To Restore or Not To Restore?

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 3:42 pm

Why would anyone want to mess with a beautiful, patinaed Rickenbacker instrument that's over 30 years old?

Hasn't it become (since the 1970s or so) virtually forbidden to make an old guitar look (and play) like new?

I'd be interested in hearing views on restoration, not just of Rickenbackers, but possibly of other brands of instruments.

My aim is to air some views on this and to understand just where the members of the Forum might stand.

Would you rather keep an oldie as-is? How old and/or rare should a guitar be, before it's too sacred to touch?

admin · Post by **admin** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 4:00 pm

Paul: At the risk of being perhaps too brief, with the exception of a celebrity instrument, I would argue that instruments in the 1960s or earlier are too sacred to touch, unless badly damaged.

It is likely that it will be at least another decade before the 1970s instruments will fall into this category.

Just what makes a vintage instrument anyway? The mere passage of time, features associated with a classic period, built by a famous luthier or refinished by a curmudgeon?

melibreits · Post by **melibreits** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 4:12 pm

Well, Paul, I think that would depend on the condition of the guitar in question.... If the finish is horrible, I am all in favor of refinishing! For example, I have a 330 from 1982 (my first Ric!) that is a beautiful mellowed fireglo.... However, the finish is horribly checked and peeling, thanks to the carelessness of a previous owner, which is why my husband was able to get this guitar for me cheap.... But since the finish is in such bad condition, it really has no great value as a collector's piece, and I feel that it would have more personal value to me if it was repainted in a totally different and luscious color....

Likewise, my mid-70's481 slant-fret must have been totally abused by its previous owner and immersed in water at some point, because the paint is bubbled and peeling off in many places, and it is not even playable in its current condition--the ONLY way it will have any value whatsoever is if it is completely restored.....

However, I think it would be a crime to do a refin on a true vintage Ric with only minor flaws in the finish, or on an instrument that was owned and played by a celebrity....

paulv63 · Post by **paulv63** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 4:30 pm

I think most people do the right thing when it comes to refinishing. Unless something is really wrong with the finish it shouldn't be touched. I'll use my 325v63 for instance. It's a 1989 which really isn't that old, yet it had checking by all of the drilled holes going right across the body. That didn't bother me as much as the gummy finish which made it virtually unplayable. If it was a finish checking problem, I would have left it alone as long as it wasn't chipping off. It added character. When it affects playability/functionality, a refinish is imperative. Since the refinish has been done I pick it up every day.

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 4:55 pm

Peter, you may have posed more questions than you asked, so shame on you...

I think one answer lies in the somewhat fluid definition given to the word "vintage". Sadly, there's another word that nails value down better. Unfortunately, that word is "collectible", and many, many lies have been told in its service.

So perhaps the best clue lies in the word "valuable" and what it means to a player or collector.

What makes a guitar valuable to us? Is it mere dollar and cents or is it playability and scents? Is it how many wonderful memories are evoked each time we plug it in and play a favorite melody or chord change?

Melissa, I know we are in agreement on most points. Paul, I agree with you, especially since you personally turned a mess into a miracle.

By the way, that word in my first sentence up above is "patinaed" ("having the patina of age or use"), and most definitely not "painted"...

longhouse · Post by **longhouse** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 6:54 pm

The main question for me is this:

Is the guitar going to be played? If so, then it needs to be in good working order. If the finish is crazed and coarse on the neck, refinish it. If the guitar will see stage time and needs to either look good or have a nice protective clear coat on it, go for it.

There was a '65 Ric 340 at my guitar shop forever.
Beautiful tiger-stripe maple under a dim Burgundyglo. I wouldn't have hesitated to have it refinished. Though, sadly, I hesitated in buying it

.

If the instrument is purchased and viewed as a collector's piece/investment, that's different. Keep them original. However GUITARS ARE MEANT TO BE PLAYED.

winston · Post by **winston** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 7:55 pm

Paul,

I too believe that guitars are meant to played. I would only consider a refinish on an old guitar for two reasons:

1) Fire, water, smoke or other semi catastrophic damage to the finish that effects playability or:

2) Catastrophic or hidden damage to the body or neck that effect the structural composition of the instrument.

Small dents, nicks, gouges, worn finish, rusted screws, hardware that has significant patina etc., should be left in an aged state where at all possible IMO. Such aging can add to the charm of the instrument and on the odd occasion can be used to assist in authenticating it as an instrument of value.

ozover50 · Post by **ozover50** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 12:47 am

All of the above....... an agonizing thread, Paul!

jwilli · Post by **jwilli** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 2:31 am

I have a few restored '50s and '60s Ricks. I ONLY have them refinned IF they have been previously stripped or refinned. Old guitars with worn areas or even lacquer checks are fine by me.

