Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

Okay, I know this isn't a Rickenbacker, but I have a finish question for Dale or Paul W, and for anyone else who fells like chiming in; the f-hole on my custom made thinline Tele has neither white binding nor black paint on the edges, and looks unfinished, at least to my eye. My question is, what should it have:
(a) white binding
(b) black paint along the edges
(c) Paul, you're a lunatic and you should just leave the guitar alone I the idea of and collected the bits for this guitar over a number of years and had a luthier put it together for me about five years ago after getting tired of moving/tripping over the bits lying around around in my closet.

What, nobody cares?

Maybe nobody knows. I sure don't.

beatlefreak wrote:Maybe nobody knows. I sure don't.

Hmm, maybe I should rephrase my question. My question was not a quiz for anyone, it's asking a second opinion/advice.
The soundhole does not stand out very well due to the edges being plain. I was askingwhat would help the soundhole stand out better;
(a)black edging around the inside edges of the f hole
(b)binding around the inside edges of the f hole

paologregorio wrote: I was askingwhat would help the soundhole stand out better;
(a)black edging around the inside edges of the f hole
(b)binding around the inside edges of the f hole

Paint the body black and the sound hole will stand out with the unfinished interior.

Oh, I see there is no option (c)!

Having just gone through a similar debate on my 350 here's my 2 cents worth....(my best advice is to get counsel from people like Paul, Dale or Larry).

I don't think black would look right. The only other black on the guitar appears to be the marker dots on the fretboard. White binding might look pretty cool, but its nice when there is other white binding to match it (like on the neck or body...ala an Am Dlx Tele). The only problem with that idea is that the neck and body of the guitar are already so full of character that binding might really "put it over the top." (IMHO).

On my 350 I opted to have it finished with the same color as the body, which set it off nicely from the unfinished interior. The problem with yours is the the whole guitar is natural in color so nothing really sets it off. You might try and take a picture of the body and let something with photoshop skills play around with it so you can see what it might look like.

Good luck....

Thanks for the 2 cents worth all.

The back side of the body is actually black. Only the top is pearloid. The front edge is bound in white, but the sound hole was not bound. Deluxe Rickenbackers have gone both routes with their soundholes; the OS models have the inside edges of the soundholes painted black, while the WB and 360 models have binding in the soundhole.

I think that if I had it to do over again, I might have had the lacquer over the pearloid given a black tint for more contrast between the body binding and the body, and between the body and the neck; the pearloid would be visible, but look darker. The bird's eye neck really stands out when the guitar is seen from the back due to the black finished neck. Oops.

I've never seen a bound F hole so I can't opine as to how it would look on yours. I can say that you're right in that it looks pretty plain right now. If I come up with any words of wisdom or encouragement I'll chime in again.

It would look good in white binding, but really, I'd leave it alone. I've seen unbound sound holes in MG ricks and it looks fine. I've seen a lot more bound (mostly on Gretsches) and on an old-fashioned shape like a Gretsch, it looks fine.

You didn't ask me this, but I'll opine anyway:

The original Tele--transparent blonde ash with a maple neck and single-ply white or black guard--was THE untimate Tele. Every other Tele since, with all the geegaws and extras, looks like a truck with whitewalls IMO.