What corners were cut on the production models

[rjohnstone]

Why not? I understand the value of what you are saying. I would only make the case that comparison of specs and price points is the only objective way.

You are not taking into account for the intangible.
The Fender name commands more $$$ than the Charvel name.
It's a legitimate factor when comparing two similar products.

I'm sure the "parts" used to build both lines have similar upfront costs involved, but a guitar is not just the sum of it's parts in the open market.

If that were the case, there are some kick ass no name Japanese and Korean LP copies that should be priced in the same range as a production model USA LP.
And some of these imports absolutely smoke most off the shelf Gibson LP's when it comes to build quality and attention to detail.
I'm not talking CS or limited edition LP's, just regular production crap.

[85 San Dimas]

Charvel, as a name or an "mystic mojo manufacturer" never existed. Wayne left many years ago. Claiming that a resurrection of the brand is a bad thing is fairly wrong headed.

You wanted the brand treated with respect. Respect costs a premium, just look at PRS.

I don't think that's accurate. No one believes the saving of the brand was wrong-headed. There are just some of us that believe that the brand name "Charvel" refers to more than a contour on a body or a radius on a neck.

As for respect we already pay a premium for it. Put a 'Hondo" decal on that so-cal and it'll sell 80% less units at half the price. People won't buy them. Again, not that they aren't good, but don't doubt a premium is being paid. As for the CS.......well I don't like what they cost but am willing to be a little more understanding up to 3K if they're built right and to high enough quality. According to FMIC and Gibsons pricing structure it isn't a real guitar until you get over $2K anyway.

Boy, the thread sure went neg while I was gone

[85 San Dimas]

You are not taking into account for the intangible.
The Fender name commands more $$$ than the Charvel name.
It's a legitimate factor when comparing two similar products.

I'm not talking CS or limited edition LP's, just regular production crap.

Actually I'm defending the intangible in the case of Charvel. My point would be that the "intangible" becomes "tangible" when two different prices are used for a virtually identical product.

I agree with you that prices are set to the maximum the market will bear regardless of build price.

I would say this to the rest...I've made the point over and over (in response to the thread question) w/No malice, no insult, and admitting so-cals are real good guitars that;
IMHO they shouldn't wear the Charvel name based on what they ARE instead of what they are "perceived" to be based on the marketing. All the contours in the world don't matter. If a so-cal is a Charvel then its a cost cutter.

But if your point is that the brand name has value (and I agree that it does and that value is indeed the legacy of the original C/J quality) then why purposely lower the perceived value?

BTW I completely agree with you on Gibson. Anything they make under 2K on the regular lines are unworthy IMHO. I've picked up new 3K lps that were no better than the 1100 explorers not once but several times. Not that there aren't exceptions but the "3rd shift" must build a lot of the GC/Sam Ash models.

[ZippoTragedy]

Profit margin on these guitars is negligible.
My info (credible dealer, small shop, high volume) said something on order of less than $110 profit to the Dealer. And the price points are fixed by Charvel. No Dealer is allowed to sell them for less that MAP ($990) or some such. That's contractual. My Source just kept scratching his head - couldn;t figure out how they're making any money on it - the OFR and the electronics alone cost ~$300+. Profit margins are slim. Fender makes enough money to invest in rebuilding a key brand, and that's what they're doing. Pretty simple.

You get a gig bag b/c adding a case would have cost another $100-150; they wanted the price point under $1,000. personally I would have liked to be able to acquire a case as an option.

I was not aware that the Floyd was a Korean.
It's marketed as a OFR.

If you take the pickguard off of the SoCal, you'll see they're routed H/S/H internally.
Any guesses why? Probably because they're using overstock body blanks; they're a manufacturing company - maybe they didn't hit their production numbers and ended up with a couple million extra bodies and necks - who knows.
Is it a Custom - nope.
Is it an excellent USA-made value? absolutely.

I've got a Tangerine SoCal - and it's still in the lineup and one of my favorite guitars.


Basically a USA Fender Strat with different logos and HH instead of single coils; phatter "shred-quality" electronics and a rocking paint job. Feels a LOT like a strat - That's because essentially it IS a Strat. go figure.

Should they get knocked for leveraging their production line? Nope

The frets may not be Custom-shop quality, but for $2-4k in savings, you'll adapt and play just fine.

it's really easy to pick things apart. Lot's more difficult to find value and just say thank you.

zt

[Grandturk]

Feels a LOT like a strat - That's because essentially it IS a Strat. go figure.

Never played a Fender Strat with an oiled neck and a compound fretboard. My Strat's got a 7.5" radius, which plays a hell of a lot different than a 12-15" compound radius.

[Rich#6]

I have played a few strats that I thought had amazing necks. I prefer the feel of the thin profile of the J/Cs but always thought that they could be a little more like the C back of the strat and a little less of that D shape. I just got a socal yesterday and This neck shape is perfect for me. It's as if they knew what I wanted. Needs some more fine sanding for my tastes though.

[jet66]

The SoCal neck feels very similar in contour to my '99 American Standard Strat. Flatter and compound-radiused board, yes, but still very close in feel. (I think the '99 is a 9.25" radius.)

