#1
I have been looking at the spec of the guitars,
For the price they seem insanely good.
Which makes me wonder why they are not more popular?
Any ideas?
#2
They are extremely good. They probably arent too popular because they don't look teh br00tz enough .
If i could afford one i'd have it in a heartbeat
#3
if im not mistaken, then charvel used to be Jackson's parent company.... i was told this by some1.. im not sure though... might be wrong....

now jackson's with fender
**** fender

but yeah... charvel used to be very popular in the 80s especially with the hair metal scene
Last edited by GuitarManNick at Jun 28, 2010,
#5
Charvel was sold to Jackson in 1978.
Quote by Natrone
I'm a pretty hardcore Christian. I would like to sincerely apologize that you ran into that little fucktard


Quote by mystique facade
dale-banez made a fool of himself..lol



my gear:

oh wait, no one cares
#6
Charvel IS popular, especially now again since they've resumed production. However, as value-for-price -ratio goes, many Ibanez and LTD guitars wipe the floor with the new Charvels.
Gear:

Guitars: Ibanez SV5470F, Ibanez Xpt700, Fender MIM Standard Stratocaster ('04-'05), Jackson Ps-2
Ashton AG200,
Amps: ENGL E530, Bugera 6262-212,
FX: TC Electronics G-major 2, Behringer EQ700, Morley Volume / Wah
#7
Quote by GuitarManNick
if im not mistaken, then charvel used to be Jackson's parent company.... i was told this by some1.. im not sure thought... might be wrong....

now jackson's with fender
**** fender

but yeah... charvel used to be very popular in the 80s especially with the hair metal scene


The guy who created Jackson used to work for Charvel
So yeah.... you're right
#8
Quote by The^Unforgiven
Charvel IS popular, especially now again since they've resumed production. However, as value-for-price -ratio goes, many Ibanez and LTD guitars wipe the floor with the new Charvels.

You think? I reckon the charvels are pretty good value. USA made. Good pickups. Good trem. Sexy maple fretboards. Can't go wrong really.
#10
They use to be the guitar of choice for hair metal bands in the 80's. They ****in rip and sound great I'd like one myself but no one around where I am sells em. I find it kind of odd more people don't play them. Maybe it is because most people with $1000 dollars or more to spend are old farts who tend to only look at fender and gibsons or pimply 16 year olds who get their parents to buy them the uber expensive Jackson and ibanez guitars.
Barf

Fender 70's reissue strat
Laney 120 mxd
Morley bad horsie 2
#11
Quote by Grapejuiceksjdf
Maybe it is because most people with $1000 dollars or more to spend are old farts who tend to only look at fender and gibsons or pimply 16 year olds who get their parents to buy them the uber expensive Jackson and ibanez guitars.


+1
#12
The main thing that is frustrating is that there are no shops near me that sell them therefore if i bought one it'd have to be on the internet without playing it before buying it.
#13
Quote by The^Unforgiven
Charvel IS popular, especially now again since they've resumed production. However, as value-for-price -ratio goes, many Ibanez and LTD guitars wipe the floor with the new Charvels.

I kinda agree with this. The specs are great for Charvel on paper. But after playing a couple, I'm a little disappointed with the quality. It's not bad quality, I was just expecting a little more. My expectations were kind of silly considering the price range it is for an American guitar with those specs, especially since Fender owns them. The great MIA Fender products are more than Charvels. I find that Ibanez Prestige and ESP Standard beat them by a lot in terms of quality. But a similar guitar costs more from those companies. I think Charvel is good on paper and they just want to sell you a good guitar for more than it's worth. If you watch interviews on how their made, you'll clearly see that their main goal is to keep costs down. They use the MIA thing to make you think it's very high quality, but the quality is really most similar to a lot of brand's overseas guitars instead of their mainland guitar that are MIA and MIJ. Charvels do have their own style though and they're not bad at all, so don't let my opinion make you think their bad. I don't even think they're bad. I was just a little let down by the quality.
#14
im sorry but the newer charvels just dont do it for me. i would grab an 80's or 90's charvel used though, if i can find one.

its a lot like kramer really older ones just sound and look better.
#15
Quote by hellsrocker
The guy who created Jackson used to work for Charvel
So yeah.... you're right


some of you guys seem a little confused. WARNING: HISTORY LESSON AHEAD: Wayne Charvel launched Charvel guitar shop in 1974. They were made popular by EVH and got their roots as a small repair/modification shop. When Wayne had some money troubles, he sold it to his friend Grover Jackson in 1978. He had turned it into a national brand by 1979, and it was made even more popular by early hair metal and shred bands. These metal acts favored them for their fast necks, locking trems, simple control layout, and their outlandish paintjobs. Some of the more popular paints was George Lynch's Bengal Tiger, Warren DiMartini's Rising Sun, EVH stripes, and Snakeskin. Around 1980, Grover Jackson was approached by Randy Rhoads to build what would eventually be called the Jackson Rhoads. Its appearance was quite radical for the day, and fearing it might tarnish the Charvel name, Grover put his own name on it, therefore launching the Jackson brand. Jacksons were basically the radical, sleeker looking set-neck brothers of the wild looking, however conventional, Charvels. In the mid-80s, the brands went through more money trouble, so Grover merged the company with International Music Corporation. The first thing they did was move most Charvel production to Japan, while Jacksons and custom Charvels continued to be made in California. Eventually the California shop was moved to TOntario, and was downsized. Grover didnt like the changes and had little control, so in 1989 he sold his share of the company and left. The Ontario plant continued to downsize to only 35 employees, and many of the workers went to go work for Fender. Quality instruments were still being made in Japan, but the decline of shred accounted for the decline of the brand. By 1998 IMC had milked all of the money they could out of the Charvel/Jackson name and sold the brand to Akai music, a Chinese company. Quality dropped very quickly, and there was next to no interest the guitars (the charvels from this period can be identified by their 'tootpaste' logo, similar to the one of jackson). In 2002 Fender bought both brands, restoring quality to the name. Also many former workers have returned to the brand, to create essentially the same guitars they did all of those years ago. the end

man that was a lot of typing for something i bet no one will read
Quote by valterra
You traded him a sword for the guitar? You do realize that a smart person would just agree to the trade, take the sword, slay you with it, keep all of the loot and call it a day, right?

....What are they teaching you kids in school these days?!
#16
Quote by Alucard817
im sorry but the newer charvels just dont do it for me. i would grab an 80's or 90's charvel used though, if i can find one.

its a lot like kramer really older ones just sound and look better.

Not really since most of the new kramers bar a few are bottom of the line instruments while charvel are made in usa. Actually there was a period when charvel was jacksons low end line before fender bought the brands..