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 4:26 am

In most other areas of pricey collectibles (I can't think of an exception, although I'll hedge on this and say "most"), condition is paramount, whether the object will be used or merely displayed as a part of a collection.

It seems that if it's possible to restore an object, people will do this without hesitation. This includes other instruments like brass, woodwinds, and pianos. Violins--even ultra-rare vintage instruments--often undergo restorations including new fingerboards, bridges, repairs and French polishing. Just yesterday, a VOX Continental organ sold on eBay for the lowest price in recent memory--$485.00--because it needed about an hours' worth of contact cleaning, which doesn't scare any organ guys these days. But it also needed a recovering in new Tolex, which scares the bejeezus out of people. Recovered it will be in the $1500-$2000.00 range. Materials: <$100. The rest is labor (15-20 hours).

It of course includes old cars (which are close to my own heart), airplanes, boats, and old homes. The restoration of these valuable assets, if properly carried out, always increases their value.

Why not guitars? I've got my own ideas on this, but I'd like to hear some others first.

shamustwin · Post by **shamustwin** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 5:57 am

Even if Lennon's original guitar was refinished perfectly by the factory, my opinion is it shouldn't have been done at all (of course the decision was made by Lennon himself). A guitar with that history (and the black paint, Bigsby added by it's owner are part of it's history) should have been left in it's state, however unplayable it was. However, I realize Lennon's "back to new" refinish is also a part of it's history.

I have a '67 4005, in somewhat "well used" condition. It would be nice to have it in perfect condition, but that's not it's history. If it were restored, would it have the same monetary value? Dunno. Would it have the same emotional value to me? Dunno that either. (BTW, It's in exactly the same condition as when I purchased it, in '82, save for the correct tuners are now installed).

I can't stand to see vintage autos with new radios, either, FWIW.

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 6:48 am

I hear you on the radio issue. Nothing sillier than seeing a new Panasonic CD player on display in the dash of a '48 Chrysler Town and Country...

I don't believe Lennon was what could be termed a connoisseur of anything (except weed and Asian women, whoops, sorry). His desire to refurbish the 325 came from a nostalgia, without a whole lot of critical faculties coming into play, IMO.

His guitar's history was inextricably tied to him until the day he died. Hence, anything he did or ordered done, is part of its "Lennon" history. After his death, its "estate" history began, and the guitar, regardless of condition, has received what is arguably its best treatment since the day it was minted.

winston · Post by **winston** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 9:08 am

Paul further to my previous post on this interesting subject.

I have considered, albeit briefly, having my 350/6 JG restored back to showroom condition. What caused me to consider that is that was not well treated by the previous owner.

It has finish checks all over the upper side of the body and plus the previous owner used it as his main instrument for playing gigs. So it has many of the aforementioned nick, cuts, scratches etc., all over the guitar.

Why am I not having it refinished you ask?

Well, I like the way it sounds, I have got used to the way it looks, I am not scared about taking it out of the case and I play it every day.

Other than that there is no real reason why I would not want it perfect. In fact I may just decide to have it refinished in this particular case only because I love it so much.

Other than being a Rickenbacker (which is special in my part of the world especially) it is a guitar that doe not appear to particularly sought after by either collectors or guitar players. It still turns heads though even in it's present less than perfect condition.

My decision as you now know is still pending.

If I do decide to have it refinished it will be making a solo trip to California where a certain curmudgeon excels at his craft.

My LP will stay just as it is forever. So will my older Strats. They clearly are work horses and have aged gracefully and well. All their finish issues are just part of their personality. They do not in my mind ever become candidates for refinishing.

So why do I feel somewhat conflicted about what to do with my 350? Can anyone explain that?

shamustwin · Post by **shamustwin** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 9:37 am

I just purchased a 1997VB. I was considering a CW/6 and a used 360 at the local GC. The used 360 was leading the pack (til I saw the 1997) because it was something I would consider having refinished in another color, like green. Not so with a CW or 1997. I could buy a new 350V63 and have no qualms about having it's color changed.

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 9:54 am

Brian, everytime I do a refin, and especially on a Rick, I'm conflicted. I know it will be nice and shiny and new-looking, but will it lose charm? If I feel it will, I won't refinish. I've had two so far that I have initially wanted to do, but in the end I've decided not to, for the same basic reason, but two different flavors of that reason.

Jerry, a new Rick means two different things to me. I might buy a duplicate to one of my new Ricks, in order to do it in a color that I've wanted but can't get, or I'd buy a new one in my favorite color and NEVER change it in any irreversible way.

So my 2004s are both factory-fresh, except for guards and knobs. And that's how they'll stay. The 320 (now 325), although near-mint MG, caused a conflict only in color choice.

The ES-16 is so sweet and minty, I'd never change anything on it!