Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

The alcohol dye into the wood itself is the way a lot of folks get the PRS deep color/wavy wood look, but would it surprise you to know that the same look can be gotten with the colorant sitting entirely on top of the wood? Because that's how most mass manufacturers and many boutique guys--including RIC--go about it.

It all depends upon whether their finishing philosophy (and hence technique) is based upon furniture finishing or automotive finishing. RIC splits the difference and borrows from both; I guess I would say that their techniques and technology are industrially-keyed. I've ever refinned a PRS, so I don't know if they rub or spray, but I'd tend to say spray from inspecting their work at numerous stores and shows.

The issues you will run up against when it comes time to spray the conversion varnish or any professional urethane-based product are largely safety and environmental. Protect yourself and the environment. The overspray from these processes and the solvents are highly toxic to you and pets and will settle on things like glass, car finishes and anything in the space where you are doing the spraying. The solvents will enter your bloodstream through osmosis. They cause proven damage to reproductive, CNS, and respiratory systems. There are also allergic reactions which have been documented ranging from mild rashes to severe anaphylactic shock and even death. PPG recommends a moon suit and separate breathing air supply if you spray high volumes. Low volumes like guitars are OK with ordinary Tyvek jumpsuits and a half-respirator with organic vapor (purple) and dust cartridges.

Read up on this and talk to your vendor.

Last semester, my university department paid $20K to haul away toxic urethane waste from spraying operations. This month I purchased an automatic solvent recycler and waste paper and can compactor at a total installed cost of $6K, which I am hoping will cut those high disposal costs by about 90%, not to mention cut solvent consumption by 90% as well. Since solvent is a high-order product of the petrochemical cracking process, this helps a bit to cut consumption.

Is this off topic? Nope. Greg, dump your solvent when you're done to a local body shop and add it to their dump tank for recycling. Every little bit helps.

Thanks Paul. I plan on spraying the guitar at a local body shop where I know the guys, so will be using proper safety equipment and disposal.

Cool. You'll have a crowd!

Thought it would be best to resurrect this thread vs. starting a new one... My 360-12C63 is a little over a year old. I've noticed that the finish has "flattened" out or shrunk, it's not as glossy as when I first took delivery and the finish seems to be, not sure if i can explain it but ,soft? ilke it's not cured 100%. slight sticky feel to it, but of course not soft like you leave finger prints in it. But a thumb nail will make a slight impression and will immediately fill back in. The best way I can describe it maybe in a way Paul can understand, When I used to be a auto painter many moons ago , there was a product put out by PPG called NCT clear a non catalyzed clear. It would never seem to be cured as opposed to other catalyzed clears.. now I'm not really all that concerned and I love this guitar and I know I'm talking about apples and oranges when I describle the above clears vs RIC's clear coats. I'm just curious if this is normal for my guitar after one year? The only wax I've ever used was Zymol and I've done that one time only and about 6 months after I received the guitar.

What you're describing is normal finish shrinkage, which happens over extended time periods to all finishes, and which shows up in a small minority of Rick instruments to the extent you describe, usually when the maple of the body is softer and more open-grained.

After the guitar is sealed and sanded to fill in the pores, color is applied. Unlike some manufacturers, which use an alcohol dye which actually sinks into the pores of the wood, the colors on Ricks go on over the sealer and never actually touch the wood.

What I'm about to say involves only the conversion varnish layer, not the actual color layers, which have nothing to do with the finish's gloss: On top of the color coats, go all the coats of conversion varnish. I'm not sure how many coats a Rick gets, but my own get about 6 these days (I used to use more) and these are sanded, so probably only 1/2 the thickness or 3 coats are left. A typical CV thickness for a newly-sanded and buffed guitar runs about .007"-.010" in my shop; I expect that Rickenbacker finishes are a bit less, as I've measured a few and come up with .005"-.007". This is roughly two human hairs thick...it gives you an idea of how tough CV is.

