What corners were cut on the production models

[Grandturk]

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.

Cool info - thanks! I was just trying to be funny about The Man, and here you come, all Encyclopedia Wikitanica like a mo-fo.

[85 San Dimas]

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.

yeah, I remember you mentioning that. Smart kid.

[85 San Dimas]

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.

What possesses a businessman to keep 2 pallet loads of something deemed "worthless" long enough for it to become "valuable"? Not for last 15 years years, I understand that. It's the first 10 I can't figure:think:.

Based on some of the stuff the last few years I think the biggest pack-rats in the world are the guitar manufacturers.

[Newc]

Aren't we trying to compare the new Charvels to the originals, though? I mean the original Glendora-made that Warren and George were using back in 82/83.

We're also trying to compare the prices of those to the new ones, right?

And again, we're also assuming that just because those old ones were cut by hand on powered equipment (which is still not "hand-made" IMO), that's the "best" way to make them and all others bearing the name should be made the same way.

They were not CNCd at the time for 1 important reason:
The machines were way expensive.

Would Wayne or Grover have gone to CNC mass-production of rough body blanks if the machinery was more affordable? I say yes.

Do the machines do the final shaping and sanding and then sealing and then painting and building? No. Godin uses a lot of machines and templates and such and make very nice instruments. Why is it taboo for Charvel to do the same - simply because that's not the way Mike Shannon did it back in 82? That's utterly preposterous.

These are Charvels, not just because there's a Charvel logo on the head or because I say so. The specs determine the brand, not the history. Original USA Charvel specs - as I've read so often here from the experts like Tracy and Yogadork - were not carved in stone. You could have two guitars built one after the other with the same wood from the same pile by the same 5 people come out as two totally different-feeling guitars - different body contours, different neck profiles, different sound through the same amp and same player.

Maybe that's why these "aren't Charvels" - there' no traditional inconsistencies, they're more uniform, and they're better-built.

Ok, I get it now.

[Axewielder]

OK I'm starting to get a bit ornery. We're on page 8, and no one has posted any specific facts regarding how the fretwork was done on these. Yeah yeah I've heard the terms "cost cutting" and "random" and whatnot, but what do we know for sure? We need a fly on the wall over there in Corona. Otherwise, we're going to be in the same boat as BC Rich players before too long (who know JACK about how their guitars are made).

[beachjammer]

If you think about it, these are going for in todays money close to what the originals went for way back in the day. Since they're only making 150 of each color (if I'm reading and understanding things right) then who's to say that in 15 years these will or will not be as sought after as the originals have been.... Plus ,I've looked for an original San Dimas for ALONG TIME! I have never been able to find one that I could afford that was in decent shape. I think that there's a few people here that have the $$$ to have the big nice collections and have been fortunate to find good deals. The majority of the rest of us are average Joes hoping to find one some day. The re-issues and now the production series has allowed someone like me to get a "new" guitar that is as close to original specs as it's gonna ever get. I'd still like to find an original but if I never do then I'm more than happy with my reissue and So-Cal.

[beachjammer]

OK I'm starting to get a bit ornery. We're on page 8, and no one has posted any specific facts regarding how the fretwork was done on these. Yeah yeah I've heard the terms "cost cutting" and "random" and whatnot, but what do we know for sure? We need a fly on the wall over there in Corona. Otherwise, we're going to be in the same boat as BC Rich players before too long (who know JACK about how their guitars are made).

The fretwork on mine is fantastic! I take it that the fret ends are hand rolled judging from the feel. There are no burs and the whole neck and fretboard feels VERY smooth. Does that answer your question?

[Axewielder]

The fretwork on mine is fantastic! I take it that the fret ends are hand rolled judging from the feel. There are no burs and the whole neck and fretboard feels VERY smooth. Does that answer your question?

You've answered nothing. You are in the same boat as the rest of us. Just a bunch of apes with bones in our hands, looking up at the Monolith. The question is...what is inside of the Monolith?!?

[Flatpicker]

What possesses a businessman to keep 2 pallet loads of something deemed "worthless" long enough for it to become "valuable"? Not for last 15 years years, I understand that. It's the first 10 I can't figure:think:.

Based on some of the stuff the last few years I think the biggest pack-rats in the world are the guitar manufacturers.

I dunno,
You should see the shit that you find when you clean out a big warehouse.
I did it for a PC parts manufacturer a few years ago, and we were finding stuff that they didn't even know they made.

[beachjammer]

You've answered nothing. You are in the same boat as the rest of us. Just a bunch of apes with bones in our hands, looking up at the Monolith. The question is...what is inside of the Monolith?!?

Ornery you are then... I don't know what the heck you're asking.

You asked about the frets and I told you about the frets or so I thought.

[thetruthguy]

The fretwork on my black one was immaculate.

On the red one, three frets had burs and I had to file them down, which took me all of 30 seconds to do. But one f the frets (I think it's the 11th fret) is slightly high and causes buzzing on two strings but only on one fret, so I can live with it for now. But I've had other USA guitars (including one Jackson) that had similar problems, so I'm not sure if it's bad fretwork or just one of those things. The remainder of the neck plays great.

