• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

New Jacksonbacker CBXNT colorway.... whoa!

Yes?

  • Yes!

    Votes: 56 49.6%
  • No.

    Votes: 57 50.4%

  • Total voters
    113
This is what we want, Jackson:

zxABVM5.jpeg

Amazing!
 
I would happily own something like this, especially the red version, but as I said before, no passive option + not needing a bass + no leisure funds = no "Jackenbacker". The passive option would ha e made me consider a good discount on it.

I do not understand the hate the pointy headstocks often get-perhaps it's just a cool groupthink thing to hate on it as an "80s" thing. I find it more distinctive-for better or worse-than the other headstock they use, the more "normal" 2+2 headstock with the J logo. If I love a bass and it has a pointy headstock, it will remain a love-too old to care about how a "proper" bass is supposed to look-and this coming from someone that loves Fender P design and its headstock.

(This dark green, I do not love.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: jd56hawk
Maybe some people think they look more suitable with pointy basses...and many people simply don't like pointy basses.

Perfectly fine to hate them! I just do not see the logic. I do not hate most headstocks myself, but old Jackson-style ones usually get lots of dislike from bass players. So it's noticeable, therefore my comment. I have nothing against "normal" myself, having 3 basses with such designs. If a player thinks pointy headstocks do not belong in bass, it is fine for that musician-but there are no rules for headstocks, etc. unless these keep the bass from working well one way or another-as far as I am concerned.

Sorry it came across as belligerent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jd56hawk
The weird counterfeit looking Ric styling on the body is what's wrong.
??
Body shape couldn't be more different.
(Well, OK, hyperbole: it certainly could have three horns, etc. Still.)

The pickguard is similar: obviously modelled after the Rickenbacker 400x guard. To a lesser degree, so are the bridge and the pickup cover.
Not a "counterfeit" though. Whoa, Judge Nelly.
 
Perfectly fine to hate them! I just do not see the logic. I do not hate most headstocks myself, but old Jackson-style ones usually get lots of dislike from bass players. So it's noticeable, therefore my comment. I have nothing against "normal" myself, having 3 basses with such designs. If a player thinks pointy headstocks do not belong in bass, it is fine for that musician-but there are no rules for headstocks, etc. unless these keep the bass from working well one way or another-as far as I am concerned.

Sorry it came across as belligerent.
It didn't.
Other than that, whether slightly unusual or really out there, some do it for me and some make me shake my head.
 
Last edited:
There are a bunch of features of Jackson guitars I really like. The Pointy head stock is no an issue for the guy (me) who has eight similarly appointed instruments (Ibanezes. I've sold almost all of my Jackson instruments).

I have recently become a huge fan of the P/J configuration.
I LOVE (require) 24 frets on all my instruments.
I am very pro-neck through builds.

Those are the positives.

Even if I weren't such a hater of Fender (long story), there would be a few negatives for me:

A plastic nut? Come on, Fender! Even Epiphone uses Graphtech nuts on their instruments.

While I have (kind of) made my peace with active electronics, the absence of an active kill switch is a hard "no-go" for me.

I despised "Army Drab" since my first day of basic training. I was never in love with it before that and I regretted not being able to wear the old style brown dress uniforms.

I have come to despise matte finishes.

I voted "No" (but might have gone "carrots", had it been available).
 
Last edited: