Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

Recommended Posts

Posted

I have a curious question. I have been fixing and repairing guitars for a number of years. For the past 20 or so years I have fixed guitars for friends, and friends of friends and friends who send people to me. I have never been a "business" but I just decided to make it official. You probably have seen I am sporting a new logo and a new web page. So as a repair guy who fixes guitars I have always had people ask me to find them some kind of guitar and fix it up for them. They usually want it to look like new so I have done a fair amount of refinishing. I have never been into the "collector" frame of mind although every guitar I have bought I have taken exceptional care of them. I know that collectors always say that if you refinish a guitar it cuts the value in half. But my experience has been the opposite. I have fixed up old $200 guitars and sold them for $400. I never deceive anyone about what was done to it. I do hear the occasional "you destroyed it by refinishing it" but those are usually not the people that I deal with. Most of the people I have sold guitars to are delighted to have an old guitar that plays really well and looks new.

 

Back in the 60s and 70's I worked in a body shop as a painter and being an artist I did a lot of custom painting. In the latter part of my body shop days custom and restoration is all I did. That is part of the reason I think I get requests to do finish work. I have also done a number of custom paint jobs on electric guitars and even some keyboards.

 

So with that in mind, I just picked up this 70's J-40 that is in pretty sad shape. Loose braces, neck is off and needs a reset, needs new frets and the finish is falling off... literally falling off, I took my fingernail and popped off a strip of clear about 4" long and can do that anywhere on the guitar. So I am in the process of redoing it now and I am thinking of putting a typical Gibson black burst on it (they didn't offer the J-40 with a black burst).

 

I have done my share of "luthier" type repairs where fixing a crack is just filling it with hot hide glue and let it show for all to see the "battles scars" of being played. I can see that on a 1930's Martin or Gibson but that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about taking a guitar that no one wants and giving it a new life.

 

 

I would be very curious what your thoughts are on this subject.

Posted

Personally, I don't mind refinishing, but "collectors" can be very anal about it. It's is actualy silly, cars get rebuilt from the bottom up, historical buildings get renovated, but if you do ANYTHING to a "vintage" guitar it loses value??? It is just plain silly. My collector friend tells me refinish can halve the value of a vintage guitar?? Again...so silly...

Posted

Across the range of types of guitar buyers/users, there's plenty of room for everyone. The guy that wants to pay $400 for the fixed up $200 guitar isn't looking for the same attributes as the stripped and refinished Banner J45 whose value would be reduced by that process. As a luthier, one just has to categorize the instrument that comes to their bench, from porch strummer to museum piece.

Posted

I'm with jedzep. I think it's a case by case judgment call. I am not a purist when it comes to finish re-touching, replacing tuners,& bridge pins. I had the back of the neck refinished on my '69 Guild D-35 when I had the neck reset, no qualms. However, I am a little sensitive to pickguard swapping; Taylor 'guard on a D-18, Martin 'guard on a Guild, etc. I think you are in an enviable position to have the craft to refinish. The price to have my old Yamaha, camping, guitar refinished (not that I would) keeps me from ever having to make the decision.

Posted

I take in guitars that I think are cool and in need of some TLC. Mostly 1930s Regals and 1950s and 1960s Kays, Harmonys and the like. Nothing anybody would consider sacred or worth any kind of money. I just get the things strucurally sound and as in good a playing condition as my limited talents will let me. Sometimes not the prettiest job but they do seem to hold together. I don't worry about finish because first, I don't really care and second, I do not know how to do anything more than some spot touchups. But if I could do a crackerjack refinish job, if the guitar was in bad enough condition, yeah, I would go for it.

Posted

Across the range of types of guitar buyers/users, there's plenty of room for everyone. The guy that wants to pay $400 for the fixed up $200 guitar isn't looking for the same attributes as the stripped and refinished Banner J45 whose value would be reduced by that process. As a luthier, one just has to categorize the instrument that comes to their bench, from porch strummer to museum piece.

 

 

Exactly. I don't think you want to re-finish a rare guitar that has collector value, but for other instruments, go for your life. At the same time, it is impossible to predict what will become a collectible, so I think you have to put a lot of thought to any irreversible changes you make to a guitar that are not essential for purposes of playability.

 

I had an odd situation in that my well-worn late-40's J-45 ended up being re-topped by Gibson in the late 60's and came as the then-current cherryburst, which I hated so much I stripped and re-shot with clear, making it a "J-50". A couple of years ago, I found a guy (Ross Teigen) who is adept at finishes, so he stripped the clear top (which had actually mellowed beautifully over 40 years) and re-created the original late 40's 'burst from and old photo.

