Slartibartfarst42
New Member
I recently sold my PRS SE Custom 24, partly because I just never gelled with it, unlike the previous one, and partly because I wanted a different trem system. After much deliberation, I finally got to have a shootout between the three guitars I’d narrowed my choice down to so I thought I’d share my findings. The three guitars in question were:
PRS SE Floyd Custom 24
Jackson Pro DK2MQ with Floyd bridge
Sterling JP100D
Price
Let’s ignore the RRP on these things as that’s irrelevant so instead let’s look at what these cost after haggling. The PRS was coming in at £570, the Jackson was £585 and the Sterling was a little different. Strictly speaking, the best price I could get on the Sterling was £695 but because the UK distributor had mistakenly sent me a rather abusive email, they agreed to drop the price to just £599.
Build and Finish
1. PRS
2. Jackson
3. Sterling
All three were very well built and felt like they were aimed at serious musicians. The ‘Pro’ name used on the Jackson wouldn’t have felt out of place on any of these instruments. None had any blemishes on the paint and everything had a reassuringly solid feel to it. If I had to pick a winner, I’d say the PRS felt like it was the highest quality guitar there, with the Jackson and Sterling close behind; perhaps the Jackson just shading it over the Sterling. The set up from the factory was good for all three but the PRS was certainly the best one here and would need no adjustment at all.
Bridge
1. PRS/Jackson
2. Sterling
Nothing to choose between the PRS and Jackson as both use a Floyd Rose while the Sterling has a ‘modern tremolo’ that’s designed by Sterling themselves. The bridges on the PRS and Jackson felt very solid and well made with a smooth operation. The Sterling bridge also felt solidly built and had a lovely smooth action. It was better than the Floyds for more subtle vibrato but as it’s not locking, more limited with extreme use. I much preferred this to the normal PRS or Fender tremolo bridges but it didn’t seem quite up to the quality of the Floyds and I noticed that when pulling up on the trem bar, there was a disturbing ‘clunk’ from the system that I couldn’t explain. I was also mindful of a few reports I’d read of the Sterling bridge being prone to snapping high ‘E’ strings.
Neck
1. Jackson
2. PRS
3. Sterling
All three have slim, fast necks but beyond that, they are quite different. Both the Jackson and Sterling had lightly oiled maple necks while the PRS neck was painted so felt the slowest of them all to play. The Sterling neck might have been marginally more ‘chunky’ than the other two but there wasn’t much in it and because it wasn’t painted, it still felt faster than the PRS. The combination of a thin, narrow, oiled neck with a compound radius fingerboard made the Jackson feel superb and I loved the fact that it had a maple fingerboard. Both the PRS and Sterling used rosewood fingerboards with the quality of rosewood being significantly better on the PRS. While the PRS lost out in the feel of the neck to the other two, it had the best upper fret access by some margin. The double cutaway on a Custom 24 is so far up the neck that it’s almost like an SG. I’ve owned both Ibanez and Jackson neck-thru guitars before and they offer virtually no advantage in upper fret access over this PRS.
Pickups
1. Jackson
2. Sterling
3. PRS
This is clearly down to personal preference. The PRS comes with their own HFS/VB set while the Jackson uses a Seymour Duncan JB/59 set and the Sterling, a DiMarzio Crunchlab/Liquifier set. The pickups in the PRS, while good for stock pickups, simply couldn’t live with the quality of the other two. In this company the HFS and VB are rubbish. I liked the DiMarzios more than I expected as I’m not naturally keen on ceramic pickups. They were nice but a bit bland. I used to have a JB in a Jackson Soloist and I was seriously unimpressed but here, in a bolt on, alder bodied superstrat, the JB was sublime. I REALLY loved the tone that JB was producing in that guitar so I can only conclude it works best in alder bodied guitars. The 59 was also very nice but nothing like as special as the JB.
