Jackson used to be awesome.

[Killertofu]

I remember picking up a blue USA select dinky several years ago that just set my whole world on fire. I had a RR5 that I loved but eventually parted with because I didn't give it the attention its awesomeness required. I played some axes today that were great, dont get me wrong, but they just weren't up to what I remember.

The binding is the main problem. it just looks like cheap plastic.

So really, what happened?

[Gtrjunior]

Re: Jackson used to be awesome.

I’m curious too.
I remember Jackson being a “grail” brand.
Now there a so many different models that look so similar I can’t tell which are high end and which aren’t....

[weepingminotaur]

Re: Jackson used to be awesome.

May have to do with Fender buying Jackson in 2002?

[GuitarStv]

Re: Jackson used to be awesome.

You've become a cranky old man? :P

[Killertofu]

Re: Jackson used to be awesome.

You've become a cranky old man? :P

probably LOL the axes I played were killer there's just something about that pure white plastic binding that seems cheap to me.

[weepingminotaur]

Re: Jackson used to be awesome.

probably LOL the axes I played were killer there's just something about that pure white plastic binding that seems cheap to me.

Again, I'd suggest that some of your discontent traces back to Fender acquiring Jackson in 2002. I too share your feeling about the plastic white binding that is standard on so many entry-level Jacksons. Not that you can't get great finishes on the costlier models, but it's definitely a different vibe now than when Grover Jackson owned in the '80s, or even the IMC-owned Jackson era in the '90s.

[orpheo]

Re: Jackson used to be awesome.

binding actually IS plastic...

have you tried some of the USA built guitars? those are fairly decent, to be honest. but they're all mass producted guitars, nothing special about them anymore. If you want something special, go to Suhr, Anderson, Skervesen, Mayones or of course Aristides. Just to name a few.

[Diego]

Re: Jackson used to be awesome.

I'll be honest and say their midrange guitars these days (X series I think?) are IMO dog**** compared to a equivalent Schecter, Ibanez, LTD, Chapman or even a PRS SE with a Floyd Rose.
Plenty of better options for a Metal guitar in that price bracket.

They just feel and sound cheap. I recently tried the Jackson MF1 Marty Friedman signature and didn't think it was that good for what they're charging. The USA version must be amazing.
I also tried a Dinky around the $700 mark (can't remember the model) and wasn't too impressed.

[weepingminotaur]

Re: Jackson used to be awesome.

The Soloist is still a great model. No cheapness there IMO.

[Diego]

Re: Jackson used to be awesome.

Hope so. I love Jacksons and I hate holding one of them and feeling it isn't up to the task.
Nothing but brand loyalty would have me buying one at this point.

[dystrust]

Re: Jackson used to be awesome.

I remember picking up a blue USA select dinky several years ago that just set my whole world on fire. I had a RR5 that I loved but eventually parted with because I didn't give it the attention its awesomeness required. I played some axes today that were great, dont get me wrong, but they just weren't up to what I remember.

The binding is the main problem. it just looks like cheap plastic.

So really, what happened?

The Pro Series moved to Indonesia. I've played a bunch and they were good, but I've yet to be blown away. I can't say that I paid much attention to the binding on those, but the standard binding on the USA line has been white since the 80s.

Again, I'd suggest that some of your discontent traces back to Fender acquiring Jackson in 2002. I too share your feeling about the plastic white binding that is standard on so many entry-level Jacksons. Not that you can't get great finishes on the costlier models, but it's definitely a different vibe now than when Grover Jackson owned in the '80s, or even the IMC-owned Jackson era in the '90s.

I'm sorry, but I have to call B.S. on the whole FMIC thing. Fender bought Jackson at the end of 2001 and the sky didn't fall. In fact the MIJ Pro Series saw several improvements (including introduction of the RR5) after the acquisition while the USA line remained largely unchanged. An added bonus of the acquisition was bringing Mike Shannon back to Jackson (or vice-versa) as he'd left to join the Fender Custom Shop a couple years prior.

[weepingminotaur]

Re: Jackson used to be awesome.

Fender bought Jackson at the end of 2001 and the sky didn't fall.

Not sure where I said the sky was falling.

In fact the MIJ Pro Series saw several improvements (including introduction of the RR5) after the acquisition while the USA line remained largely unchanged.

Um, the knock was against the X series, not the Soloist series, which I just lauded in a post above. I love the Soloist line, even though the emphasis on Floyd Rose systems isn't to my taste.

An added bonus of the acquisition was bringing Mike Shannon back to Jackson (or vice-versa) as he'd left to join the Fender Custom Shop a couple years prior.

If you can tell me how Mike Shannon affected or improved the product in a concrete way, I'm all ears.

[Diego]

Re: Jackson used to be awesome.

At least for some reason here in Chile, used MIJ Jacksons cost peanuts, so it's easy to get a hold of a great Jackson for a great price if you look hard enough.

I'd love to own something equivalent to my old KV4 which was a great guitar and introduced me to Seymour Duncans!

[dystrust]

Re: Jackson used to be awesome.

Not sure where I said the sky was falling.

Um, the knock was against the X series, not the Soloist series, which I just lauded in a post above. I love the Soloist line, even though the emphasis on Floyd Rose systems isn't to my taste.

I'll admit to being over dramatic, but I couldn't tell you how many times I've seen a variation of the following on a guitar forum somewhere: "Fender bought Jackson, and then everything went down the toilet." Lots of people on the Jackson / Charvel Forum were afraid of that when the buyout was announced, but if anything the situation improved at least initially. I'm not sure how I feel about that last couple years, but at first things were great with the improved MIJ Jacksons and the return of Charvel.

IMO it's difficult to compare the X series and Soloist line because Soloists were offered in several different series from Custom, to USA Select, Pro Series, MG, etc. For the record I agree with you regarding the X series not being great, but those guitars (DX10D, KVX, & RX10D) were introduced by IMC prior to the Fender buyout. As far as how the various Soloists compare, the USA built ones are the best, and the 1990-1995 MIJ Pro Series are almost identical. The later MIJ Pro Series like the SL-3 and SL-4 were good, but not up to the same standard. These days the Pro Series is made in Indonesia and not that great IMO.

If you can tell me how Mike Shannon affected or improved the product in a concrete way, I'm all ears.

Mike Shannon started working for Charvel in 1979, and he built the 'Second Concorde' (RR0002) for Randy Rhoads. If you've seen pictures of Randy playing a black, hardtail RR V with gold hardware, that's the guitar I'm talking about and it's essentially the prototype for the RR-1 and RR-1T sold today. Since then he was involved in the design and building of pretty much everything that Jackson's USA line came to stand for.

[JMP/HBE]

Re: Jackson used to be awesome.



Got rid of all my shredder style guitar years ago, Jacksons, PV Vandenbergs, Ibanez, no resale.
Jackson has little or no appeal to me anymore, neither do the Mexican Charvels.






This 87' MIJ Charvel is the only one i want anymore.
Wouldn't have a problem snatching a MIJ Firecrackle finish of the same year.