Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

beatlefreak wrote:I don't think I'd want wax getting into the grain of the wood.

Well, I thought of wax because it might not penetrate as deeply as oil. And it can be pretty thoroughly dissolved and removed with solvent and light abrasives. Correct me if I'm wrong...

Ric O'Sound wrote:But I'd just leave it the way it is, battle scars and all. It's got character.

As the bass has had the finish partially stripped, the exposed bare wood need to be sealed, at the very least. Otherwise, in a few years, it's character is going to be dingy and dirty looking. Sweat, dirt, grime and body oils will get into the wood.

Putting a lot of elbow grease into it for a minimal improvement is sort of a ****** return on investment, if you know what I mean.

Leaving it as is and not caring for it is sort of like throwing money away. The money may not be there now for a refinish, but that down't necessarily mean it will always be that way. I little bit of time and effort will make it easier to refinish later on, should you decide to do so.

If you still decide you want to spruce it up, Paul W. is the man you want to listen to.

Agreed. I've seen Paul do amazing things with guitars that were in such sorry shape, most would have thought them lost causes. But the better the shape of the guitar to begin with, the better the results. Do put forth at least the minimal effort to keep the bass in decent shape so that a future restoration project is not improbable.

Excellent points, Kris.

I'll admit that I'm somewhat a man of extremes. When I have a guitar that's in pristine condition, I tend to try to keep it looking that way. I curse at every ding, scratch and chip. At the other end of the spectrum, when I have a guitar such as Graham's bass, I personally don't care about sweat, grime etc. To me, it would just add to the character of the instrument. Bottom line is the sound. But that's just me.

But you're absolutely right. If the bass is to be refinished sometime in the future, protecting the wood now is the right thing to do.

Hi all. Thanks for the responses.

You're right: I DID buy that beater '76 4001 bass. It plays WONDERFUL. It's my only bass now, but it plays better than all of my other basses I've had in the past (MusicMan Sterling, Marcus Miller jazz bass, etc.). It may have a cracked neck (which is superbly repaired, btw), and be a total beater, but I absolutely love it. I am not sorry at all that I threw $800 at it. I'm in love with this Rickenbacker bass.

I wasn't planning on doing much to it other than replacing the knobs, pickguard, and maybe getting a blank TRC to fill the unsightly lack-of-one on the headstock...but now I got to thinking I may sand her down some more (there are still some rough patches here and there... maybe from grime build-up), and I want t get rid of the rest of the red finish splotches that we here and there (mostly around the binding). Other than that, whatever. But THEN I began to think it might be cool to put a light coat of stain or something on it; #1 as a protectant/sealer, #2 to give it some vibrance...but not too much.

AGAIN, I too like its condition. It has character, like you said.
But I still think it might be cool to make the backside/sides a darker tint than the front....

Just remember, Graham, that the stain will be permanent, and difficult to get right. I still vote for clear sealer only, until you can see a specialist. A good clear seal will add a lot of depth and luster by itself, simulating good old mapleglo.

Don't stain it. Buy two or three rattle-cans of clear nitrocellulose lacquer (Ace Hardware sells it, but the stuff from Stew-Mac or ReRanch is a better deal and formulation). Clean it, sand it a bit with #150 paper, dust it down and spray away. You can either mask off the hardware or remove it (which only takes 15 minutes or so, although you will have to unsolder the pickup leads from the switch). Put the lacquer on in light coats, not going for a "wet look", because if you do, you'll get runs and sags.

Don't use any other type of finish. This is a tip to help you in successful application; a good finishing guy will be able to strip almost anything you put on, off before he refinishes yer bass, but the easiest stuff to apply by far is clear nitro.

This will protect a working bass. It'll look presentable through its career with you, and if you decide to sell it or restore it in future, it'll strip easily and save you some money with the refinisher.

I'm not crazy about any kind of oil on maple; maple does not penetrate easily and gets real dirty real fast when unprotected. Oil doesn't give enough protection; wax gives less.

jingle_jangle wrote:
...(Of course, now somebody will go looking for "successful" stain jobs on guitars to prove me wrong...) It IS true that companies like PRS use aniline dyes (there's that word again), which are "cut" with alcohol, mostly, and which really do penetrate the figured maple tops on their instruments, but this itself is a tricky process with lots of pitfalls for the amateur. ...

I have put dye directly on the wood of my home built guitar but it was very trying. I mixed my dye with denatured alcohol and played with color and application on scrap pieces of wood. I am happy with the results but that dosen't mean that anyone else would be. The body wings of my neck-through are swamp ash and I did want to bring out the grain in a wood that looks very bland in the raw. All of my comments especially on the end grain "wicking" were from personal experince. I don't consider myself as a proffessional but I do have over 40 years of wood working/finishing experience.

Reminds me of my very first experience with penetrating wood stain, as a 16-year-old, remodeling the folks' dining room, and redoing the trim. They (unaware, as was I, that we should have bought oak to start with), bought pine instead. I dutifully cut everything to fit, nailed it into place, filled the holes with putty, and then stained it with a penetrating "oak" stain. The result looked like a badly-aged set for a TV western--ranging from very dark to light because most pine varies widely in porosity, even in the same piece of wood.

That was a penetrating stain with xylene as a solvent (not sold anymore here in the USA, to my knowledge). The alcohol-based anilines are, indeed, tricky, and usable on something like a figured maple top where the grain is varied, but porosity more or less consistent. But the minute you try to do, say, a solidbody that's slab-bodied with end grain, you're going to be in trouble.

I am quite proud to say that I haven't got the faintest idea of what any of you are talking about.