Anyone know anything about older Jacksons

[Commodore 64]

http://cleveland.craigslist.org/msg/1881381384.html

Says it's a 1983 Performer Fusion. The Jackson Catalogue doesn't show anything like it. Anyone have any thoughts? Seller asking $350 OBO.

http://www.lucky-cricket.com/files/83Jackson.jpg

[mapka]

tried to Google it and really found nothing. Something to consider is that you can get a newer model for not much more then they want for this one. I know some of the early Charvels and Jacksons are gaining value, but they are mostly the American built ones. I bought a Jackson DKMG off CL last year and paid about the same price as they want for the one you are looking at.

[hubberjub]

That price is nothing great for a MIJ guitar. Is it really your style? Jackson makes a good guitar but they are pretty specialized. If you have aspirations of shredding or playing metal it's a good guitar.

[deeaa]

Afaik that's wrong...1st, Jacksons were not made in Japan till 1986, and also all Japanese Jacksons had a text 'professional' under the headstock logo. Thirdly, that gold bridge looks wrong to me. So I suspect it's put together from parts or the year at least is wrong, or something. I have owned a few Charvels in the 80's and a couple of japanese charvels myself plus a charvette...they are usually very good guitars and a circa 1990 era japanese ones usually fetch 500-700 euros here. Hope some of this helps...

[marnold]

'93 maybe, but not '83. If it actually is a fusion, it should have a Gibson scale length (i.e. 24.75"). The Fusions I've seen have had a switch in between the tone and volume pots, not another pot. A closer picture of the headstock and pups would enable a better I.D. I'm not a Jackson expert, but it appears to be a mutt. You could check the Jackson-Charvel Forum (http://www.jcfonline.com/) for a definitive answer. I love Jacksons, but there are an awful lot of mutts out there and things being passed off as something special when they clearly are not.

Plus another stupid trick that people pull is trying to put a 25.5" neck on a body of a 24.75" guitar. They can't get it to intonate (because it never will) and then sell it.

[Commodore 64]

All good info, I appreciate it. I was considering a trade for it, involving my '68 Champ, but I think I will pass.

[Commodore 64]

Quick Update. I went and looked at it and I really liked it, so I made the trade. Now I need to figure out WTF it is. I have to run to my band rehearsal, so I'll look at it harder later.

THe bridge has been replaced, its some licensed by floyd rose piece of crap. However the guitar is a Jackson Professional, Neck through construction, ebony 24 fret fret board, and best I can tell is 25.5 scale? It's 12.75 inches to the 12th fret. Serial J001268.

I'll get some pics as soon as I have time. It has 3 knobs, volume and 2 tones.

The Professional written on the headstock indicates it's Japanese I believe. backplates appear to be aluminum and not plastic, too.

[deeaa]

Good deal, then it was likely just the year that's wrong! How's the neck? they seem to vary a LOT in thickness in those guitars, from super thin to pretty hefty ones, but they are usually very nice...and incredibly straight and nice for being 20 years old. Too bad about the bridge...it likely came with a black jackson floyd originally...those were quite ok but tended to wear out some, and spare parts were hard to get at some point, so I guess someone just put a new one in. I also broke a couple of them trem arms, they were weak, and needed new plastic bushings too like monthly or the arm just hung there limp. I had 2 USA made ones and a japanese one later, and the jap one had the thinnest neck I've ever played, and still perfectly straight.

Congrats on the new axe!

[Commodore 64]

OK, I'm pretty sure this is it. It appears to be a Jackson Soloist Pro. I think it may be a pretty good guitar.
Catalog Page from 1991 (http://audiozone.dk/guitargallery/content/Guitar_catalog_scans/Jackson_Charvel/1990-1_Charvette_Charvel_Jackson/Page34.jpg)

deeaa...the neck is pretty substantial. I wouldn't call it thin by any means. I hope to have some time to play it today and get a real good read on it.

[deeaa]

OK, I'm pretty sure this is it. It appears to be a Jackson Soloist Pro. I think it may be a pretty good guitar.
Catalog Page from 1991 (http://audiozone.dk/guitargallery/content/Guitar_catalog_scans/Jackson_Charvel/1990-1_Charvette_Charvel_Jackson/Page34.jpg)

deeaa...the neck is pretty substantial. I wouldn't call it thin by any means. I hope to have some time to play it today and get a real good read on it.

Ok, then it's pretty much what my buddy has. Two of my friends have transparent blue early 90's Jacksons with active mid boost - I actually bought one of those for the guy (he paid but I picked it up&checked it for him), and it's funny, they're otherwise totally identical but one has much thicker an U neck than the other. I don't know whether they offered a choice of neck thicknesses at that time or is it just that they're hand made and for that reason each different. Both are good, though.

[Commodore 64]

I don't know how to interpret the Serial. It says J001268. Does that make it a 1990?

This guitar has been used and abused. It's not the original trem. A couple covers have fallen off the tuning machines, it is scratched all over the place, like someone scraped off stickers with something hard and plastic. It's also been refretted. However, the pickups and mid boost (?) seem to be intact.

Clearly someone has rewired this, the solder job looks worse than even mine which isn't saying much. Anyways, I will replace the trem with a GOTOH FR (in black) probably, this is my first FR guitar.

http://lucky-cricket.com/files/Jackson_JE1200.jpg
http://lucky-cricket.com/files/Jackson_tremcav.jpg
http://lucky-cricket.com/files/Jackson_rear.jpg
http://lucky-cricket.com/files/Jackson.jpg
http://lucky-cricket.com/files/Jackson1.jpg

[deeaa]

Doesn't look badly scratched in the pics...I mean, nothing a buffing wheel couldn't get off I'd venture. Looks nice! And it's a neck-thru I see, or at least set neck!

Makes me long for a FR axe again...the last one I had was a Japanese Jackson as well, with original and rather worn trem. I put in a tremsetter which made the tuning stability great and gave the guitar plenty of playing stability too, which was great, but it also lost the sensitivity and ability to do those 'slap the bar and let tremble' vibratos etc. which I think are one of the things a FR is best for, tiny quirky additions to lead bits. Those are refreshing now and then.

Yeah, I'm beginning to see a nice, sensitive FR guitar in my future...probably something cheaper like an Ibanez RG series, but if I come accross an old Jackson cheap....yep.

[marnold]

At least with newer Jacksons, the serial number has no bearing directly on when it was made. They're all sequential. That might have been different when that one was made. New Japanese Jacksons have a date stamped in the neck pocket, but obviously that wouldn't apply to a neck-through instrument.

A Gotoh Floyd would be a good choice from what I've heard. Just make sure you get the right block size. Yours, like mine, is recessed which also means it will have a smaller block.

[sunvalleylaw]

I have been on vacation, and my head is not in the right place. I saw this thread and thought for sure we were talking about Jackie, Tito and Jermaine?

[Commodore 64]

I just put a Gotoh trem in my Japanese Jackson Soloist Pro. I had to route out an extra bit of space in the cavity, and the trem block is about 1mm too big (I can't put the backplate on...)

But, man, does it play and sound great!

http://lucky-cricket.com/files/Jackson_trem_Cut.jpg
http://lucky-cricket.com/files/Jackson_trem_Cut1.jpg
http://lucky-cricket.com/files/Jackson_Trem_Fini.jpg