#1
So I picked up this guitar today at an antique store for $90. The tone in it is amazing and has a whammy bar. The neck and headstock after hours of searching appears to be that of a Jackson. The body on the other hand looks exactly like a 1956 Stratocaster. This guitar does have quite a bit of age o it so I wouldn't be surprised if it is what I think. What do you guys think it is? I'm really puzzled. I think it might have been a prototype of some kind.

here is the link to the pictures:

http://s965.photobucket.com/albums/ae138/XanderDylan/
#3
Most likely something that someone put together. Dont get too excited.
GEAR:
Ibanez Xiphos XPT750
ESP Ltd Viper 400
Egnater Rebel 30 112
Boss GE-7
Line 6 Uber Metal
Boss DD-7
#5
if it's a custom then $90 is still a really good price. For all you know it could be better than what he thinks it is. A sound test through a good amp would be cool. Either way not a bad find at all, HNGD
#6
Quote by handbanana
if it's a custom then $90 is still a really good price. For all you know it could be better than what he thinks it is. A sound test through a good amp would be cool. Either way not a bad find at all, HNGD


I've been playing it through a hot-rodded Marshall 1959 SLP using a Marshall Jackhammer JH-1 distortion with some reverb. It sounds amazing! Goes out of tune super quick though.
#7
I wouldn't be suprised if it was a copy...

It could have just been a superstrat made by a "ghostbuilder" some time in the 80's, which is probably the reason why there is no logo on the headstock.

EDIT: The shap of the body is suggesting that it is definitely a copy.

Quote by XanderDylan
I've been playing it through a hot-rodded Marshall 1959 SLP using a Marshall Jackhammer JH-1 distortion with some reverb. It sounds amazing! Goes out of tune super quick though.

That might be caused by the bridge. If it is a cheap copy of a Floyd Rose, it would make it go out of tune as soon as you did a divebomb.

Its a really nice guitar though, especially for just $100.
Quote by user_nameless
You can go ahead and sponge my bob.

/notfunnyatalljoke.


Quote by halo43
When you date a vegetarian, you're the only meat they'll ever eat.
Last edited by TMF128 at Jul 7, 2010,
#9
Quote by TMF128
I wouldn't be suprised if it was a copy...

It could have just been a superstrat made by a "ghostbuilder" some time in the 80's, which is probably the reason why there is no logo on the headstock.

EDIT: The shap of the body is suggesting that it is definitely a copy.


That might be caused by the bridge. If it is a cheap copy of a Floyd Rose, it would make it go out of tune as soon as you did a divebomb.

Its a really nice guitar though, especially for just $100.


i was using the whammy bar a lot today not doing intense divebombs or anything and after a while, i can't even play a simple chord because it goes out of tune so quick. I'll probably get new tuners for it soon.

thanks! yeah i couldn't pass it up.
#11
Quote by handbanana
yeah man throw some gfs tuners on there for like $40

give us a sound clip!

yeah i'm gonna get some of those!

i will work on getting one. it might be crappy quality so forgive me on that when i do get it posted.
#13
I figured out how to post it. The little sound clip of this guitar is on my profile. Forgive me for the crappy quality though.
#14
new tuners, a locking nut, and possibly even a new trem unit is what i would prescribe. though im not even sure what kind of bridge that is. it looks like a kahler at first then it looks like a floyd
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?!
#15
Quote by siverstorm
nothing some locking tuners couldn't help with?


Exactly what would the point of locking tuners be on a guitar that already has a locking nut?
#17
What you've got there is almost certainly a partsocaster made up of lower end stuff. On the neck (and this is hard to tell because of the photo quality) the inlays seem to be sort of yellowish. This isn't hard evidence in itself, but this sort of off-colored inlay is something you commonly see on lower end import stuff.

Also its 21 frets which further reduces the chance of it being a Jackson neck. So it's definitely a Jackson shaped headstock, but you're safe to assume it probably isn't an actual Jackson neck

As for the body, could be anything really.

But all that matters is how well you like playing it. If you like the way she feels than regardless of what its made from, you got a great steal for 90 bucks!
#18
Quote by FullDistortion
What you've got there is almost certainly a partsocaster made up of lower end stuff. On the neck (and this is hard to tell because of the photo quality) the inlays seem to be sort of yellowish. This isn't hard evidence in itself, but this sort of off-colored inlay is something you commonly see on lower end import stuff.

Also its 21 frets which further reduces the chance of it being a Jackson neck. So it's definitely a Jackson shaped headstock, but you're safe to assume it probably isn't an actual Jackson neck

As for the body, could be anything really.

But all that matters is how well you like playing it. If you like the way she feels than regardless of what its made from, you got a great steal for 90 bucks!


I noticed Charvel had a headstock exactly similar to Jackson's in a point in time. After a while I read Fender bought out Jackson and Charvel so is there a small chance it could maybe even be a prototype that Fender worked on? It's just an idea I have.
#20
Quote by XanderDylan
I noticed Charvel had a headstock exactly similar to Jackson's in a point in time. After a while I read Fender bought out Jackson and Charvel so is there a small chance it could maybe even be a prototype that Fender worked on? It's just an idea I have.

Because Grover Jackson owned both Jackson and Charvel. The first Jackson was Randy Rhoads' and Jackson felt it didn't fit in with the Charvels, so he put his name on it.
/Useless info

It could be just some pieces that someone threw together.
#21
Quote by darkwolf291
Because Grover Jackson owned both Jackson and Charvel. The first Jackson was Randy Rhoads' and Jackson felt it didn't fit in with the Charvels, so he put his name on it.
/Useless info

It could be just some pieces that someone threw together.

