Headstock finish issue

[Paulnumbfingers]

Hello everyone. I have a gibson advanced jumbo, 2005, I am not the original owner. The finish around my inlays in the headstock seems to be separating around the inlays. It is not chipped, but around the edges it has clearly lifted. I love this guitar, but wanted your input on whether to have it repaired and if this is something a good luthier can repair and be guitar would look as good as new. The finish lifting ruins the look of the inlays and they appear blurred. Thanks. Photo is attached, does not really show it that well, but hopefully you can see enough to help

[zombywoof]

Assuming the inlay is pearloid (Mother of Toilet Seat) and not mother of pearl, it can shrink causing it to lift.

 

Whether it can be glued back down would depend on whether it can be lifted out without destroying the inlay. If not it would have to be replaced.

[onewilyfool]

I'm sure that there are some in here that will say, "This is just Gibson.....or, This is historically correct.....or This adds to your Mojo...or, it is the owner's problem for not humidifying properly, or, some other lame excuse" but really, this should not happen on a premium guitar like an AJ, period! Here's a pic of an un-named competitors headstock....this is how it should be done......I sympathize with your problem, I think finish problems like his are not covered by warranty, so you are on your own, but I hope a good finish man can help you. Please keep us posted, and let us know how much it costs you, for future reference. Good luck!

 

[GotTheSilver]

That looks pretty bad. I don't know what can be done about it, but I would be unhappy about that. My AJ does not look like that.

[zombywoof]

Here's a pic of an un-named competitors headstock....this is how it should be done......

 

 

Don't know - we just spent several pages spurred on by the dislike for orange labels. Can't wait to see the uprising removing the Gibson moniker and replacing with some real fancy doodad will bring on.

[Jayyj]

My (no longer owned) Nick Lucas had that problem, and I've seen quite a few others. It's not good in my opinion, and rare to see on another premium maker's instruments, but it seems to be something Gibson either do not consider to be a problem or put down to inadequate care on the part of the owner. I hope you find a solution for it.

[Paulnumbfingers]

My (no longer owned) Nick Lucas had that problem, and I've seen quite a few others. It's not good in my opinion, and rare to see on another premium maker's instruments, but it seems to be something Gibson either do not consider to be a problem or put down to inadequate care on the part of the owner. I hope you find a solution for it.

 

 

I talked to a luthier here in Chicago and he says he can fix it, but it will cost around $250. My bumdass fault for not keeping it in the case in my room over the Chicago winter, even with my humidifier running with the heater.

[j45nick]

I'm sure that there are some in here that will say, "This is just Gibson.....or, This is historically correct.....or This adds to your Mojo...or, it is the owner's problem for not humidifying properly, or, some other lame excuse" but really, this should not happen on a premium guitar like an AJ, period! Here's a pic of an un-named competitors headstock....this is how it should be done......I sympathize with your problem, I think finish problems like his are not covered by warranty, so you are on your own, but I hope a good finish man can help you. Please keep us posted, and let us know how much it costs you, for future reference. Good luck!

 

 

 

It's a lot easier to do the headstock this "unknown competitor's" way. Rosewood headstock veneer is applied, routed for the inlay, the inlay glued in and sanded flush, and the face of the headstock is clear-coated.

 

Some inlaid Gibson headstocks(as opposed to decal or silkscreen) seem to be painted, and others veneered and painted/clear-coated black. On the headstocks that appear to be veneered, the inlaid Gibson logo seems to have a mask around it that must have been used when black paint (presumably) is applied to the headstock. It then looks like that mask is peeled off before the final clear-coat is applied, as there is a distinct discontinuity in the surface level of the clear finish around the logo.

 

I'm not sure what this means in terms of what is happening to this AJ, but I have seen that a fair amount, but not to the degree shown.

 

Interestingly, I only see evidence of this masking on the logo on my guitars with inlays, and not around the crown inlay.

 

At least sometime in the past, the pearloid inlays appear to have been simple rectangular blocks which were masked/stenciled so that it looks like a delicate logo inlay in the finished product. I've some guitars where it looks like all that paint masking that creates the logo has peeled off, exposing the large rectangular pearloid blocks below.

 

This doesn't address the problem of what's going with this AJ headstock, but I've always been curious about how this was done.

[Hogeye]

Assuming the inlay is pearloid (Mother of Toilet Seat) and not mother of pearl, it can shrink causing it to lift.

 

Whether it can be glued back down would depend on whether it can be lifted out without destroying the inlay. If not it would have to be replaced.

The inlay is real Mother Of Pearl. Mother Of Pearl does not shrink so the problem is the headstock overlay has been de-humidified and is shrinking away from the inlay. The problem looks worse that it is as the lacquer acts like a lens amd magnifies the problem. Any competent repair man can take the tuners off and block sand the overlay and shoot it with a couple of coats of clear lacquer. The headstock may have been in the sunlight or the whole guitar may be in trouble having been de-humidified.

[Hogeye]

I'm sure that there are some in here that will say, "This is just Gibson.....or, This is historically correct.....or This adds to your Mojo...or, it is the owner's problem for not humidifying properly, or, some other lame excuse" but really, this should not happen on a premium guitar like an AJ, period! Here's a pic of an un-named competitors headstock....this is how it should be done......I sympathize with your problem, I think finish problems like his are not covered by warranty, so you are on your own, but I hope a good finish man can help you. Please keep us posted, and let us know how much it costs you, for future reference. Good luck!

 

There are no "lame" excuses here. The guitar has been the subject to low humidity levels. The owner admits that. Gibson can't be held accountable for the owners actions. Calling the reason some "lame excuse" is not helpful to the discussion. You buy a great guitar you need to take care of it properly. Nothing "Lame" about it. Yes, you are the first one to throw up a picture of a Martin headstock. The guy that ownes that guitar is taking care of it properly.

The guitar was purchased from the original owner and he doesn't mention buying the guitar in that condition. We can only conclude that the guitar didn't come from the factory in the present condition and the owner sold it in good condition. The new owner says it happened over a Chicago winter. So somehow you have decided that Gibson is responsible for the problem? Interesting....Maybe you can explain how Gibson caused the guitar to fail.

[E-minor7]

Something tells me this is quite common. Have seen it at different stages many times and in fact it's slowly beginning on my '08 Hummingbird.

Impossible to understand why they don't secure it doesn't happen - it's the LOGO for H's sake, , , the eyes of the head. . .

 

 

 

Okay, I read Hogeye's post and he seems to know what he is talking about.

How come it only haunts some of the guitars living in these rooms ? Different types of the same wood, , , ?

[mountainpicker]

Hogeye; yeah but, if it's that easy and straightforward then is $250 to do the work reasonable?

[E-minor7]

Hogeye; yeah but, if it's that easy and straightforward then is $250 to do the work reasonable?

, , , and we don't want a refinish, do we. . .

[jazzpunk67]

i've seen that on a few guitars and thought the picture was out of focus or something. Then I saw it in person. ONe was actually an AJ and the other a J-45.

 

When I found my 67 SJ some of the logo was cracking and looks to be touched up, but it still didn't look as bad as this.

 

When i found the 12 fret SJ I was glad that it just had the screen printed Banner headstock logo. Simpler. I like that it's not really noticeable when you look at the guitar in some lighting.

 

D

[Paulnumbfingers]

There are no "lame" excuses here. The guitar has been the subject to low humidity levels. The owner admits that. Gibson can't be held accountable for the owners actions. Calling the reason some "lame excuse" is not helpful to the discussion. You buy a great guitar you need to take care of it properly. Nothing "Lame" about it. Yes, you are the first one to throw up a picture of a Martin headstock. The guy that ownes that guitar is taking care of it properly.

The guitar was purchased from the original owner and he doesn't mention buying the guitar in that condition. We can only conclude that the guitar didn't come from the factory in the present condition and the owner sold it in good condition. The new owner says it happened over a Chicago winter. So somehow you have decided that Gibson is responsible for the problem? Interesting....Maybe you can explain how Gibson caused the guitar to fail.

 

Ok, my bad I know and I love this guitar regardless of the cosmetic problems with the inlays. However, back to my main focus, should I repair it? Do you think a luthier could make it look as good as new? Does the repair impact the value of my guitar more than simply leaving it as is with a messed up inlay? What about the luthier quoting $250 to repair? Your thoughts appreciated?

[guitarstrummer]

The answer as to whether you should repair it depends on what you plan to do with the guitar. If you like the guitar and plan to keep it, I would only repair it if it bothers you how it looks. If you plan to sell it, the value will be less if left unrepaired. A good luthier can make it look like new. In my opinion $250 is a fair repair cost considering how time consuming the repair will be. Heck, you could easily spend $200 getting a good set up from a good luthier. Considering a luthier would have to remove all the strings and tuners, then sand the head stock, shoot it will several coats of lacquer, and then put everything back together again, I think $250 is more than fair. However, don't repair it until you have the humidity problem corrected or else it will only happen again.

 

EDIT: You might want to have the luthier also check the entire guitar over for any other signs of dehydration (sunken top, loose braces,etc.).

[j45nick]

Ok, my bad I know and I love this guitar regardless of the cosmetic problems with the inlays. However, back to my main focus, should I repair it? Do you think a luthier could make it look as good as new? Does the repair impact the value of my guitar more than simply leaving it as is with a messed up inlay? What about the luthier quoting $250 to repair? Your thoughts appreciated?

 

If the cure hogeye proposes is correct, it would involve:

 

1) removing strings and tuners

2) masking off headstock and protecting rest of guitar

3) wetsanding headstock

4) clean and re-mask after sanding

5) clear-coat (nitro) headstock, multiple coats, maybe sanding again before final coat

6) buff out

7) re-install tuners and strings.

 

Two years ago, I had pretty much the same job done on my old J-45 (for a different reason), which has an inlaid MOP/abalone script logo and flower pot. Since it was part of a much larger job, the amount charged was probably much less than it would be as a stand-alone job. Cost was itemized at $70 on the bill, but this was a small part of an $1800 job.

 

If properly done, the repair should be invisible, and shouldn't really impact on the value of the guitar, particularly if it is a newer guitar. You would probably not do this on a vintage guitar, however.

 

In this photo, the black nitro around the logo inlay was barely worn away in a couple of very small places, and the underlying mahogany shows through in this photo. It is not so obvious in real life, but shows up under the camera flash here. Nothing in this world is perfect.....

 

[onewilyfool]

We've seen enough examples posted on this forum, of this happening to this type of headstock, that maybe the "historically correct" excuse might not be far off...Look closely if your guitar has a MOP headstock. My 2005 AJ has the vintage script "Gibson" script headstock, and I see clearly that the mop insert is not tight to the wood of the head stock, but has a lot of black fill between the MOP and wood. I have a similar cracking around the lettering, but not as bad as the OP. Humidity in my guitar room is always 45-55% ( a by product and perk of living in N. Cal), so I can say for SURE it is not a humidity problem. Yet it seems to be more of a problem of the interface of the MOP, the gap and the filler maybe differential shrinking between the three different materials. The reason I posted the Martin headstock is that there is NO GAP between the wood and the MOP...very tight interface....so no chance for the differential shrinkage, which is what I feel is the real problem. I checked my '94 L-20 and again the cracking always occurs at the filler between the wood and MOP...sooooo....taking the "humidity" excuse and rationalization out of the equation, it appears that a big part of this problem is the design or implementation of the logo/filler/gaps in wood headstock. I have several other guitars (not Gibson) in the same room with MOP and no other guitars have the headstock problem. I would speculate, if Gibson had a tight fitting headstock logo with no filler, say, for example, like the Martin headstock shown, that the cracking that seems to occur on a lot of these, might disappear.

