JOHN LENNON'S 325 RESTORATION--WHAT CAN WE LEARN?

Exceptional restoration is in the details

Moderator: jingle_jangle

User avatar
jingle_jangle
RRF Moderator
Posts: 22679
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 6:00 am
Contact:

JOHN LENNON'S 325 RESTORATION--WHAT CAN WE LEARN?

Post by jingle_jangle »

This thread was inspired by the tragic "restoration" of John Lennon's 325 at the hands of a luthier who I understand came highly recommended to Yoko and left with JL's original pickguard.

Andy Babiuk apparently skirts the issue with some very bland prose. The truth is there for your eyes to see, however, on pages 42 and 43 of the latest edition of Andy's book, "Beatles' Gear".

The guitar is there, very large, on a two page spread. At the lower left of page 42 is the now-famous photo of Jean "Toots" Thielemans, playing at a trade show, with John's actual 325 at his right elbow.

The difference in color of the wood on the guitar is painfully obvious.

Webster's defines "restore" as: "to bring back or to put back into a former or original state". John's guitar is a failure as a restoration. But anyone who's followed the posts on this topic knows this already.

Question: Did the restorer stain the guitar a honey color before re-coating it with clear varnish, and if so, why?

My own feeling is that there never was a "honey" stain applied under the varnish, but the color as we see it today is a result of the previous black refinish, done all those years ago, along with a misguided attempt to match the color of the guitar to that of the fretboard.

V81 was apparently stripped of its thin original finish before being painted black. When the guitar was subsequently "restored", the black coach enamel remained in the open grain of the alder, giving the guitar a much darker aspect that the guitar shown at Thielemans' elbow. The fretboard, in fact, has the identical finish, leading me also to believe that it was deliberately filled in black because it looked strange beside the stripped body with black paint in all the pores.

Close inspection of the photo reveals that an attempt was made to stain the guitar (to get the body to match the neck?) |i{on top} of the varnish. If you doubt me, look at the following areas in the photo:

Area between the bowtie bridge and bridge pickup--you'll see unstained alder. This is the most obvious area to the naked eye.

Tiny corner upper right of the neck pickup.

Bottom edge of the white pickguard reveals a 2mm wide band of unstained alder, along with a vertical screwdriver scratch through the varnish which has absorbed some stain.

Oddest of all was the swap to the white pickguard, perhaps the straw that broke the camel's back on this attempted restoration.

It does not appear that the grommets under the guard were kept, either.
“I say in speeches that a plausible mission of artists is to make people appreciate being alive at least a little bit. I am then asked if I know of any artists who pulled that off. I reply, 'The Beatles did.”
― Kurt Vonnegut
User avatar
jingle_jangle
RRF Moderator
Posts: 22679
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 6:00 am
Contact:

Post by jingle_jangle »

Question: Why did Rick put grommets under the guard?

A bit of history is in order:

Rohm and Haas were the originators of methyl methacrylate in sheet form in the USA. This carried the trade name "Plexiglas". (Note the single "S" in the trade name. As this became a generic term, like "Kleenex" did, it lost its capitalization and often acquired a second "S".) In the UK it was known as "Perspex" (also eventually genericized), and DuPont called it "Lucite", a name borrowed from their original line of acrylic latex emulsion wall paint!)

In reading the literature put out by Rohm and Haas back in the '60s on fabrication tips, I noted that a fair amount of ink is expended on emphasizing the fact that acrylic sheet will fatigue-crack rather easily (and this can be seen on the majority of vintage gold guard Rickenbackers). Rohm and Haas cautions that any stress points like drilled attachment holes should be cushioned with rubber grommets between the acrylic sheet and the fasteners.

I propose that this was Rickenbacker's way of attempting to minimize the possibility of stress cracks developing from the pickguard's attachment screws being tightened too much. Still, there would be problems with switch and pot attachment holes, probably more so than with the guard attachment screws!

Eventually this was dispensed with, the guards being attached directly to the guitar's body.

Another issue: the nut, which in the Thielemans picture is shown as black (presumably Bakelite) and on the "restoration" is white (thus, Nylon or acrylic sheet, too).

Lastly, I'll point out the fitting of the Selmer/Bigsby "bowtie" rocking bridge. When the Bigsby B5 was fitted to V81 on Hessey's countertop (now, there's a legendary Norman Rockwell scene if ever there was one--two eager musicians with more enthusiasm than either cash or mechanical aptitude, excitedly performing legendary ad hoc surgery amid sunlight and dust motes streaming in through Hessey's none-too-clean front windows!) along with the bowtie, they had neither desire, time, or facilities to make the necessary crescent-shaped relief cut in the pickguard, to allow the bowtie to sit centered with respect to the pickups, fretboard, or nut.

The bowtie is off center by almost 4mm, by my measurement on my own 325 and observation of the photos of JL's guitar and every attempt ever made at replicating it. This puts the low "E" string right at the edge of the fretboard, and the high "E" up higher than it was originally with the factory bridge.

(Also of note is an apparent kink in the "B" string at the edge of the fretboard nearest the neck pickup, and its misaligned path around the B5's pivot post, both indications to me that the guitar is detuned substantially.

