375 Capri Restoration

[winston]

Very nice work. Congrats Ron and kudos to Larry.

[Scastles]

What I like about it best is the fact the restoration is true to itself. No add ons, or changes from what an FG may have looked like at the time of the original production. Fine work!!

[ric330]

Exquisite work and I'd be awefully proud that you were a part of being back such a significant piece of Rickenbacker history.
As said many times before, absolutely Stunning
It's amazing that that is the same guitar.

[collin]

Simply stunning Ron, I love it!

Glad to see it back from the dead, too.

[JakeK]

Larry actually mentioned your 375 to me, Ron...

Anyway, it's great. This project confirms that Larry can do whatever he wants to. He'll be tackling my 1993/12 project shortly!

[ocduff]

Nice guitar. I hope Rickenbacker reissues these at some point - that is, the late 50's Capri's. It seems a good options considering their high collectibility and value.

I frankly loved the look of the original guitar - age a trapeze tailpiece, age some TV knobs, get miscellaneous parts, and the guitar would be original and nice. I'm not sure why Rickenbacker owners favor - even with modern car collectors, for example, extolling that "a car is only original once" that we applaud when a completely original guitar is stripped and glossied.

It's not my guitar, and it's wonderful either way. I too applaud the work of the luthier and his skills. But there are thousands of people in this country who can level a fretboard and refinish a guitar. It takes much more restraint and professionalism to turn away such work, in the spirit of preservation. I'm a jerk, and a grandstander for saying that, as well as critical. But I practice what I preach and have always mourned other luthiers refinishing original guitars for the $$$. Perhaps the finish wasn't original - but it sure had history. Why destroy all that for the sake of glossiness? The other owners of the guitar - the people who loved and babied that guitar and played it, have been eliminated.

That said, beautiful guitar. I'm a jerk and a contrarian - but a Rickenbacker lover since a kid. And not because of the Beatles. I respect and admire their construction. And I've OWNED a '59 Capri that was flawed and ALL original, and numerous others. Good for me, sure, but there's nothing like history and originality.

Shame on me for saying it - it's a beautiful guitar either way.

[winston]

Well Owen I suppose if you owned the guitar it would be your choice to keep it as it arrived at the doorstep. In this case it was Ron's choice to refinish it and you have to respect that decision since you have no say in the matter.

[paologregorio]

Another amazing job by Larry Davis!!! Cheers!!

[johneek]

Another amazing job by Larry Davis!!! Cheers!!

+1...I've been saying that for a couple of years now. His skill as a luthier is matched only by the pleasure it is to work with him...an absolute gentleman.

While I appreciate Owen's position....I love what you've done with it.

[wints]

I'm a purist too, and you can debate the originality issue seven days to Sunday...Wait, it IS Sunday...

That is a stunning guitar now, and looking at the stripped state of it original, much more attractive IMO. One could still change around period hardware should one choose, but no question, Larry has done a great job on that 59 colour...

[YukonCor55]

Absolutely Gorgeous! I'm a classic car buff and I see all kinds of restorations at the shows I attend. The 3 main categories are "Survivor" basically untouched from original other than regular maintenance items, "Restored" an absolute, flawless, 100 point show winner right down to the factory inspectors chalk marks in the engine bay, and there's the "Resto Mod" which is a great makeover of a vintage automobile with a few nods to modern safety, performance and functionality. The camps are divided and militantly protective of their classes, boy does it get ugly!! Kinda reminds me of this beautiful piece, I'd consider it a "Resto Mod" while it's not dead original, it's been beautifully made over and "modded" just enough to bring it up to modern functionality standards.

[dgwguitars]

Nice guitar. I hope Rickenbacker reissues these at some point - that is, the late 50's Capri's. It seems a good options considering their high collectibility and value.

I frankly loved the look of the original guitar - age a trapeze tailpiece, age some TV knobs, get miscellaneous parts, and the guitar would be original and nice. I'm not sure why Rickenbacker owners favor - even with modern car collectors, for example, extolling that "a car is only original once" that we applaud when a completely original guitar is stripped and glossied.

It's not my guitar, and it's wonderful either way. I too applaud the work of the luthier and his skills. But there are thousands of people in this country who can level a fretboard and refinish a guitar. It takes much more restraint and professionalism to turn away such work, in the spirit of preservation. I'm a jerk, and a grandstander for saying that, as well as critical. But I practice what I preach and have always mourned other luthiers refinishing original guitars for the $$$. Perhaps the finish wasn't original - but it sure had history. Why destroy all that for the sake of glossiness? The other owners of the guitar - the people who loved and babied that guitar and played it, have been eliminated.

That said, beautiful guitar. I'm a jerk and a contrarian - but a Rickenbacker lover since a kid. And not because of the Beatles. I respect and admire their construction. And I've OWNED a '59 Capri that was flawed and ALL original, and numerous others. Good for me, sure, but there's nothing like history and originality.

Shame on me for saying it - it's a beautiful guitar either way.

Points well taken, Owen. Preservation of a vintage instrument, where feasible, is always preferable.

In defense of Ron's decision, and my support in the execution of the restoration, there were many factors that made it unfeasible to preserve his guitar, not the least of which was that it was unplayable due to the need for a neck reset and a fingerboard with ruts deeper than a freshly plowed cornfield. The neck reset necessitated removing the back, which in itself started a chain reaction of events, including rebinding, since the 50 year old binding isn't something that you can simply remove and reuse. With the neck, the grooves in the first position were so deep that planing the board was out of the picture, since doing so would have destroyed the original thin plastic inlays. One thing that Ron didn't mention was that the joints in the three-ply neck had shifted in the headstock, virtually negating any angle to the headstock, and severely weakening the headstock at the nut. The list could go on, but suffice it to say that at each turn the first consideration was to see how we could save the old and not go to new just for the sake of the ability to do so. As Ron said, we could have more easily replaced the back, but the additional effort necessary to use the old maple veneered poplar backed plywood was well worth it. The same could be said of the time and effort necessary to preserve the original roller bridge.

Thanks to all that have posted the positive comments about Ron's Capri. It was a lot of fun, and an honor, to do.

[jingle_jangle]

Larry, this is exceptional work (not that I'm surprised, based on previous projects you've turned out)! Congratulations on resurrecting a drab Ebay project guitar into a fabulous, usable stunner!

The color is fantastic; in general a spotless job with terrific attention to detail.

Ron, you've got a winner there.

I'm against doing major cosmetics on a Rickenbacker of this vintage, provided the guitar has retained its charm (hard to define, I know...) and has not seen too much hacking while in the hands of well-meaning former owners. In this case, the increase in value and charm (appeal) is evident in the finished product.

A good number of these early, full-sized Capris seem to fit into the category of "needs restoration". My own '60--acquired from Jwilli in late '05, had a similar previous history, having been "restored" at the hands of an amateur. I had no philosophical issues in re-backing it, rebinding, and upgrading it while I was at it. Had it been in authentic, original condition, even heavily patinaed, it would not have found its way into my hands--I wanted a project guitar that I could personalize, guilt-free.

Kudos to both owner and craftsman.

[jps]

Fantastic guitar, Ron! Play it lovingly. Kudos to Larry for bringing this back from the dead and turning it into a work of art.

[libratune]

One thing that Ron didn't mention was that the joints in the three-ply neck had shifted in the headstock, virtually negating any angle to the headstock, and severely weakening the headstock at the nut. The list could go on, but suffice it to say that at each turn the first consideration was to see how we could save the old and not go to new just for the sake of the ability to do so.

Briefly:
1. When I purchased this guitar, it was not with the intent of sending it away to be "restored." The guitar was represented to me as having its original finish, and had just been "gone over by a luthier," all electronics were functioning and it played very well. The seller was a realtor in Florida and said that this had been her husband's guitar "since the late 60's." The photos supplied were fuzzy but did not seem inconsistent with the representations -- it appeared to be a 375 with a Mapleglo finish. When the guitar arrrived with the finish stripped, a furrowed fretboard, etc. I was deeply disappointed and upset with the seller and we had a series of discussions. I could have sent the guitar back and received a full refund, but negotiated a partial refund instead and kept the guitar. I could see the potential in it, even in its pathetic state.

2. As Larry mentioned, one of the main reasons the guitar was in need of repair was the separation of the joints in the three-ply neck. Here's a photo that almost captures that condition. The middle strip in the three-ply neck was standing out at the neck/headstock joint, very noticeable to the touch when holding it, though it barely shows even in this close-up:

375 neck/hdstk back

This was accompanied by a forward-bow at the top of the headstock, again barely noticeable in the photo, but it definitely affected the playability:

375 neck/hdstk side

I wanted to make these points to support the general notion that, like many here, I am not a proponent of taking old guitars and making them look new just for the sake of having an old guitar that looks new. However, this guitar was simply unplayable as noted above and the original finish had already been completely stripped. It needed work that I could not do myself and the rest of the story has already been told. I have been collecting vintage Rickenbacker guitars for over 20 years and have a number of "beat but sweet" oldies that have nicks, dings, and areas of wear on frets,fretboad and finish; however, they are playable and I love the fact that they reflect a history of being played and (reasonably) cared for. Those guitars are not in need of repair or restoration and will stay as they are.