Need some feedback on this '66 Jaguar I'm looking at...
-
- PAT. # 2.972.923
- Posts: 734
- Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 9:40 pm
- Location: Los Angeles
Need some feedback on this '66 Jaguar I'm looking at...
Ok team - I found this super interesting '66 Jaguar locally and am really thinking about it. It's a FEB66 build with dots and binding. Its in Olympic White which matches my '65 dots and binding JM. It'd be really cool to have the pair (plus, I'm without a Jag at the moment). The only real draw back is that it has the F style tuners, which I absolutely loathe, but I could make do. I figure if the guitar is lightish and has a decently sized neck I'll go for it. Oh and look at the neck! Does this look all good to you? Has weird wear on the bottom, supposedly because it was used as a decorative piece for a number of years.
- beauzooka
- PAT. # 2.972.923
- Posts: 789
- Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 2:02 pm
- Location: Seattle
- Contact:
Re: Need some feedback on this '66 Jaguar I'm looking at...
I'm no expert, but that is pretty freakin' hot - especially the flamed neck.
- RIORIO
- PAT. # 2.972.923
- Posts: 2263
- Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2012 9:49 pm
- Location: Los Angeles, CA
- Contact:
Re: Need some feedback on this '66 Jaguar I'm looking at...
That is GORGEOUS. Looks legit to me.
- HH1978
- PAT. # 2.972.923
- Posts: 676
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2015 2:51 pm
- Location: Brussels, Belgium
Re: Need some feedback on this '66 Jaguar I'm looking at...
The fretboard looks great too!
- PJazzmaster
- PAT. # 2.972.923
- Posts: 5160
- Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 6:59 am
- Location: Bo Diddley Technical Institute of Cryptozoology (European HQ)
Re: Need some feedback on this '66 Jaguar I'm looking at...
.The only real draw back is that it has the F style tuners, which I absolutely loathe, but I could make do.
Not totally impossible that the neck is even pre-drilled for both Kluson's and F-Style tuners.
The guitar looks legit to me - in theory. All makes sense as a total (how clean the back of the neck is vs. the overall condition and wear of the body and metal parts) but I'd expect a cleaner and straight line where the Rosewood meets the maple on the headstock (where the rosewood ends and the paint is starting). It should be alright but I'd ask for a closeup:
What else, lacquer is a bit dried out indeed but I'd think it's totally original (or a very very very good old overspray but I doubt).
- PJazzmaster
- PAT. # 2.972.923
- Posts: 5160
- Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 6:59 am
- Location: Bo Diddley Technical Institute of Cryptozoology (European HQ)
Re: Need some feedback on this '66 Jaguar I'm looking at...
and if it helps ... my '64 looks quite similar under the hood
and the headstock:
and the headstock:
- Embenny
- PAT. # 2.972.923
- Posts: 10363
- Joined: Tue May 24, 2016 5:07 am
Re: Need some feedback on this '66 Jaguar I'm looking at...
It looks like a refinish to me. The body has a void in the Olympic white where the rectangular shielding plate would be (and looks yellow-stained like a sunburst in that location). I have not once in my life seen a Fender finish done with the shielding plate in place, and the shape and size of that void is way too perfectly matched to the shielding plate to be a coincidence.
The paint line along the headstock at the RW board also isn't clean, and the void of the original hammered pipe in the neck pocket has some misting of paint there instead of, well, nothing.
Willing to bet dollars to donuts that this is not the original finish. Looks like a very old refinish of Olympic white over sunburst to me, though. Note how PJazzmaster's Jag has a consistent paint underneath the pickguard (with brighter white from less UV exposure), and cleaner neck pocket paint stick void and headstock masking job.
I would not pay "original finish" jaguar money for this.
The paint line along the headstock at the RW board also isn't clean, and the void of the original hammered pipe in the neck pocket has some misting of paint there instead of, well, nothing.
Willing to bet dollars to donuts that this is not the original finish. Looks like a very old refinish of Olympic white over sunburst to me, though. Note how PJazzmaster's Jag has a consistent paint underneath the pickguard (with brighter white from less UV exposure), and cleaner neck pocket paint stick void and headstock masking job.
