Is this guitar cool or stupid?

Is this guitar cool or stupid?

  • Yupp

    Votes: 7 13.7%

  • Nope

    Votes: 41 80.4%

  • Rob option with waffling below

    Votes: 3 5.9%
  • Total voters
    51
Re: Is this guitar cool or stupid?

Edgecrusher said:
That guitar didnt start life like that... the UO serial number gives it away. Thats just a USA soloist that some clown has butchered. If it was a real guitar from Jacksons custom shop the serial number would start with a J.

The dip writing the Ebay add even copy pasted the current SL1 ad copy instead of actually giving the real specs on the instrument. That is obviously not a TB4 but probably a J50B that was standard in 91 when that guitar was made. It probably has the JE1200 on board boost also. It would have a poplar body instead of alder. But whatever, as PT Barnum said "Theres a sucker born every minute"
Click to expand...

What I find odd is two things:
  • The headplate is not sleeved on
  • There is no sign of wings for a neck-through-body construction
 
Re: Is this guitar cool or stupid?

I'm getting really uncomfortable about this.

To clarify, I am the buyer and yes I like guitars that only 13 year olds could like.

However, there are some serious issues here starting with construction without the sleeved on headstock, and no visible wings on the neck-through, and the rough visible wood on the back of the neck which obviously isn't maple. Maybe the whole back is veneered? Very odd.

The only thing that really makes this a SL1 as indicated in the auction is the fretboard with markers and serial numbers and the headplate (front only).

Does anybody with deeper knowledge of 1991 era Jacksons have any comment on this?
 
Re: Is this guitar cool or stupid?

The pickups and tremelo is consistent with SL1's from that era, so is the knob arrangement.

The back of the neck looks like it has had wood stain brushed onto it... so I wouldnt pass judgment on it just yet. For that matter it looks to me like there is still white paint on the back of the neck and just had the brown smeared over top.

With all the gouging and staining on the top from those pictures its very hard to tell if there are wings or not... I would really hesitate to draw many conclusions on this yet... But I do know this... That guitar didnt leave Jacksons factory looking like that.
 
Re: Is this guitar cool or stupid?

jmh151 said:
Jackson didn't do that- someone took a Jackson a ruined it.
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with aftermarket carving.

But I would have a problem with not being a proper SL1. I can't see how the headplate sleeve would just disappear, and I don't think the visible wood is maple, even after aggressive paint removal. If the pores of the wood had opened up that much from the procedure I'd consider that a detect.
 
Re: Is this guitar cool or stupid?

uOpt said:
I don't have a problem with aftermarket carving.

But I would have a problem with not being a proper SL1. I can't see how the headplate sleeve would just disappear, and I don't think the visible wood is maple, even after aggressive paint removal. If the pores of the wood had opened up that much from the procedure I'd consider that a detect.
Click to expand...

What exactly is the headplate sleeve? The faceplate on that headstock looks exactly like it should. As far as the look of the maple goes i think you wont be able to tell jack about it cause of all the wood stain thats on it. You can see the remnants of the white paint.

You're trying to make this too damn hard... Freaking use occams razor here... So your saying you think someone would knock the fretboard and face plate off an SL1... then would fabricate a body with the correct routes and belly cut and everything out of some mystery wood is what happened?

I doubt it... Its more likely an SL1 that someone half ass stripped you can see on the back and the front in many places the white is still there.. then slathered wood stain over the top of it... the gouged the ever livin crap outta it with a chisel and an awl
 
Re: Is this guitar cool or stupid?

uOpt said:
To clarify, I am the buyer and yes I like guitars that only 13 year olds could like.
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with being a big kid. I dig it, we might be in the minority but it's a cool concept to me.
 
Re: Is this guitar cool or stupid?

Edgecrusher said:
You're trying to make this too damn hard... Freaking use occams razor here... So your saying you think someone would knock the fretboard and face plate off an SL1... then would fabricate a body with the correct routes and belly cut and everything out of some mystery wood is what happened?

I doubt it... Its more likely an SL1 that someone half ass stripped you can see on the back and the front in many places the white is still there.. then slathered wood stain over the top of it... the gouged the ever livin crap outta it with a chisel and an awl
Click to expand...

No, what I am saying is that I don't know enough about early Jacksons to know what this is. US made Jackson all right, as you say it doesn't seem like somebody ripped off the fretboard and headplate from one. But that doesn't make it a "proper" SL1 - which the seller very explicitly said in the description.

I believe in following through with what is said. That means two things:

1) I wanted a guitar that only a 13 year old could love. Even though it came out more like 12 year old stuff that isn't reason to return.

2) On the other hand I don't like it when hard to sell gear is pushed upon me with inaccurate or misleading statements, and then I am stuck with it because I would not play the same trick on the next buyer. So I'm trying to find out whether this was really a SL1. Obviously some of the cut'n'paste is incorrect as it is from the period where SD pickups would be used.

When I say "sleeved on" that is what some name "scarf joint", meaning the headplate is a new piece of wood separate from the neck. I have never seen a SL1 without a scarf joint. I still think it is very odd that neither scarf joint nor body wings are visible. Obviously the whole thing can't be one-piece made.


ETA:
20101226191519.jpg
 
Re: Is this guitar cool or stupid?

I looked up Rolf Taraldset the one who apparently carved it. And his works are masterful creations. Looking at that carving i jsut cant see how it would be his works.

I dont think someone capable of this would do a guitar like that. sorry man
 
Re: Is this guitar cool or stupid?

kramersteen said:
I looked up Rolf Taraldset the one who apparently carved it. And his works are masterful creations. Looking at that carving i jsut cant see how it would be his works.
Click to expand...

Wow, that is some amazing carving with an incredible attention to detail!
 
Re: Is this guitar cool or stupid?

Look at the pic of the back of the headstock.. it still has paint on it. Even then the jackson scarf joint is farther down than what you can see in the pic in the auction.
 
Re: Is this guitar cool or stupid?

Asl Rolf he will know for sure. Looking at this i think the chances of him having carved that are slim to bubkis
 
Re: Is this guitar cool or stupid?

I mailed him earlier. But it's Euro time zone, probably too late.
 
Re: Is this guitar cool or stupid?

I would feel a lot better about the dang thing if it was actually playable...
 
Re: Is this guitar cool or stupid?

I could see '80s Metal playing it, but I can't imagine anyone else pulling it off haha.

I don't care for pointy guitars personally. I like traditional designs, and the pointiest I'd go is a Flying V.
 
Re: Is this guitar cool or stupid?

After looking at the E Bay listing, I'm a little skeptical that that guitar is a Jackson at all.

Maybe it was the title having "Soloist Costom" in the description. The shop where I teach lessons once got a Les Paul in, but on closer inspection, it turned out to be a MIC knockoff, complete with "Les Paul Costom" engraved on the truss rod cover.
 
Re: Is this guitar cool or stupid?

The suspected carver hasn't replied to my email.

I found some trem springs and could make it playable (sorry, Les Paul household here). It sounds and plays awesome.

But the whole neck has no trace of a scarf joint and still no trace of body wings. The electronics are active with cheap Asian pots (and messy wiring).

Authenticity of the guitar is very much in question. I'll wait a bit more for the carver, but at this point the seller needs some talking to as the description is just a bit too much out of sync with the guitar. I am also 99% sure he caused the shipping mess I had to sort out on my end (I just don't get why people don't use the paypal shipping label functionality. It saves them huge amounts of money when shipping a whole guitar, and it ensures that you don't goof when transcribing the address).

Sigh.

Is it just me or did guitar buying and selling get harder? There's always something now. And let's not talk about bass buying and selling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GilmourD
So, what did I get here? (pickup identificiation)
Replies
17
Views
307
Blille
Blille
Aceman
Will this sand down to natural????
2
Replies
20
Views
2K
Lewguitar
Lewguitar
S
Need Help Identifying Older Single Coil
Replies
7
Views
1K
Saliot_
S
G
12 thousand dollars LP Gibson custom shop.
2 3
Replies
55
Views
6K
Rand-O-Monium
Rand-O-Monium
kramersteen
Carter Hybrid 8 Porl Thompson.
Replies
8
Views
3K
Rand-O-Monium
Rand-O-Monium
Back
Top