How to tell a refin

leftybass · Post by **leftybass** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 1:01 am

I can't speak for what the protocol is at the moment, but on older Rickenbackers from the late 50's you'll see plenty of overspray in the soundholes on original-finish guitars, I've held a bunch of them in my hands. You can see photographic evidence of this in the slides F.C. Hall took way back when.

marc61 · Post by **marc61** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 1:57 am

I was looking at Jwilli's guitar that he was thinking of selling.

http://www.homestead.com/aurs3/58365.html

Looks like there may be some overspray in the soundhole, and unless it was refined the day after it left Rickenbacker in 1958, that finish has to be original.

leftybass · Post by **leftybass** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 3:40 am

Yep, that's one guitar I was referring to...and his really clean '59 315 is the same way.

ken_swearingen · Post by **ken_swearingen** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 5:10 am

Also that guitar on ebay right now the 58-59 Capri also has over spray in the sound hole and thats definitely no re-fin.

wints · Post by **wints** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 9:27 am

Any instrument bought at the higher end "investment grade" big bucks (and this bass was) and presented as such, really must have an original factory finish for the present collector, (and this is a collector issue we are talking about here) and of course, future potential buyers.

Many an instrument can be misrepresented both knowingly and unknowingly, and it can be hard for even the experts out there to tell the difference.

I would gather as many pics as possible Marc and compare. I still think that the chances are that it is the original factory finish. It's a bass that has been very protected all it's life, like my case queen 68, which has never been exposed to much light or other factors that really change a finish.

leftybass · Post by **leftybass** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 9:49 am

Of all the 1960's Rickenbacker hollowbodies I have owned(and own presently), none of those instruments have had overspray in the soundholes, only in the control cavity. Having said that, I don't think it would be impossible that overspray might show up in the soundhole, I'd have to look at it. Either way, Marc's 4005 is a looker IMHO.

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 10:31 am

Amen to both these gentlemen's comments. I apologize if I sounded shrill. My statements were not meant to deny what's happening out there; just to state one cause and talk about its abuse.

There's no question that any changes in this will take a full generation (and a lot of expertly-done refinishes) to become accepted. BUT if I was the owner of a high-dollar item, I wouldn't be the one to refin it just to make it better-looking to myself. I'd retain my investment after assuring myself within reason that it was the gennie item.

I think that expert refins, if they assume a greater percentage of the market, would gain some acceptance and get the dealers off their sticky points.

Low mid-priced instruments (up to about $3K) can be dealt with on a one-by-one basis, and in doing this I've had good success, as mentioned in my Jaguar saga above.

Think about it--why should a 1936 Cord be worth $48K unrestored and $125K restored? It could be the age factor here. But it's not just age alone; it's the old supply and demand, firmly in control of the big-name dealers. Otherwise harp guitars and parlor organs would trade in the six-figure arena, too.

There is, of course, a lot to be said for originality. My '81 320 was nicked up enough that a refinish was not out of the question. My '83 ES-16, though a low-end guitar with a few small nicks, could have received a replica refinish, but was simply too sweet and untouched to do this to.

Yeah, I know, mine are low-budget examples, and you guys are talking about 5-figure stuff, and nervousness is a big part of that game...

leftybass · Post by **leftybass** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 10:49 am

Paul: I hear where you're coming from, especially on the Automobiles. I have helped research and restore some high-end cars, a '68 Shelby GT500KR convertible and a '74 E-Type Jaguar Roadster. UN-doubtedly both of these vehicles benefitted from restorations when the hammer dropped. Restos on the high-roller cars, like old Deuseys, 50's Ferrari's and the like need that kind of thing, but they'll bring a mint even before they go into the shop; it's as much as 'what they are' as it is 'how they look'.

rickfan60 · Post by **rickfan60** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 11:05 am

I have seen a number of Ricks with poly or nitro sprayed over the original finish to cover scratches or wear marks. It is hard to tell from just the pics but that FG looks factory to me. Perhaps the clear coat was oversprayed to rejuvinate the original finish.

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 11:09 am

Overspraying a clear coat is hack work and usually easy to spot.

It's easier and preferable to disassemble and re-buff if only slightly scratched.

bassduke49 · Post by **bassduke49** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 11:56 am

Ted, I believe Marc's 4005 has a ghost of Fireglo inside the cateye sound hole, and he's wondering if it is a refin. I saw the bass at the MARC and if it is a refin, it's a pretty good one despite the overspray.

marc61 · Post by **marc61** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 1:42 pm

I've come to a final conclusion that it's not a refinished bass. If it was, there would have been some kind of paint on the truss rods, and I find it hard to believe that someone did a paint job without disconnecting the electronics.

In fact, the bass has quite a traceable history in the recording studio. I'm trying to do my best homework to determine which songs it was actually used on, but the previous owner is an A&R man/record producer who has worked for many labels.

rickaddict · Post by **rickaddict** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 1:53 pm

Not to throw a wrench in the logic here, but...my white 1980 4001(never re-finned, I'm the original owner) has paint on the truss rods, nuts, and aluminum block(I just checked). And I'm pretty sure that all of my other 4001s(all original finish) also have paint on the rods.

I don't think that your bass is a re-fin Marc...but if it did have paint on the rods, I don't think that it would change my opinion.

wints · Post by **wints** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 2:23 pm

We're overlooking the human factor here too guys...

Any hand spraying/masking etc can obviously vary from person to person, day to day, and we already know the early stuff (50's/60's) can vary greatly in terms of QC anyway...

It just makes them more interesting....

I too have original finishes with overspray on the rods, and have seen it without as well.

See above...

ken_swearingen · Post by **ken_swearingen** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 2:28 pm

The whole collector market has to do with originality,a lot of collectors shy away from guitars as well as cars if even the hardware has been re plated.

As I keep saying over and over in this thread something is only factory or original once.

No matter what the condition,People want to have something just the way it left the factory 20,30 or 40 years or even a hundred or hundreds of years before.

Its no different then buying or collecting antiques.