ShortScale.org

My early 90s Bass VI neck pickup shorted out not too long ago. Best i could figure, it was internal... So i bought a new '63 replacement and it popped right in. needless to say it sounds great...

but.. construction. the old p/u, the claw and cover came right off. i didn't find a whole lotta wax potting either, just a layer where the wire went into the bobbin rivet. The new pickup? lots of wax, cloth on the wires and the claw/cover was all potted on there. nicer creamy color compared to the sterile white cover of the original reissue.. oh.. the pole pieces ahd the difference of no chamfer...

also.. there was always talk about some claws pointed one way or the other. has anyone tried and noticed a difference on their Jaguars? adn any differences with the various reissue p/us over the years.

I'm not disappointed one way or the other. just opening up some discussion.

Your 90s VI would have been made in Japan. I'm guessing the replacement you bought is an AVRI / made in USA pickup - slight differences in materials and construction, and thus sonic differences ("brittle" is often said of the MIJ pickups).

As for the metal claw, the short teeth are supposed to be under the low strings - the longer teeth bring more magnetic field up to the lighter strings.

right, i know all that. i was wondering if anyone ever deliberately or unintentionaly changed the claw, removed, etc. to change the sound.

a couple of people on here have taken the claws off japanese jags, possibly to counter the microphonic feedback that sometimes occur. not sure who... dots maybe? owen?

Yeah, I have. Pointless but cool looking bit of metal.

It was a while back but I never noticed any differences with or without.... hated the CIJ bridge pickup (exchanged that for a cool rails which I adore) but really like the neck pickup and still use that.... nice and open and plenty of sustain I found. I want to collect some more that people are chucking away... just for kicks. See how they compare.

I upgraded to avri pickups at one point and really disliked those. Neck to dark and bridge to shrill and they were swapped out for the above within days. They did defeat the microphonic feedback very well though. I reckon they'd be good as originally intended which is kinda the point. Nice clean surfy tones. I did get some nice 'Black International' tones out of it too... true story !!!

othomas2 wrote:I did get some nice 'Black International' tones out of it too... true story !!!

haha, using the pickups you thought were shit?

Ha.... That was the only good thing about it- the bridge p/up. I even recorded a really cool Black International type riff on my RC2. I think I deleted it only a week or so ago after being on there for a year. Wish I'd kept it now and shared it.

.... In fact I think I recorded it on garageband.... wanna hear ?

go for it! i might steal it.

Here you go http://snd.sc/K2v2Qw

Be aware this was a demo that I never intended to share or come to fruition.... so the very basic bare bones in terms of melody etc.

Ignore vocal line.... hope you see some resemblance. I def had you in mind.

As well as trying to get the vein of the Black International sound I stole the chords from Biffy Clyros 'Many of Horror'

stewart wrote:a couple of people on here have taken the claws off japanese jags, possibly to counter the microphonic feedback that sometimes occur. not sure who... dots maybe? owen?

Yar, I tried that! To no great effect.

Great choice with the AV pickup though. Thats the only one that sounds "just right" to me.

Worked a treat for me.... like night and day.

othomas2 wrote:Here you go http://snd.sc/K2v2Qw

ha, not a million miles away!

MatthewK wrote:As for the metal claw, the short teeth are supposed to be under the low strings - the longer teeth bring more magnetic field up to the lighter strings.

I disagree.
The short teeth go under the higher strings and back in the day
flat wound strings were commonly used which had wound G strings.
The short teeth were to decrease the shrill sound from the two unwound strings.
It is the only answer that makes sense otherwise why would only two of the claws be lower?
Factory workers put them whichever way they would and didn't really care.

I can see your argument but it's an empirical fact that the overwhelming majority of claws were installed with the short claws on the bass side. Unless the whole workforce decided to do the opposite of the design, they were designed to go under the bass strings:
From Offset guitars (not my post):

sookwinder wrote:The question is... what was the original (correct) alignment of the claws ? 
Should the two lower sections be aligned with:

(a) the heavier E and A strings or with the
(B) lighter B & E strings ?

You cannot use evidence from AV, CIJ or MIJ Jaguars.  You must look at original 60s (and 70s) jaguars.

And while I did find the occasional photographic evidence that corresponds with (b) it was usually on vintage jaguars that had either been refinished or sent back to fender for refinishing [this last example had one pickup following (a) and the other following (b)]

I think the evidence below should conclude this discussion and confirm that the correct option is (a), the two lower sections of the claw be aligned with the heavier E and A strings.

One can find just as many pictures of the claws going the other way.
Now, please explain the design reasons behind lowering the output of the two lowest strings?
Why not the three lowest strings?
You have seen the relative heights of staggered pole piece pickups, haven't you?
Under which strings are the pole pieces the lowest?
Do you not agree that the two highest strings (E B) are the strings with
pole pieces the lowest?
Do you think Leo Fender changed his mind on just the Jaguar guitar?
No ones questions how the staggered pole piece Jaguar pickups mounts yet
I fail to understand why there is any doubt about the direction of the claws.

Sorry, in spite of all the pictures you collected I still insist that the lowered
claw pieces go under the highest two strings, E and B.

If you'd read what I wrote, that wasn't my post, nor did I collect the pictures. You're welcome to believe what you like.

LizardKing, you can't be right just by claiming you are which is ALL your argument amounts to right now. Go find as many pictures of original untouched jags for each year but with the claws corresponding with your assumptions. You've been given some hard evidence collected by a real expert over at offset, and your response is to claim there are as many pictures otherwise. Claims aren't evidence.

I don't know the answer either way but you don't get to be right without making an effort and just sitting there with your Internet arms crossed and shooting down evidence presented (freely and to be helpful) by others. Feel free to continue with your arrogant tone but I suggest you actually earn it.

Thanks Dave, couldn't summon the energy but that's exactly what I would have said!