Ebay 360V64/6 with odd finish flaw (?)

lawton · Post by **lawton** » Sat Jan 22, 2005 11:05 am

Hey. Check out this 360V64 that's up on Ebay:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=41439&item=3777684682&rd=1

The seller says there's nothing unusual about the finish (lower left, beside the trapeze), but it looks odd to me.

Thoughts?

Scastles · Post by **Scastles** » Sat Jan 22, 2005 11:43 am

Appears to be bad lighting. Looks like the finish is picking up the refelection of something in a # of the photos. But can't tell for sure. I have a 360V64(6) and really don't see a whole lot of difference except as I mentioned, bad photography. But I might be missing something.

ken_j · Post by **ken_j** » Sun Jan 23, 2005 2:48 am

I had a spot on my V64 like that. It is on the upper horn. It is, at least on mine a change in the grain as in a single "flame". I will see if I can manipulate a photo later to show you.

lawton · Post by **lawton** » Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:14 am

Ken, my Elite 65 Casino has a small spot like that as well, a touch of flame in a generally non-flamed area. Thanks for that input.

ken_j · Post by **ken_j** » Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:42 am

Here are a couple of pics. I had to scan them as I could not find the discs with them. As you can see the color changes with the angle at which you veiw the guitar.

circles · Post by **circles** » Sun Jan 23, 2005 6:40 am

i've never seen a picture of a rick look good using the flash setting on a camera.

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Sun Jan 23, 2005 6:53 am

How about two, Circles?

ken_j · Post by **ken_j** » Sun Jan 23, 2005 7:19 am

That line of change on the upper horn of the guitar is made more evident by the flash. In certain lighting it appears the same. I found the disc with the other photos, so here is one without the flash. You can still see the change in the grain.

Scastles · Post by **Scastles** » Sun Jan 23, 2005 7:57 am

Without using a flash much cleaner look

circles · Post by **circles** » Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:19 am

(jingle jangle wrote "how about two..")

let me reprase that... not using the flash takes a better picture of how the finish looks in person. fireflo's will be smoother transitions etc.

no harm meant by my previous post.

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:35 am

Yeah, youse guys. I think we all see that the best general lighting in the interest of attempts at accuracy in color and highlights, is probably cloudy or overcast daylight, or something in the studio approaching same.

Just as eBay is probably a touchstone for semi-literacy, so is it for bad photography. Stan's picture is terrific, though!

My flash picture of the Rick "twins" is in fact as tedious as my prose can be. Although it's clear and shows highlights well, there is a good deal of flash glare on the 381's neck and horns. But the biggest offense is how, uncorrected, it distorts the colors. MB looks like a three-color Strat burst and the natural maple goes all yellow.

A pro I am not, but it's good fun all the same.

Scastles · Post by **Scastles** » Sun Jan 23, 2005 9:14 am

Even though you got some glare, you can still tell you got a couple of fine Rics there, Paul. Truly like the 381.

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Sun Jan 23, 2005 9:17 am

Thanks, Stan. Someday maybe I'll deserve it. Getting back into things after a long hiatus is a humbling experience.

Scastles · Post by **Scastles** » Sun Jan 23, 2005 9:35 am

Know what you mean. I (boastfully and shamefully) had to include a picture of the rest of my kids which replaced the kids I no longer have to feed.

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Sun Jan 23, 2005 10:05 am

Fabulous trio. I'm trying to decide on my own #3.