I was thinking the same thing
Jag 1963 neck and 1964 body
- JSett
- 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
Silly Rabbit, don't you know scooped mids are for kids?
- andy_tchp
- PAT. # 2.972.923
- Posts: 8010
- Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 1:36 am
- Location: Brisbane
Re: Jag 1963 neck and 1964 body
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.
David McComb, 1987.
- Steadyriot.
- PAT. # 2.972.923
- Posts: 1262
- Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 2:16 pm
- Location: The Netherlands
Re: Jag 1963 neck and 1964 body
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.
Also this.
"If someone duetted with a Bald Eagle, they could rule the Country charts from here to eternity." ~shadowplay
- Guitarman555
- PAT. # 2.972.923
- Posts: 265
- Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2018 2:36 pm
Re: Jag 1963 neck and 1964 body
Thanks, I was thinking about purchase that's why I needed some thoughts so quickly. Sorry for that guys and thanks once again.
- GreenKnee
- PAT. # 2.972.923
- Posts: 1213
- Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2010 7:05 am
- Location: Sheffield, UK
Re: Jag 1963 neck and 1964 body
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.Guitarman555 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 21, 2022 1:10 amThanks, I was thinking about purchase that's why I needed some thoughts so quickly. Sorry for that guys and thanks once again.
Good luck on your hunt for a vintage Jag, when you find the right one you'll know
- Guitarman555
- PAT. # 2.972.923
- Posts: 265
- Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2018 2:36 pm
Re: Jag 1963 neck and 1964 body
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.
- GreenKnee
- PAT. # 2.972.923
- Posts: 1213
- Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2010 7:05 am
- Location: Sheffield, UK
Re: Jag 1963 neck and 1964 body
Yeah it sounds right, those early Jag pickups are magical things!Guitarman555 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 21, 2022 1:33 amYeah, 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.
- Guitarman555
- PAT. # 2.972.923
- Posts: 265
- Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2018 2:36 pm
Re: Jag 1963 neck and 1964 body
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..GreenKnee wrote: ↑Thu Apr 21, 2022 3:14 amYeah it sounds right, those early Jag pickups are magical things!Guitarman555 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 21, 2022 1:33 amYeah, 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.
- Guitarman555
- PAT. # 2.972.923
- Posts: 265
- Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2018 2:36 pm
Re: Jag 1963 neck and 1964 body
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.GreenKnee wrote: ↑Thu Apr 21, 2022 3:14 amYeah it sounds right, those early Jag pickups are magical things!Guitarman555 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 21, 2022 1:33 amYeah, 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.
- Rob
- 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
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:
I think Steadyriot's observation nailed it:
As GreenKnee pointed out:
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.
- Guitarman555
- PAT. # 2.972.923
- Posts: 265
- Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2018 2:36 pm
Re: Jag 1963 neck and 1964 body
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:
I got this puc of potcodes now: