Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

Noel, those stock pickups are not humbuckers, though they are a bit wide...they are single coils.

If his was a Japanese JM, the stock pickups are quite different from vintage JM or even new reissue American JM pickups; they are no different from all of the other MIJ or CIJ Fender single coils; they are just wound on a different bobbin. They are very weak-sounding.

Solution: Curtis Novak vintage JM rewinds. About $120.00 each, as I recall.

Yes, I'm familiar with the big bobbin Jazzmaster single coils, Paul (and I love their tone). I was referring to my friend's Jagmaster (a low rent hybrid).

So he ended up with some spanky s/coils with the same footprint as the stock hbs. I'll post a photo soon.

I read it "Jazzmaster". I had a Jagmaster; not too shabby for a cheapy! But the pickups are nasty--you're right. I sold it but if I'd kept it, it would have gotten real single coils, too.

Thanks for the correction. Time for a new brain, I think!!!

Great color. But the "thin skin" thing on solid body guitars is, to me, 99% el toro poo-poo.

Sounds a little crazy to me too, however I have found through experience that my best sounding solid body electric guitars are the ones with a very light finish or no finish at all, or where the oil finish (on the hand rubbed ones) has hardened considerably over time.

I'd love to see a double-blind listening test on two identical guitars, one with thin-skin finish and one with a standard heavy-duty urethane finish. Why hasn't anyone done one? Don't you think that Fender (this theory's greatest proponent, who generate solid cash from this hoopla) would do one, just to quantify results so they could actually advertise that "thin Skin" sounds better?

Why do you suppose they haven't? Could it be simply that it's rumor and not fact? Notice, please, that they advertise "Thin Skin" guitars without actually saying anything verifiable, letting hearsay carry the day to yet more unearned profits.

And could it be, Manuel, that your knowledge of playing a thin-skin guitar skews your own perceptions (i.e., reverse "placebo effect")?

And could it be, Manuel, that your knowledge of playing a thin-skin guitar skews your own perceptions (i.e., reverse "placebo effect")?

Some of the solid guitars I've put together, and the purchased ones I've always levitated towards more than others, exhibited this "better sounding" (to my ears) characteristic due to a light finish, long before I knew or had even read anything about it.

The other unsubtle experience is where you oil a solid body guitar. Depending on the porosity of the wood used, sometimes it takes weeks (until the oil has substantially hardened) for the guitar to stop sounding like a wet sock.

I guess everything that goes onto an electric guitar has an effect on it's sound, it's an electro-acoustic device, so I would tend to think that a thin, light finish (as compared to a much thicker finish) would have some impact on the sound of it, don't you?

"Why a Jazzmaster?".....

I've been blessed to play a number of guitars many post about..let me just say this. I will always have a Jazzmaster....

Same here, Bill...

Manuel, with that last question, you are moving from personal observation and experience, to seeking a consensus, at least from me. Here it becomes a matter of degrees. Of course, one would think that a finish would have an effect on sound. I mean, it's only common sense, right?

But exactly how much effect there is, whether it's audible, or even desirable, and to whom, is where the crux of the biscuit lies.

No question that an entirely unfinished guitar, with its less-than resonant and porous body, would benefit sonically by some kind of a surface sealer being applied. But the difference between a sealed surface and a .007" thick urethane coating (which is generally harder than the wood it's applied over) is where my attention is grabbed.

I do believe, and have heard, differences in acoustic and hollowbody guitars with different finishes--mostly due to the very thin walls of an acoustic and some hollowbody electric guitars. The thinner the wood, the more diaphragmatic the vibration of the top and back. Stiffen or soften the diaphragm, and sound will vary. What are we looking for? Projection? More focus? Warmth? Definition? It gets t be like talking about wines, with lots of jargon and code words.

My Rick acoustics, for example, have urethane finishes that are many coats thick and end up, after sanding and buffing, from .007"-.010" in thickness. That's thick for an acoustic and middle-range for an electric. (I've seen solidbody Fenders with polyester finishes in the .040" (1 mm) range or even more.)

I am very pleased with the definition, projection, and focus of the Rick acoustic sound as it is right now. It does give up some warmth to some Gibsons and Martins, but I also think that what people have come to think of as "warmth" is mostly third and fourth-order harmonics; "warmth" to some, "mud" to others.

Still, on a solid body guitar like a Jazzmaster I can see no real evidence of thinner finishes having any noticeable sonic advantage.

Why not?

Just offhand, my guess would be because there isn't any.

Just offhand, my guess would be because there isn't any.

Well seeing as your guessing, I guess my guess is as good as yours and I guess that everything that goes onto an electric guitar has an effect on it's sound, it's an electro-acoustic device, so I would think that a thin, light finish (as compared to a much thicker finish) would have an impact on the sound of it, unless of course the body is made of rubber ...

If you can't hear a difference, well, then you can't hear it. That's fine too.

Of course if everything that goes into and onto an electric solid body makes little difference individually to what the sum of the parts sound like, then we have an interesting situation.

And then, yes, I would suggest that 95% of whatever any guitar company tells you in their advertising guff about their glitzy offering, is indeed merda de boi, right across the board.

There's some mojo that comes with a Tele/Strat etc that has a real thin finish. Maybe it's the tie to the early Leo years that make that type axe just seem to feel good. That said, I've found that a Fender with a thin coat sounds better unplugged but once amplified I can tell no difference at all.

Manuel, my comment to George was meant to be ironic and mildly sarcastic...George is a close friend and we do give each other merde on a regular basis.

Read my post once again. In brief, what I'm saying is that "It's a matter of degree, and the degree is so small as to be meaningless, unless you want to compensate by playing marketing games with overblown hype that's impossible to verify objectively."

That's what marketing, Fender-style, can be about--smoke and mirrors, phony relics and now thin-shell finishes.

Hah...actually my "why not" was in reference to "Why A Jazzmaster"..."Why not". Tell ya this is great forum where by and large members respect each other though we don't always agree. I've been hanging out at another forum (to remain nameless)some and got in the mist of a firefight with a few members as I didn't see an issue the way they do. Dis is da place!

Yeah, well, Surf 101 WAS a pleasant place until the cliques took over earlier this year.

Few forums have the skilled moderator who is our Peter.