Does refinishing affect value?

[winston]

I am not a collector by strict definition..........my wife might argue to the contrary of course.

Eh, don't argue with Penny!

This is so true......

[jingle_jangle]

I really have no business speculating what the market may do especially on a subject that i am still so new to. I think i need to make an informed decision and hope I choose wisely. With luck the instrument I choose will possess the "mojo" I have heard about and I'll be happy. if years down the line, i sell it and make a profit, then that is a bonus.

Thanks again.

Sepp

It's hard to lose money on any unbutchered Rick unless you're in fire sale mode or just not paying attention.

[bvstudios]

Three years ago, I took my '70 Gretsch 6122 in to my luthier for a re-work. The darn thing had stopped working onstage in the middle of "Pipeline" about a decade earlier and my careful efforts to find out why had resulted in a pile of wires, still attached to their pots, pups and switches, and no luck. So she sat in the case for years (literally) in non-working order until I finally decided I could trust someone else to put her back together again.

My luthier, who has no axe to gride inasfar as selling guitars is concerned, asked me if I wanted it "completely restored" or "completely refinished". When I inquired about the difference, one involved fixing/replacing anything broken or damaged with parts as close to original as possible, with as little intrusion on the originality of the piece as possible, while the other would be "soup to nuts", including new binding, replated hardware, new frets and a complete refin, which he told me would pretty much guarantee another four decades of happy, carefree music, but if I decided to sell her, I wouldn't get near as much for it. Probably the result would make the guitar worth less than the total cost of the refin.. My luthier appreciated the patina of the old girl, and seriously pointed me at "repair" rather than "renew"..

It took a few months, but ultimately, I feel he was right. I have a perfectly functional, 95+% original Chet Atkins Country Gent, with all it's parts intact, new wiring, a new bridge (that I need to age) and a single NOS switch to replace the one which caused the problem in the first place (the worn 'cap' threaded straight on to the switch. Unless you remove the cap, you can't tell which one is the newer). She's 41 years old this month, and unlike my wife, she looks her age. Not old and beat up, but a very well-preserved 40. People know that she's not new as soon as they see her, but boy, do they love her sound!

I'd go that way every time.. If I want a new guitar, I'll buy a new guitar. After all, I've done it more than once (a LOT more than once, according to my wife) But a genuine collectible? That stays as original as possible to still be functional. My guitars don't stay under glass- they're meant to be used.

Just like me!

[jingle_jangle]

That's Gretsch Truth.

Rick Truth is different.

[Kopfjaeger]

Well, I have some new news. The Autumglo on ebay in England my be mine quite shortly. I have been in contact with the shop across the pond and the store owner has made me a special offer. I guess persistence pays off, sometimes! We are working on the fine details but it looks real close to a done deal, unless we hit a major snag on payment methods. I know it has been said it may be a refinish but at the price it was offered to me at, it really makes no difference. While his fotos were quite good, If I do land it, I'll post it here for opinions and a good critique.

I do appreciate all the comments and assistance that has been posted on this thread.

Stay tuned!!

Sepp

[jingle_jangle]

It's real fun when you can score a Rick at a cheaper price that's been badly-restored or painted with a sponge mop...

Then you don't feel any guilt about really giving it the treatment and bringing it back from limbo.

[jingle_jangle]

Three years ago, I took my '70 Gretsch 6122 in to my luthier for a re-work. The darn thing had stopped working onstage in the middle of "Pipeline" about a decade earlier and my careful efforts to find out why had resulted in a pile of wires, still attached to their pots, pups and switches, and no luck. So she sat in the case for years (literally) in non-working order until I finally decided I could trust someone else to put her back together again.

My luthier, who has no axe to gride inasfar as selling guitars is concerned, asked me if I wanted it "completely restored" or "completely refinished". When I inquired about the difference, one involved fixing/replacing anything broken or damaged with parts as close to original as possible, with as little intrusion on the originality of the piece as possible, while the other would be "soup to nuts", including new binding, replated hardware, new frets and a complete refin, which he told me would pretty much guarantee another four decades of happy, carefree music, but if I decided to sell her, I wouldn't get near as much for it. Probably the result would make the guitar worth less than the total cost of the refin.. My luthier appreciated the patina of the old girl, and seriously pointed me at "repair" rather than "renew"..

It took a few months, but ultimately, I feel he was right. I have a perfectly functional, 95+% original Chet Atkins Country Gent, with all it's parts intact, new wiring, a new bridge (that I need to age) and a single NOS switch to replace the one which caused the problem in the first place (the worn 'cap' threaded straight on to the switch. Unless you remove the cap, you can't tell which one is the newer). She's 41 years old this month, and unlike my wife, she looks her age. Not old and beat up, but a very well-preserved 40. People know that she's not new as soon as they see her, but boy, do they love her sound!

I'd go that way every time.. If I want a new guitar, I'll buy a new guitar. After all, I've done it more than once (a LOT more than once, according to my wife) But a genuine collectible? That stays as original as possible to still be functional. My guitars don't stay under glass- they're meant to be used.

Just like me!

Kevin, I gave the short, iPhone answer up there following your lengthy post.

I read it again and got to thinking about your luthier's terminology, "completely restored" vs."completely refinished", and I think that there's some language difficulty here...I much prefer the "repair" vs. "renew" language as being more compact and accurate.

To me, "complete restoration" has always meant taking an object down to its smallest component and bringing each piece to new condition (or replacing with new)--the equivalent of "renew", which is the term that the Rolls-Royce manuals prefer when referring to the quality of workmanship that RR cars and components deserved. "Complete refinishing", OTOH, has meant bringing some object to cosmetic perfection--new paint, new chrome, new varnish, rubber, etc., focusing upon visual impressions.

Neither of these terms conjures up "repair", which is one thing (to make functional again) or "mechanically restore", which seems to be what your luthier did to your 6122.

I've got several patinaed old instruments, none of which I would even consider changing--a 1935 KayKraft parlor guitar, an odd late '40s archtop with an old label inside that says, "Crafted in Germany for Fender" (???), and a gorgeous late '59 Hemosch electric archtop. Oh, and a 1920s 6-string charango, made from an armadillo's shell, which sure would sparkle with a fresh Fireglo refinish and a couple of toasters.

I've got some gorgeous studio photos of heavily worn (NOT fake-relicked) Fender offsets, in particular a faded and chipped CAR Jaguar that just oozes character through my flat screen...

[collin]

It's real fun when you can score a Rick at a cheaper price that's been badly-restored or painted with a sponge mop...

Then you don't feel any guilt about really giving it the treatment and bringing it back from limbo.

Yep, that's true.

Sometimes I cringe when I see somebody give a guitar (especially vintage) the full works when it is mostly original and looks great on it's own.

However....if it is in serious disrepair, or has had a butcher job or bad refin, it's fair game with no shame!

[manta]

I had a 330 with nice grain that the previous owner had apparently run into a door or a series of mike stands with!

Was a nice sounding 330 but you cringed when you saw the damages.

Jingle-Jangle gave it the works and it was sooooo nicely re-done it doubled its sale value. I kept it for a couple of years before somewhat reluctantly moving it on to another happy owner.

And that is my happy re-fin tale.

[Ain'tGotNoPokemon]

Personally, I don't believe value of vintage things should be a lot - I don't like greed, and eventually everything comes to an end. You could pay a million bucks for Keith Richard's personal whatever-guitar, but it will die eventually - tomorrow or ten years. So, while I prefer original finishes on guitars, I would pay just as much for one refinished - Same sound, for the most part.

But, if it were my guitar, and I never had plans to be rid of it, I'd do as I please to any of its components.

[bvstudios]

Three years ago, I took my '70 Gretsch 6122 in to my luthier for a re-work. The darn thing had stopped working onstage in the middle of "Pipeline" about a decade earlier and my careful efforts to find out why had resulted in a pile of wires, still attached to their pots, pups and switches, and no luck. So she sat in the case for years (literally) in non-working order until I finally decided I could trust someone else to put her back together again.

My luthier, who has no axe to gride inasfar as selling guitars is concerned, asked me if I wanted it "completely restored" or "completely refinished". When I inquired about the difference, one involved fixing/replacing anything broken or damaged with parts as close to original as possible, with as little intrusion on the originality of the piece as possible, while the other would be "soup to nuts", including new binding, replated hardware, new frets and a complete refin, which he told me would pretty much guarantee another four decades of happy, carefree music, but if I decided to sell her, I wouldn't get near as much for it. Probably the result would make the guitar worth less than the total cost of the refin.. My luthier appreciated the patina of the old girl, and seriously pointed me at "repair" rather than "renew"..

It took a few months, but ultimately, I feel he was right. I have a perfectly functional, 95+% original Chet Atkins Country Gent, with all it's parts intact, new wiring, a new bridge (that I need to age) and a single NOS switch to replace the one which caused the problem in the first place (the worn 'cap' threaded straight on to the switch. Unless you remove the cap, you can't tell which one is the newer). She's 41 years old this month, and unlike my wife, she looks her age. Not old and beat up, but a very well-preserved 40. People know that she's not new as soon as they see her, but boy, do they love her sound!

I'd go that way every time.. If I want a new guitar, I'll buy a new guitar. After all, I've done it more than once (a LOT more than once, according to my wife) But a genuine collectible? That stays as original as possible to still be functional. My guitars don't stay under glass- they're meant to be used.

Just like me!

Kevin, I gave the short, iPhone answer up there following your lengthy post.

I read it again and got to thinking about your luthier's terminology, "completely restored" vs."completely refinished", and I think that there's some language difficulty here...I much prefer the "repair" vs. "renew" language as being more compact and accurate.

To me, "complete restoration" has always meant taking an object down to its smallest component and bringing each piece to new condition (or replacing with new)--the equivalent of "renew", which is the term that the Rolls-Royce manuals prefer when referring to the quality of workmanship that RR cars and components deserved. "Complete refinishing", OTOH, has meant bringing some object to cosmetic perfection--new paint, new chrome, new varnish, rubber, etc., focusing upon visual impressions.

Neither of these terms conjures up "repair", which is one thing (to make functional again) or "mechanically restore", which seems to be what your luthier did to your 6122.

I've got several patinaed old instruments, none of which I would even consider changing--a 1935 KayKraft parlor guitar, an odd late '40s archtop with an old label inside that says, "Crafted in Germany for Fender" (???), and a gorgeous late '59 Hemosch electric archtop. Oh, and a 1920s 6-string charango, made from an armadillo's shell, which sure would sparkle with a fresh Fireglo refinish and a couple of toasters.

I've got some gorgeous studio photos of heavily worn (NOT fake-relicked) Fender offsets, in particular a faded and chipped CAR Jaguar that just oozes character through my flat screen...

Paul- It may be that my luthier, Mario, is from Northern Italy and has what would be best described as a "germanic Italian accent". Even after a quarter century out here on the Left Coast, he struggles with his English idioms. The words in quotes above where his exact ones to me when I took him the guitar. And yes, they were a tad confusing. But after some detailed back and forth we arrived at what you correctly have termed a "mechanical" restoration, which is pretty much what I wanted of him when I walked through the door.

And the fact that it cost 'way less than half of one of his full-on, refinish, replate, replace, renew jobs made my smile just that little bit broader when I came to pick it up.