Jackson used to be awesome.

[BlueStrings]

Re: Jackson used to be awesome.

Just passing by to say the red HS and the natural V on the right look great!
A bit too pointy for me, but if I was more of a metalhead I'd love those hehe

[weepingminotaur]

Re: Jackson used to be awesome.

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.

Awesome. Thanks for the info. The OP, though, was talking about the binding, which I think we've both neglected to mention in our responses. What's your feeling on the binding pre- and post-Fender taking over?

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.

Good to know, thanks.

Personally, I don't like the Jackson aesthetic at the moment. Not to say that I don't like specific Jackson guitars, but on the whole, they put out too many axes that look either super-plain-Jane -- white, no decent finish, cheap binding -- or as if they were designed by a 14-year-old boy who thought making a guitar look like a halberd would be cool. I like trad shapes -- Strat, LP, SG, etc. -- and detailed finishes with tasteful colors. Whether any of that has to do with Fender taking over is, of course, a matter of opinion, but I'll just say that Jackson products look an awful lot like Fender products these days, and for me, aesthetically, that's not a good thing.

[Ascension]

Re: Jackson used to be awesome.

What happened to Jackson is the exact same thing that happened to many other companies when they were sold by the founder. Kramer, Hamer, Steinberger, list goes on an on. Company is a fantastic boutique US guitar builder gets sold and one of the first things the new owners do is kill the brand by bringing in a lower quality import line under the same name. At the least Gibson had the good sense to not do this but have the imports under the Epiphone brand (one of the few things they really got right!).

This is one of the things that I really love about Kiesel Carvin still US built still the same business model of custom order direct and still owned by the founding family since it started in 1946. Do they have some wacky stuff now yep but you can still get the staple lines like my DC Kiesel today and the fit finish and overall build quality is breathtaking. Back in the late 80's i would have considered Carvin and Jackson as being on the same level. Today I absolutely don't and that includes the USA built Custom Shop Jacksons!
Jackson should have been kept a boutique US only high end guitar and if they wanted a import line should have done what Music Man did with the Sterling line. They didn't and are now just another run of the mill corporate guitar company that cares more about a bottom line than us as players and it's a shame!

[dystrust]

Re: Jackson used to be awesome.

Awesome. Thanks for the info. The OP, though, was talking about the binding, which I think we've both neglected to mention in our responses. What's your feeling on the binding pre- and post-Fender taking over?

I can't comment on the Indonesian ones since I haven't played enough, but I don't think the binding on the USA or MIJ stuff changed.

Personally, I don't like the Jackson aesthetic at the moment. Not to say that I don't like specific Jackson guitars, but on the whole, they put out too many axes that look either super-plain-Jane -- white, no decent finish, cheap binding -- or as if they were designed by a 14-year-old boy who thought making a guitar look like a halberd would be cool. I like trad shapes -- Strat, LP, SG, etc. -- and detailed finishes with tasteful colors. Whether any of that has to do with Fender taking over is, of course, a matter of opinion, but I'll just say that Jackson products look an awful lot like Fender products these days, and for me, aesthetically, that's not a good thing.

You'll have to provide me with a couple examples, but generally speaking I would say that the Fender buyout didn't have much bearing on how the guitars look.

[NecroPolo]

Re: Jackson used to be awesome.

I don't know, I'm a simple guy. Recently I picked a note or two on a cheepo Adrian Smith model and was going, it feels great.

[weepingminotaur]

Re: Jackson used to be awesome.

I can't comment on the Indonesian ones since I haven't played enough, but I don't think the binding on the USA or MIJ stuff changed.

I think maybe we're talking about different things, though. My issue (which admittedly is different from the OP's) is that the Indonesian Jacksons -- the guitars within my price range -- look and feel cheap, on average. And when I look around and compare to other metal companies and their products in the same price range (Schecter, ESP, etc.), I feel like Jackson doesn't come out ahead.

You'll have to provide me with a couple examples, but generally speaking I would say that the Fender buyout didn't have much bearing on how the guitars look.

Yeah, it's more of a gut feeling than anything. If I think of any examples I'll post them. Like I said, though, there are several Jacksons in the Soloist line that I really like, and would play in a heartbeat. I guess the OP's post about binding resonated with how I feel about certain Jackson lines.

[streetlethal]

Re: Jackson used to be awesome.

I've got plenty of x series and pro guitars and I've always been satisfied. Some guitars definitely stick out better than others but theres always a level of comfortability that I can rely on. i got an sl3x on a whim and it quickly became one of my most played guitars. even with the stock pickups in it I like it too much to change it.

[dystrust]

Re: Jackson used to be awesome.

I think maybe we're talking about different things, though. My issue (which admittedly is different from the OP's) is that the Indonesian Jacksons -- the guitars within my price range -- look and feel cheap, on average. And when I look around and compare to other metal companies and their products in the same price range (Schecter, ESP, etc.), I feel like Jackson doesn't come out ahead.



Yeah, it's more of a gut feeling than anything. If I think of any examples I'll post them. Like I said, though, there are several Jacksons in the Soloist line that I really like, and would play in a heartbeat. I guess the OP's post about binding resonated with how I feel about certain Jackson lines.

I agree with you on the current Indonesian guitars; I wouldn't spend money on them when I can get a used MIJ for the same or slightly less and it'll be a better guitar.

If the Jackson line is too 80s metal for you, take a look at Charvel; the MIM Pro Mods are great guitars for the money.

[weepingminotaur]

Re: Jackson used to be awesome.

I agree with you on the current Indonesian guitars; I wouldn't spend money on them when I can get a used MIJ for the same or slightly less and it'll be a better guitar.

If the Jackson line is too 80s metal for you, take a look at Charvel; the MIM Pro Mods are great guitars for the money.

Thanks for the advice!

[dystrust]

Re: Jackson used to be awesome.

If the Jackson line is too 80s metal for you, take a look at Charvel; the MIM Pro Mods are great guitars for the money.

Just a further note...

I have 3 1980s MIJ Model Series Charvels and the necks on the Pro Mods are very similar. They also come with Original Floyds and either Duncan or DiMarzio pickups for the older USA and MIJ versions. AFAIK they use SD exclusively in the MIMs.

[RorySquier]

Re: Jackson used to be awesome.

I love my Jackson King V I bought a few years ago at a pawnshop. This guitar is pretty amazing for the price. It does need new pick up rings since the original is somewhat brittle plastic & breaking from picking. I'll replace them with black chrome metal pup rings. The feel of the neck and the compound radius fret board is a shredder's dream.









;>)/

[AlexR]

Re: Jackson used to be awesome.

You'll find the greatest differences in the cheaper lineup for sure. They will make every effort to cut costs, and if they keep fancy looking aspects of the top-line guitars (like binding, inlay or carved aspects/headstock angles) then this will impact on fit and finish to keep it in budget.

This sort of thing is why its best to play a whole range.......you get the feel of how the guitars react in your hand rather than just specs or looks.

[nexion218]

Re: Jackson used to be awesome.

I'll admit to be be a bit of a Jackson fanboy, but unfortunately there is a concerning tendency with the brand. It's not really about the quality, but rather the pricing. Getting a lower quality instrument for the right price is totally fine by me, if you get what you pay for. But the X series guitars going for 800-900 USD is atrocious. I recently picked up a Soloist model (because Soloist is not a line/series, but a model :P) from the X series for modding/fun. With hardcase it cost me around 400 USD, it was basically brand new. I suspect the guy wasn't much of a tech and he just couldn't play it the way it was. I took it anyways, but had to level 4 or 5 frets, the floyd saddles went down the drain (most of it was the previous owner's fault of overtightening and greating grooves in the saddles - the poor thing couldn't hold a string no matter what) and I also swapped pickups and that was the worst... In the pickup cavity, there was a rather big shard of wood sticking out from the body, painted like it wasn't there... Not visible, does not limit functionality, but still... Huge negligence and lack of QC. Oh yeah, I had to realign the nut too, as it was hanging from the neck on the treble side... Despite all this I enjoyed the work on it (that is why I bought it, to practice setups and modding), I will install a new set of white Black Winters in to make it completely white and together with the German made saddles and a huge brass block I had lying arouond, it turned out to be a killer guitar, but to ask900 USD for it new (plus the 100-200 in uprgades) is robbery. Also, some X series soloist production is being/was moved to China, selling for the same price and on the Jackson website the serial number and place of origin is removed from said model's picture...

The white binding is nothing more than a subjective thing. On my Pro Series King V it's white, MIJ Dinky ivoroid, X series cheapo Soloist ivoroid again. Go figure. Not a matter of quality I believe, its just a matter of different tastes.

But I could say the same overpricing issue present is with USA models, not to talk about CS. There is just no way you can put 2000+ USD worth of material and work into a guitar (unless its golden or diamond inlays or some other crazy stuff), yet the new Jeff Loomis Kelly retails for 7000 USD and that's not even the custom shop, justa regular production model.

Based on my experience, right now the Indo made Pro Series is the best bang for your buck if you want a Jackson. 1000-1200 USD real good crafmantship, OFR (1000 series, which is OEM version of the German made, completely identical materials), USA made Seymour Duncans, binding, ebony board, mahagony body... Not much else the average, non-professional guitar player could ask for.Only two things needed attention: I swapped the pots for Seymour Duncans as they started to pop/crackle after a while and the neck is oiled, which needs to be re-treated from time and again and needless to say my luthier did a better job than the guys at Samick. But I've heard worse problems with USA and/or CS models...

So long story short, the real problem is not really the place of manufacture or the name of the parent copmpany, but rather what you get for your money and how much you need to spend to get a certain level of quality. And that is not the fault of the Indonesian workers: they do what they're told. If noone asks a beter job from them, they won't go the extra mile. They build guitars for a living, not for the sake of art...

[weepingminotaur]

Re: Jackson used to be awesome.

Yes, I should have been more specific in my wording. The Soloist is obviously a model, that falls within different series (X or Pro, in this case). I too think the Pro Series Soloist is just fine. But I would say that the X series is a bit of rip compared to other metal companies offering superior products in that price range.

[nexion218]

Re: Jackson used to be awesome.

Nah, the problem is my OCD, not your wording....