What can we learn?

John's guitar was his workhorse. It got workhorse attention through its entire working life. Keeping it functioning took precedence over keeping it original. Indeed' most of the modifications made at Lennon's own hands or at his bidding. were in the interest of getting it to function better. I'm sure the knob swaps and pot problems had entirely to do with the unavailability of Rogan knobs in the UK, and the difficulty of finding a pot hex nut on a moment's notice, not to mention a proper wrench to tighten it sufficiently.

But the final "restoration"? I've got two questions:

1. Why do it?

2. Why not do it properly?

Any and all opinions and insights are appreciated!
“I say in speeches that a plausible mission of artists is to make people appreciate being alive at least a little bit. I am then asked if I know of any artists who pulled that off. I reply, 'The Beatles did.”
― Kurt Vonnegut
User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 15029
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2000 5:00 am
Contact:

Post by admin »

"Shake it up baby, now ... Twist and Shout."

Cur, I hope you thought long and hard about starting this topic. I promise, it will go on for some time.

There are many points throughout your introduction that will lead to interesting discussion. Should I start with the finish or finish with the start?

As to the why, Lennon was, as we all do at some point, reflecting on his early days and probably was yearning for a return to early memories. Back to his roots if you wish. Whilst this may seem as a leap of faith, there is some evidence that he was interested in starting over. Certainly his last album speaks to this sort of thinking. Further, after meeing May Pang in New York, he convinced her to go back to England to retrieve his second second model 325.

As to the work, Lennon and the Beatles turned their instruments over to refinishers, in the early and mid to late 1960s, who may not always been crackerjack. The initial refinishing was not top notch. I don't believe that Lennon's expectations were high and I am going to speculate that he thought the last refinishing job was to standard. It is also to be remember that Lennon said, during his New York days, that his Rickenbacker played like caw caw. Was this comment "vintage Lennon" or in reflection to the worn out condition of his first Rickenbacker.
Life, as with music, often requires one to let go of the melody and listen to the rhythm

Please join the Official RickResource Forum Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/groups/379271585440277
User avatar
ken_j
RRF Consultant
Posts: 4216
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2003 5:31 am
Contact:

Post by ken_j »

I would think that this guitar was just a work horse to Lennon. He didn't seem shy about experimenting with his gear to get a desired sound. Like the stripping of the Casino.

Paul, I never noticed the areas around the pickups without the honey color. Yoko should send it to you for a "proper refinish."
"The best things in life aren't things."
User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 15029
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2000 5:00 am
Contact:

Post by admin »

Yoko should send it to you for a "proper refinish."
Indeed Ken, stranger things have happened with this instrument. Why not send it in for a proper job?
Life, as with music, often requires one to let go of the melody and listen to the rhythm

Please join the Official RickResource Forum Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/groups/379271585440277
User avatar
jingle_jangle
RRF Moderator
Posts: 22679
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 6:00 am
Contact:

Post by jingle_jangle »

I have seen previous discussions about the areas which I mention, and which are so very obvious in the Babiuk photo, in which the color difference is due to a failure to strip the undercoat put on by the coach painter, or that it is dust left on the guitar, which was then cleaned less than comprehensively in its photoshoot.

It looks like neither to me, hence my own speculation.

The coachpainter probably did not put down an undercoat, and if he did it was a black undercoat, which was highly unlikely in my opinion. The black color remains in the grain, there is no doubt about that.

The stripping and restoration by Mr. Di Martino (sp?) was done at a time when the historical significance of this guitar was not fully realized yet. JL was still alive, and knowing how tight Yoko was with a buck, money could have been more an issue than historical significance.
“I say in speeches that a plausible mission of artists is to make people appreciate being alive at least a little bit. I am then asked if I know of any artists who pulled that off. I reply, 'The Beatles did.”
― Kurt Vonnegut
User avatar
brammy
Senior Member
Posts: 5074
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 5:00 am

Post by brammy »

Image
the pix from this web site.

Was the restorer colorblind?
“The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it.” ....H. L. Mencken
User avatar
jingle_jangle
RRF Moderator
Posts: 22679
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 6:00 am
Contact:

Post by jingle_jangle »

That's a honey, Kent! Although my usual cautions about color variances stand--case in point showing a much more orange guitar than the illustration in Babiuk's (color-corrected) book...

And even in this low-resolution smallish shot, if you look closely at the upper edge of the bowtie, where it contacts the bridge pickup, you'll see one of the lighter areas in question.

And any owner of an Alderglo 325C58 has a guitar that is a natural color.
“I say in speeches that a plausible mission of artists is to make people appreciate being alive at least a little bit. I am then asked if I know of any artists who pulled that off. I reply, 'The Beatles did.”
― Kurt Vonnegut
User avatar
brammy
Senior Member
Posts: 5074
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 5:00 am

Post by brammy »

yup. I think the lesson to be learned here is to NOT send any work to the guy who did this (non)restoration.
“The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it.” ....H. L. Mencken
User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 15029
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2000 5:00 am
Contact:

Post by admin »

The coachpainter probably did not put down an undercoat, and if he did it was a black undercoat, which was highly unlikely in my opinion.
I agree, based on my reading of the history, the painter's lack of guitar refinishing experience and the rather brief period the guitar was in for painting, I can't imagine that time was taken for an undercoat. So I will go with the "dust theory" Paul.

