Charvel sound... Fender headstock vs Jackson headstock?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TrueTone500
  • Start date Start date
T

TrueTone500

Banned
New member
I just purchased a 1986 white Charvel Strat that I have been looking for since 1986. I went to Thoroughbred Music in Tampa back in '86 to purchase a Jackson guitar. On the wall there was a white Charvel bolt-on, a black Jackson bolt-on, a used Charvel Strat head, and bubblegum pink Jackson Soloist. I decided to purchase the black one because it was labeled as "Jackson", but I also wanted the white one for its H/S/S pickups. After a few months of owning the black Jackson, I wished I had purchased the white Charvel instead. I was stoked to find that same white H/S/S, especially in such great condition. Anyway, I played all four of them, and found that the Jackson style headstock models sounded better to my ears than the Strat head model, yet they all used the same pickup. Even unplugged the headstocks with the phenolic plates sounded better.



Thoroughbred Music salesman;
"The phenolic plate on the headstock improves sustain and resonance of the guitar..."

I know there are some avid Charvel fans here on RT, and I'm wondering if any of you agree with the salesman's comment... Do you think the phenolic plate on the headstock has an effect on the sound of the instrument, or is it the shape of the headstock?
 
I don't even know what that is. I assume its related to either phenol in the adhesives or laminate? If so, that sounds like bs to me.
 
I don't think the headstock shape on a Charvel plays much of a factor in the overall tone, especially with a locking nut. As was said, more mass can enhance the sustain but it won't have an appreciable impact on tone. I would likely chalk this one up to simply getting a good guitar where all of the components "line up" to produce a good, fat tone that you like.

Nice guitar...this one has changed hands a few times over the past 7-8 years...I think because it's so clean nobody wants to play it and beat it up. I almost snagged it myself at one point but the Kahler kept me away.
I hope you you got this for a lot less than the seller was asking ;)
 
You're incorrect about this guitar in terms of ownership. I will be the 3rd owner of this Charvel. The original owner (Al) was an employee of Thoroughbred Music who sold it to the current owner. I purchased it for a very good price AFAIC, and am very happy to be getting it. Now I just need to decide if I'm going to put in EMG, or EMG-X?

I paid more then some would I guess, but I know for a fact that this is the same guitar that was in Thoroughbred Music. I spent over 2 hours playing that guitar; but like I said, I ended-up with the black Jackson instead. I prefer the Kahler because pedal-tone notes don't go flat when I unison bend, which is a big part of how I play.
 
What's the serial #? I can tell you without a doubt if you give me that.
 
Headstock "pitch" or angle would have an influence too.
 
What about some other factors like thicker paint on headstock or thinner body due to a different build year, etc.?

Were both Charvels nearly identical with the exception of the headstock shape (same fretboard type, etc.)?

I'm just thinking about Gibson guitars and how different the newer Les Pauls sound compared to the older ones. Not sure if Charvel changed anything in the process to save money. If they are both early 80's guitars, then I'm dumbfounded. I have a Warren DeMartini Signature but it was made a few years ago.
 
romanianreaper":qvx319o0 said:
What about some other factors like thicker paint on headstock or thinner body due to a different build year, etc.?

Were both Charvels nearly identical with the exception of the headstock shape (same fretboard type, etc.)?

I'm just thinking about Gibson guitars and how different the newer Les Pauls sound compared to the older ones. Not sure if Charvel changed anything in the process to save money. If they are both early 80's guitars, then I'm dumbfounded. I have a Warren DeMartini Signature but it was made a few years ago.
Click to expand...

The paint and bodies appeared identical. The white and black had rosewood boards, and the 1983 had a maple board. I don't generally hear a difference between maple and rosewood, so I didn't attribute it to that. If anything, maple may sound a slight bit brighter.

It did seem logical since Charvel could have just painted it to begin with. A phenolic plate has to be glued, clamped until dry, trimmed to fit, decal, then sprayed with clear-coat. It would have been more cost effective to just spray it black, decal, and clear-coat it like they did on the later models.
 
rupe":1erfer2c said:
D-Rock":1erfer2c said:
Headstock "pitch" or angle would have an influence too.
Click to expand...
Not with a locking nut
Click to expand...
Actually, it would since string vibration resonates throughout the whole guitar, not just the strings themselves. Any change to the shape and/or mass of the body will effect resonant character of the instrument.

What I'm trying to find out is if the phenolic plate improves resonation? The more I ponder this, the more I believe the reps claim. I think the idea of the phenolic plate is similar to the clamp-on device that acoustic players use to keep from losing sustain when the vibration reaches the resonant frequency of the wood itself. This would explain why I have always favored the Charvel 'pointy' headstock guitars over most electrics. A played some of the later ones without the plate, and they most definitely did not sound as good to me.
 
From what I understand, the conventional wisdom is that the phenolic paper/material is supposed to resonate better.

However, I would not discount the different neck wood or bridges--they all bring something different to the table and can make a perceptible difference acoustically.

I own several guitars with phenolic nuts, but I really don't notice any differences acoustically compared to similar guitars with a bone nut.
 
I received the Charvel today, and it's in like-new condition. The pickups have never been changed and still has the original controls. A definite collectors piece! :)


 
Amazing how clean that is for a guitar that old without a refin. Very nice and congrats! I know a lot of people hate 'em, but I dig Kahlers. I prefer Floyd's, but I can do some cool things with the Kahler that aren't easy to do with a Floyd...

Steve
 
Thanks man. I like both, but the Kahler models sound 'chunkier' to me? I actually played this guitar when it was up for sale at Thoroughbred Music (Tampa) in '86. There was also a bubblegum pink Soloist there that I would love to find.

More pics...



 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top