'66 "Factory" Black JM on Reverb

Discussion of vintage Jazzmasters, Jaguars, Bass VIs, Electric XIIs and any other offset-waist instruments.
User avatar
minimumnishe
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 96
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 7:00 am

'66 "Factory" Black JM on Reverb

Post by minimumnishe » Wed Nov 14, 2018 3:22 pm

https://reverb.com/item/16854843

This guitar has me a little confused. Obviously one should always be wary of custom color blacks as they're the easiest to refin, but this one stands out in an interesting way.

Binding and dots w/ big headstock and bold logo.

Unless I am completely mistaken, shouldn't offsets have gone to big headstocks in '67? And shouldn't they have received binding and blocks before this?
I'm not saying the seller is trying to rip anyone off here, but this one just looks a little too wierd for me. Thoughts?

User avatar
sunburster
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 819
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2015 3:04 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: '66 "Factory" Black JM on Reverb

Post by sunburster » Wed Nov 14, 2018 3:59 pm

I think that may be a '65 or '66 Stratocaster neck that was used for a JM (at the factory, by Fender). I've seen other factory examples of this. They made some of these D&B necks for Strats but decided to use them on JMs instead. A picture of the neck date stamp would confirm/deny this. But I think that's the only way you could explain a D&B neck with the larger headstock on a JM.

However, I think the larger JM logo decal only started in mid '67? So maybe the guitar was put together around then for a custom color order, with some leftover '66 parts (such as the neck). Either that or someone replaced the decal later on.

N0_Camping4U
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 960
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 1:59 pm

Re: '66 "Factory" Black JM on Reverb

Post by N0_Camping4U » Wed Nov 14, 2018 5:48 pm

Is it possible? yeah... would I risk 13k on it, nah.
Eric Harris: I’m sorry I have so much rage, but you put it on me.

User avatar
bencrit
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 261
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2014 7:25 am

Re: '66 "Factory" Black JM on Reverb

Post by bencrit » Wed Nov 14, 2018 7:42 pm

Thus guitar was at Gruhns. I tried to buy it (they sold it for 8k). This fellow beat me to it...

The logo is right for 66. I have a CAR just like this and it has the same logo.

What particularly is the doubt here...it looks right to me...

User avatar
zip73
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 715
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 4:10 pm

Re: '66 "Factory" Black JM on Reverb

Post by zip73 » Wed Nov 14, 2018 8:09 pm

D&B neck, CBS headstock, double-line klusons and gold block script logo sans registered mark are all correct for an early ‘66.

User avatar
kracdown
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 645
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 9:40 pm
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Re: '66 "Factory" Black JM on Reverb

Post by kracdown » Wed Nov 14, 2018 10:01 pm

:?
For the gear shots: https://www.instagram.com/elliotsguitars/

User avatar
zhivago
Mods
Mods
Posts: 20463
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 6:18 am
Location: London, UK

Re: '66 "Factory" Black JM on Reverb

Post by zhivago » Wed Nov 14, 2018 11:14 pm

The guitar looks straight to me...and it sports the large all-gold logo, which is pretty cool! :)
Resident Spartan.

User avatar
s_mcsleazy
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 14974
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 7:30 am
Location: glasgow

Re: '66 "Factory" Black JM on Reverb

Post by s_mcsleazy » Thu Nov 15, 2018 2:40 am

real or not. i'd rock it.
offset guitars resident bass player.
'Are you trying to seduce me Mrs Robinson? Or do you just want me to solder a couple of resistors into your Muff?'

User avatar
bterry
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 1280
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 8:53 am

Re: '66 "Factory" Black JM on Reverb

Post by bterry » Thu Nov 15, 2018 4:01 am

$13k is ridiculous for a ‘66, black wasn’t that uncommon after ‘65...

