#1
ive been looking everywhere and cannot seem to find good pictures of the new jackson sigs: matt tuck especially. i found no pictures of the matt tuck sigs that are supposedly coming out..
can anybody post a link or pictures of any new jacksons (especially matt tuck...)
thanks
#2
Huh? The signature Jackson announced at NAMM was the Phil Demmel. Matt Tuck is just an endorser.
#3
I'm looking for it now, i would have found it now if my internet wasn't so f*cked
Quote by Bartleby
i tune to drop-Z and string my guitar with barbed wire.

Quote by UncleCthulhu
we r all rlaeted bcuz teh bibel sez so we r al innbreads lolo


Prime Minister of Puppets of The Australia FTW Club

One of The 9 Winners of the Official 5th MOD Contest
#4
Quote by CJRocker
Huh? The signature Jackson announced at NAMM was the Phil Demmel. Matt Tuck is just an endorser.

Would/couldn't that lead to a sig? I really don't care for his Rhoads tbh. I don't like the reverse headstock. I'm not looking forward to it by any means.
#5
Quote by Vittu0666
Would/couldn't that lead to a sig? I really don't care for his Rhoads tbh. I don't like the reverse headstock. I'm not looking forward to it by any means.

Jackson, unlike ESP, does not grant every endorser a sig. There are no plans for a Matt Tuck sig, though there are a few more non sig models coming out this year.
#7
Quote by CJRocker
Jackson, unlike ESP, does not grant every endorser a sig. There are no plans for a Matt Tuck sig, though there are a few more non sig models coming out this year.

If it's a RR1 with 24 frets, I'm all for it.
#8
they really need to make an RR5 with a freakin tremolo. WTF. there should be an RR5T and an RR5. RR1 is seriously the cheapest Rhoads-style guitar, neck-thru, 2 humbucker, with tremolo guitar that exists. wtf is that. pisses the hell out of me. i cant afford that kind of ****
#10
Quote by Vittu0666
I wanna know what happened to RR4 and RR2. We've got RR5, RR3, and RR1.

rofl.. did they even exist??? they have RR10x and Kevin Bond might be an RR4 or RR2 lol.. if you were joking, I am freakin embarassed.
#11
Quote by apak
they really need to make an RR5 with a freakin tremolo. WTF. there should be an RR5T and an RR5. RR1 is seriously the cheapest Rhoads-style guitar, neck-thru, 2 humbucker, with tremolo guitar that exists. wtf is that. pisses the hell out of me. i cant afford that kind of ****

...The T means string-thru, which is what the RR5 is. As for a RR5 with a tremolo, there has been talk of one, along with an RR24M...
#12
Quote by CJRocker
...The T means string-thru, which is what the RR5 is. As for a RR5 with a tremolo, there has been talk of one, along with an RR24M...

RR24M? As in maple? Or...? I dunno.
#14
Quote by Vittu0666
Would/couldn't that lead to a sig? I really don't care for his Rhoads tbh. I don't like the reverse headstock. I'm not looking forward to it by any means.

I recently found out that its for a reason. It makes the low E string the longest string, instead of the shortest, and thereby gives it more tension, so you can downtune better without getting floppy strings. I think. I could be retarded, however...

Quote by Vittu0666
RR24M? As in maple? Or...? I dunno.


Probably RR24M[att]
Quote by -Collapse-
Oh, hello mister tracer! Lets dance!
Quote by CodySG
And we all poop in the sandwiches!


New Drug Chat, Eh? CLICK HERE


pass: misterhoffman
#15
Quote by poopsmith666
I recently found out that its for a reason. It makes the low E string the longest string, instead of the shortest, and thereby gives it more tension, so you can downtune better without getting floppy strings. I think. I could be retarded, however...

i believe you are absolutely correct
#17
Quote by poopsmith666
I recently found out that its for a reason. It makes the low E string the longest string, instead of the shortest, and thereby gives it more tension, so you can downtune better without getting floppy strings. I think. I could be retarded, however...

that makes complete sense! whoa, i always thought there were there just to look ugly!
Quote by lespaul#1
Indie stands for Industrial I think, like Marilyn Manson.

Ibanez RG2EX2 (Dimarzio Breed in bridge)
Epiphone Les Paul 100
Laney LV300T
Line 6 Toneport GX

The Falling Object Model
#18
Having the string longer from bridge to tuner doesnt make it any less floppy.
Carvin DC127+Custom Lacewood Build+Godin SD--->Traynor YCV50BLUE

My Build IT'S DONE!
#19
i think it just makes the shortened strings less bright than if it were longer. but thats just how i logically see it.
#20
Quote by CJRocker
Yes, RR24m = RR24 Maple Rumored it might have two humbuckers too.

No.
Fucking.
Way.

Guess the Horizon III I'm looking to save up for is gonna have to wait.
That guitar better come in see-through red.
#21
Quote by bean-o
Having the string longer from bridge to tuner doesnt make it any less floppy.

Correct. the string contact points (Nut and bridge) are still the same. by that logic, the location of the string ferrules on a string-thru guitar affect the tension; but they do not.