purchasing forum members to display their receipts and pics of said reverse head Soloist. Yeah, that's what I thought.

Yeah, we'll get right on that for you, sir.

[tonemonster]

I'm not being negative, I dig the idea, it's just that the overwhelming majority of people on this Forum are not in a position to buy a new USA Soloist, that's all. So, if Jackson does offer this, I want all purchasing forum members to display their receipts and pics of said reverse head Soloist. Yeah, that's what I thought.

If it pleases you, I will be glad to post pics of my guitar and paid receipt if they offer these.

like others here, I dont buy any more new jacksons as they dont offer anything different. I already have 6 soloists (all of them bought new) with standard headstocks. It wouldnt cost Jackson much to offer these as a standard model. they already know how to make them. nothing new there. maybe just some time for pictures for their website and put it in the next year brochure. but thats not much really. so why not offer it? I think they would certainly sell enough to break even of the cost of implementing into their line up. I really think this would benefit them.


If I was able to rally 6 people to buy a limited run guitar with a reverse headstock and ONE paint job, then I really think with their website, NAMM, and dealer support, Jackson could sell enough of these to make it worth their while. I am just one guy on a fan site that could drum up enough REAL buyers to commit to a run, so I am sure with their marketing plans, they could sell them.

[vector]

If it pleases you, I will be glad to post pics of my guitar and paid receipt if they offer these.

like others here, I dont buy any more new jacksons as they dont offer anything different. I already have 6 soloists (all of them bought new) with standard headstocks. It wouldnt cost Jackson much to offer these as a standard model. they already know how to make them. nothing new there. maybe just some time for pictures for their website and put it in the next year brochure. but thats not much really. so why not offer it? I think they would certainly sell enough to break even of the cost of implementing into their line up. I really think this would benefit them.


If I was able to rally 6 people to buy a limited run guitar with a reverse headstock and ONE paint job, then I really think with their website, NAMM, and dealer support, Jackson could sell enough of these to make it worth their while. I am just one guy on a fan site that could drum up enough REAL buyers to commit to a run, so I am sure with their marketing plans, they could sell them.

Is it the specific intent of this thread to prompt Jackson to offer reverse necks as an option? I was under the impression that this was just to extoll the virtues and appeal of that configuration. As previously stated, I dig reverse necks and have put my money where my mouth is in ordering a CS Star with said neck. Even replaced a perfectly good stock neck on a Kelly Std Pro with a replacement neck because it was a reverse with sharkies. But do I expect Jackosn to sit up and take heed, and suddenly offer RH axes as a standard option? Hmm. Not likely.

[fordsho90]

You have my vote. I would also like to see it as an option, I already have a RHS USA Warrior and involved with the build on Tones idea plus I ordered a CS Death Angel w/a RHS.

[Gartron]

The cock dragon had a reverse headstock , for reason alone it should be offered as standard!

[z1n]

If it pleases you, I will be glad to post pics of my guitar and paid receipt if they offer these.

+1 I would be all over this. Another great idea Tone! If the white/silver ghost flames wasn't reverse HS I would have had a harder time pulling the trigger...

[ken]

All this chatter and no pics? WTF?

[tonemonster]

damn straight!!!!!!!!!! pics of some reverse HS.

[Grim]

Jackson should give the DK1 and WR1 a reverse, and leave the rest as regulars.

[nateb]

Jackson should give the DK1 and WR1 a reverse, and leave the rest as regulars.

That would sure make things easier production wise.

-Nate

[wilkinsi]

Charvel750 has a point. I'm on the 90% side right now. I won't be in a position to buy a brand new guitar til next year, assuming I'm still in a job on the same pay by May 2011. I'd rather save up, then look at what's available.

[vector]

All this chatter and no pics? WTF?

How true!

OH! You meant Jacksons and Charvels? Then:

[Grim]

That would sure make things easier production wise.

-Nate

I'm not sure if you were being sarcastic or not, but I think that giving the DK1 a reverse would give plenty of people a reason to get a DK1 over an SL2H

Also, the WR1 looks kinda neat with a reverse.

Another reason is that these seem to be less popular than other models, so I don't think that many people are going to dislike the change. Also, perhaps the addition of the reverse headstock would give people reason to buy these two models, as mentioned above.

[Rockinloud]

I say heck yes- main reason I jumped in on that limited run SL2 on here was because of the reverse headstock (well that and the paint job). I agree too, make it a specific model like the SL2HR.

[MakeAJazzNoiseHere]

I'm not sure if you were being sarcastic or not, but I think that giving the DK1 a reverse would give plenty of people a reason to get a DK1 over an SL2H

Seems like lipstick on a pig, though. Why add a feature to entice you to buy a guitar you're lukewarm to because of some fundamental feature, when you'd really rather have that feature on another guitar? Not to knock the DK1, if you like bolt-ons then it's cool, but every time I've had one I just end up wishing it was a Soloist and I sell it and buy a Soloist.