Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Was told by Jackson dealer RR1 has an Les Paul neck according to Randy'specs?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by diablomozart View Post
    i got to play rr009 years ago...i remember the neck was quite chunky...body felt tiny too...it had a repaired headstock (not very well at the time) and i heard they (famous bargain music) sold it to a collector who had the headstock repaired properly...but yeah it felt different from any post 87 rhoads i've ever personally picked up...d.m.
    Chunky as compared to what? Compared to an Ibanez wizard? Jh600 ESP?
    Have you tried the MII Jacksons?

    Comment


    • #17
      Call it a Thick D vs a Shallow C. Call it 0.02 millimeters. Whatever floats your boat.
      All I know that is every old Rhoads I have ever played felt like I had a baseball bat in my hand.


      For comparison -
      If you're familiar - the 86 Model 6 had the neck I like. The 87/88 Model 6 became bigger. And I have played some US Jackson guitars that also had this thicker neck, starting about this same time.
      The Rhoads were even bigger than that.


      I mean, at the end of the day, it doesn't matter how much of an actual size or shape difference there is. The hands know the difference.

      Comment


      • #18
        Too bad I never got to actually try any of those for reference.

        I am only familiar with JACKSON
        DK2M, RR3 MIJ, Kelly Performer
        Several Modern Jackson: Pros, X and JS series
        Schecters
        LTD
        Ibanez
        USA Gibson, USA SG, USA Gibson Flying V
        Squier strats
        Peavey strats

        But what's interesting how much variance in opinion we get here, for people who actually own the RR1. Glad u could input yours! I mean it is a big investment though, so an important question.

        Comment


        • #19
          So the other question is there a comfortable place to place the thumb on the side binding?

          For reference, my sold off Jh-600 Hanneman wasn't as comfortable to place the thumb and it was a Ultra thin U.
          The guitar at the 12th fret was only 20mm a whole 2mm thinner than the Jackson I have now. BUT the kicker is that it tapered really thick as u got past the 12th to the 24th fret. U had to open your hand up wider. The Jackson Soloist maintains its thinness all the way down to the end of the heel. So even though that neck is thinner by a lot, the Jackson neck is superior.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by pianoguyy View Post
            Call it a Thick D vs a Shallow C. Call it 0.02 millimeters. Whatever floats your boat.
            All I know that is every old Rhoads I have ever played felt like I had a baseball bat in my hand.


            For comparison -
            If you're familiar - the 86 Model 6 had the neck I like. The 87/88 Model 6 became bigger. And I have played some US Jackson guitars that also had this thicker neck, starting about this same time.
            The Rhoads were even bigger than that.


            I mean, at the end of the day, it doesn't matter how much of an actual size or shape difference there is. The hands know the difference.
            I've owned Kramers so i know what a baseball bat neck actually is but to the point
            i've owned five six's and one did have a big neck. None had kahlers so I'll assume they were not made in 86. I noticed a change in most J/C necks around the 2002-3 I had a really nice USA snake skin dinky that's neck sucked. DK2's the same, the new PRO series USA charvel' So Cal, San Dimas those are about all I can speak of, Oh, a USA SL2 it sucked. of course these are all fender made stuff and it's just my opinion, if you like your stuff great! That's all that matter's not what some blow hards say about it, myself included!
            I know the old saying that the value of an opinion is generally inversely proportional to the strength with which it is held.

            Comment


            • #21
              So .. we have concluded that the majority of RR1's don't have 25.4 mm or 1 inch fat necks? (around 20.9-22.5 max?)
              Last edited by DanzoStrife; 05-21-2021, 06:37 PM.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by DanzoStrife View Post
                So .. we have concluded that the majority of RR1's don't have 25.4 mm or 1 inch fat necks? (around 20.9-22.5 max?)
                if you want something buy it. if it turns out not to be to your liking sell it or trade it. No one but you can really guarantee how you'll feel about something. you can hash numbers weights all day long, but until it's in your hands thats all they are. I don't like fender jackson charvels, but I like fenders, Go figure! I'm thinking maybe a San dimas MIM might be good because I like fenders MIM strats. I guess I'll just have to find out by getting one in my hands.
                I know the old saying that the value of an opinion is generally inversely proportional to the strength with which it is held.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by john.w.lawson View Post

                  if you want something buy it. if it turns out not to be to your liking sell it or trade it. No one but you can really guarantee how you'll feel about something. you can hash numbers weights all day long, but until it's in your hands thats all they are. I don't like fender jackson charvels, but I like fenders, Go figure! I'm thinking maybe a San dimas MIM might be good because I like fenders MIM strats. I guess I'll just have to find out by getting one in my hands.
                  I was already set on buying it, but some guy I know who is a Jackson dealer who actually hate Rhoads was trying to convince me not to get one. I'm not convinced, just wanted to fact check anyways. Gonna get one anyways lol, or two or three!

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    https://youtu.be/FUQhw4-MOkA Oh I just found this video that Mick Thomson says the Rhoads were spec'd with really thin necks in 87-88, which he got his custom King V with the same neck and then his new Jackson Sl2 line.
                    See around before 2:50 minute mark

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Discoveries: If what Jackson dealer is going off a video saying that Randy based his guitar off his LP, then here's this

                      https://www.musiciansfriend.com/guit...lectric-guitar

                      Randy Rhoads Gibson is a SMALL D profile.

