Jag 1963 neck and 1964 body

Discussion of vintage Jazzmasters, Jaguars, Bass VIs, Electric XIIs and any other offset-waist instruments.
User avatar
JSett
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 8804
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 1:33 pm
Location: Old Hampshire, Old England

Re: Jag 1963 neck and 1964 body

Post by JSett » Wed Apr 20, 2022 9:40 pm

Jonesie wrote:
Wed Apr 20, 2022 2:26 pm
If somebody knows something they'll reply.
I was thinking the same thing ::)
Silly Rabbit, don't you know scooped mids are for kids?

User avatar
andy_tchp
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 8010
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 1:36 am
Location: Brisbane

Re: Jag 1963 neck and 1964 body

Post by andy_tchp » Wed Apr 20, 2022 10:03 pm

Seriously shit photos.
"I don't know why we asked him to join the band 'cause the rest of us don't like country music all that much; we just like Graham Lee."
David McComb, 1987.

User avatar
Steadyriot.
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 1262
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 2:16 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Jag 1963 neck and 1964 body

Post by Steadyriot. » Wed Apr 20, 2022 10:28 pm

I get the sense you are either the one wanting to sell this shitheap, or you want us to talk you out of buying this thing. Either way; in it’s current state, it looks like a shitty guitar in need of a lot of work to get it right again. Seeing your questions, you don’t seem like the right guy for that undertaking. I’d steer clear if I were you.
andy_tchp wrote:
Wed Apr 20, 2022 10:03 pm
Seriously shit photos.
Also this.
"If someone duetted with a Bald Eagle, they could rule the Country charts from here to eternity." ~shadowplay

User avatar
Guitarman555
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 265
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2018 2:36 pm

Re: Jag 1963 neck and 1964 body

Post by Guitarman555 » Thu Apr 21, 2022 1:10 am

Thanks, I was thinking about purchase that's why I needed some thoughts so quickly. Sorry for that guys and thanks once again.

User avatar
GreenKnee
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 1213
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2010 7:05 am
Location: Sheffield, UK

Re: Jag 1963 neck and 1964 body

Post by GreenKnee » Thu Apr 21, 2022 1:19 am

Guitarman555 wrote:
Thu Apr 21, 2022 1:10 am
Thanks, I was thinking about purchase that's why I needed some thoughts so quickly. Sorry for that guys and thanks once again.
If you can't go and try it out you should pass on it. Date codes on the pots can't be made out, fret ends look shocking and so if they're bad we don't know what else may be bad in the guitar. There's a fret marker dot missing on the board, these aren't hard to replicate and replace so just shows whatever work it has had done has not been to a great standard.

Good luck on your hunt for a vintage Jag, when you find the right one you'll know

User avatar
Guitarman555
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 265
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2018 2:36 pm

Re: Jag 1963 neck and 1964 body

Post by Guitarman555 » Thu Apr 21, 2022 1:33 am

Yeah, I agree. The only thing that I liked was video that I added as link in my first post here. The guitar doesn't sound bad, quite resonant. But main problem to me is the repair in the body. So I will probably leave it.

User avatar
GreenKnee
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 1213
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2010 7:05 am
Location: Sheffield, UK

Re: Jag 1963 neck and 1964 body

Post by GreenKnee » Thu Apr 21, 2022 3:14 am

Guitarman555 wrote:
Thu Apr 21, 2022 1:33 am
Yeah, I agree. The only thing that I liked was video that I added as link in my first post here. The guitar doesn't sound bad, quite resonant. But main problem to me is the repair in the body. So I will probably leave it.
Yeah it sounds right, those early Jag pickups are magical things!

User avatar
Guitarman555
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 265
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2018 2:36 pm

Re: Jag 1963 neck and 1964 body

Post by Guitarman555 » Thu Apr 21, 2022 7:48 am

GreenKnee wrote:
Thu Apr 21, 2022 3:14 am
Guitarman555 wrote:
Thu Apr 21, 2022 1:33 am
Yeah, I agree. The only thing that I liked was video that I added as link in my first post here. The guitar doesn't sound bad, quite resonant. But main problem to me is the repair in the body. So I will probably leave it.
Yeah it sounds right, those early Jag pickups are magical things!
I agree, the guitar sounds right and resonant, but whon knows what mess is under the lacquer where picture with black light shows repair on quite big area. Nobody knows what could happen. Repair doesn´t go throught the whole body, but anyway..

User avatar
Guitarman555
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 265
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2018 2:36 pm

Re: Jag 1963 neck and 1964 body

Post by Guitarman555 » Sat Apr 23, 2022 11:54 am

GreenKnee wrote:
Thu Apr 21, 2022 3:14 am
Guitarman555 wrote:
Thu Apr 21, 2022 1:33 am
Yeah, I agree. The only thing that I liked was video that I added as link in my first post here. The guitar doesn't sound bad, quite resonant. But main problem to me is the repair in the body. So I will probably leave it.
Yeah it sounds right, those early Jag pickups are magical things!
What do you think the added pic of the whole neck includimg headstock and weird lacker on neck? To me neck is ok, bit suspicious is the neck code, especially letter B. But I have biggest issue with body repair. To me it is quite big surface if I understand the pic with blacklight well(I never worked with blacklight). Other wise to me everything fits.

User avatar
Rob
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 301
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:31 am
Location: Lexington, KY, US

Re: Jag 1963 neck and 1964 body

Post by Rob » Sat Apr 23, 2022 10:12 pm

To recap: horrifying fret job on a worn out neck, missing fret marker, unknown dates/stamps on electronics, unknown finish on a damaged body with an unknown repair job. Does that about cover it?

As GreenKnee pointed out:
GreenKnee wrote:
Thu Apr 21, 2022 3:14 am
If you can't go and try it out you should pass on it.
And that's good advice. You probably really want this guitar to be right, but you probably feel that it's not. Trust your gut. It's been a week. You're still not convinced, and no one's going to tell you to buy this thing.

I think Steadyriot's observation nailed it:
Steadyriot. wrote:
Wed Apr 20, 2022 10:28 pm
...in it’s current state, it looks like a shitty guitar in need of a lot of work to get it right again. Seeing your questions, you don’t seem like the right guy for that undertaking. I’d steer clear if I were you.

User avatar
Guitarman555
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 265
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2018 2:36 pm

Re: Jag 1963 neck and 1964 body

Post by Guitarman555 » Sun Apr 24, 2022 4:05 am

Yeah, you are exactly right but it sounds great which is thing that still makes me to think about this guitar with too many queations. But who knows maybe it us just well done fake.


I got this puc of potcodes now:

Post Reply