What corners were cut on the production models

[Rupe]

Bottom line is that "Charvel" is a brand name...nothing more, nothing less. Brand names are used to create recognition in the marketplace that in turn create sales. FMIC has brand managers who are responsible for and measured on bottom line metrics. It is the way of the corporation in today's marketplace...there is no reward for remaining true to a particular heritage if doing that doesn't pay dividends.

I completely understand the romantic notion that a Charvel should be a hand built instrument like they were in the past, but unfortunately it's an unrealistic expectation. The cool thing is, there is still a Custom Shop that will build those instruments for that type of enthusiest (and sometimes they even get the workorder right ). Saying that the production models really aren't Charvels is akin to suggesting that anything that Ford built after the Model T really isn't a Ford (I'll bet there are a few of those guys out there ). FMIC owns the brand...whatever they stick that logo on is a "real Charvel". It may not meet everyone's expections of what a real one should be, but nobody in the board room is losing sleep over it.

Pricing/value are all in the eye of the beholder. Can you get equal quality for less money? I'm sure, but I was rather pleased with the playability, sound, and feel of most of the ones that I've laid hands on (there was one absolute dog). Does the sticker on the headstock mean more than the quality of the components and build to some people? I'm sure of that as well...and that's who will buy these. As a builder of parts guitars, I know I can assemble a better guitar for less money, but for the player who doesn't like to "turn a wrench", these are a good option to have a very playable "superstrat" at a reasonable price.

As for the CNC discussion...what's the issue? The technology was too expensive back in the day so most builders didn't use it. Now that costs have come down, most do. Why anyone thinks that "hand cutting" somehow equates to higher quality I'll never understand. CNC can cut bodies and necks to tolerences that a hand builder could only dream of. Today's top production builders (Anderson, Suhr, etc) all use CNC machinery in their manufacturing process because it producing a more consistent instrument. Old school is is usually "old school" for a reason...it's typically not the best way to do something.

Well, I have a headache after all that...I guess it's time for the leaches

[Grandturk]

Well, I have a headache after all that...I guess it's time for the leaches

Tone-sucking leaches?

[thetruthguy]

This is the Bugera thread all over again!

[biged71]

For me its like this. I have several PRS vintage and newer, I have custom made Suhr's, I have Gibson R9's and R8's, I have owned two Waynes, and currently several Jacksons, a 2005 Charvel SD RI, and 2 CS Charvels.I know I am going to upset some folks, but I don't think the CS Charvels are worth 2 to 3 times as much as the production models. I admit I played a few before I found a good one that met my demands for playability, attention to detail, and fit and finish. That being said, my Demartini, and a new USA Soloist both had stripped screws securing the FR locking nut that I had to repair because it made a popping noise everytime I used the trem. My SD-1 nut is fine. This guitar is what it is. Unfortunately 900 bucks doesn't buy much guitar these days, but for this style guitar, I think it represents a good option at this price point. Its a chance for a guy that can't or won't spend 2 to 3 grand on a CS job to get some of that cool old Charvel vibe. Its still a Charvel, just like the C and E classes are still Mercedes. I bet a lot of kick-ass records were made by some awesome guitarists on guitars that were far worse than these production models. Its a hot-rodded strat with a great neck, meant for rock and roll mayhem. What is the Charvel spirit if its not that?

[85 San Dimas]

+1 Charvel Pointy and Big Ed71

The production series is built in the Fender factory.

One of my original points was if these are "real" then how do you justify the 3K ones? No one will be upset if you say that........least of all FMIC. They'd love nothing more than to increase So-Cal production. it's just cheaper and with less hassles.

Like Gibson guys say "oh Gibsons are are expensive to make because of the set-neck construction, blah, blah, blah"....Explorers cost 1100 new so....Gibson guys please explain this more expensive process to me......over a So-Cal or a Strat. IF its more expensive to build than a Fender then the parts must be cheaper to hit the price point. Gibson is a mess. As for a post that said that Fender might have taken less profit to make these affordable.......no way IMHO. Dollar-wise sure, but percentage-wise no. FMIC doesn't work that way. They built these to increase Charvel/FMIC profits based on capitalizing on the brand names reputation.

I think BTW Grandturk did a good job of listing the cost cutting items (which were every piece on it, LOL). I went over to the store and looked at them again...and side by side with a Wolfie. I still say the Wolfie is a So-Cal..........

One post said the So-Cals are being bought "to play" as opposed to whatever we do with the rest of them. Just kidding. I know what you mean though. I just don't let FMIC off the hook that easily. No one accepts these as being real (it shows in nearly all posts pro or con), but it doesn't mean they aren't good. Still, no one hums w/strat heads...........

Glad to see the thread still going. As he said..."these go to 11"

[Newc]

I fail to see how they're not "real Charvels". Simply because Wayne and Grover and Shannon used to do it "the hard way"? Because they're made inside a building owned by FMIC? Because they don't have the inconsistencies of San Dimas-era Charvels? Because you can't get a ton of options for your $1000 like you could back in 82 (completely ignoring the obvious fact that $1000 in 1982 converts to about $2800 in 2009 terms)? Because Ed is not setting the world on fire with a Charvel? Because Hair Metal is long dead and no longer supporting the Charvel name? Because we know so much about the history of Charvel and who owns/owned/did/didn't do/said/was rumored to have said/sold/bought/stole/gave away/killed for/died for over the years? Because Reagan isn't President? Because Rhoads is dead and Jake's a drug-addled burnout?

Explain to me, and everyone else, once and for all, in clear, specific terms, providing irrefutable evidence, just why the hell my brand new USA-made Charvels are not "real Charvels", or let this thread die, because as the most-important site on the internet regarding Jackson and Charvel, it pains me to think that someone who may be on the verge of switching from some shitpile like Ibenhad or ESPee LTD or Epiphone would come here for our "expert advice" only to see a thread on the new Charvels saying they're no better than the same Indo-Chinese-made pieces of shit they're currently using "simply because" they're not giving away a $5000 guitar for $1000 or living up to someone else's twisted view of what a "real Charvel" is and is not.

FFS.

[jet66]

it pains me to think that someone who may be on the verge of switching from some shitpile like Ibenhad or ESPee LTD

As a side note, what is interesting is that there is a fair amount of ESP vs. LTD bias. 'LTD's aren't real ESP's' kind of fights, if you will.

[Grandturk]

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrggggggh!!!!!!!!!

From my phone. Expect more later.

[Grandturk]

Alright, bro - you know I agree with you most times, but man I just can't let this drop. When you were just sticking with the "I'd rather buy used San Dimas pointies than new Pro-Mods" I'm with you - I agree with that logic - if I liked the pointies as much as the Strat-heads, I'd buy them up, too - take that one dude in Classifieds that keeps posting that trans maple Jackson pointy with the Kahler - there are a lot of great old guitars out there around the same price as a new Pro-Mod.

The production series is built in the Fender factory.

FMIC facility. Corporate park, building, factory - whatever it is. I can imagine in this industry, it makes zero sense to have more than one production facility in the US, especially within a small area, such as southern california. Fender has a giant (I'm assuming, I've never actually seen it) facility in Corona. It would be a waste of money to have another facility in San Dimas, Ontario, Glendora, or wherever.

One of my original points was if these are "real" then how do you justify the 3K ones? No one will be upset if you say that........least of all FMIC. They'd love nothing more than to increase So-Cal production. it's just cheaper and with less hassles.

There used to be a saying in the auto industry, something like "Corvettes sell more Chevelles than Corvettes." The idea is this - the top model sexy car, the Corvette, generates interest in the brand, brings people into the dealership, and sends them back home with a cheaper, more practical car. The same thing is absolutely TRUE in the guitar world. You put a sexy, Hot Wheels flames Custom Shop Charvel on the cover of Guitar World, and all of a sudden, people are interested in Charvels. They check them out, see the price tag on the Custom Shop version, then see the price tag on the Pro-Mod, and walk out of the store with the Pro-Mod.

Not everyone can afford a Corvette or a Custom Shop Charvel. A lot more people can afford a Malibu and a Pro-Mod. That's reason number 1 that the Custom Shop exists. The brand is built by the top models and funded by the production models.

I've played a lot of guitars in my life. IMO - For strats style guitars upwards of $2.5K or so, increases in playability and tone rapidly diminish vs. cost. Its probably a little higher for set-neck types - I'm looking at you Gibson. Up in that price range, you're not paying for tone and playability - you're paying for aesthetics and cache. Eventually, you can't dress frets any better, you can't shim a neck any more, you can't rub the finish with a diaper any longer. If the difference between a guitar at $3K and $6K is that the $6K one gives you a hard-on - then buy the $6K one, because it don't play any better, and it ain't gunna get you laid.

Like Gibson guys say "oh Gibsons are are expensive to make because of the set-neck construction, blah, blah, blah"....Explorers cost 1100 new so....Gibson guys please explain this more expensive process to me......over a So-Cal or a Strat. IF its more expensive to build than a Fender then the parts must be cheaper to hit the price point. Gibson is a mess. As for a post that said that Fender might have taken less profit to make these affordable.......no way IMHO. Dollar-wise sure, but percentage-wise no.

Internet Rumor #47,289 - Neck Through is better than Set Neck, Set Neck is better than Bolt on.



Set neck construction does A. not inherently cost more, and B. does not a better guitar make. Different yes, I agree - but not better.

Now... Les Pauls are expensive, and they've gotten more and more expensive every year. And, I think some Crapiphone Les Pauls are ridiculously priced. I would have a hard time ever justifying buying a new LP, so I'm stuck with my Norlin-era LP, I guess.

HOWEVER - The construction of a Les Paul is way more involved than the construction of an Explorer or a Flying V. Just look at them - maple top, binding, trap inlays - hell, the Flying V has "Gibson" on the plastic truss rod cover - these models SHOULD be cheaper. But again - cheaper does not have to mean "less well made." You don't need flame maple and abalone (bologna) inlays to be a good or great guitar. And if you want to compare Gibson to Fender, I don't know how much better a Custom Shop Strat is vs. a 57 RI Strat, but I DO know the difference between a Les Paul Standard and a Historic RI.

FMIC doesn't work that way. They built these to increase Charvel/FMIC profits based on capitalizing on the brand names reputation.

Yes, that's what companies do if they want to stay in business. Brands that don't make money get shut down or sold.

I think BTW Grandturk did a good job of listing the cost cutting items (which were every piece on it, LOL). I went over to the store and looked at them again...and side by side with a Wolfie. I still say the Wolfie is a So-Cal..........

Why thank you!

One post said the So-Cals are being bought "to play" as opposed to whatever we do with the rest of them. Just kidding. I know what you mean though.

I would never buy a guitar and not play it. I wouldn't buy a Custom Shop guitar and then not play it.

I just don't let FMIC off the hook that easily. No one accepts these as being real (it shows in nearly all posts pro or con), but it doesn't mean they aren't good. Still, no one hums w/strat heads...........

Now hold on a second - a lot of people are very happy with these guitars AND do consider them "real" Charvels. I certainly do - they have Charvel on the headstock, that makes them a Charvel. We've been over all of this - Orville Gibson doesn't build Gibsons anymore, thus the shit you've got with Gibson on the headstock aren't real Gibsons. Please, give me a break with this.

Glad to see the thread still going. As he said..."these go to 11"

I now feel really dirty having itemized this post and responding in little bites.

[alanhindle]

A great plan to enable for Mr. 85 San Dimas to test his theory:

He should buy a USA production Charvel and then take FMIC to court for making a false trade description. Each week he could then post a reply here on this thread to keep us informed how it's going. At the same time, every Custom Shop Charvel he has to sell to help fund the legal costs can be offered to us as first refusals. Given the need to make quick sales to keep those greedy lawyers happy, I'd be prepared to pay half the price of a new USA production for a used CS model.

Sound like a good plan all?

[85 San Dimas]

Grandturk, I agree with everything you posted word for word except for the next to last one about the real part. We will disagree there. It isn't necessary for Wayne or Grover or Shannon to build them, but it is necessary that they be made the same as they are in the real Charvel shop since THAT PRODUCTION PROCESS by THAT COMPANY is what defines what a real Charvel is. I'm not defining it. History and what Charvel was resurrected to be are defining it.

[85 San Dimas]

I fail to see how they're not "real Charvels". Simply because Wayne and Grover and Shannon used to do it "the hard way"? FFS.

By the "hard way" do you mean the way the real Charvels are built now? Yes.

Because they're made inside a building owned by FMIC? FFS.

Only because they're built by non-Charvel employees on non-Charvel equipment using non-Charvel materials from non-Charvel parts with non-Charvel QC. I think that all pretty much qualifies it as "Non-Charvel".

re: copies.

Because they don't have the inconsistencies of San Dimas-era Charvels? FFS.

....Or the quality of parts and build, don't forget that part of the equation.
These are inconsistent too, as are all manufactured items.

Because you can't get a ton of options for your $1000 like you could back in 82 (completely ignoring the obvious fact that $1000 in 1982 converts to about $2800 in 2009 terms)? FFS.

And by your math about 375 in 1982 converts to 1000 now. That's Kramer Focus money we're talking here (and they had "real" floyds too).

Because Reagan isn't President? FFS.

Damned shame that. We could've used 'ol Ronnie last fall when Wall Street found out Fender was building decaled Charvel copies on their production line and the world economy crashed. So, even Wall St. agrees with me.

Explain to me, and everyone else, once and for all, in clear, specific terms, providing irrefutable evidence, just why the hell my brand new USA-made Charvels are not "real Charvels" FFS.

Been doing it for 11 pages (urr.. 12 now) Newc. Point by point. Over and over and over. A lot of the response I get back is emotional except for the posts where its argued its only a brand-name so who cares, but then why would we have this fine forum if it wasn't more than a brand-name? Grandturk offers specs, but specs alone I disagree. But since you want to read it again (in a condensed version):

If a Charvel costs 2500 bucks then thats what they cost. They cost that because of those materials and that labor. You can't build a Charvel for 1100. If they could've then this thread would've been one page long. Charvel can't build it and have GC sell it for 1100, so FMIC is building high-quality copies on the Fender production line and badging them as Charvels.

The preceding paragraph is all absolutely true and proven beyond any possible arguement by anyone. You, Bionic, Grover Jackson, Mike Shannon. it doesn't matter who wants to argue. These are the facts.

So, we disagree on what again? Whether its a true Charvel since it shares no components and no production facilities with same? Since the only real Charvel item is the decal and maybe the neck plate?

Because as the most-important site on the internet regarding Jackson and Charvel, it pains me to think that someone who may be on the verge of switching from some shitpile like Ibenhad or ESPee LTD or Epiphone would come here for our "expert advice" only to see a thread on the new Charvels saying they're no better than the same Indo-Chinese-made pieces of shit they're currently using "simply because" they're not giving away a $5000 guitar for $1000 or living up to someone else's twisted view of what a "real Charvel" is and is not. FFS.

#1: I originally questioned the USA production, and opined that that price point generally means Korean parts, but I didn't say they were "shit".

#2: I don't want some kid blowing 1100 on a So-Cal thinking he's getting the real thing because HE IS NOT, and everyone reading this thread knows it. I would rather he didn't buy the So-Cal rather than buy it and feel ripped off when he finds out the truth.

