Need some feedback on this '66 Jaguar I'm looking at...

Discussion of vintage Jazzmasters, Jaguars, Bass VIs, Electric XIIs and any other offset-waist instruments.
kracdown
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 732
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 9:40 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Need some feedback on this '66 Jaguar I'm looking at...

Post by kracdown » Tue Dec 05, 2017 9:51 am

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.

Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image

User avatar
beauzooka
PAT. # 2.972.923
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...

Post by beauzooka » Tue Dec 05, 2017 10:22 am

I'm no expert, but that is pretty freakin' hot - especially the flamed neck.

User avatar
RIORIO
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 2246
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...

Post by RIORIO » Tue Dec 05, 2017 11:56 am

That is GORGEOUS. Looks legit to me.

User avatar
HH1978
PAT. # 2.972.923
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...

Post by HH1978 » Tue Dec 05, 2017 12:39 pm

The fretboard looks great too!

User avatar
PJazzmaster
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 5159
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...

Post by PJazzmaster » Tue Dec 05, 2017 1:18 pm

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. :P

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:
Image

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).

User avatar
PJazzmaster
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 5159
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...

Post by PJazzmaster » Tue Dec 05, 2017 1:29 pm

and if it helps ... my '64 looks quite similar under the hood

Image
Image
Image
Image

and the headstock:
Image

User avatar
Embenny
PAT. # 2.972.923
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...

Post by Embenny » Tue Dec 05, 2017 1:38 pm

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 artist formerly known as mbene085.

kracdown
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 732
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 9:40 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Need some feedback on this '66 Jaguar I'm looking at...

Post by kracdown » Tue Dec 05, 2017 2:09 pm

mbene085 wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 1:38 pm
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.
I thought about these things as well. Man, it looks so close for a refin, but the neck pocket scares me.

User avatar
Embenny
PAT. # 2.972.923
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...

Post by Embenny » Tue Dec 05, 2017 2:12 pm

kracdown wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 2:09 pm
mbene085 wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 1:38 pm
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.
I thought about these things as well. Man, it looks so close for a refin, but the neck pocket scares me.
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."
The artist formerly known as mbene085.

User avatar
Unicorn Warrior
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 3491
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: Kentucky, USA

Re: Need some feedback on this '66 Jaguar I'm looking at...

Post by Unicorn Warrior » Tue Dec 05, 2017 5:53 pm

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.

User avatar
Embenny
PAT. # 2.972.923
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...

Post by Embenny » Tue Dec 05, 2017 7:05 pm

Unicorn Warrior wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 5:53 pm
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.
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.
The artist formerly known as mbene085.

User avatar
Ursa Minor
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 5892
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Chicago

Re: Need some feedback on this '66 Jaguar I'm looking at...

Post by Ursa Minor » Tue Dec 05, 2017 7:44 pm

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.
The artist formerly known as kosmonautmayhem.

User avatar
sookwinder
Mods
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...

Post by sookwinder » Wed Dec 06, 2017 4:55 am

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
relaxing alternative to doing actual work ...

kracdown
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 732
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 9:40 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Need some feedback on this '66 Jaguar I'm looking at...

Post by kracdown » Wed Dec 06, 2017 9:28 am

sookwinder wrote:
Wed Dec 06, 2017 4:55 am
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
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.

User avatar
Embenny
PAT. # 2.972.923
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...

Post by Embenny » Wed Dec 06, 2017 9:46 am

sookwinder wrote:
Wed Dec 06, 2017 4:55 am
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
That's s fair point regarding the numbers. I'm just super skeptical of that shield-shaped void in the finish on the body.
The artist formerly known as mbene085.

Post Reply