Controls
1. Jackson
2. Sterling
3. PRS
The pickup selector on the Sterling was beautifully positioned so changing pickups wouldn’t interrupt your playing at all, though I think some people may find it a bit close to the strings. The PRS has the worst positioning of the pickup selector as you either have to reach over the whammy bar to get to it or move the bar out of the way. Why they can’t position it better is beyond me. Other than that, I found the positioning of the controls fine on all of them, though I found the domed knobs on the Sterling a bit gimmicky and a bit too far away for maximum comfort.
Value
1. PRS
2. Jackson
3. Sterling
In one sense, this has to be the Jackson as this is a serious amount of guitar for the money. It has the highest specification and because of the pickups, it was the only one I’d be 100% happy to play and gig with straight out of the box. At the other end of the spectrum, the Sterling looks like it’s overpriced to me. It didn’t really shine in any particular area compared to the other two and while I can see how some people might prefer the Sterling in this company if they liked ceramic pickups and a non-locking trem, it has to be remembered that I was being offered this guitar at £100 below its normal street price and it was still struggling to live with the other two. At its normal price of £695, I just couldn’t see any reason to pay the extra and £695 was a very good price. Thomann couldn’t get below £750 and that had to be on a blue one they’d had in stock too long! Of course, value is about more than purchase price. You get a lot of guitar for your money with the Jackson but it will drop like a stone in terms of value and that pointy, ‘Metal’ headstock will severely limit your market if/when you come to sell, as I found out when I sold my Jackson Soloist. On the used market they fetch about £300 in excellent condition based on completed sales on Ebay. Conversely, the PRS holds its value very well indeed and should easily make £400 in this specification AND be far easier to sell. I’ve sold two PRS SE Custom 24 guitars over the years and both went within 48 hours and I had people lined up to buy them. The pickups may be poor but at least you can install something of your own choosing and they will have value if you come to sell too. It’s difficult to tell with the Sterling as there are so few of them around but my research suggested that a resale value of about £350 would be reasonable so like the Jackson, it loses a lot of money, especially if you’re paying £700 for a new one.
Conclusions
All three were really nice guitars but it probably won’t come as a surprise to discover that the first to be discarded was the Sterling. It just didn’t feel ‘special’ in any way and if I’m honest, I expected more for what they’re charging. This isn’t a bad guitar in any way. On the contrary, it’s lovely, but the pricing is ridiculous. If it had been £500 or even £550 it would have looked more tempting but as it was, it was the most expensive to buy, had the worst bridge, the pickups that didn’t bowl me over and its resale value is bang average at best. Once the Sterling was gone, it was REALLY tough to choose. In many respects I liked the Jackson best and I would have been perfectly happy with that guitar, but I bought the PRS. Why? Three reasons really. Firstly, while the Jackson had the fastest neck, I’m no shredder and I would rather trade that for the very impressive build quality of the PRS. It may be made in Korea but we only have to look at Gibson to know that having a ‘Made in the USA’ sticker on it doesn’t mean it’s any good. The quality of the PRS was more than a match for any Gibson or Fender priced at under £1000 and arguably even a little higher and I guess that’s why it holds its value so well. The second reason is down to my vanity I’m afraid. I’m 50 years old and no shredder and frankly, I thought the headstock on the Jackson looked like it was designed for a 12 year old rather than someone of my advancing years and I couldn’t see that perception changing as I move towards 60! Finally, it was the neck pickup. Just in case I bought the PRS, I’d already been in touch with a custom winder and one of the things I’d said was that when using the neck pickup for leads, I invariably find myself turning the tone control down to make it smoother and creamier and while that’s fine on my Les Paul, it’s a pain when one tone control operates both pickups. As a result he suggested a neck PAF with an AII magnet and double rows of screws for fine tuning and I thought why am I compromising when I can get whatever pickups I want in the best quality guitar and although it costs more initially you get that back in the longer term while having a more bespoke instrument. In a way I wish I could have had that Jackson as it was seriously good and on another day I might have gone that way but as it is, I have no regrets at all. The PRS is beautiful, it’s nicely understated and in a month’s time, it will have exactly the pickups I want in it. You just can’t go wrong with a Custom 24 and with a Floyd in it, it’s even more versatile.
PRS SE Floyd Custom 24
Jackson Pro DK2MQ with Floyd bridge
Sterling JP100D
Price
Let’s ignore the RRP on these things as that’s irrelevant so instead let’s look at what these cost after haggling. The PRS was coming in at £570, the Jackson was £585 and the Sterling was a little different. Strictly speaking, the best price I could get on the Sterling was £695 but because the UK distributor had mistakenly sent me a rather abusive email, they agreed to drop the price to just £599.
Build and Finish
1. PRS
2. Jackson
3. Sterling
All three were very well built and felt like they were aimed at serious musicians. The ‘Pro’ name used on the Jackson wouldn’t have felt out of place on any of these instruments. None had any blemishes on the paint and everything had a reassuringly solid feel to it. If I had to pick a winner, I’d say the PRS felt like it was the highest quality guitar there, with the Jackson and Sterling close behind; perhaps the Jackson just shading it over the Sterling. The set up from the factory was good for all three but the PRS was certainly the best one here and would need no adjustment at all.
Bridge
1. PRS/Jackson
2. Sterling
Nothing to choose between the PRS and Jackson as both use a Floyd Rose while the Sterling has a ‘modern tremolo’ that’s designed by Sterling themselves. The bridges on the PRS and Jackson felt very solid and well made with a smooth operation. The Sterling bridge also felt solidly built and had a lovely smooth action. It was better than the Floyds for more subtle vibrato but as it’s not locking, more limited with extreme use. I much preferred this to the normal PRS or Fender tremolo bridges but it didn’t seem quite up to the quality of the Floyds and I noticed that when pulling up on the trem bar, there was a disturbing ‘clunk’ from the system that I couldn’t explain. I was also mindful of a few reports I’d read of the Sterling bridge being prone to snapping high ‘E’ strings.
Neck
1. Jackson
2. PRS
3. Sterling
All three have slim, fast necks but beyond that, they are quite different. Both the Jackson and Sterling had lightly oiled maple necks while the PRS neck was painted so felt the slowest of them all to play. The Sterling neck might have been marginally more ‘chunky’ than the other two but there wasn’t much in it and because it wasn’t painted, it still felt faster than the PRS. The combination of a thin, narrow, oiled neck with a compound radius fingerboard made the Jackson feel superb and I loved the fact that it had a maple fingerboard. Both the PRS and Sterling used rosewood fingerboards with the quality of rosewood being significantly better on the PRS. While the PRS lost out in the feel of the neck to the other two, it had the best upper fret access by some margin. The double cutaway on a Custom 24 is so far up the neck that it’s almost like an SG. I’ve owned both Ibanez and Jackson neck-thru guitars before and they offer virtually no advantage in upper fret access over this PRS.
Pickups
1. Jackson
2. Sterling
3. PRS
This is clearly down to personal preference. The PRS comes with their own HFS/VB set while the Jackson uses a Seymour Duncan JB/59 set and the Sterling, a DiMarzio Crunchlab/Liquifier set. The pickups in the PRS, while good for stock pickups, simply couldn’t live with the quality of the other two. In this company the HFS and VB are rubbish. I liked the DiMarzios more than I expected as I’m not naturally keen on ceramic pickups. They were nice but a bit bland. I used to have a JB in a Jackson Soloist and I was seriously unimpressed but here, in a bolt on, alder bodied superstrat, the JB was sublime. I REALLY loved the tone that JB was producing in that guitar so I can only conclude it works best in alder bodied guitars. The 59 was also very nice but nothing like as special as the JB.
Controls
1. Jackson
2. Sterling
3. PRS
The pickup selector on the Sterling was beautifully positioned so changing pickups wouldn’t interrupt your playing at all, though I think some people may find it a bit close to the strings. The PRS has the worst positioning of the pickup selector as you either have to reach over the whammy bar to get to it or move the bar out of the way. Why they can’t position it better is beyond me. Other than that, I found the positioning of the controls fine on all of them, though I found the domed knobs on the Sterling a bit gimmicky and a bit too far away for maximum comfort.