[85 San Dimas]

I dunno,
You should see the shit that you find when you clean out a big warehouse.
I did it for a PC parts manufacturer a few years ago, and we were finding stuff that they didn't even know they made.

Oh, you're right I know, it's just sometimes amazing to me...

[85 San Dimas]

Aren't we trying to compare the new Charvels to the originals, though? I mean the original Glendora-made that Warren and George were using back in 82/83.

We're also trying to compare the prices of those to the new ones, right?.

Not that I know of on both questions Newc. As far as I know it was what corners were cut to hit the So-Cal price point, and then whether that should have been done or not

Would Wayne or Grover have gone to CNC mass-production of rough body blanks if the machinery was more affordable? I say yes.

I'm sure you're right but they couldn't so they didn't. And so therefore modern day Charvel (what we call CS) and "San Dimas" , but not the "So-Cals" because the So-Cals are admittedly "different".

Why is it taboo for Charvel to do the same - simply because that's not the way Mike Shannon did it back in 82? That's utterly preposterous..

It isn't taboo Newc, it's just not consistent with traditional Charvel. Besides, Charvel is a boutique brand by all rights and has earned that place in the market. Shame to ruin that.

These are Charvels, not just because there's a Charvel logo on the head or because I say so. The specs determine the brand, not the history. Original USA Charvel specs - as I've read so often here from the experts like Tracy and Yogadork - were not carved in stone. You could have two guitars built one after the other with the same wood from the same pile by the same 5 people come out as two totally different-feeling guitars - different body contours, different neck profiles, different sound through the same amp and same player.

Maybe that's why these "aren't Charvels" - there' no traditional inconsistencies, they're more uniform, and they're better-built.

Ok, I get it now.

...yeah, and you don't get the traditional quality, or the traditional build either. In other words you don't get a Charvel when you buy a So-Cal.

They're better-built? So-Cals are better built than Mike Shannons Custom 83's, or 84's? Many would disagree and if you're right then lets close the Custom Shop because there is no reason for it to exist. I mean, Mike Shannon can't compete with these new guys so why pay him to fail? I've heard the same consistency noise from LP guys, better built than a real '59. Right. More consistent. Not as many "bad ones" and well not as many "good ones" either.

No Newc, you're heart is in the right place but I completely disagree (which like with grandturk rarely happens. I'm usually in agreement with you on issues). Specs do not determine the brand. That is why there is a distinction between "authentic" and "copy".

If it isn't built over at Charvel CS by THOSE GUYS then it isn't a Charvel. Period. It's a Charvel Copy wearing the Charvel name. Notice I am not making the case that the new Charvel (FMIC) is not real although that case can be made (by the most dogged purists). But if a core group of real Charvel guys are building them legally under the Charvel name to Charvel "specs" in a handmade fashion consistent with the originals then that qualifies and is good enough for me. But sanctioning Charvel copies that aren't made "there", and "by those guys" means it isn't the same and is therefore not "real". So-Cals could wear any other brand name just as easily. No brand is prohibited from contours or compound radius necks. Only the name and headstock shape is controlled (and it can be licensed out).

FMIC is "Fenderizing" the Charvel brand by building it's own low-budget copies and charging for the brand name. I want a Charvel, not a guitar that says Charvel on it. FMIC should back me up on this IMO. That's the value added aspect of the quality associated with the name isn't it?

Specs don't determine. If Mike Shannon cuts the lower horn off of a strat body Monday and the guitar gets finished then its still a Charvel. MY position is that these So-Cals aren't because they aren't built by Charvel except in the legal sense. It's a legal copy wearing the original name.

My true fear is that FMIC believes that this strategy is required for the Charvel name to survive economically (rather than this being a strategy of using these low-budget Charvels to simply replace worn out brand names in the stores), and if my fear is true there may not be a lot of long-term hope for Charvel at all. The bean-counters may be making the name pull its weight, and I don't know if there are enough people out there to do that in the end with the production limitations imposed by being a CS.
I'm afraid that if they take the Charvel name downmarket and burn it up the way IMC did then Charvel may not survive it this time. There may not be enough of us left to bring it back again.

And Newc, just to clarify: This isn't personal. I just view this differently.

[Grandturk]

Here's where I disagree. Are todays strays and telex any less Fender because Leo isn't building them? Are todays Les Pauls and 335's any less Gibson because Ted Mcarty isn't in charge? Is a 1959 Les Paul not a real Gibson because Orville didn't build it?

I say no.

Companies have to compete in the market place to survive and if that means increasing the number of price points you sell at, thebln that's what you have to do.

[mudkicker]

I have a solution to this thread if I'm following the it correctly. Why not re-logo the discount guitars:

So-Cals
by Charvel/Jackson,

It's neat, it's clean, you understand the heritage and you can't confuse one with a high end custom shop guitar. Everyone here knows as well as I do, people who don't know the difference could be taken for alot of money once these start flooding the used market in a couple of years..