Late 64 or Early 66 Jaguar NOW WITH ADDED PICS

[simonhpieman]

So, spend my money for me. Choosing between two vintage sunburst Jags. What would you pay for each and which would YOU buy?

Late 64/early 65 Jag with the mute etc, case, EXCELLENT condition - finish is checked but not worn at all in any of the usual places. Not played it and would have to do a 5 hour round trip to be sure. Pearl markers but unbound neck. Staggered pole pickups. Nice reddish tort. Neck decal looks absolutely mint to the point the pics make it almost look non original!

Early 66, B+B neck, changed string tree (though shop has agreed to replace with an original from another vintage Jag if it pisses me off enough), apparently no trem arm and definitely no mute, decent used condition. Has the yellow burst. Sounds and feels great. Was advertised with case but they couldn't find it (er, what?!) so will supply it with the case from the other vintage Jag if worst comes to.

More pricing info as the thread goes on if that helps your evaluations. There's "some" hundreds of quids between the two

[RIORIO]

Well if they’re the same price, definitely the 64...my 2 cents

[mgeek]

I'd have the '66 on the basis that it's probably cheaper and I'm not a fan of CLEAN vintage guitars. If it's in slightly more used condition I can relax whilst playing it rather than sweating over putting dings etc on it

[blackbox]

Those late 64 and pre-binding 65s are almost always really nice.

[simonhpieman]

Those late 64 and pre-binding 65s are almost always really nice.

In a playing way or a sounding way? Never actually played a pre-binding Jaguar so interested to know.

As far as dogs go, I've tried a 65 and a 67 that were pretty lifeless.

[simonhpieman]

I'd have the '66 on the basis that it's probably cheaper and I'm not a fan of CLEAN vintage guitars. If it's in slightly more used condition I can relax whilst playing it rather than sweating over putting dings etc on it

There's likely to be £400-£500 difference between the two when all's said and done in favour of the 66. Get what you're saying but I'd have no trouble playing either of them. At this point, it's almost better to put some playwear on there to make it look more legit!*



*Theory doesn't apply to custom colours...

[FrankRay]

If the 66 feels and plays great go for it. I don’t like unworn guitars much either. B&B looks great too.

[mgeek]

There's likely to be £400-£500 difference between the two when all's said and done in favour of the 66. Get what you're saying but I'd have no trouble playing either of them. At this point, it's almost better to put some playwear on there to make it look more legit!*



*Theory doesn't apply to custom colours...

haha nooo it applies to sunburst too, Why pay a premium for a clean one then make it more worn...may as well have just bought a worn one in the first place.

+ of course it's your money, but IMO 4-500 is a significant difference. In fact, of my 15 or so collection of (very playable) vintage weirdos, only one cost as much as that, a UK Vox Phantom for 450 quid.

[Ridgeback]

Those late 64 and pre-binding 65s are almost always really nice.

My favorite vintage Jags have almost always been from this period. I have no idea whether it's the pickups, the neck profile, coincidence, or what. My current (and quite possibly last) Jag is a Nov 64 player's grade (refretted, replaced tuners, otherwise original) refin with pearl dots. A bit chunkier neck than average, quite similar to the neck profile on the Marr I had for a couple of years.

[Mechanical Birds]

If the difference is $500 or more I’d go with the cheaper one because chances are good that either will be good guitars. That pearl/no binding neck is a rare one, though. That’s pretty cool.

[gringopig]

The 64/65 will have a smaller C neck and the 66 may have something a bit fuller!
There isn't much between them in sound as they will share the pickups but original condition with trem arm and mute with case count for a lot really.

Without playing them it's hard to say but if it's a first Jag, get the more pristine one. It will be easier to sell in the future too.

[blackbox]

Those late 64 and pre-binding 65s are almost always really nice.

In a playing way or a sounding way? Never actually played a pre-binding Jaguar so interested to know.

As far as dogs go, I've tried a 65 and a 67 that were pretty lifeless.

Both. I'm not the only person who feels this way, it's a pretty common opinion. Oddly, one year I've had pretty bad experiences with on Jags is '63.

[simonhpieman]

Thanks everyone. I'd need to buy a mute and a period trem arm for the 66 but the general consensus is correct - £400/£500 is another guitar!

I would like to try the 64 but that's a hell of a drive just to make sure. And I'll definitely prefer the chunkier neck...

Oh decisions...

[simonhpieman]

And assuming the same condition, same gubbins, the 64 would still be worth more, right? Just about pre-CBS?

[Ridgeback]

The 64/65 will have a smaller C neck and the 66 may have something a bit fuller!

If this is an important consideration in your decision, I wouldn't assume the 66's neck is fuller. My 64's neck is noticeably chunkier than the one on the 66 I used to own, especially up near the 12th fret. If you aren't in a position to play them both, you could ask for 1st and 12th fret neck depth measurements. Good luck with your decision.

edited to add the 1st (.83") and 12th (.97") fret neck depths for my 64. I don't have the measurements for the long gone 66 but I'm certain that it was slightly shallower at the 1st and quite a bit shallower at the 12th. The nut width was standard on both. Just FYI