Value
1. PRS
2. Jackson
3. Sterling
In one sense, this has to be the Jackson as this is a serious amount of guitar for the money. It has the highest specification and because of the pickups, it was the only one I’d be 100% happy to play and gig with straight out of the box. At the other end of the spectrum, the Sterling looks like it’s overpriced to me. It didn’t really shine in any particular area compared to the other two and while I can see how some people might prefer the Sterling in this company if they liked ceramic pickups and a non-locking trem, it has to be remembered that I was being offered this guitar at £100 below its normal street price and it was still struggling to live with the other two. At its normal price of £695, I just couldn’t see any reason to pay the extra and £695 was a very good price. Thomann couldn’t get below £750 and that had to be on a blue one they’d had in stock too long! Of course, value is about more than purchase price. You get a lot of guitar for your money with the Jackson but it will drop like a stone in terms of value and that pointy, ‘Metal’ headstock will severely limit your market if/when you come to sell, as I found out when I sold my Jackson Soloist. On the used market they fetch about £300 in excellent condition based on completed sales on Ebay. Conversely, the PRS holds its value very well indeed and should easily make £400 in this specification AND be far easier to sell. I’ve sold two PRS SE Custom 24 guitars over the years and both went within 48 hours and I had people lined up to buy them. The pickups may be poor but at least you can install something of your own choosing and they will have value if you come to sell too. It’s difficult to tell with the Sterling as there are so few of them around but my research suggested that a resale value of about £350 would be reasonable so like the Jackson, it loses a lot of money, especially if you’re paying £700 for a new one.
Conclusions
All three were really nice guitars but it probably won’t come as a surprise to discover that the first to be discarded was the Sterling. It just didn’t feel ‘special’ in any way and if I’m honest, I expected more for what they’re charging. This isn’t a bad guitar in any way. On the contrary, it’s lovely, but the pricing is ridiculous. If it had been £500 or even £550 it would have looked more tempting but as it was, it was the most expensive to buy, had the worst bridge, the pickups that didn’t bowl me over and its resale value is bang average at best. Once the Sterling was gone, it was REALLY tough to choose. In many respects I liked the Jackson best and I would have been perfectly happy with that guitar, but I bought the PRS. Why? Three reasons really. Firstly, while the Jackson had the fastest neck, I’m no shredder and I would rather trade that for the very impressive build quality of the PRS. It may be made in Korea but we only have to look at Gibson to know that having a ‘Made in the USA’ sticker on it doesn’t mean it’s any good. The quality of the PRS was more than a match for any Gibson or Fender priced at under £1000 and arguably even a little higher and I guess that’s why it holds its value so well. The second reason is down to my vanity I’m afraid. I’m 50 years old and no shredder and frankly, I thought the headstock on the Jackson looked like it was designed for a 12 year old rather than someone of my advancing years and I couldn’t see that perception changing as I move towards 60! Finally, it was the neck pickup. Just in case I bought the PRS, I’d already been in touch with a custom winder and one of the things I’d said was that when using the neck pickup for leads, I invariably find myself turning the tone control down to make it smoother and creamier and while that’s fine on my Les Paul, it’s a pain when one tone control operates both pickups. As a result he suggested a neck PAF with an AII magnet and double rows of screws for fine tuning and I thought why am I compromising when I can get whatever pickups I want in the best quality guitar and although it costs more initially you get that back in the longer term while having a more bespoke instrument. In a way I wish I could have had that Jackson as it was seriously good and on another day I might have gone that way but as it is, I have no regrets at all. The PRS is beautiful, it’s nicely understated and in a month’s time, it will have exactly the pickups I want in it. You just can’t go wrong with a Custom 24 and with a Floyd in it, it’s even more versatile.
