Page 3 of 3
Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2000 8:10 pm
by admin
Sorry Don. Long day here I am afraid. I should have realized this and your question is a far more interesting than my lame response. It would have made far more sense wouldn't it, than having a repair technician from New York contact RIC about wiring diagrams etc. One thing is for sure, the finish would have been as it should have been.
Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2000 8:54 pm
by Robert_Brunn
Just A guess, but I would imagine that John didnt want to risk any " disappearance" of the 325 while in transit to California. No doubt this guitar was his most prized having been from the era when he felt that the Beatles were at there performing best!
Just a thought.
Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2000 8:25 am
by Gary_Cost
If the '58 Ric held such 'heart felt' sentiments, for John from The Beatle days, I doubt he would have ever had it stripped! Refinished properly yes. Remember that in 1971 John was still making negative comments on national television etc. about his Beatle days.
Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2000 10:37 am
by Tim_Fletcher
I should think he regarded it as a working tool which he was fond of but not obsessive about. To us it's an icon, to John it was just his old guitar.
Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2000 10:51 am
by admin
It is to be remembered that Lennon was frequently changing things whether it be eye glasses, hats, vibrato arms, volume knobs or the finish of his guitars. The changing of his instruments finish is just part of this "change for the sake of change" in my view. I suppose the Rickenbacker and Casino are but two examples. This behaviour continued to create a uniqueness that was associated with "coolness" that was emulated very soon thereafter by fans. It seems to have had a lasting impression as here we are as Rickenbacker enthusiasts making these modifications to our instruments nearly 40 years later.