ShortScale.org

I'd go Japanese; 7.25" radius, matching headstock... traditional bridge (yeah, I said it, I prefer the traitional bridge!), and cheaper... definitely the better choice; especially if you use the saved money to upgrade the pickups. I'm one of the few people who doesn't like the Adjust-o-Matic bridges at all; I prefer my Jags, Jazzies and Mustangs to float; it's a good design.

CPs do play fairly nicely, though, and do sound good... but I'd definitely go Japanese.

BillClay wrote: Radius doesn't matter, I can handle 7-12, I just want something with a chunky neck.

if u want chunky go CP.... I have a first run Vista Jagmaster with the heel adjust truss rod (which is the same neck as the MIJ Jags to the best of my knowledge) and it is no where near what I would call chunky.....

updated to mention that the Japanese is a CIJ. Anybody have any experience with them?

This:

othomas2 wrote:I think the Japanese make the best instruments out there

But also this:

SGJarrod wrote:if u want chunky go CP....

And to confuse matters more this:

gusman2x wrote:the MIJ models have skinnier necks, and the CIJ have thicker.

All true in my experience.

shiiiiiiit man. i wish i could have paul1k make me a big beefy b&b baseball bat neck

BillClay wrote:^
Which had a thicker neck? Hardware,bridge, and pickups I can change. Radius doesn't matter, I can handle 7-12, I just want something with a chunky neck.

Like I said, I'm not going to be able to compare the two in person which blows

IMO, the MIM CP had a chunkier neck.

The chunkiest Jag neck I've found was on the CIJ HH Special Edition.

BillClay wrote:updated to mention that the Japanese is a CIJ. Anybody have any experience with them?

Yeah, my '66 Reissue was a CIJ. I thought it had a great neck. Chunkier than the one my '90 MIJ had, and only slightly less so than the CP had. The nut width was a tad bit narrower than the CP's, but not enough to be a bother for me.

CP for me. It's just a far more playable guitar if you ask me. But then, I'm not a fan of 7.25" radius. Seconded what everyone else said about thickness too...CPs are definitely chunkier, but not like Les Paul chunky. I do think that a TOM style bridge with a JM trem is a terrible idea though if you plan on using the trem at all.

Dillon wrote:I do think that a TOM style bridge with a JM trem is a terrible idea though if you plan on using the trem at all.

Yeah you'd think the sharpness of the saddles would just bind against the strings (espesh using roundwounds) but I've found that not to be the case at all. I've been putting a CP Jazzmaster's trem trough it's paces for the last year and a half and in terms of string breakage and tuning stability, it's right in line with all my other guitars. I don't know if this is due to Fender foreseeing such a problem might arise using a standard AOM unit and is actually equipping JM trem guitars with ones that have been modified to suit that application (might be worth comparing) but mine worked fine out of the box.

I did go ahead and hit the saddles with dry teflon lubricant, just in case anyway.

BillClay wrote:shiiiiiiit man. i wish i could have paul1k make me a big beefy b&b baseball bat neck

lol

MIJ/CIJ > MIM in my experience. I have owned five or six MIM Fenders and they were good, but the MIJ/CIJ are more accurate and normally just need minor tweaks to get them to uber status. The MIM trem change does FUNCTION well, but the look of it just looks off to me and it always bugs me so I have gotten rid of all of them except one.

BillClay wrote:shiiiiiiit man. i wish i could have paul1k make me a big beefy b&b baseball bat neck

Les paulk1? lol

Looks like this is kind of a toss up. CP is going to be fairly chunky for sure, but CIJ is the crowd favorite and may be of similar chunkiness (?)

You tried the CP, right? One way to go is just get the CP cause at least there will be no surprises.

^
Haven't tried a CP within that last 2 years so aside from being pleased with it at the time, I can't really remember well enough to compare to anything else. Narrow nut width has me worried. The CP and the new squiers don't have floating bridges right?

At the time I had my CP Jag (I traded an old Mex Strat for it) I had a MIJ and a couple of CIJ Jaguars, The CP lasted about 2 weeks. The bigger neck and flatter radius were a deal breaker for me. The neck was fatter than my Japanese HH Jag Special which had up until then been the chunkiest neck-wise out of all my guitars.

gusman2x wrote:Neck size will depend on age of the Japanese guitar. I believe, but may be wrong, around 98 they moved manufacture if the Made in Japan models (MIJ), and renamed them Crafted in Japan (CIJ). From what I gather, the MIJ models have skinnier necks, and the CIJ have thicker. I played a CP Jazzmaster the other week, and the neck wasn't too thick, but felt thicker than a AVRI.

I have 2 JM's, one with a CIJ neck and one with an MIJ neck. Thickness wise they're pretty much spot on, I can't tell if the one is thicker than the other - if anything I would say the MIJ was thicker than the CIJ.

If you buy the CIJ and want to change the saddles, try Graphtech TUSQ saddles rather than Mustang saddles.

aen wrote:Classic player x 10000000 Because it WORKS right away. It also sounds like a guitar right away, instead of electric barbed wire in your eyes.
Well, I don't know about nek size on those. Seems pretty comparable.

one of the funnier paosts i've read in a while, and i agree with it pretty hard.


BUT, japanese jags are so easily fixable, and matching headstocks are rad.

Fuck missed them both. Fuching shit fuckateria.

Do an Squier?