Page 1 of 1

Do these features make sense for an early '64 Jaguar?

Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 4:34 pm
by Vinkie
Since I got it a few weeks ago I am restoring/cleaning my L series Jaguar and I've now collected all the neck and pot dates. I thought it was a '63 based on the neck stamp but the potmeters date it a few months later:

Serial no: L16080
Neck stamp: 1nov63B
Upper volume&tone date: week 52/'63
Lower volume&tone date: week 08/'64

It has a veneer rw board, clay dots and level polepieces. The tremolo cavity is fully oversprayed so no body date. I did find markings (shaped somewhat like an alpha) in what looks like green chalk on the upper and lower control plates.Some white showed up in finish dents on the edges so I thought it could have been Ol. White but I found the original sunburst beneath copper screening of the lower control compartment.

Am I right to call this an early 1964 Jag? Is the spread in dates as listed common?

Re: Do these features make sense for an early '64 Jaguar?

Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 4:58 pm
by Aug
64 would certainly be fair...and with some folks, you could get away with calling it a 63...everything else *sounds* consistant...

Re: Do these features make sense for an early '64 Jaguar?

Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 5:08 pm
by fullerplast
It can't be older than it's newest part, so yes, it is an early 1964 Jaguar.

Staggered poles were phased in during very late '63 - early '64, but features overlap... so nothing to worry about. I usually associate staggered poles automatically with '64, but yours are flat. You know Fender in those days, things were done manually and by human beings. A spread in dates or mixed features are not uncommon. All the "rules" are just generalities for this period.

That is quite an early neckplate for a '64, but these also can fluctuate wildly. Going by the plate alone, I would immediately think '63.  But as you know, these things were in a bin and the worker just reached in and grabbed one.

Most of the features say '63, but by virtue of the lower pots...  it has to be a '64.  If those pots are original, there you go.    :)

Re: Do these features make sense for an early '64 Jaguar?

Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 5:30 pm
by Vinkie
Thanks Aug and Fullerplast for your comments. I also felt it's more like a '63 based on flat polepieces and the neck plate, which is why the later lower pot dates surprised me. I love little mysteries like this that come up once you start examining vintage gear.

As far as I can tell the pots, switches and wiring are all original so early '64 it shall be!

Re: Do these features make sense for an early '64 Jaguar?

Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 5:36 pm
by fullerplast
Your Jag probably hung around the shop unfinsihed for awhile (for whatever reason).  I'll bet that lower control plate was pre-assembled. Someone (Gloria? Mell?) grabbed the plate and finished it up, and it shipped in early '64.

Maybe the holidays slowed them down some?    ???

Maybe the pots or lower plates were behind in production for a few weeks?  ???


I love these little intracacies and mysteries too!   :)

Re: Do these features make sense for an early '64 Jaguar?

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 5:58 pm
by Vinkie
... Maybe it had a flawed finish or sandthrough and it was refinished and then reassembled with newer control plates?  ???

Holidays or stock issues on some parts actually sound quite plausible too and I hadn't even thought of that, so thanks!

Here are some pics of the actual guitar.

Image
Image
Image
Image

Re: Do these features make sense for an early '64 Jaguar?

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 6:11 pm
by fullerplast
NICE!

:?

Re: Do these features make sense for an early '64 Jaguar?

Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 7:43 am
by mezcalhead
>:(

Gee thanks .. just when I had finally decided on the colour for my Jag project you come along and mess it up for me.

:D

There's something immensely classy about a black Jag .. with all that chrome makes it look like it's going to opening night at the opera or something. Great looking guitar.

Re: Do these features make sense for an early '64 Jaguar?

Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 1:15 pm
by Vinkie
Sorry for messing things up, Mezcal  :-[ ;)
mezcalhead wrote: ...There's something immensely classy about a black Jag .. with all that chrome makes it look like it's going to opening night at the opera or something. Great looking guitar....
Yeah, it IS kinda cool but my problem is finding clothes that actually match the vibe. I don't wanna perform in tuxedo dress all the time 8)
I have to admit it's growing on me, I hated it at first. I am gonna have refinish it properly sometime but I'm undecided about the colour just yet.

Edit: I just started a new "what colour refin"-poll on this guitar