Yeah Im thinking that too. Still it's probably the only guitar of it's kind!
#22
It looks like an old "Series 10" guitar.
I love all 5 (sold a couple) of my Carvin X-100b's.
#24
Quote by handbanana
i've never seen a charvel that uses jackson inlays though

I meant the headstock was the same as a certain Charvel I saw. Maybe it was a redesign that never got published?
#25
It's fun to think of prototypes or one offs, but the odds are astronomically in favour of it either being a) an import copy or b) a guitar made from import copy parts.

I will tell you with essentially 100% certainty it isn't a Fender prototype. When Fender bought Jackson/Charvel they didn't do it to merge the brands. Jackson and Charvel remained their own separate and distinct brands/styles. So a prototype guitar with a Fender style body and Jackson style neck wouldn't make sense.

Also like I said, AFAIK, no Jackson or Charvel neck ever came stock with 21 frets. Unless you go back into the very early 80s when Grover and Wayne were doing them by hand.


There are thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of copy guitars floating around from the 80s and 90s. So without any evidence to point to it being tied to Fender, Jackson or Charvel (serial numbers, signatures or dates on the neck pocket, etc), and the fact you got it at an antique shop for 90 bucks, I'd say you should probably just assume that its either an old copy or a partsocaster.


Either way though, like I said, it doesn't matter that it isn't a Fender, or a Jackson, or a Charvel. What matters is how it plays. So if it plays well and you enjoy playing it, then $90 is an amazing deal!
#26
I did some digging and we have a winner!

Your guitar is an Epiphone S-500 strat copy, made in Korea at the Samick factory sometime between 1986 and 1988.

Check this image to see a perfect match right down to the strange trem.

http://epiphone.3house.com/imgs/s500.gif


SOmeone's sanded the headstock logo off, but I'd bet my last dollar on yours being an S-500, or an equivalent model manufactured at the Samick plant.
Last edited by FullDistortion at Jul 8, 2010,
#27
Quote by FullDistortion
I did some digging and we have a winner!

Your guitar is an Epiphone S-500 strat copy, made in Korea at the Samick factory sometime between 1986 and 1988.

Check this image to see a perfect match right down to the strange trem.

http://epiphone.3house.com/imgs/s500.gif


SOmeone's sanded the headstock logo off, but I'd bet my last dollar on yours being an S-500, or an equivalent model manufactured at the Samick plant.



I don't think so... the locking nut on TS's is obviously aftermarket, because it's on top of the truss rod cover, not where the nut should be. you can also see the regular nut as well. And, though it may be just the angle, the headstocks don't really match up.
Spin 'round carousel when your horse isn't screwed in.

My band:
Fractured Instinct
(For fans of Death/Groove/Prog Metal)

Ibanez RGA42E
Ibanez S420
LTD H-301
Ibanez RG520
Peavey Predator USA
Douglas Grendel 725
Line 6 Pod HD500X
#28
It's probably a modified Epiphone S500. Someone probably decided they prefer the Kahler style 'behind the nut' locking nut and added it. I'd suggest getting it set up professionally and maybe putting a floyd style nut on it, because I'm pretty sure Kahler style wasn't popular due to there being tuning issues. If that doesn't work, replace the trem with a better one.
#29
Quote by Offworld92
I don't think so... the locking nut on TS's is obviously aftermarket, because it's on top of the truss rod cover, not where the nut should be. you can also see the regular nut as well. And, though it may be just the angle, the headstocks don't really match up.


http://www.3house.com/forum/s5003.jpg
http://epi.p3net.net/wiki/images/8/81/86headstock.JPG
http://img7.imageshack.us/i/epis400.jpg/

Check those pics.

It's an S-500. The S-500 had BOTH a locking nut and a normal nut, as you can see from those pics. And as you can see from the last photo (which is an S-400), the S-xxx series headstocks at one point were a near exact match for Jacksons. That S-400 pic also has the exact same locking nut configuration as the OP's guitar.

If the OP's guitar isn't an Epiphone (or equivalent model from a brand made at the Samick factory), I'll eat my hat.
#30
Quote by FullDistortion
http://www.3house.com/forum/s5003.jpg
http://epi.p3net.net/wiki/images/8/81/86headstock.JPG
http://img7.imageshack.us/i/epis400.jpg/

Check those pics.

It's an S-500. The S-500 had BOTH a locking nut and a normal nut, as you can see from those pics. And as you can see from the last photo (which is an S-400), the S-xxx series headstocks at one point were a near exact match for Jacksons. That S-400 pic also has the exact same locking nut configuration as the OP's guitar.

If the OP's guitar isn't an Epiphone (or equivalent model from a brand made at the Samick factory), I'll eat my hat.


Alright. I'll give it to you.

I've noticed that all the people on UG who find these Epiphone superstrats think that they've found some holy grail guitar... I've seen more than a couple threads about them, and them not knowing what they were.
Spin 'round carousel when your horse isn't screwed in.

My band:
Fractured Instinct
(For fans of Death/Groove/Prog Metal)

Ibanez RGA42E
Ibanez S420
LTD H-301
Ibanez RG520
Peavey Predator USA
Douglas Grendel 725
Line 6 Pod HD500X
#31
New tuners won't help anything. As long as the locking nut-screws aren't stripped, you can lock it down fine without any troubles. The bridge might be absolute shit, though. Be prepared to change that for a proper FR.
#32
My old charvel has the "behind the nut locking nut". The flat plates that squeeze the strings tend to bend and get grooves worn in them. You can buy a new locking piece pretty cheap. If that nut is wore even slightly, it will never stay in tune.

Here's a link for a new one.

http://www.allparts.com/Black-Locking-Guitar-Nut-p/bp-0278-003.htm
I love all 5 (sold a couple) of my Carvin X-100b's.