I would not pay "original finish" jaguar money for this.
The artist formerly known as mbene085.
-
- PAT. # 2.972.923
- Posts: 734
- Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 9:40 pm
- Location: Los Angeles
Re: Need some feedback on this '66 Jaguar I'm looking at...
I thought about these things as well. Man, it looks so close for a refin, but the neck pocket scares me.mbene085 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2017 1:38 pmIt looks like a refinish to me. The body has a void in the Olympic white where the rectangular shielding plate would be (and looks yellow-stained like a sunburst in that location). I have not once in my life seen a Fender finish done with the shielding plate in place, and the shape and size of that void is way too perfectly matched to the shielding plate to be a coincidence.
The paint line along the headstock at the RW board also isn't clean, and the void of the original hammered pipe in the neck pocket has some misting of paint there instead of, well, nothing.
Willing to bet dollars to donuts that this is not the original finish. Looks like a very old refinish of Olympic white over sunburst to me, though. Note how PJazzmaster's Jag has a consistent paint underneath the pickguard (with brighter white from less UV exposure), and cleaner neck pocket paint stick void and headstock masking job.
I would not pay "original finish" jaguar money for this.
- Embenny
- PAT. # 2.972.923
- Posts: 10363
- Joined: Tue May 24, 2016 5:07 am
Re: Need some feedback on this '66 Jaguar I'm looking at...
It's a quality refinish, but it's a refinish. Used to be a time that these automatically lost 30-50% value vs an original sunburst, but Reverb has thrown it all out of whack, and people seem to be throwing money at obvious refins in Custom Colors. Don't get me started on sunbursts being refinished in LPB and then being sold for more than original sunburst guitars, but "30% less than an original LPB because it's a refin."kracdown wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2017 2:09 pmI thought about these things as well. Man, it looks so close for a refin, but the neck pocket scares me.mbene085 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2017 1:38 pmIt looks like a refinish to me. The body has a void in the Olympic white where the rectangular shielding plate would be (and looks yellow-stained like a sunburst in that location). I have not once in my life seen a Fender finish done with the shielding plate in place, and the shape and size of that void is way too perfectly matched to the shielding plate to be a coincidence.
The paint line along the headstock at the RW board also isn't clean, and the void of the original hammered pipe in the neck pocket has some misting of paint there instead of, well, nothing.
Willing to bet dollars to donuts that this is not the original finish. Looks like a very old refinish of Olympic white over sunburst to me, though. Note how PJazzmaster's Jag has a consistent paint underneath the pickguard (with brighter white from less UV exposure), and cleaner neck pocket paint stick void and headstock masking job.
I would not pay "original finish" jaguar money for this.
The artist formerly known as mbene085.
- Unicorn Warrior
- PAT. # 2.972.923
- Posts: 3506
- Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2012 5:58 pm
- Location: Kentucky, USA
Re: Need some feedback on this '66 Jaguar I'm looking at...
Reverb has a lot of influence on the market. Sadly it has led to what I feel is an unjustified hike in a lot of used gear. But as long as people are paying I guess
Just did a sweep of vintage JMs on there. Nearly every listing has a hyper inflated price.
Just did a sweep of vintage JMs on there. Nearly every listing has a hyper inflated price.
- Embenny
- PAT. # 2.972.923
- Posts: 10363
- Joined: Tue May 24, 2016 5:07 am
Re: Need some feedback on this '66 Jaguar I'm looking at...
Yep, I picked up a great condition '66 D&B Jag locally last year at a price that beat-to-hell stripped mongrels are asking on Reverb. It was from a 60-something collector who didn't seem very computer savvy. More and more people are pointing to Reverb asking prices as justification, which is just plain silly. Even the Reverb sold prices are steep compared to the pre-Reverb (or is that "Pre-verb?") era.Unicorn Warrior wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2017 5:53 pmReverb has a lot of influence on the market. Sadly it has led to what I feel is an unjustified hike in a lot of used gear. But as long as people are paying I guess
Just did a sweep of vintage JMs on there. Nearly every listing has a hyper inflated price.
