Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

A close friend and former bandmate who is a 325 enthusiast like many of us, had a very close look at the 325 on display in Japan. He's fortunate to be working in Tokyo and has had a couple of opportunities to make the trip to the Lennon Museum. His two comments on the appearance were relating to the black paint still visible in some of the deeper scratches, and the dust in the areas being discussed here. To him there was no question that it was anything but dust.

I guess my thoughts are why would anyone be doing any refinishing work with the hardware in place. Surely it would all be removed for any work of that sort. Even by the rankest of amatuers?

On this, Glen I politely disagree. To wipe a quickie coat of stain or Danish Oil onto the guitar, in perhaps a misguided attempt to "freshen" it up, seems possible, especially in light of how this guitar has been treated like a beat-up favorite hammer virtually since Day One.

But again, this is all conjecture, at least on my part, since I'm a latecomer to this and have never seen either the guitar or its purported replicas in the flesh. I'm going by my experience and some good photos.

The things your friend noticed by viewing the guitar in person are noticeable in the larger photos I've seen, too. It just doesn't look like dust to me, and shows up in some areas while it doesn't in others. And then there's that lap mark below the pickguard...

John, your point about preservationists (who would they be?) might have some credence in present times, but I wonder about 15 years ago...and we don't have to wonder about when John was alive. I once saw a black and white photo of his bedroom at the Dakota: a huge white room with a 15 foot ceiling, a small mattress on the floor, a white (sonic blue?) Strat leaning against a small practice amp, an ashtray, and a pack of Galoises. He was living like a monk; ethereal, and as non-materialistic as only a ridiculously wealthy recluse can be.

He was estimated to be worth $250 million at the time...

That 325 of course had sentimental value to him. It must also have had its share of negative associations, too.

how and why did it wind up in Japan?... is this a Yoko thing?

Kent,

I believe Yoko sent it to be put on display at the John Lennon Mueseum in Tokyo.

I always thought it was a strange place for the John Lennon Museum...but maybe it's an "west meets east" thing to Yoko.

You may be right Joe. Also, there is a huge Beatles' following in Japan, not that the rest of the world is indifferent to the Fab Four by any stretch of the imagination.

There's a much more complex story about this whole thing but I'm not comfortable being the one to detail it. But my hope is that someday someone will write a book that shares the whole saga.

A non-musician Beatles-fanatic friend of mine who lives in the LA area phoned up the museum in Japan. He said he spoke with the person there who had the best command of the English language. Apparantly, that person told him in no uncertain terms that the guitar on display there is a very precise and painstaking COPY. Not the original.

Obviously, I can vouch for my friend but I can't say if the information given to him was accurate or not. I'm simply supplying a little tidbit that apparantly came directly from the museum itself.

FWIW, Caveat Emptor, and YMMV.

Personally, I think someone was pulling my friend's leg...

Kevin, I've heard some of that as well...Giving that bit of info the benefit of the doubt, I have wondered why that particular 325 of Lennon's would have a clone made for display, whereas others that are the bona-fide article are out there in various locales on display. I know without doubt the 325/12 is the real deal, so why clone the '58??

On the basis of some of the discussion here, I am not completely convinced that someone was pulling your friend's leg, Kevin.

On a related note, back in the 1980's I saw an older 325 JG displayed at a major vintage guitar show purporting to have been John Lennon's "Miami" guitar. I can't recall all of the details, but I was able to point out numerous obvious tip-offs that it was being misrepresented. Thanks to info I have since learned from people in this Forum and other sources, I know much more about John's guitars than I knew then. It should be getting harder to fool people with easier access to info via the internet.

The clones would be of the DiMartino "restored" one.

Still Randy, isn't it fascinating that this topic is being aired here and still nobody yet has come forward with first-hand information on the guitar(s) in Tokyo?

Eventually, I'm sure.

There's some very specific info circulating on this topic that's just too detailed to ignore. We're talking about important names, dates, specific circumstances, independent sources, and motives.

I really hope someday some of the parties involved will step out of the shadows. The most important one will need an English translator, however.

Paul: I'm probably less obsessed with John's first 325 than many Forum members, but I've never doubted its authenticity. To me it's just a guitar. Do you really think that anyone would go to the trouble to build accurate 'fakes'? What would be the purpose of trying to fool people? I'm curious about any theories you might have on the subject.

I do not think the "fakes" are "fakes". I think they are clones and the purpose for building them was not quite so negative as it's been cast by some.

And, yes, somebody would go through the trouble, just as surely as the crown jewels in the Tower are paste.