These forums are read only, please use our new forums here.

Main :: James Tyler Variax Guitars

Support community for JTV.

Why is there still no Telecaster JTV?
by clay-man on 2013-04-19 03:13:42.8610

You have no clue how many telecaster variax transplants I've seen, so why not make a tele variax?

If I saw one, I'd invest in one like there's no tomorrow. I'd kill for a maple neck Butterscotch Tele JTV.

Even Dustin Kensrue of Thrice used to have a Variax transplant in a Tele as well until he sold most of his gear after Thrice went on hiatus.

Re: Why is there still no Telecaster JTV?
by TheRealZap on 2013-04-19 05:14:52.0680

I've asked about this in the past and it was basically said that it'd be highly unlikely...

i'd also like to see a hollowbody with the JTV electronics... too poor to commision any sort of transplant...

Re: Why is there still no Telecaster JTV?
by sparkyERTW on 2013-04-19 06:58:53.4780

You're right, I have come across a huge number of Tele transplants.  My guess is it came down to a number of things:

  • They likely wanted to stick with 3 basic body designs, as adding a 4th would mean extra design, logistics, cost, marketing, etc.
  • In keeping it to 3, it would've been a choice between the Strat-like and Tele-like body. However, if the Tele body was chosen, naming it the "69" wouldn't have made sense. You could name it the "JTV-52" (which I'll refer to it as from here on out), but then you've got two guitars in the series from the same decade.
  • A JTV-52 would have been yet another 3-way switch, unless done Nashville-style, but that breaks the thematic design somewhat. Not a deal-breaker, but not as advantageous as the JTV-69's 5-way.
  • With the JTV-69, you had three 'pots' already, so you only had to find a place for the tuning wheel, and they were able to borrow from similar period guitars (i.e. Jazzmaster/Jaguar) to make it make sense. With a JTV-52, you now have 2 extra controls you have to figure out where to find homes for with no other period designs to borrow from.
  • Your typical Tele doesn't have a tremolo. Unless they added one, it left them with no models having a tremolo and alienating those who demanded tremolos. With the JTV-69, the tremolo already fits the thematic design of the guitar.

So I figure some or all of those reasons kept a JTV-52 from coming to pass. Still, it would be pretty cool if they came out with one (if it's called the JTV-52, I demand full credit from Line 6).

Re: Why is there still no Telecaster JTV?
by shawnmx on 2013-04-19 07:53:15.6230

I'd love to see an official JTV based on the Telecaster. I even owned a Tele-Ax for a brief time. There must be some reason why Line 6 decided tnot to make a Tele-style Variax. I wonder if it's difficult to mass produce a Variax guitar with a Tele-style body? Or perhaps when they decided to build one model based on a Fender design, they simply found that the Strat-style design was a better choice. I'd still buy a good Tele-Ax hybrid if I came across one. It also seems like there's a niche market here for an enterprising luthier to build these guitars on the after market.

Re: Why is there still no Telecaster JTV?
by phil_m on 2013-04-19 08:11:32.2610

I think a Tele style body would be cool, too. I think one thing that influenced Line 6 in choosing the body shapes was James Tyler's existing designs. The JTV are all very close to the designs that Tyler sells. He does have one that is Tele-like -">">

I just think Line 6 chose the Strat body type over the Tele because it's still the most iconic Fender design. Even people who know almost nothing about guitars can identify a Strat.

Re: Why is there still no Telecaster JTV?
by TheRealZap on 2013-04-19 09:47:30.6970

so glad they chucked out his ugly headstock though... sorry great guitars.... but hate the boat paddle.

Re: Why is there still no Telecaster JTV?
by clay-man on 2013-04-20 09:09:45.4600

those JT fender headstocks are pretty ugly.

The information above may not be current, and you should direct questions to the current forum or review the manual.