After the CV is sanded and buffed, it is as shiny as a piece of plastic, which it in fact is. But what's under it is a piece of wood that has its grain and tiny pores filled also with sealer and filler, both of which will shrink over time, conforming to the grain and pores eventually. This will "pull down" the topmost coats of CV, too, as they shrink as well...the result is the imprint of the grain underneath on the entire CV finish, all the way to the surface.

Back in '06, I refinished 2 guitars for our own Melissa B: the Purpleburst 330 and her BBR 481SF. The 330 remains ultra-glossy to this day; within a couple of months of my finishing her 481, the finish on it began to shrink and exhibit the same appearance you describe. Both guitars were given exactly the same number of coats of sealer, filler, and CV, and sanded and buffed in the same way.

It's all down to the wood.

After awhile (usually a year or two), it's possible to re-sand the CV with very fine paper (I use #2000) and re-buff the surface to a glassy shine once again, after which it will generally stay that way. Whether or not you decide to do this is up to you, but what's important to remember is that these sorts of variations are inherent and always present when working with organic materials like wood.

Thanks a bunch Paul for explaining the nuances.. I really appreciate it. It's not all that important to me to have the super duper glossy finish. To me, my RIC is a spectacular instrument as it is. But one more question if I may, would it be prudent to withhold an zymol applications for another year or so?

Zymol will have no chemical effect on your finish, and it allows degassing of the finish solvents. Wax to your heart's content.

Very interesting topic...

Seeing as our entire mode of finishing our instruments is about ready to change dramatically, I am indeed curious as to how many customers notice shrinkage within the next few years.

In fact, some of you already posses instruments that have undergone the first phase of a multi-stage UV process, which means finish shrinkage will not be much an issue anymore.

"Shrinkage? But I was in the pool!!!!"

So how many coats are put on, between 10 and 20?

It seems the process is somewhat similar to french polishing, except for of course the usage of spray equipment, the chemical composition and a few other details.

rickenmetal wrote:So how many coats are put on, between 10 and 20?

It seems the process is somewhat similar to french polishing, except for of course the usage of spray equipment, the chemical composition and a few other details.

And it's somewhat similar to painting with a brush, or a roller, or a sponge...it's all painting.

I don't see any real similarity to French polishing, at least not the way I did it in the early '70s when I restored a number of antique mahogany desks.

In my shop, a guitar gets roughly 28 ounces of conversion varnish, a bass about 32. That's around a quart of material, of which 45% is reducer, which evaporates for the most part within the first few minutes of application. It continues to degass for months thereafter, and the finish continually is shrinking in the process.

The paint system that use, spraying schedule, etc., are all similar to RIC's, but definitely not the same. And once RIC goes over to UV on everything, many similarities will fall by the wayside.

jingle_jangle wrote:...After awhile (usually a year or two), it's possible to re-sand the CV with very fine paper (I use #2000) and re-buff the surface to a glassy shine once again, after which it will generally stay that way. Whether or not you decide to do this is up to you, but what's important to remember is that these sorts of variations are inherent and always present when working with organic materials like wood.

Paul...At that point, is it also possible to sand and then re-spray with several additional new coats of CV? If so, would that help level the finish for good, or is there still a significant possibility of it shrinking again...or is that all still dependent upon the wood underneath?

John, additional coats can be applied at anytime, although this is most practical within the first few months of a finish's life span. Older finishes, though they might look perfect to the naked eye, often have microscopic cracks in the conversion varnish at stress points, which will cause trapping of air beneath the new varnish coats, evidenced by blistering around these areas.

All CV shrinks; if the coating is thick enough, a good sanding and buffing after six months or so will generally help the gloss, but as I said, eventually some graining will show in most finishes. The UV finishes would be a boon for just this reason, although their primary advantage is accelerated through-put in a production situation.

I meant the part about the different layers and sanding. A door or a roof, for example, is usually not painted the same way.

I get your point now. Except, I never took a piece of sandpaper to a French-polished piece between coats. Occasionally I would use very fine steel wool between coats to remove dust nibs, but generally all the coats in a French polish job were done at one sitting, with no sanding once started.