The artist formerly known as mbene085.
- Ursa Minor
- PAT. # 2.972.923
- Posts: 5894
- Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 8:26 am
- Location: Chicago
Re: Need some feedback on this '66 Jaguar I'm looking at...
Thats a cool one for sure! I had a FEB66 neck'd JM that had a great feeling neck. Wasn't chunky like a mid-60s. More like .82 / .92. with an almost hybrid C/D shape, probably due to the binding. I love the thinner binding on the D+B models. Mine also had Klusons. Alas, no nice flame like this one! The neck also looks slightly chunkier, although pics can be deceiving.
If its light and all else checked out, I'd totally hit it if the price was right.
If its light and all else checked out, I'd totally hit it if the price was right.
The artist formerly known as kosmonautmayhem.
- sookwinder
- Mods
- Posts: 11179
- Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2006 6:47 pm
- Location: Melbourne Australia
Re: Need some feedback on this '66 Jaguar I'm looking at...
I would hazard a guess that at the very least the headstock finish is original (then make of it what you will whether the body is original). Why do I think the headstock finish is original ? The Pat nos.
The number on the headstock matches
Late 1965 – Early 1966
PAT. 2,960,900 2,972.923 3,143,028 2,741,146 DES. 186,826 PAT. PEND
I have never seen a repro decal with these Pat Nos. In the vast overwhelming majority of cases the repro decals for jags copy the 1962 Pat nos.
The decal period also matches the dots and binding period
the library section is a font of information by the way: viewtopic.php?f=29&t=75080
The number on the headstock matches
Late 1965 – Early 1966
PAT. 2,960,900 2,972.923 3,143,028 2,741,146 DES. 186,826 PAT. PEND
I have never seen a repro decal with these Pat Nos. In the vast overwhelming majority of cases the repro decals for jags copy the 1962 Pat nos.
The decal period also matches the dots and binding period
the library section is a font of information by the way: viewtopic.php?f=29&t=75080
relaxing alternative to doing actual work ...
-
- PAT. # 2.972.923
- Posts: 734
- Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 9:40 pm
- Location: Los Angeles
Re: Need some feedback on this '66 Jaguar I'm looking at...
I've gotten a ton of pictures, I'm a bit skeptical that it's a refinish. The checking is identical to my '65 olympic white JM too. I'm going to check it out in person on Friday.sookwinder wrote: ↑Wed Dec 06, 2017 4:55 amI would hazard a guess that at the very least the headstock finish is original (then make of it what you will whether the body is original). Why do I think the headstock finish is original ? The Pat nos.
The number on the headstock matches
Late 1965 – Early 1966
PAT. 2,960,900 2,972.923 3,143,028 2,741,146 DES. 186,826 PAT. PEND
I have never seen a repro decal with these Pat Nos. In the vast overwhelming majority of cases the repro decals for jags copy the 1962 Pat nos.
The decal period also matches the dots and binding period
the library section is a font of information by the way: viewtopic.php?f=29&t=75080
- Embenny
- PAT. # 2.972.923
- Posts: 10363
- Joined: Tue May 24, 2016 5:07 am
Re: Need some feedback on this '66 Jaguar I'm looking at...
That's s fair point regarding the numbers. I'm just super skeptical of that shield-shaped void in the finish on the body.sookwinder wrote: ↑Wed Dec 06, 2017 4:55 amI would hazard a guess that at the very least the headstock finish is original (then make of it what you will whether the body is original). Why do I think the headstock finish is original ? The Pat nos.
The number on the headstock matches
Late 1965 – Early 1966
PAT. 2,960,900 2,972.923 3,143,028 2,741,146 DES. 186,826 PAT. PEND
I have never seen a repro decal with these Pat Nos. In the vast overwhelming majority of cases the repro decals for jags copy the 1962 Pat nos.
The decal period also matches the dots and binding period
the library section is a font of information by the way: viewtopic.php?f=29&t=75080
The artist formerly known as mbene085.