some advice on a mustang 1964 PICS ADDED PAG2

kapepepper · Post by **kapepepper** » Wed Sep 07, 2011 6:49 pm

Received some pictures from the seller
here they go:

looks like in good condition, but pick ups, tuners??

Opinion of the experts welcome

kapepepper · Post by **kapepepper** » Wed Sep 07, 2011 7:01 pm

It has a L number and when i give the L numer in:
Guitar Info
Your guitar was made at the
Fullerton Plant (Fender - Pre CBS Era), USA
in the Year(s): 1963

stewart · Post by **stewart** » Wed Sep 07, 2011 7:03 pm

replaced pickups, tuners, and possible refin. i'd tread carefully. it all comes down to price. if the seller has specifically told you it's all original... he's either badly misinformed or he's lying.

kapepepper · Post by **kapepepper** » Wed Sep 07, 2011 7:10 pm

the neckplate

and I will have a look this weekend, dont think he is really like lying about it, he told me that the guitar isin real good condition

jumbledupthinking · Post by **jumbledupthinking** » Wed Sep 07, 2011 8:03 pm

Hmmm....that finish looks suspiciously clean given that there are other visible mods.

Looks like a sweet guitar though - you should play it & make an offer based on what you feel is fair.

Pens · Post by **Pens** » Wed Sep 07, 2011 8:03 pm

Question, are you trying to get this as a showpiece/collector's item? Or just a nice fucking guitar to play?

If it's more about the collection, then it's not original, so pass. However, if it's just about having a nice playing vintage Mustang, that is really nice and you should do it.

kapepepper · Post by **kapepepper** » Wed Sep 07, 2011 8:14 pm

well, i think it comes all down to the price. I play first guitars, second I like to have some nice intage gear
if it is just the pu's and the tuners,that can be changed and i can live with that but if it is almost everything beside the neck well, then I will think i pass. Also anybody ideas on the neckplate?
here is pic of the bridge...

Pens · Post by **Pens** » Wed Sep 07, 2011 8:19 pm

stewart wrote:i wouldn't say the jagstang neck is the same as an A width mustang, it's more like a B from my memory. these feel weird when you first play them, but you get used to it quickly. i've got two of them now.

The specs I've looked up on the JS, it was an A width neck.

http://www.jag-stang.com/guitars/jagsta ... cal-specs/

Neck Width 1.5625" (39.68 mm)
at Nut:

That's A width. Technically, it's a weird in between of 1 9/16" but it's not 1 5/8"

kapepepper, can you ask if there's another serial on the body in the neck pocket?

James · Post by **James** » Wed Sep 07, 2011 8:39 pm

I think the trem on a 64 should be 'pat pend.' rather than an actual number.

Pens · Post by **Pens** » Wed Sep 07, 2011 8:51 pm

James wrote:I think the trem on a 64 should be 'pat pend.' rather than an actual number.

Nice catch, those didn't get a patent until '67.

http://fendermustangstory.com/main.htm

So, tuners are wrong, pups are possibly wrong, and the bridge plate is wrong for a '64.

kypdurron · Post by **kypdurron** » Wed Sep 07, 2011 9:47 pm

tuners may be right, no? Jim Shine points that Fender used Klusons until 1965, when they started with the F-tuners. but exept for the tailpiece, the whole guitar somehow cries CIJ to me ... though I don't spot a CIJ serial. But it just doesn't look right, the neck hasn't darkened, the nut looks like plastic, no spottable aging of the body ... it may be the photos though.

Pens · Post by **Pens** » Wed Sep 07, 2011 9:49 pm

kypdurron wrote:tuners may be right, no? Jim Shine points that Fender used Klusons until 1965, when they started with the F-tuners.

'64 used plastic knob Kluson tuners. This one has metal Kluson tuners.

kypdurron · Post by **kypdurron** » Wed Sep 07, 2011 9:52 pm

my fault. I was somehow thinking the plastic started with the F tuners.

Pens · Post by **Pens** » Wed Sep 07, 2011 9:53 pm

That threw me at first too until I went back over that page I linked above that lists the details of the '64 stangs. The '64s used plastic knob Klusons, though.

rlm2112 · Post by **rlm2112** » Thu Sep 08, 2011 12:10 am

kapepepper wrote:I came across a mustang from 1964, completely original, never refretted, no refinish

Nope.

ismith · Post by **ismith** » Thu Sep 08, 2011 1:09 am

The fretboard doesnt look like a '64 either, I think the pearl dots started in Jan '65. Can you find out what the neck stamp is? Definately not original, nice looking guitar though.

Pens · Post by **Pens** » Thu Sep 08, 2011 2:21 am

ismith wrote:The fretboard doesnt look like a '64 either, I think the pearl dots started in Jan '65. Can you find out what the neck stamp is? Definately not original, nice looking guitar though.

Nah, the neck is original, they did fake pearl sometimes in '64.

site I linked above wrote: White dot finger board markers (sometimes Faux pearl dot inlays)

rodvonbon · Post by **rodvonbon** » Thu Sep 08, 2011 2:25 am

I'll chime in here too-
The bridge is either after market or reissue. You can tell by the rivets used for the posts. And if I'm nit picking the 2 outer most screws holding the trem plate down are not original either.

Actually, after looking at all the pictures again there are few other things that jump out as looking like they've been replaced, just by how new they look compared to the use the switches, pickguard and trem tube have seen. It might be my eyes but, the nut, frets fretboard and volume/tone knobs are a bit fresh looking for a '64.

hotrodperlmutter · Post by **hotrodperlmutter** » Thu Sep 08, 2011 2:31 am

PARTSTANG!!!

robroe · Post by **robroe** » Thu Sep 08, 2011 3:49 am

im going to take some very detailed macro photos of my guitar for you right now.

mine has:

pat pending plate
clay dots
white plastic oval klusons. (pre date F tuners)

photos to come.

some advice on a mustang 1964 PICS ADDED PAG2

Re: some advice on a mustang 1964 PICS ADDED PAG2