Jackson vs. Charvel ...Preference?

Andy Eagle said:
I would strongly disagree that the neck profiles of these are C. They epitomise the D shape that was the core part of their offer at the time. You do get variance because of simpler production methods and hand sanding but the core neck shape has been D since production models.
Click to expand...
I'm going by the Musikraft profiles they have listed on their website. There are a lot of differing opinions about C and D profiles on the web these days...
 
sandmannn69 said:
I'm going by the Musikraft profiles they have listed on their website. There are a lot of differing opinions about C and D profiles on the web these days...
Click to expand...
Well I'm going on talking to Grover Jackson about it and having played hundreds .
 
Last edited:
The MiJ DK Jackson I had prior to the Charvel did not have a string retainer bar and exibited a change in pitch when the nut would be tighted down vs loose - not a big deal but annoying - I take it the string retainer was thought not to be needed due to the angled headstock but that was not enough in the case of the guitar I had at least.

I'm not sure about the quality of the tuners on my MiM Charvel San Dimas though I'm not sure I should care that much given the nut is usually locked and I use the micro adjusters. When I do tune with the nut unlocked, getting to the right pitch is a bit challenging particularly on the hi E (maybe this is due to the retainer bar (I also have not yet replaced the stock strings whatever those are)). I may put lockers on just to facilitate easier string changes and I like the look of the hipshot lockers.
 
It's a bit silly to associate a brand with a neck carve. I have a Jackson with a baseball bat neck and tiny frets(!), a Jackson with a thin D neck (phenomenal neck), a very old Charvel with a C neck (also a really great neck).

The new Charvels are really, really good. With one exception that was a dud, I've tempted by every one I've tried. Still don't have one though.
 
All this talk of Charvel made me get these pictures out.
My first one is the flames one. Year ~1985, serial number low 1600's. Bought new from Guitar Center North side Chicago.
The red one was purchased new about 2 years later from the same place. Serial number ~3600's.
It did not come with the FR trem. I had a local shop install it.
Two I wish I still had!

Charvel Flames 1985.jpg

Charvel Red Floyd 1987.jpg
 
I wish I still had my Charvel Model 2, got it off a friend in the early 90's and it was my 1st good guitar. I toy with getting another but the prices are going up on them and there are other things id like to get
For reference but not mine, same color though
 
scottp said:
All this talk of Charvel made me get these pictures out.
My first one is the flames one. Year ~1985, serial number low 1600's. Bought new from Guitar Center North side Chicago.
The red one was purchased new about 2 years later from the same place. Serial number ~3600's.
It did not come with the FR trem. I had a local shop install it.
Two I wish I still had!

View attachment 127323

View attachment 127324
Click to expand...
Looks like those pictures are from the good old days.
 
Well, our team lost so time could have been better spent elsewhere if you know what I mean...but hey...we had some hot dogs...
I really appreciate everyone weighing in and giving opinions, it is what I was looking for. I have been reluctant to be an active participant in the forum even though I have been following it for years. Not sure why..maybe just intimidation from those much more experienced than I. I must say that this forum is one of the best out there after having been thru a few, and the only one I follow now. We might not always agree but it is honest and everyone is willing to share. I am a proud owner of the FM3 and use it live twice a month...what a music maker...and back saver. You all have been so helpful...you have no idea ...I might speak for the silent majority but one will never know.
Once I get to the shop and play thru a few I will kick out an update, knowing me I might walk out with an acoustic...wandering eyes...
 
ElectricPhase said:
It's a bit silly to associate a brand with a neck carve. I have a Jackson with a baseball bat neck and tiny frets(!), a Jackson with a thin D neck (phenomenal neck), a very old Charvel with a C neck (also a really great neck).

The new Charvels are really, really good. With one exception that was a dud, I've tempted by every one I've tried. Still don't have one though.
Click to expand...
What Jackson had tiny frets??
 
The correct answer is both of course. I have a Charvel Model 5 I bought new in 1987 and a Jackson RR1T I bought new about 15 years ago. Admittedly the M5 is more Jackson than Charvel in its DNA.
 
ElectricPhase said:
It's a bit silly to associate a brand with a neck carve. I have a Jackson with a baseball bat neck and tiny frets(!), a Jackson with a thin D neck (phenomenal neck), a very old Charvel with a C neck (also a really great neck).

The new Charvels are really, really good. With one exception that was a dud, I've tempted by every one I've tried. Still don't have one though.
Click to expand...
The neck carve with a flat fingerboard and 6100 frets was their selling point when they started. They were also early to adopt a 22fret strat neck with an overhang to keep fender compatibility. The reason it WAS associated with the brand is no one else was really doing it and players of the day loved it . And yes strat head Charvels had 2 3/16" heels not the the 2 1/4" of bolt on pointy head models. Only the very early 21 fret kit necks had 1 3/4" nut widths and a more C profile neck but we are talking 70s.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom