The NEW Carvin Bolt-on!

[k65h]

Re: The NEW Carvin Bolt-on!

Locking nut is option LN.

Kent

[RR1HOTROD]

Re: The NEW Carvin Bolt-on!

Carvin necks are way too flat(for me)--

[toejam]

Re: The NEW Carvin Bolt-on!

Originally posted by slayer:
Remember though before you buy one of these beuties, that the neck profile is more like a Jackson Dinky(thin and flat) than a Jackson Soloist(C-Shaped and medium).

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Jack, the older Carvins have thinner necks like Dinkies. For quite a few years now they have been making their necks a little thicker and rounder. Still a little thin, but not Dinky thin. I think the necks on my two Carvins are perfect (actually the same shape as my '87 Charvel Model 6.)

[guitarforceone]

Re: The NEW Carvin Bolt-on!

Got the new Carvin catalog today. I think that guitar is $779 without trem.
Dana <~~~

[slayer]

Re: The NEW Carvin Bolt-on!

Thanks Toejam!! I read on the Carvin board that a little thicker, more rounded neck option is in the works!! I will order a Carvin at that time [img]graemlins/toast.gif[/img] I am either going for the Bolt + or a DC125(1 Hum) only option and neck-thru, but the DC125 doesn`t have the direct mount pickups, but neck-thru [img]graemlins/drool2.gif[/img] Jack.

[zeegler]

Re: The NEW Carvin Bolt-on!

Why do Carvins have such ugly headstocks? Yuck!

[777SteveVai777]

Re: The NEW Carvin Bolt-on!

Those headstocks IMO look better reversed.

I wish they would make the Jackson-style headstock an option like the headstocks back in the early 90s [img]images/icons/frown.gif[/img]

[pro-fusion]

Re: The NEW Carvin Bolt-on!

Don't the Bolts have a lot thinner necks than Carvin's neck-thru guitars? The ones I've played seem to, at least.

I like the look of that new Bolt. Now if it only had 24 frets...

[lerxstcat]

Re: The NEW Carvin Bolt-on!

Originally posted by Word:
Those headstocks IMO look better reversed.

I wish they would make the Jackson-style headstock an option like the headstocks back in the early 90s [img]images/icons/frown.gif[/img]

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Absolutely! The current headstock is dumb-looking, but not to bad reversed; the Jackson pointy-styled ones were cool though!

Pro-Fusion, I also would love to see the new Bolt with a 24-fret neck as an option!

The Floyd nut is optional with Carvin, but is only $16.50, so not bad. I agree
that with a Floyd it should be standard,
but then those who didn't want it would be miffed to pay extra NOT to have it.
Can't please everybody either way....

[Jester700]

Re: The NEW Carvin Bolt-on!

I LIKE the headstock. Certainly tuning stability is easier with the strings going straight over the nut than the Jackson style. Given their standard choice of Wilkinson & Sperzels, that's a good decision.

[necrotechno]

Re: The NEW Carvin Bolt-on!

I don't see where that's a "new" headstock shape. Looks like the same one they've been using since '93.

I also don't understand why it took them so long to do a rear-rout Bolt.

[Gazman]

Re: The NEW Carvin Bolt-on!

how do Wilkinson trems compare to OFR trems?

Gareth [img]graemlins/band.gif[/img]

[Jester700]

Re: The NEW Carvin Bolt-on!

For light trem work, they're as good as non-locking types get. But they aren't made for Vai-style abuse - a good double locking system is needed for that.

[slayer]

Re: The NEW Carvin Bolt-on!

There is only a slight difference in the headstocks, the New one so called has a little rounder tip end, another move in the wrong direction in my opinion, I like the early nineties Carvin headstocks, not to pointy like the late 80`s, but not goofy like the newer ones. Jack.

[toejam]

Re: The NEW Carvin Bolt-on!

Yeah, the newer headstocks seem to be angled a tiny bit more, not as straight. I think they look better reversed and are at a better angle to reach the machine heads. My 2002 SC90 has the reverse. My 2001 D400 has the regular, and I just don't like it as much.