 

While all these changes destroyed the guitar's "collector" value, it still pleases me to have it look like a new version of its 65-year-old self. If I could unwind the clock 45 years, I would have prevented Gibson from re-topping the guitar in the first place, and would just have the well-worn 1948 J-45 I bought in 1966. Or maybe I should have left the Gibson late-60's cherryburst in place, since a lot of people now value that finish

 

But hindsight is great stuff.

Posted

I am not a collector, I am a player. In today's world I suppose a decision is made somewhere in a guitars life, that it is a "player" and not a colletable. If I was in the market for a Vintage player, it would be important to me that the instrument is solid, and that as much as possible has period correct appointments = bridge, tuners, headstock & frets. The last thing on my list would be a top refininsh, not at all desired. There is a 40;s J-45 that has sat on a dealer's shelf for more than a year now that is a helluva player, but the refinish is not done well, and so it sits.

Posted

The situation is a bit more complex than it first seems

 

There are really two (often overlapping) markets for old guitars. They are typically called the player market where the instruments is valued purely as a musical instrument (sound, stability, playability, and maybe appearance) and the collector market where the instrument is valued a historical artifact and an object of art. In most "stuff" markets, these user and collect markets split naturally with time -- new, used, vintage, and antique. These markets normally only overlap a little, with new normally trumping old for utility and antique trumping new for cool.

 

The problem with steel string guitars is the well documented fact that the sound of an instrument improves with age . For acoustic guitars, this is added to the quality collapse in acoustic guitar production in the 1970s When these two effects combine, you have the odd situation where the user markets and the collector markets compete head on.

 

There is no question (as is essentially always true) that the collector market brings more money to the table than the user market. Therefore if an instrument meets their criteria, then the collector market will set the price -- they pay more, therefore they can buy more. Refinishing is abhorred in many collector markets, and it is in the vintage and antique market guitar market as well. Many try to defend this practice by claiming that refinishing may damage a guitar, both in terms of sound and stability. Well, after 40+ years of collecting and playing I am convinced that a good refinish does not generally degrade sound quality -- there are just too many really great sounding old refins out there. However, a bad refin can destroy a guitar by over-thinning the top -- this causes a major and unfixable structural flaw. So the safe path for a collector -- who is not a world class luthier also -- is to reject all change.

 

The standards for luthiers on high $ vintage instruments are now astronomically high -- but this is a fairly recent development. As late as 1990, Martin published a repair manual that proposed techniques that are now considered unspeakable for a high quality instrument and, as late as the early 2000s, both Gibson and Martin factory repair work left a lot to be desired -- both from a player and a collector perspective.

 

We (my wife and I) collect old sounds in guitars, so we are players I would say. But since that means we must buy old guitars, we are competing with collectors and that market generally sets the value. Our motto is "the sound set the desirability and the market sets the price." That can be a bad thing, and it certainly makes our hobby more expensive -- but it also makes the instruments investments, which can be incredibly good if you understand the market. Our instruments are worth many times what we paid for them -- we have been doing this for awhile. The worlds best sound instrumenting and a great investment as well -- works for us.

 

I would warn about the "do what you like to lesser instruments" approach. When we started collecting, 50s, 60s, and even 40s Gibsons were lesser instruments, as were 0, 00, and even 000 Martins. Well no more, and the future is hard to predict.

 

Here are most of our 30s Gibsons.

 

30gibs.jpg

 

Two are fully refinished, and another one has had major restoration work. The rest have original finishes. Two of the three with restoration work are in the top five for sound, but at the bottom for value.

 

Let's pick,

 

-Tom

  • Thanks 1
Posted

On many guitars a re-finish will not have any negative impact on value and is pretty much a matter of aesthetics.

 

When it comes to old guitars worth some serious scratch, re-finish means substantial discount. For those of us not well heeled this kind of stuff is often the only way we can even think of acquiring these kinds of guitars. Just appreciate the guitar for what it can do and how it can make the bad times good and the good times better.

Posted

Like most everyone, I like to keep the original finish "warts and all"... for the most part. Sometimes you get handed a guitar that has little collector value or one that has had SO many repairs and mods done to it that refinishing it isn't going to affect it's value neagtively. I say make the most of it.

 

Case in point, in 1987 I had a '73 J45 that someone had retopped. The guitar functioned well but the cosmetics were awful. I masked the binding and painted the whole thing (except peghead face) Cadillac brown metallic. Looked sharp. It was worthless to a collector but made someone happy.

 

Last spring I bought a 2008 SG. The original finish was under there somewhere but it was easier to start from wood:

 

Posted

Thanks for all the replies, I was actually expecting a lot of negative comments about it. I know over the last few years it has almost become taboo to say that I will refinish a guitar and since I officially just started advertising I have had mixed feeling about even saying anything about offering refinishing. Although I have done a lot of different things with guitar repair and I fancy myself as doing high quality work I don't claim to be a luthier, I am just a guy who fixes guitars. Because of my 20+ years working as a body shop painter I can lay down a mean coat of lacquer.

 

I have a real soft spot for buying neglected guitars. I think it started with the first guitar I ever owned. I think It was here that I posted my story of finding my very first guitar in the trash with a broken top. I asked the owner if I could have it and took it home and fixed it and made it playable and that is the guitar I learned how to play on. Ever since then I have been finding old worn out guitars and fixing them up. I almost feel as though I am saving each one from certain death by neglect. I actually write inside them "A New Life" It is usually really small and in a place where no one would look for it but its there and I know it. So if you ever run across a guitar with those words in it... you know where it came from.

 

Anyway, I really appreciate your comments, either for or against. I have worked on a few vintage guitars with lots of "mojo" and I would never think of stripping something like that down and making it new, but there are a lot of guitars out there where the "mojo" has been lost and they have become totally unplayable from neglect or abuse.

 

This is my latest project, it is the J=40 I am working on. I have a friend who asked me to keep an eye out for a cheap Gibson so I bought this and will fix it up. He may or may not want this one but I feel I am giving it "A New Life" and someone will enjoy having it. I know I will actually loose money when I sell it if I count my hours but that is not what is important to me.

 

This is how I got it. Neck off... Loose braces inside, But no serious cracks.

 

 

 

 

DSC_0044.jpg

 

 

 

DSC_0059.jpg

 

 

 

DSC_0066.jpg

 

 

 

60_3.jpg

 

 

 

DSC_0099.jpg

Posted

Hell's Bell's Ksdaddy!!!!

 

Nice job saving a guitars life.

 

Although some would say you stripped off all of it's "mojo" and destroyed a guitar. I say you gave it "A New Life"

 

 

@tpbiii,

 

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. It is nice to hear from an actual collector.

 

And What A Collection It Is!

 

Very nice.

Posted

In my useless and rarely sought opinion that one is not a candidate for a re-finsh. It looks to me like it is just starting look right. As a matter of fact if it were mine, being a '70's, I would be selective about which braces I tightened up, or put back. With a grin-

Posted

With the experiences I had owning a vintage shop and managing a repair bench with two luthiers on it, I can tell you there is no single answer that is right for your question. However, it is true that when you put a new finish on a guitar it will take a long time for the wood to adjust to it and start singing again. In some cases, I have seen guitars that essentially needed the refin to hold them together -- old brittle woods needed the support, and a 1934 00 Martin comes to mind. The key is to do the refin with the same ingredients as the original finish and in the same manner. It still sounds new, but if properly done most players care little about it.

 

It is definitely true that "collectors" get very upset about refinishing. It isn't a matter of tone, really, it is more a matter that the buyer wants to get proper value for their money when buying what is supposed to be a rare, vintage instrument. There are many D-18s and D-28s around from the 50's and 60's, for example, but there are very few in near mint condition. Understand that the collector is not buying the guitar to play it - they are likely buying it to display it. Most collectors have at least ten guitars. You simply can't expect them to do much with ten guitars other than display them. When I still had a collection, I held a jam session at my house every Sunday and people came from far and wide to attend it - admission, a pack of John Pearse strings (which I could sell you if you arrived empty handed - lol). I had 32 guitars and I could at least rely on most of them getting played each week.

 

The real tragedy of collecting is inactive wood. If you take a singing guitar and lock it up in a case for decades they can take years to wake up again. Refinishing a guitar so it can better be played or enjoyed is much less a sin than locking a guitar up in a cabinet. If I had to choose one camp to destroy, it would be the collector camp, not the refinishing camp.

 

I once had an electric guitar that was naturally broken in by years of road wear. It sounded good but looked like Hell. I had it refinished properly, using original techniques and products, but opted for a rarer colour than the original. Indeed, it cost me around $1500 in value loss to refinish the guitar ('62 stratocaster from white to blue) but once it was the nice colour and all done up proud I played it every day. Playing it is what mattered in the end and the current owner plays it on gigs night after night to make his living.

Posted

@tpbiii,

 

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. It is nice to hear from an actual collector.

 

And What A Collection It Is!

 

Very nice.

 

 

You are looking at a very small percentage of Tom's collection. And he plays them all (but not at the same time).

Posted

In my useless and rarely sought opinion that one is not a candidate for a re-finsh. It looks to me like it is just starting look right. As a matter of fact if it were mine, being a '70's, I would be selective about which braces I tightened up, or put back. With a grin-

 

A large part of my opinion agrees with alias on this. I don,t feel that this guitar is of vintage/collector status anyway. I could go either way on the J-40. To me, it does not look worthy of too much cosmetic 'fussing'. The flaking finish on the sides and neck looks like a candidate for an overspray to stabilise. The top and back look pretty good.

It would not be a crime to me if you wished to strip and finish the whole thing. I don,t think that is where I would put my energy and time however......MAYBE if I wanted to practice some skills.

 

A poorly re-finished vintage guitar is always 'fair game' for a re-finish IMO

 

Refinishing a vintage/collectable because its got some checking,scratches and dings makes no sense to me and would be a dissapointment

Posted

 

A poorly re-finished vintage guitar is always 'fair game' for a re-finish IMO

 

Refinishing a vintage/collectable because its got some checking,scratches and dings makes no sense to me and would be a dissapointment

 

That's a good summary.

Posted

There are some really excellent observations posted here. I've always viewed guitar owners as either players or collectors. Some are actually both, like Tom. And I heartily agree with ballcorner's observation about those who stick otherwise excellent guitars behind glass. My favorite story is when my band was auditioning guitar players back in the 90s. A guy came over with a vintage D-45 which he was very proud of. Not a mark on it. He told us he kept it in a glass case and rarely took it out. In other words, he was showing off, thinking that would somehow win us over. He played it for a bit and looked up at us, smiling. The guitar sounded absolutely lifeless. I picked up my no-collector value '71 D-28 that I played all the time and did a tune for him. And his jaw dropped. He said, "How come that guitar sounds so much better than mine?" Because it gets PLAYED!

And that brings a different pair of owners - players and polishers. Players don't sweat little dings, flaws or marks. They spend their time playing that guitar and bringing the tone out of it. Polishers want that guitar gleaming and shiny. They spend more time fussing over their guitar than they do playing it. And usually that is because they can't play it to begin with. About all they can do is afford it.

But as for the finish issue, I tend not to be in favor of refins unless there has been really significant damage to it. Finish cracks and crazing don't bother me. I don't like it when a guitar that should look old looks all shiny and unused. The exception would be, of course, a severely abused or damaged instrument. In those cases, there isn't much choice. But in those cases, I view it as a restore.

  • 6 years later...
Posted

This thread's pretty old, but I would like opinions on refinishing a Kay 6550. It looks like it's been in someone's garage for 50 years without a case, then road around in the back of their truck for 10 more. 

Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, Johnny Elbows said:

This thread's pretty old, but I would like opinions on refinishing a Kay 6550. It looks like it's been in someone's garage for 50 years without a case, then road around in the back of their truck for 10 more. 


Normally, refinishing significantly diminishes a guitar’s value.  Plus. Recently, somewhere I read that scientifically. refinishing a guitar potentially changes the vintage sound that makes a well aged/vintage guitar sound so good.  The article was a lot more specific, but that was the gist of it.

in the case of a vintage Kay, unless it’s a KayKraft, the predecessor of Kay, most Kays were inexpensive guitars to begin with and not of professional quality...although some of their Art Deco designs were way cool.  Therefore, you’d have to weigh are you putting out a lot of money to refinish a guitar that never had much value or high quality built into it.  And, still won’t even after a refinish because a refinish generally lowers a guitar’s resale value in the collectible market.  And, consider, would you be better off just trying to find the same model in better shape.  Plus, keeping in mind that if it has a vintage sound or one better because of age that it originally had when newer, it may lose that cool vintage sound with a refinish.

You night also want to consider just cleaning it up as some distressed looking guitars sometimes have a coolness factor if they are none-the-less fully playable.   On the other hand, if it is not playable, you’ll need to weigh is it worth it to fix it up as again, it’s still a mass production (as opposed to hand made) Kay in an era before mass production produced some fine guitars (such as today’s Epiphones.)

Just some things to consider.

I personally have a 60s dreadnaught Kay in my collection and a 1933 KayKraft archtop in my collection.  Conversation pieces and cool ones at that, but not of the quality of Gibsons or even most of today’s Epiphones.  And, good sentimental value to them.  But, I haven’t invested any extra  $ into them, for some of the stated  reasons.  Plus. I find I play my Gibsons or Epi’s much much much more. (As they play and sound better.)  Kay had cool Kay Kelvinator headstocks, though.  Huge headstocks!

I hope this helps.

QM aka “Jazzman” Jeff

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by QuestionMark
Posted

My wife bought me a new Martin D-35 back in 1975... It as been a workhorse for all these years.. It is a wonderful sounding  Guitar.

Well, About 20 years ago I started accumulating a few Guitars.. 

The Martin needed some Work done & I wanted to add Factory Fishman Electronics... I called Martin & arranged to send it to them & did so. While it was there I called them & asked them if they would refinish it to New Condition... Their answer, NO! They asked me how long I'd had the Guitar? I told them. They said, It will take that long for it to sound as good as it does now...

They completed all the Work, much of it under Factory Warranty & it came back perfect & beautifully Detailed... Still sounds fantastic! Glad they said, NO!

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...