Hideous Jackson Tele? Or do you like it?

[octatonic]

Originally Posted by pengipete

The black & white one just makes me think of the Pearly Kings & Queens in London.

:-)

If you fancy a trip to London, some friends of mine run this night, basically a music hall revival.

http://www.corblimeylondon.co.uk/

[telefunk]

Originally Posted by octatonic

or this Charvel?

The paintjob looks like a bad shirt I once had

[PJ]

Kinda pisses me off that Fender (Jackson is a Fender company, right?) isn't putting more time into more real Tele models. Just a few I'd like to see:

1. A vintage white Custom
2. A natural Deluxe
3. A MIM B-Bender
4. A Nylon string Tele with good electronics
5. A Standard Tele-12
6. Some modernized Thinlines - 9.5" radius, medium, jumbos, etc.

Just to name a few. Geez...there are so many Tele models other than Joe Strummers and GE Smiths that Fender could be bringing to the party other than Jackson Rainbow Teles.

However, if Jackson's not theirs, disregard my commentary.

[pixelpim]

I kind of like clean guitars, but the headstock... I actually hated it back in the 80's. I recently bought a Jackson as parts for my Pretzelcaster and the first thing i did was bringing out my knife and reshaped the headstock.
http://www.tdpri.com/forum/telecaste...hlight=pretzel

[Ira7]

Eech.

Muy feo.

[garrett]

Originally Posted by TheDev01dOne

I like everything but the gross finish.. I'd rather one of the Charvel incarnations with the reverse headstock though..

For the Aussie Tele shredders, I found not one but TWO white Charvels at Cecere's Music in Maylands, SA.

They looked pretty classy actually, with white finish and black hardware. Reverse pointy headstock, Strat neck pickup, Tele bridge pickup, three way switch, volume, tone. Looked like Teles, but played like shredders with the skinny necks and flat fretboards. Yuck.

I was tempted to get one and swap the neck, but they were freaking AUD$1299 each!

[axmaker]

Originally Posted by NEPATelecaster

I'm speechless.

it scares me, i think i want my mum.

...bnut seriously, i can't believe this far with a custom design, and no tremolo?

[robhisgtr]

uh...FUGLY!

[SatelliteOrders]

The bandanacaster is black and white, so that works better with the Jackson headstock.

They're all guitars, so I want 'em all, and I do like that sundown Tele. I guess I could live with a hockeystick headstock. The first guitars I fell in love with were Charvels and Jacksons, back 25 years ago.

[brittwin]

Originally Posted by octatonic

What about this?

I could live with this one, except change out the pickups and bridge to a traditional setup. I like the body, though.

[psycho gun]

this Jakson-80's-fun-flashy-telecaster is not bad when you see the ESP Wavecaster

[alexpigment]

with the jacksons and the charvels, my problem (aside from purely stylistic differences) is that a black headstock on a maple neck just sticks out like a sore thumb. it's a pretty big mistake on their design department, if they have one

[monfoodoo]

No-ahh

[e-merlin]

I love Pointies! I've owned a couple of those Charvels, and am currently building a Kramer Tele with a Floyd and HSS pickups. Guitars are for playing, not fashion statements.

[pottedmeat42]

much like mopeds & other amusements, I would have a delightfully inappropriate afternoon with any of these...then hide it under the bed! =jason

[Abe]

Love them all. When I was 16, a custom Jackson was the epitome of everything I wanted in a guitar. I'd have sold my little brother for one of those.

Now while I wouldn't be sportin' one of those at a "Bowling Shirt Mafia" blues jam, I'd still like to own one.

[alexpigment]

Originally Posted by e-merlin

I love Pointies! I've owned a couple of those Charvels, and am currently building a Kramer Tele with a Floyd and HSS pickups. Guitars are for playing, not fashion statements.

I hope this doesn't come off as harsh, but here goes. I've gotten the feeling recently that a few people here seem to be "above" the aesthetics of a guitar. Saying that "i don't care if it looks like this or that". While I'm sure a person out there exists that feels this way (someone who is blind, for instance), I'm sure none of them are on this board. People put so much time and detail into how their guitars look because it IS a fashion statement. It's saying "this is how I like my guitar to look". It shows your tastes, whether you like it or not. And more importantly, a guitar that looks good to you, for whatever reasons (big things like paint jobs, or small things like serial number placement), will be a guitar that you want to pick up. It will be a guitar that you will be willing to invest more money into to make it sound better, just as much as it will make you a better player because you can't take your hands or eyes off of it. To anyone here who says that guitar aesthetics are not important, I challenge you to actually think about that statement. It's not a superficial thing to care about how a guitar looks.

[mikethebike500]

If I was in a "hair" country band....you can bet I'd be playin it!!!!

[Tarnisher]

Originally Posted by jwells393

I could live with this..........

......

Well then you can keep it, cause I sure don't want it!

[Stuco]

I love it! Headstock and all

[TelecasterBlooz]

I like all of them. If it has a Tele body, I'll play it. To me the whole Tele thing is because the body, and the neck has the mojo. I've had "Tele's" with 'buckers (Schecter PT) and a puke green Brownsville (wilkinson whammy, grover tuners, P-90-S-S) and they ALL had that "feel". I love my MIM and wouldn't give it up for the world. I guess I'm trying to say that for me a "Tele" is all about "feel" which is highly subjective. What the headstock says matters very little...oh yeah...if its a hockey stick headstock, then it should be a reverse hockeystick....just for looks!

[telecaster1987]

Originally Posted by octatonic

What about this?

Looks like something I've seen played on Univision.. a little too busy for me.

[telecaster1987]

The 80s weren't all bad.......

[oscar100]

that is an evil thing to do to a tele