User avatar
sunburster
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 819
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2015 3:04 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: '66 "Factory" Black JM on Reverb

Post by sunburster » Thu Nov 15, 2018 5:15 pm

zip73 wrote:
Wed Nov 14, 2018 8:09 pm
D&B neck, CBS headstock, double-line klusons and gold block script logo sans registered mark are all correct for an early ‘66.
Every site I check says they didn't make the larger headstock on JMs until mid-'67. I didn't know this logo was used in early '66. That would clear things up.

User avatar
minimumnishe
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 96
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 7:00 am

Re: '66 "Factory" Black JM on Reverb

Post by minimumnishe » Thu Nov 15, 2018 7:06 pm

sunburster wrote:
Thu Nov 15, 2018 5:15 pm
zip73 wrote:
Wed Nov 14, 2018 8:09 pm
D&B neck, CBS headstock, double-line klusons and gold block script logo sans registered mark are all correct for an early ‘66.
Every site I check says they didn't make the larger headstock on JMs until mid-'67. I didn't know this logo was used in early '66. That would clear things up.
Yeah, see that's what I was confused about. I thought that big headstocks and blocky logo came AFTER blocks were added.

User avatar
zip73
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 715
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 4:10 pm

Re: '66 "Factory" Black JM on Reverb

Post by zip73 » Thu Nov 15, 2018 7:09 pm

sunburster wrote:
Thu Nov 15, 2018 5:15 pm
zip73 wrote:
Wed Nov 14, 2018 8:09 pm
D&B neck, CBS headstock, double-line klusons and gold block script logo sans registered mark are all correct for an early ‘66.
Every site I check says they didn't make the larger headstock on JMs until mid-'67. I didn't know this logo was used in early '66. That would clear things up.
Lots of misinformation out there with regards to the variety of transition-era headstock shape and logo design combinations. Note that all of these are d&b, all have klusons and all have the block script without the registered "R" symbol over Fender (that started around late '67/early '68 and went through the end of the 70's).

OCT '65 small headstock:
Image
NOV '65 small headstock:
Image
FEB '66 CBS headstock:
Image
'66 CBS headstock w/gold logo
Image

User avatar
zepset
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2017 7:21 pm

Re: '66 "Factory" Black JM on Reverb

Post by zepset » Sun Nov 18, 2018 5:31 pm

Everybody wanted that one. Looks pretty solid to me.

User avatar
minimumnishe
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 96
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 7:00 am

Re: '66 "Factory" Black JM on Reverb

Post by minimumnishe » Wed Nov 21, 2018 12:34 pm

zip73 wrote:
Thu Nov 15, 2018 7:09 pm
sunburster wrote:
Thu Nov 15, 2018 5:15 pm
zip73 wrote:
Wed Nov 14, 2018 8:09 pm
D&B neck, CBS headstock, double-line klusons and gold block script logo sans registered mark are all correct for an early ‘66.
Every site I check says they didn't make the larger headstock on JMs until mid-'67. I didn't know this logo was used in early '66. That would clear things up.
Lots of misinformation out there with regards to the variety of transition-era headstock shape and logo design combinations. Note that all of these are d&b, all have klusons and all have the block script without the registered "R" symbol over Fender (that started around late '67/early '68 and went through the end of the 70's).

OCT '65 small headstock:
Image
NOV '65 small headstock:
Image
FEB '66 CBS headstock:
Image
'66 CBS headstock w/gold logo
Image
I don't think I've ever seen the block logo with the small headstock before! Interesting...

User avatar
bencrit
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 261
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2014 7:25 am

Re: '66 "Factory" Black JM on Reverb

Post by bencrit » Wed Nov 21, 2018 2:50 pm

Yes, those pictures should clear up any confusion. The web has a lot of useful info on guitars. When dealing with transitional Jazzmaster models, that's one place to be a little skeptical about what you might read in terms of hard and fast rules. These haven't really been that collectible until recently. The information on Strats and Teles is pretty accurate because they have been so desirable for so long. Lots of careful research has been put into it. But with offsets that is not true. Hopefully that will change.

Post Reply