[onewilyfool]

double post sorry

[GuitarLight]

Sorry to hear about your Gibson AJ headstock. I had 2003 AJ Rosewood Gibson, same or similar model, (which I got rid of now) which did the same thing within 3 years of owning it. It did ruin the nice looks of the head stock. None of my other non-Gibsons did this. Unfortunately I don't think much can be done to fix it that would not cost a lot of money.

[rar]

... I would speculate, if Gibson had a tight fitting headstock logo with no filler, say, for example, like the Martin headstock shown, that the cracking that seems to occur on a lot of these, might disappear.

They do now -- the cutting of the MOP and the routing of the faceplate is done by CNC machines, just like at Martin. It's one of those cases where the precision of CNC results in a pretty clear win over the work of skilled craftspeople, I suppose. No doubt CNC wins when the goal is uniformity. But there's something to be said for the old method, where Val would look for a little area of ablam that would make for a particularly nice leaf meant to go in "that spot, right there" and then fussy-cutting it out with a hand saw.

 

-- Bob R

[aliasphobias]

I would go for it if I were you. It's something that would improve the way you feel about it. I don't think you have to worry about resale issues with the headstock being refinished. It is a fine guitar you have and it should look it's best! A couple hundred maybe, worth every penny.

[onewilyfool]

The do now -- the cutting of the MOP and the routing of the faceplate is done by CNC machines, just like at Martin. It's one of those cases where the precision of CNC results in a pretty clear win over the work of skilled craftspeople, I suppose. No doubt CNC wins when the goal is uniformity. But there's something to be said for the old method, where Val would look for a little area of ablam that would make for a particularly nice leaf meant to go in "that spot, right there" and then fussy-cutting it out with a hand saw.

 

-- Bob R

Good to know, Bob.....I still love my Gibby's and like you, I kind of like the done-by-hand headstock logo, even with the cracks, and I think it does lead to problems like the OP's, so good to know this will hopefully be a thing of the past with the new construction methods, to eliminate these problems. Cudos Gibson!

[Gibson101]

I had this problem real bad on a new j-185.

[RusRob]

Paulnumbfingers,

 

I would say that the quote you got is a reasonable one considering they may have to refill the epoxy around the logo if that is separated from the wood.

 

Unfortunately this kind of thing is bound to happen when you are mating 2 or 3 different materials together. Compounding the issue is humidity or lack of a guitar can be exposed to.

 

Although I don't fault Gibson for poor workmanship or processes it is odd that I have not seen this problem on any Martin that I have worked on. 2 of the Martins I have done were so dried out that there were gaps all around the bindings and the clear was split (much like the pic you posted of your headstock). But on both of those the inlaid logo's were perfect and nothing had to be done with the headstock on either guitar.

 

 

You may be able to repair this yourself however...

 

First, I would make sure your guitar is humidified properly 45% humidity is about where it should be.

 

 

Then I would get a very good magnifier, like a photographers loupe. Look very carefully at the edges of the MOP logo and try to see what is actually separating under the clear. There is probably separation from the wood and the epoxy. I am guessing the logo was put in and epoxy was used as a filler between the MOP and the wood.

 

You will need to get some lacquer thinner, clear lacquer and a very small brush. Mix a 50/50 mixture of thinner and the lacquer.

 

 

First I would try to find where the crack in the lacquer is around the logo. Take your brush with only lacquer thinner and carefully apply it just at the cracks. It should be drawn into the crack and you should see that it will become much more transparent. You will want to have already mixed up a small amount of thinner and lacquer (about 50/50) Dip the very tip of you brush into that mixture and just touch the crack. It should be sucked into the crack that you have already applied the thinner into. You may need to repeat the process a number of times but it should reduce the appearance of the problem.

 

You want to make absolutely sure that you do not drip the thinner or clear anywhere you do not want it. A good thing to do would be to put masking tape around the logo to keep drips off of your finish. When you are done you could take a bit of polishing compound and lightly rub the surface out. Toothpaste works really well.

 

If done very carefully and all the stars are aligned properly the only person that will know it has been repaired is you.

 

If you screw it up then you will have a $250 bill...