Luke vs. Jem

[Ali]

Sorry for the potential flame war that a versus thread can lead to but the title is my current conundrum.

Currently, I own a Marshall AVT 150 combo and 2 electrics:

1. Washburn KC40V- my first guitar and really only kept for sentimental reasons but for one factor, the neck is simply lovely. It's why I initially chose the guitar, second hand, in a Glasgow guitar store 11 years ago.

2. Ibanez Jem 777VBK- an 89 model, again bought second hand and my current main guitar.

However, I'm looking for a new axe, probably to replace the Jem. Why? Well, i have a few main problems with it:

1. The bridge humbucker is a little weak for rhythm. Great for a bright open sound but lacking in real low down oomph (for want of a better term!)

2. The Jem neck. I'm no virtusoso and I find the neck just a bit too thin, flat and wide. I have good finger span but not particularly long fingers so playing quickly down onto the lower strings is difficult.

3. Build quality. Maybe I'm being picky or things are better nowadays, but it feels just a touch flimsy. It's not bad, by any means, but no better than the much cheaper Washburn. In fact, i prefer the Washburn's trem and build (especially the neck).

What I'm really looking at is the Luke. I'm a huge fan of the man but what I really want to know is how comfortable is it to play, how well built is it, are the EMGs as smooth and ballsy as they sound live and does the lack of locking nuts affect tuning dramatically when playing whammy. In a word, can I do the EVH, Vai and Satch tricks on a Luke, yet still have the versatility? I love the sounds the Jem can produce on its neck positions and would need the Luke to be as smooth and well defined as well.

I don't want to burn my bridges and sell the Jem only to regret the choice, but can't afford to have both, so if anyone who's played both can help I'd be most appreciative.

Thanks

 

[Jimi D]

Well, I'll take a poke at this seeing as how I've owned both guitars... They're radically different... The Luke neck is tiny compared with a Jem neck, with a much smaller nut width and a small, "V" profile back - I found it uncomfortable to play, especially since Jems were my main guitars at the time. The other problem with the Luke (imho) is that the EMG's can't be adjusted - they're at a fixed height, which I felt was kind of low, but you can put some foam rubber under them to raise them if you want... I agree with you on the quality issues - the Luke is a much better guitar in terms of build quality and materials than a Jem. But the neck is TINY... I would strongly recommend you find one to try before you buy...

BTW, I own neither the Jems nor the Luke anymore... Now I play EB/MM Axis guitars.

 

[Ali]

Thanks for that Jimi. I tried an Axis yesterday and I actually found the neck to be a perfect width but far too chunky. Assuming I want the Axis width without so much "chunk", is the Luke nearer ideal?

The big problem is that no guitar shop in Scotland stocks one. In fact, there is only one advertised anywhere in the UK and that's 800 miles away in London!!!

 

[Jimi D]

Ali,

I think the Luke nut is more narrow than the Axis - certainly, the pronounced "V" shape isn't nearly as meaty as on the Axis. My problem with the Luke had a lot to do with what guitars I was playing at the time - that is, my hand gets "used" to a certain neck shape, and then it protests (by cramping up!) if I go to something too radically different, and an Luke neck is probably about as different to a Jem neck as you can get! My hand would actually HURT after playing it for an hour! That said, I wouldn't buy another Luke even now without trying one first. The Axis is perfect for me, and I'm more likely to try and find an old Axis Sport with the pickguard and a H/S/S pickup config and then drop some EMGs in it than grab another Luke.

Jim