Further, as Lennon's black finish began to deteriorate, as seen in photos in the months to follow, the "bare wood" seems to be evident.
Life, as with music, often requires one to let go of the melody and listen to the rhythm

Please join the Official RickResource Forum Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/groups/379271585440277
User avatar
jingle_jangle
RRF Moderator
Posts: 22679
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 6:00 am
Contact:

Post by jingle_jangle »

There is another "theory", Peter--the possibility that a stain or dye was wiped onto the guitar after the varnish was applied. in order to get the body to match the color of the neck, which effort seems to have been made for some reason--probably at the suggestion of John himself, going for a desired result of his own choosing.

This wiping--done after the guitar was fully assembled, and apparently in a hurry (while he waited?), would explain the lighter areas noted and the dark vertical screwdriver scratch that can be seen south of the neck pickup.

Upon reflection, I believe that, not only did the coach painter not undercoat the guitar, but he painted black Tekaloid right over the Rick's varnish finish. This would hasten the wear of the black away, exposing (varnished) bare wood.

The statement by witnesses that the guitar was gone for three days "for drying"--probably the only time possible between gigs, and hence a time period determined by schedule of performances, also leads me to believe that the Tekaloid was not fully dried.

Tekaloid was (are you ready for this?) BUS paint, and was in common use by most of the UK's numerous private transit companies, for buses, trams, and railway cars, at the time that Lennon's guitar was painted. It was (is? I don't know if the formula has changed over the years, but I suspect it has) a synthetic alkyd enamel. This type of coating surface-dries and combines with the oxygen in the air over a longish period of time--weeks at the minimum.

Yet the guitar was put back into service in only a few days, before its drying cycle had completed.

Incidentally, the manufacturer of Tekaloid recommended a clear (air-dry) copal varnish over the color for maximum protection.

The black guitar, with worn areas showing bare wood mere months later, must've driven the notoriously finicky Brian Epstein mad.
“I say in speeches that a plausible mission of artists is to make people appreciate being alive at least a little bit. I am then asked if I know of any artists who pulled that off. I reply, 'The Beatles did.”
― Kurt Vonnegut
User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 15029
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2000 5:00 am
Contact:

Post by admin »

Interesting points always emerge as the history of this instrument is discussed.

A couple of points that continue to be entirely speculative. To begin, I don't believe that Lennon dropped off or picked up his guitar at Ron DeMarino's. That wasn't his style in the fall of September 1962 and I suspect that it wasn't that way for the last stripping either. Moreover, I don't think he would have tried to match up the color as he never paid much attention to his instrument, at least from all reports.

In addition, Lennon got his Gibson 160E on September 11, 1962 and while some have speculated, myself included, that he had to have his Rickenbacker for gigs, there is nothing to rulle out his use of the Gibson for a period of time.

Finally, I have corresponded with Billy Kinsley who has some difficulty remembering all of the details with regard to the 325, and indeed who could blame him after all these years.

Still very many loose ends, but I remain fascinated by the journey that this guitar took.
Life, as with music, often requires one to let go of the melody and listen to the rhythm

Please join the Official RickResource Forum Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/groups/379271585440277
User avatar
jingle_jangle
RRF Moderator
Posts: 22679
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 6:00 am
Contact:

Post by jingle_jangle »

I did not mean to infer that Lennon even left the Dakota to visit Ron's shop. The style of life which Jonh and Yoko led while living in New York would have had him summon DaMarino (sp?) for a brief meeting.

On your other point, if gig schedules did not in fact determine the speed of the 325's Tekaloid refin, then I would propose that the painter's inexperience with instrument painting led him to give the guitar back before the paint was completely hardened.

As you say, speculation, but a fascinating topic.
“I say in speeches that a plausible mission of artists is to make people appreciate being alive at least a little bit. I am then asked if I know of any artists who pulled that off. I reply, 'The Beatles did.”
― Kurt Vonnegut
User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 15029
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2000 5:00 am
Contact:

Post by admin »

I believe it is DeMarino, but I spelled it incorrectly above Paul and changed it just now. It was my interpretation about Lennon leaving the shop, sorry I did not mean to put words in your mouth.
Life, as with music, often requires one to let go of the melody and listen to the rhythm

Please join the Official RickResource Forum Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/groups/379271585440277
User avatar
leftybass
RRF Consultant
Posts: 5359
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 10:23 am

Post by leftybass »

I doubt if any subsequent work will ever be done to this guitar, for it is in the condition and specification that John Lennon approved of while he was alive.

Ron DiMarino is primarily a Fender man I believe, I recall him having an extensive collection of custom-color Strats etc...Larry Wassgren has met him and may have something to add about this.
Post Reply

Return to “Reflections of a Curmudgeon: by Paul Wilczynski”