If Fender painted these in the typical Strat colors, put 'Fender' on the headstock and called it the 'Floyd Rose Big Apple Strat,' and sold them for $1100-$1200 on the street, I still would have bought one.

[Grandturk]

If Fender painted these in the typical Strat colors, put 'Fender' on the headstock and called it the 'Floyd Rose Big Apple Strat,' and sold them for $1100-$1200 on the street, I still would have bought one.

I wouldn't have. I like stuff that has Fender on the headstock to be traditional style - I don't like any appointments on my Fender Strat's that weren't there in 1954, dammit!

[jet66]

Anything made after early '65 isn't really a Fender anyways, since Leo had to be all greedy and sell out to The Man.

[Grandturk]

Anything made after early '65 isn't really a Fender anyways, since Leo had to be all greedy and sell out to The Man.

And then sold out again when he sold "Music Man" to The Other Man - Enrie Ball.

[85 San Dimas]

Never played a Fender Strat with an oiled neck and a compound fretboard. My Strat's got a 7.5" radius, which plays a hell of a lot different than a 12-15" compound radius.

Sure you have. you've played your So-Cal "Strat" with "Charvie" contours.

[85 San Dimas]

So what I'm reading is that all in all the names don't really mean anything because the original builders aren't building any of them any more. OK.
So why pay a premium for the name?

Charvel belongs to FMIC, they do with it what they will. If your 1100 demands a strat head with a Charvel decal....

But I'm smart enough and old enough to know what's out there used for 11 bills............................and it doesn't wear Korean Floyds, doesn't have vague lineage (unless its a Kramer), and in Jacksons case it was made in the CS. hell put a warmoth neck on it, a 10 dollar decal and you'll have something better than a so-cal. When you're done sell the neck, put the pointy back on and you'll still have something good.

[beachjammer]

I'll be the first to admit that I knocked the USA production series when they first came out. Especially as compared to my 2005 San Dimas Charvel. With that said though, the more I played them the more I not just liked them but really liked them! When my local dealer got in a Pegan Gold So-Cal I had to have it. I haven't regretted it for one second. I thought I'd hate the mini grovers and the knob but I actually like both now that I have it. I absolutely LOVE the guitar! I admit I bought it partially because it said "Charvel" on the headstock but that's really just what led me to play it to start with. I'd been thinking about getting a new Fender USA strat but when their prices shot up $300 then the So-Cal won out hands down because not only did it play as good but I personally liked the tone better and it also had "Charvel" on the headstock :O) Just my $0.02 worth...

[jet66]

So what I'm reading is that all in all the names don't really mean anything because the original builders aren't building any of them any more.

Nah, just playing around. The name is important to a degree, there is usually a reputation for/expectations of any given company, whether they changed hands or not.

So far I have not seen an older/earlier SD Jackson nor Charvel that was worth the asking price (according to some 'screw counters' I know) while I was in the market, and I have some specific wants. Plenty with Kahlers and V-trems, but I want a Floyd, maple board, 22 frets. I usually see plenty from the Ontario days, but usually claimed to be San Dimas (even with the Ontario neck plate!) and priced too high.

My kid got lucky, though: He's a budding bass player, has two really cheapies he's been learning on. Took him shopping for his Christmas gift, to maybe move up a notch or two from Rogue and SX. We find what turns out to be a 1983 Jackson P-Bass, #J0034 at a Guitar Center, $500. Still has all of the original parts on it. A little road-worn, but definitely well worth the $500.

[John C]

And then sold out again when he sold "Music Man" to The Other Man - Enrie Ball.

Actually no - Leo had left Music Man to start G&L about 4 years before Ernie Ball acquired Music Man. Long story short - Music Man was started by Tom Walker and Forrest White - former Fender people. They approached Leo about investing in their company and doing some consulting work as his consulting contract (but not his non-compete) with CBS/Fender had expired. He wound up becoming a "silent partner" until his non-compete expired, then he was introduced as the 3rd partner in the company by the time they were ready to ship their products.

Leo owned another company called CLF Research; behind the scenes it was CLF Research that designed and built the Music Man guitars and basses, sold them to Music Man, who in turn sold them to retailers. Leo had little to do with the amp line, which was built in Music Man's factory. Eventually Leo had a big falling-out with Walker and White and excercised a clause to sell his Music Man shares back to the company. CLF still built the instruments and sold them to Music Man, but Leo and George Fullerton were working on the G&L guitars. CLF built them both for about a year until the contract was broken (much like the Grover vs. Wayne part of the Charvel/Jackson story there are conflicting versions of why the contract was broken). Once they no longer made Music Mans Leo formally renamed CLF Research "G&L Guitars".

After that it took a couple of years for Music Man to go belly-up; Ernie Ball bought the name, designs and some assets from Chapter 7 proceedings; excpet for the 4-string Sting Ray Bass all the other EBMM instruments are post-Leo designs. Sterling Ball recently mentioned on his blog that they have a couple of pallets of 25-year-old unshipped Music Man amps somewhere in the EB warehouse.