how do I strip the finish off this old 365?

[paologregorio]

Will you refinish it in FG if the grain's nice, or MG or BG? Ooh, maybe the blue/greenglo....

[jps]

Will you refinish it in FG if the grain's nice, or MG or BG? Ooh, maybe the blue/greenglo....

I vote RUBY. Depending on the wood, once uncovered.

[jingle_jangle]

You can get those bound edges sharp again by rebinding.

[collin]

Ah, well if the MG is gone then fuggetaboutit.

You can even use paint stripper (Jasco brand works great), but you must tape off the binding and entire fretboard/binding, as the paint stripper will likely eat the celluloid binding (correct, Paul?).

The paint stripper may best be used for the larger body areas, and you will never get it entirely out of all the nooks & crannies, inside TRC cavity, wiring cavity, sound hole etc.

It's a lot of work, so.......you should just sell it to me instead.

[Sir Ricardo]

I did something similar to my 1968 MG 330. Approach carefully!

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=403736

I am so inspired by Mark's magic that I wondering if I can achieve something close, maybe partially close anyway, by simply "buffing out" the spray-can paint blems on this.

Below you can see a few rough photos; they don't really tell the story, but you can see how the paint has rough areas and is unevenly applied. I'm wondering if I can "polish it out" such that it would end up having a more uniform, glossy finish.

I also wonder if the spray-can finish is hard enough. I don't know much about the hardness of finishes, but this finish feels somewhat "soft" - - it seems like it wouldn't resist much wear and tear, compared to a traditional Ric finish. You can see how the grommets impacted the finish.

?

Richard
============================================

[jingle_jangle]

There are so many variables and differences in definitions and opinions here that to comment would be useless, except:

Nice candidate for a quality refinish.

Why try to lowball this? It's been treated badly in the past...

[collin]

Nice candidate for a quality refinish.

Why try to lowball this? It's been treated badly in the past...

Yep, that's the truth. It's worthy a nice professional refinish....and the for the paint to be professionally stripped to spare the binding etc.

Even a proper refin in Jetglo would be cool, you don't see people opt for Jetglo enough (except when there is no other choice..)

[jingle_jangle]

Unfortunately, the binding was substantially rounded off and would have to be re-done. New celluloid binding, however, is precision-cut with sharp edges so it looks period-correct.

[Sir Ricardo]

.

Any thoughts on a good brand of lacquer thinner? I went to Ace hardware and they had some lacquer thinner made by "Klean Strip" but it said "Klean-Strip lacquer thinner is a high-solvency, medium-drying thinner for lacquer and is exclusively designated for the thinning of Industrial Maintenance Coatings." Maybe that's a standard description, but it sounded pretty heavy-duty. I only noticed this after I got home with it.

Thoughts? Does it matter?

Also, how "corrosive" will lacquer thinner be on the body binding? My understanding is that it will damage it, but any thoughts on how quickly that might happen? In other words, is it plausible to apply the thinner, get the black spray paint off the binding (quickly) - thus exposing the binding - but do it so quickly that the binding sustains little or no damage?

I tried this idea.....I applied a small amount of thinner to the paint covering the binding, and then quickly wiped it off. It seemed to work ok, but then again, I don't know if the binding is chemically altered by this approach. You can see my efforts below. One problem is that when the paint was sprayed on, it seeped into the binding seam..not sure what to do about that.....

.
1" binding exposed via lacquer thinner >

next area is masked off >

[jingle_jangle]

To strip paint off a guitar that has been sanded to bare wood and then sprayed with paint, I would not use lacquer thinner--I'd sand it. This paint layer, no matter how thick looking, is quite thin. You would be doing the guitar a favor...use a block and it'll come nice and flat, you'll expose chips and low spots, and the edges will sharpen up, too.

Lacquer thinner is pretty much the same in terms of the general purpose stuff sold in hardware stores and home centers. It has toluene, acetone, methanol, butanol, ethanol, hexane, and other components, most of which will dissolve plastic binding.

See the MSDS here:

http://www.wmbarr.com/product.aspx?catid=21&prodid=102

You're going to end up sanding and scraping this guitar to finish it anyway. I'm confused as to why you want to preserve somebody else's bad work by being this gentle. You will take a lot of time preserving what is probably a bad surfacing job under that paint, along with binding that is badly rounded. You may uncover dents, nicks, and cracks (not to mention low spots), some of which will sand out, others of which will need filling. Sanding is a must in these cases.

Better to sand right off the bat, and if necessary, re-bind.

[Sir Ricardo]

.

Does the neck heel look right? As you can see, it is not completely symmetrical; the left side is more rounded than the right. On my new-style 360s the heels are symmetrical.

What do you think? "Shaved down" or within the realm of 1960's hand-made tolerance? The curious thing is that the left side looks more typical to me, so if there has been any alteration I don't see how the right side, the "pointy-er" side, could have been changed from rounded to pointy.

Thoughts?



.

[paologregorio]

It's not one of those whatchamacallit contoured necks designed to fit the curve of one's fretting hand, is it?

[jingle_jangle]

I've never seen one that asymmetrical...

Here's what's said to be the prototype for the Sceusa (asymmetrical) neck design that Rickenbacker supposedly offered as an option in the '60s. It was built by Peter Sceusa (note that he was from Santa Ana, CA!):



And here's a closeup of the neck heel:



Hmmm...does appear to be much more rounded on the treble side than bass...

You don't suppose?!?!?

[k43rover]

.

Does the neck heel look right? As you can see, it is not completely symmetrical; the left side is more rounded than the right. On my new-style 360s the heels are symmetrical.

What do you think? "Shaved down" or within the realm of 1960's hand-made tolerance? The curious thing is that the left side looks more typical to me, so if there has been any alteration I don't see how the right side, the "pointy-er" side, could have been changed from rounded to pointy.

Thoughts?



.

That heel looks completely out of whack...I just took a pic of the heel on my '67 OS 12 and it's as near as makes no odds perfectly symmetrical....maybe they were just less bothered in '65...

[Sir Ricardo]

3-17 update

The seller has told me that he is "99.99% sure" that the binding is original. He also does not think the neck heel was sanded down, except to expose the wood. So who knows about the heel.

2 "issues" with the guitar.

> Neck stress crack. I've exposed the neck stress cracks via sanding, you can see these cracks in the photos below. They appear to be stable, and I've strung up the guitar and have been playing it. Great neck angle, no issues with playability. My guess is that the stress cracks are "ok" in the sense that they don't appear to be getting worse. Thoughts?

> back of guitar "seam" is not uniform. At some point, the two matching halves of the back of the guitar came partially undone, and were glued back together. Where the two halves meet up at the neck heel, they are seamless, as they never came apart up there, and hence were not glued back together up there. But down by the bottom of the guitar, as you can see, there is a "ridge" where they are imperfectly mated. In the photos it looks like a much bigger ridge than it really is, the ridge is less than 1/16". I don't know how thick the rear wood is on the guitar, but I felt it though the jack holes, and I'd estimate a little more than 1/4". Maybe 3/8" ? So I'm wondering if I could sand down the ridge so that it would be perfectly smooth. Thoughts?

I've been exposing the binding via the judicious use of lacquer thinner. Once the paint is off I quickly remove the thinner, with no apparent ill effects.

So here is where I am with this. I realize I could try for some "pro" job - complete refin + new binding + whatever pro work might be done to the rear halves and the neck stress crack, but given the guitar's issues (plus, I'd like to keep the original binding intact), I'm thinking of exposing all the binding, and sanding down the rear "ridge." Then, any parts of the finish that need touch-up, they will get it. Then I'll buff it all out (I've already been experimenting with this - - Scratch-X and Swirl-X....my god, what an effective combination). Put on some kind of clear coat. Then I'll get the parts installed, play it for a while, and see if my approach is sufficient, or if I want to do this in a more pro way. I'd like to keep the binding, as it's original, and I don't really mind the slightly rounded edges. That just adds a bit of vibe.

What do you think? Blasphemy or inspired?
============================================================