I don't have to twist a view to get to my conclusion. I know what a Charvel is, and I know what a Charvel is supposed to be. So-Cals require a "twist" to call them Charvels, it requires rationalization. It requires making excuses for the So-Cals intentional shortcomings to achieve a lower price point. I think you should be justifying how they ARE REAL without using legalisms or emotional arguments. So.......as for the JCF (which I love, and the guitars which I love):

I think honesty is the best policy Newc. Our "expert" advice is worthless if we don't call something what it is. Otherwise we'd be shills for FMIC. "Oh, its soooooooo great. "Charvels" for 1100". And I ask no one to give away anything. FMIC created this argument when they decided to redefine what they want a Charvel to be.

But in the interests of honesty and to clear it up for Epi owners:

My Public Service Announcement (IMHO)

If you've got 1100 to spend on a Charvel-type 70's-80's guitar AND
it: a)Has to be new & b) has to say Charvel on it FROM THE FACTORY...

then by all means....BUY A SO-CAL. it is the best of its kind for USA production "super-strat" bolt-on guitars. Hands down. I never said it wasn't.

To all Epi owners...buy a So-Cal. To all LTD owners..buy a So-Cal.
If your Ibanez was made in Japan, especially by the old J-craft guys then you've got a helluva guitar so hold on to it unless its too much guitar for you. If you have a lesser Ibanez then buy a So-Cal.

ESP makes damned good guitars Newc whether we "like them" or not.

And none of this PSA applies to Charvel CS.

BUT (IMHO) IF YOU ARE SMART then SAVE THE 1100 and buy a used real one-just be discrimminating on condition, or buy a used So-Cal for about 650. Again all IMO.

Newc, If you want to say "the So-Cal is a price leader for Charvel. It gives you the look and feel of the real thing at a lower cost. It is assembled in the USA" (we understand that is true). You get a Charvel copy with the quality of production line Fender" then that's correct.
So, How is that a slam? That is a selling point and Bionic will agree, and except for the word "copy" he already HAS agreed. I just pretty much stated his case. I insert the word "copy" where Bionic would use the word "real".

And BTW NEWC...is starting another thread by basically saying "piss off" to the people who question the So-Cals really letting this thing die?

[Grandturk]

If your Ibanez was made in Japan, especially by the old J-craft guys then you've got a helluva guitar so hold on to it unless its too much guitar for you. If you have a lesser Ibanez then buy a So-Cal.

I just played one of the new Prestige RG's - the $999.00 orange one, maple board with the dot inlays. Excellent guitar. The Edge trem was fantastic - sounded good, felt good, stayed in tune. The neck felt really good. Now, comparing it to my original 770DX (recently aquired, traded a USA Fusion), the new one was lacking a bit, especially in the pickup department, which sounded a little to "open wah" ish - high middy; and overall vibe - but you get that with a 20 year old guitar. Now at $999, you get a hard shell case vs no case with the San Dimas. It was probably about 85% as good as the San Dimas - to me. Almost bought it, but I really want my Adrian Smith.

And BTW NEWC...is starting another thread by basically saying "piss off" to the people who question the So-Cals really letting this thing die? .

No worries - I already sabotaged that thread with unwarranted Kahler worship!!! lol.

[ZippoTragedy]

Is that really accurate? Do we know for certain the CS uses different equipment, different CNC machines, different routers? Their process is what makes a Charvel, and the #1 goal of any manufacturing concern is repeatable process and mass-production (or scalable production); to that end, has not Fender accomplished that with the USA production series - which? I would be willing to be that the difference is only attention to detail - higer tollerances and more exacting attention to measurements and specifications with stricter QC - otherwise, the machinery and the processes are likely very similar, if not the same. If I take machinery out and add attention to specifications and thresholds (e.g. quality control) along with things like having master luthiers look over the process and output (and fixing to specificaiton any deficiencies) what demonstrable difference is there?

If you take your SoCal USA Production to a luthier and ask them to give it the once-over, Plek it and do some basic pro setup, what's the difference. IMO, you're paying for the namesake, not necessarily the level of craftsmanship as it is represented in pure market terms (e.g. labor costs are higher on the CS, and add more profit margin to boot).

The obvious compelling reaosn to go the CS route is that you can say that you have a Custom Shop guitar - and as long as their quality control standards remain high, it will support the pricing and resale value. The other compelling story is around customization to exact specs (e.g. Artists who know precisely what they want - and it's unique to them or their playing style or bodies).

Finally, killer graphics and access to Custom Shop graphic artists, although the latter are becoming more available as the "art" finds a new medium, a new "canvas", if you will, that can (possibly) get a lot of media attention and free marketing props for budding and seasoned visual artists.

But does that mean they use different equipment?
How about the proces?

I suspect that it boils down to spec adherance, qc and value-added services.

Grandturk, I agree with everything you posted word for word except for the next to last one about the real part. We will disagree there. It isn't necessary for Wayne or Grover or Shannon to build them, but it is necessary that they be made the same as they are in the real Charvel shop since THAT PRODUCTION PROCESS by THAT COMPANY is what defines what a real Charvel is. I'm not defining it. History and what Charvel was resurrected to be are definign it.

[Newc]

If a Charvel costs 2500 bucks then thats what they cost. They cost that because of those materials and that labor. You can't build a Charvel for 1100. If they could've then this thread would've been one page long. Charvel can't build it and have GC sell it for 1100, so FMIC is building high-quality copies on the Fender production line and badging them as Charvels.

The preceding paragraph is all absolutely true and proven beyond any possible arguement by anyone. You, Bionic, Grover Jackson, Mike Shannon. it doesn't matter who wants to argue. These are the facts.

And you have documented evidence of this? Photos? Mandates on FMIC stationery?

And Jackson and Charvel have been moved out of the all-in-one building they were first moved into? Last I heard, they were only separated from the Fender production facility by a wall which both brands shared. Not 2 buildings 10 feet or 100 feet apart, but "Jackson in the kitchen, Fender in the living room".

By your logic, are non-USA-made Jacksons "Jackson copies"? They're not made with the same quality of materials, nor in the same facility as the USA Selects. For that matter, are the USA Select Jacksons not real Jacksons, because they're not using top-of-the-line materials, attention to detail, quality of craftsmanship, etc as the Custom Shop? Where's the cost-cutting coming from on those?

Assembly-line mass-production and simplification of specs, that's where.

Yes, Charvel can build a USA-made guitar for $1100 (more precisely, you can build a USA-made guitar that can be realistically MSRP'd at $1100). Jackson and Charvel do it all day long, as do Gibson and Fender.

Does this mean they can completely abandon the Charvel Custom Shop? No, but not for the reasons you cite.
The market for the current production model specs will dwindle over a given period of time, and more people will hold off buying until/unless the specs are flexible - rosewood boards, etc.
To maintain the $1100 MSRP, you have to set the specs in stone. Jackson does this as well with the USA Select series.
The Charvel Custom Shop is the bread-and-butter of the Charvel brand, not the USA Production series, because there are more options available. More options = more customers. Charvel also has the heritage of being a Custom Shop first and a production model second, so they have to maintain it for that aspect as well.

Now the big question: if you sat blindfolded in a chair and were handed a Charvel Custom Shop and an off-the-shelf SoCal, both with the same setup, and having never played either of those exact guitars, could you tell which one was which merely by the neck profile, body, and tone/playability?

I seriously doubt it.

The fascination of paying $2500 for something goes a long way to convince someone that what they have is far better than an identical item bought for half of that. That was Grover Jackson's exact philosophy back in the early 80s when he priced USA-made Jacksons higher than a Gibson Les Paul - "people associate high-price with high-quality". Those words came out of his own mouth.

I hate to burst your bubble, but no one is immune to change. Those that thought they were are no longer in business, or slowly dying while sticking to their empty guns. My 2008/9 Charvels are as real as the '83 Charvel Star I had.