                      Also the RR1 is not the same as Randy Rhoads guitar
                      Last edited by DanzoStrife; 05-21-2021, 07:49 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by DanzoStrife View Post

                        Chunky as compared to what? Compared to an Ibanez wizard? Jh600 ESP?
                        Have you tried the MII Jacksons?
                        felt pretty much like one of my friend's les paul honestly (i think his was a 74, god it's been years)...never tried a mii jackson and everything feels chunky next to an ibanez wizard lol...d.m.

                        edit after reading rest of thread...i have owned a gold metalflake 84 rhoads custom and the neck on it was a quite bit thicker than the 91 rr1 i also owned...i agree with mick from slipknot...i have a gc 25th anniversary dinky (1989) and that neck is thin almost like an ibanez...the caveat to all of this is simple though...charvel/jackson started out as a custom shop...you basically told them what you wanted...so you get variations in neck feels (i had a navy camo soloist that i could have sworn they sanded louisville slugger off and called it a guitar neck)...the more standard neck shapes 9ie:speed neck) came later but i'm not sure when they started that...maybe around the advent of the usa series in the early 90's? maybe as early as the move to ontario and the introduction of the japanese charvels around 86?

                        my best piece of advice is to find an rr1 from a year close to the one you are looking at and put your hands on it...specs are fine but there are always variations in any handmade instrument
                        Last edited by diablomozart; 05-22-2021, 03:06 PM.
                        http://www.mp3unsigned.com/Devane.ASP

                        http://www.mp3unsigned.com/Torquestra.ASP

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by diablomozart View Post

                          felt pretty much like one of my friend's les paul honestly (i think his was a 74, god it's been years)...never tried a mii jackson and everything feels chunky next to an ibanez wizard lol...d.m.

                          edit after reading rest of thread...i have owned a gold metalflake 84 rhoads custom and the neck on it was a quite bit thicker than the 91 rr1 i also owned...i agree with mick from slipknot...i have a gc 25th anniversary dinky (1989) and that neck is thin almost like an ibanez...the caveat to all of this is simple though...charvel/jackson started out as a custom shop...you basically told them what you wanted...so you get variations in neck feels (i had a navy camo soloist that i could have sworn they sanded louisville slugger off and called it a guitar neck)...the more standard neck shapes 9ie:speed neck) came later but i'm not sure when they started that...maybe around the advent of the usa series in the early 90's? maybe as early as the move to ontario and the introduction of the japanese charvels around 86?

                          my best piece of advice is to find an rr1 from a year close to the one you are looking at and put your hands on it...specs are fine but there are always variations in any handmade instrument
                          It sounds like after a certain year, they got all uniform soloist type . but 87 they got skinny and early 80s were thick. But what year RR1 felt like a Gibson? And what neck profile is the 1974 Gibson? They got thick and thin necks.

                          Yea, can never find good guitars around me, i only order them. But I don't think Ill dislike it from other friends I talk to with similar hands and tastes.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            read closer...the rr009 (early custom shop rhoads) felt like the les paul...when rr009 was made there was no such thing as an rr1...the rr1 designation didn't start until the early 90's...the only rr1 i owned was a mid 90's black one, it had a slimmer neck...both rr009 (which i passed on buying) and the gold metalflake rhoads (serial number was in the low 500's i think) were both rhoads guitars made in the early 80's...as for my friend's 74 les paul?...i'm not a gibson guy but it felt considerably thicker than the charvel (1674 blue and white striped that i was playing at the time)...also i was never a fan of les pauls, i got to play joe perry's 59, right before slash bought it, and hated it...so your assessment would be correct...in the late 80's the necks did get thinner...but again, before the standardization of necks every instrument was made to order (an 85 charvel i played for years had a wide flat thin neck with a 1 3/4" nut) and, if ordered through the custom shop today, ou can still spec out the neck shape you want for an upcharge i think...if you're looking for standardized specs, you have to look at early 90's through the present and except all the custom ordered stuff...anything from the early 80's, it was built either to a customer's or dealer's specs...there is nothing standard about those days...sorry...if you are looking at a newer rr1 i suggest looking at the current standardized spec charts to give you an idea...i'm not familiar with any of their newer stuff...d.m.
                            http://www.mp3unsigned.com/Devane.ASP

                            http://www.mp3unsigned.com/Torquestra.ASP

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              oh...just for the record, if it will be your first usa jackson, i expect you will find it a very different guitar than the cheaper stuff made overseas...the usa stuff is where chavel/jackson made it's name...and with good reason...they are extremely fine instruments...good luck with your purchase...d.m.
                              http://www.mp3unsigned.com/Devane.ASP

                              http://www.mp3unsigned.com/Torquestra.ASP

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                It would also seem very reasonable that the thinner necks would've started to be favourable for the shredders in the mid-late '80s over the thick necks many of those guys
                                may have grown up playing in the '70s.
                                96xxxxx, 97xxxxx and 98xxxxx serials oftentimes don't indicate '96, '97 and '98.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X