Fireglo variation?

danbind · Post by **danbind** » Sun Sep 25, 2005 1:37 pm

I have seen a bunch of FGs, some of which have a really lovely gradual fade to the center and some that have a very stark "step" from the red on the outside to the amber in the center. I also have read here on the forum comments to the effect of "just wait...", which implies that the finish will change over time. Is this true? I have an FG on order, and I fear a long wait for my lefty special order just to get a garish lollipop done by "the new guy". I'm a sucker for a good sunburst.

jps · Post by **jps** » Sun Sep 25, 2005 2:00 pm

This one started out in July of '73.

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Sun Sep 25, 2005 3:34 pm

It takes between about 10 and 20 years for the conversion varnish to amber, on the average. Prior to that, the maple will yellow a bit from UV, depending upon how much time it spends out of its case.

Newly-painted FGs from the factory are a red-orange tint with little or no ambering.

steve_hershberger · Post by **steve_hershberger** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 2:41 am

It's also a very hard color to photograph accurately, not to mention the differences between how various computer monitors display them. For instance, when I saw the ad pics online for my '92 360/12v64, they looked a lot brighter red than the guitar is as seen in person.

The reds are darker and the maple sections are more yellow/brown when compared to the newer 360's I've seen. The newer ones range from red/orange to pink-ish and the maple sections are a LOT whiter than mine. Like Paul said, the new ones will age depending on the environment, but it remains to be seen just how much. Hopefully we'll all still be around in 20 years to find out.

admin · Post by **admin** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 3:05 am

Steve and Paul: Then there is also the effect of senescent lenticular yellowing in which the lens of the eye yellows in older people. So the Fireglo could, for all practical purposes, remain the same but because of our aging lens it looks different.

I argue with younger folks, more often than I care to mention, whether a colour is "blue or green" for example. But I digress.

If I get a blueburst, one day I may have a greenburst.

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:15 am

Peter, I must differ with you on this senescent lenticular yellowing topic.

What you say is no doubt correct biologically, but the brain adjusts for this process. If a man were to live in a room without any visual stimuli, then his brain's "white balance" would float freely and he would perceive colors differently initially from a man with the usual stimuli. But only initially, otherwise the whole world would be perceived as amber-tinted.

Because of this adjustment made automatically by our brains, an FG finish's variation with age remains for all practical purposes, a matter of chemical changes within the guitar's wood and its conversion varnish.

Your argument with younger folks is one of semantics. Younger people do not have the color vocabulary to describe turquoise or teal or lilac satisfactorily, so they'll say that turquoise is blue or teal is green. In fact, both are both...

What color is persimmon? Is it red or orange or pink? How does it differ from coral or salmon?

It's all color semantics, a fascinating topic.

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:19 am

BTW, here's a shot of the back of my late-production '83 ES-16.

This is one of the nicest aged FGs I've seen, truly inspi-Rick-tional...

wim · Post by **wim** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:38 am

here's how I like my fireglo.

http://users.telenet.be/webruimtev/my360v64.JPG

I can spend hours just looking at it.
Really .. hours.

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:42 am

Medium rare, eh Wim?

wim · Post by **wim** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:45 am

admin · Post by **admin** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:28 am

Younger people do not have the color vocabulary to describe turquoise or teal or lilac satisfactorily, so they'll say that turquoise is blue or teal is green. In fact, both are both...

Sorry, I was too vague here Paul, younger as in young adults who have mastered at least the crayola range by then. I would argue that the brain only compensates partially for the yellowing lens. What the 75 year old sees is a different blue than the 25 year old sees and also the 75 year old is at a distinct disadvantage as much less light enters the eye. They both see blue but different blues.

I concur that the variation in FG will be seen by young and old, as this is relative of course. But I still consider that the colours that my children see are at least quantitatively different that those seen by their grandmother.

Try wearing blue blockers for a week and you will still see purple flowers as appearing more red. And those around you will think you have lost it until they see your finish work.

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 11:10 am

Peter--how would you or any scientist measure the different blues that are seen by, say, an eight-year-old and a 78-year-old?

I often wear an amber-tinted visor when riding one of my motorcycles; they have an amazing effect on contrast because they wash out the mid grays. Upon removing these, greens simply jump out at one. Until the brain adjusts, that is. Then everything looks normal again.

In any event, color perception and description are very subjective, unless we were to get totally scientific. It is possible to scientifically represent a color in any notation system that we could dream of. We can translate colors into numbers and letters, duplicate them exactly, and they will look the same to us, but again, how would we describe them to somebody else?

What is blue? It's all semantics.

I did not perceive your post to be vague at all, Peter, but that's subjective, semantic, and relative, just like color.

admin · Post by **admin** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 12:14 pm

Agreed Paul, describing colour is subjective. It isn't easy being green.

My point about your amber-tinted goggles it that if you keep you goggles on, then your perception continues to be changed by the amber tint. The 78 year old keeps his or her amber tint as the lens has changed colour. The 8 year old does not have the tint.

If you show the 8 year old a blue and then a green color chip most will say blue and then green. For those 78 year olds if you show them the blue and then the green, there is a good chance that they will say green and then when shown the second green chip by comparison they will make a correction and say the first is perhaps blue and the second is green.

I am not basing this on a massive research study, but have observed colour naming in many older people who do have trouble making the distinction between blue and green, particularly if there is reduced light.

So now, outside the two of us, everyone has moved to another topic. Sorry if I blue your fireglo topic.

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 12:35 pm

Fireglo? I thought it was Blueburst!

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 12:36 pm

And your Blue looks Green.