Jackson necks?

  • Thread starter Thread starter bunghole
  • Start date Start date
B

bunghole

Active member
I've never played a higher end Jackson, but are the necks similar in shape and whatnot to the Japanese ones? Because I hate the necks on the Dinky's and RR3s and such
 
Not sure how they play compared to Japanese ones, but the SL-1 I had was really comfortable, the only gripe I had with it was how the back was finished. Man I miss that guitar :cry:
 
I don't think their higher-end (Japanese or USA) neck-thrus feel like their lower end Japanese bolt-on models. I love the necks on their nice stuff, but their lower end...I always felt like I was playing a different brand guitar when I picked up one of their bolt-ons. I've only played one Jackson bolt-on I liked, the rest stunk IMO.
 
it depends on the model but chances are if you dont like the imports you prolly won't lke the USA models. I like a beefier neck profile myself...
 
I have a mid-range Japanese bolt on from the mid 90's. Comparing that to an Ibanez RG470, the Ibanez neck is thinner and the Jackson neck is wider. The Jackson neck is still very thin compared to most other guitars I've played, like ESP/Fender/Gibson/Anderson
 
bunghole":1jigjj4j said:
I've never played a higher end Jackson, but are the necks similar in shape and whatnot to the Japanese ones? Because I hate the necks on the Dinky's and RR3s and such
Click to expand...



Dude, theyre all over the place... Set neck or Bolt on is the question I ask you....
Set necks almost always have a paint scheme and clear coat, unless ur talkin Custom shop pieces, or USA stuff from back in the day... Ive easily played 2 dozen Jackson bolt ons that have a similar radius but the thickness varies from piece to piece, as Ive compared my '87 to others.... by contrast the consistancy, the feel/fretwork on the newer (15 or so years ) setneck USA stuff is in a class by itself... if you love big railroad tie Jumbo frets. But the actions almost always stupid low. The High end Custom shop pieces are even scarier, are/can modeled after the old school Charvel an Jacksons from the 80's and can be ordered bolt on and unfinished/tung oiled, and so they typically use better woods in the build, flame, birdseye... But you'll pay. Dearly. :lol: :LOL:
IMO, The dinkys arent bad for the price point, but the tones not gonna be the same as a custom shop piece....my preference on cheaper guitars is to break out a little 800 grit an 'break' that clear coat to give it a broken in feel. It takes balls if your not used to doing that kind of work but worth it in the long run if you want a neck that feels more like a high end piece without the nasty price tag usually attached.... :lol: :LOL: IF youve got real STONES, you can reshape it to your preference and Rock...
 
mysticaxe":zbzgcshc said:
I have a mid-range Japanese bolt on from the mid 90's. Comparing that to an Ibanez RG470, the Ibanez neck is thinner and the Jackson neck is wider. The Jackson neck is still very thin compared to most other guitars I've played, like ESP/Fender/Gibson/Anderson
Click to expand...

I really like the Wizard necks.

Just something about the necks on the bolt on Jacksons (not just the budget ones, but the DK2,RR3, and others with SD pickups and such) just didn't do it for me
 
My RR1 has a very very wide and flat neck. I love it because I learned on a nylon acoustic which was similarly wide. All in all its the best neck I have ever played on, ever. Probably just particular to my fingers and preference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top