Lennon's 1958 Model 325

terry · Post by **terry** » Fri Aug 18, 2000 12:15 am

Mark wrote:
It is blatantly obvious that the refinisher used a chemical stripper to do the job. When using a chemical stripper, this softens the finish and in effect melts it.

Mark,

Are you suggesting that a chemical stripper was used in lieu of a sanding procedure? Were chemical strippers used for stripping guitar finishes back in the 1970s?

Mark · Post by **Mark** » Fri Aug 18, 2000 10:51 am

I thought that I posted to this already ...but it has not appeared so I will try again.

I am not suggesting anything...I am telling.This is just like the film "My Cousin Vinnie"

There is no way it could have been done any other way.

terry · Post by **terry** » Fri Aug 18, 2000 11:08 am

Mark: Gotcha. I believe ya. You da man. It was a chemical stripper. But what I'm trying to nail down is how much sanding was involved -- if any. That is why I asked if the chemical stripper was used in lieu of (instead of) a sanding procedure. How much sanding, if any, are we talking here for such a refinishing process? Does a chemical stripper alone prepare a guitar for refinishing? And what effect might a chemical stripper have on the woodgrain of such a guitar, if any?

admin · Post by **admin** » Fri Aug 18, 2000 1:58 pm

For those who don't want to use a magnifying glass to compare the Rittor photos of Lennon's 1958 on Pages 116 and 117, slightly larger images of the body are available at the following link.
1958 325 Images

terry · Post by **terry** » Fri Aug 18, 2000 2:06 pm

Larry Wassgren wrote:
It's true that the woodgrain looks different from one photo to the next, but it is always there.

I don't think so.

Just my opinion, of course.

Mark · Post by **Mark** » Fri Aug 18, 2000 4:17 pm

After you chemically strip it ,you degrease it (there is wax in most strippers,this is there to keep the chemicals in the goo and not flash/evaporate away) then you sand it.The amount depends on how many gouges you put into it with your dry wall 'knife' .

The photo looks to be TWO different guitars.I wonder what the real deal is?

Could it be that we are indeed looking at 2 different guitars and that the refinished one is one of the White guarded 325 that he had or even the missing fireglo?

I'd love to really find out.

I feel like Benny from the alley cats when I deal with you TC

terry · Post by **terry** » Fri Aug 18, 2000 5:57 pm

Mark: Many thanks for explaining the stripping process (no, not that stripping process). Presumably, most guitars can also withstand a sanding of the sort you describe, prior to the refinishing itself -- you know, to remove the usual knife gouges, woodgrain, and so forth.

I feel like Benny from the alley cats when I deal with you, TC

It's all in a day's work, man. Peter inaugurated this newfangled googlephonic Rickenbacker Forum just recently and invited my participation (many thanks, Peter). And so, feeling much obliged, I sorta felt coaxed out of retirement briefly to help the cause or somethin' -- you know, maybe assist in jump starting the whole thing by contributing the usual intolerable controversy and by stirring up endless threads of blasphemous Lennon Rick heresy of one sort or another. Since this thread (and forum) seems to be on a new roll, perhaps it would be best for all if I simply bow out now and let all you very knowledgeable Rick gentlemen carry on. After all, this is a Beatles related thread; and as everyone knows, I'm more of the Byrds Rick persuasion.

It's been fun, lads -- just like old times! Have fun with the Lennon Rick (or Ricks, as the case may be)! J

larrywassgren · Post by **larrywassgren** » Fri Aug 18, 2000 9:05 pm

Peter, Good job posting the photos of the bodies
from the Rittor book. Can you do the same for the
headstocks from pages 116 and 117? Like I mentioned earlier, the floor shot from 1958 has about a 45 degree angle to it where the '90's shot is straight on. The '58 photo looks like it
was taken with a lot more light on the guitar, maybe a stronger flash or flood lights. Plus the finish was new, not the aged type finish Ron put on when refinishing it in the 70's. All this will definitely make the grain look different, I've taken enough guitar shots to know this. Tuck, could you possibly give us a translation of what the caption under the photo on page 116 says?
Tomcat, you should stick around and keep this conspiracy theory alive!

admin · Post by **admin** » Sat Aug 19, 2000 7:37 am

Larry: Please find below the 1958 and 1994 images of Lennon's 325 from Rittor.

larrywassgren · Post by **larrywassgren** » Sat Aug 19, 2000 3:46 pm

Peter, Thanks for posting the headstock photos.
Like Tomcat said, the woodgrain is the fingerprint of the guitar. Comparing the '58 and
'94 headstock photos leaves no doubt they are the same guitar.

69z28man · Post by **69z28man** » Sun Sep 17, 2000 10:23 pm

Larry,

You are famous guitar dealing legend throughout the world but especially in Japan. Many stories over the years tell of one from the west that searches forever for a natural 325 Ricky. It's been long time since we've last spoke and joked. No one knows more about John's and the boy's guitars than you....and perhaps Andy. We must talk again...of old times...and old guitars. I hope your family are doing well...perhaps you can email me.
To your health,

admin · Post by **admin** » Mon Sep 18, 2000 3:16 am

John: I am assuming from your note that you live in Japan. Will you be able to be at the opening of the John Lennon museum? I would be forever grateful if you would be able to get a first hand look at the 1958 325 and to take photos and most importantly to post the serial number from the jackplate should it be visible while on display. As you know, the serial number of this instrument and its woodgrain have been the topic of much discussion over the years. Thanks for any assistance that you may provide in this matter.

rick12dr · Post by **rick12dr** » Mon Sep 18, 2000 9:14 am

I 'm curious why Lennon didn't have Rickenbacker themselves refinish his guitar.Anyone care to comment on That one?Up to 1980, I think the finish they used was at least the same basically as what was used in the 60s, not sure if the finish in the 50s was the same. In any case, the Rick people should have known how to deal with this.Or maybe they Did see it, and told him they couldn't guarantee just how well a clear finish would look.That guitar was fairly beat up from what I've heard.

admin · Post by **admin** » Mon Sep 18, 2000 6:29 pm

In my view the condition of Lennon's 1958 325 finish was not nearly as deteriorated as folklore would have it. This view is based on several photos that show the instrument in reasonably good condition at least as late as the fall of 1962. It is purely speculative, but the black finish I believe was carried out to go with the overall format black gestalt that Epstein wished The Beatles to portray as part of their quintessential professional image.

I think there are a couple of reasons why Rickenbacker wasn't consulted with regard to the refinishing of the 325 to black. To begin, this refinishing had to be done very quickly as it was a time in The Beatles' history when they were beginning to be in great demand and Lennon would not have parted with his beloved Rickenbacker for more than a few days at a time as there were performances nearly every night. Moreover, making arrangements from England to California in the early 1960s was not the same as today. Moreover, Lennon probably knew very little about the Rickenbacker factory and it is a reasonably safe bet that they had not heard of The Beatles during this time to make any sort of generous offer.

rick12dr · Post by **rick12dr** » Mon Sep 18, 2000 7:48 pm

Peter, I meant "Why didn't Lennon send the guitar back to Rick in the 70s for refinishing",
instead of the east coast repairman doing it?