How RED is too red?

[sheraton]

Pertaining to the current die used on ES 335's as compaired to earler models. "How RED is too red"?

[sok66]

In general, the translucent red Gibson currently uses is darker and less "orangey" that what they used in the 50s & 60s. Finishes are more color fast now, so doubt the color will lighten over time. Nothing wrong with it at all, just not true to the original color. JMHO, of course.

[sheraton]

In general, the translucent red Gibson currently uses is darker and less "orangey" that what they used in the 50s & 60s. Finishes are more color fast now, so doubt the color will lighten over time. Nothing wrong with it at all, just not true to the original color. JMHO, of course.

 

JMHO?

[Sunburst PB]

If I am not mistaken, the orange appearance that some of the 50s and 60s ES guitars have is due to the dyes fading over time or exposure to light. Almost all red dyes and paints fade over time. Some dye lots used in the past are more susceptible to fading than others. I have seen some early ES-335s that are almost light orange in color as they have faded.

[JimR56]

In general, the translucent red Gibson currently uses is darker and less "orangey" that what they used in the 50s & 60s. Finishes are more color fast now, so doubt the color will lighten over time. Nothing wrong with it at all, just not true to the original color. JMHO, of course.

I think colors can vary a bit on different examples, and they really vary when it comes to people trying to capture the true color in their photos. Generally, though, to my eye, I'd say the opposite. Most of the new red 335's, 345's and 355's I've seen have a lighter/brighter, more red-orange appearance than the original cherry red from the classic years. Some of the custom shop 355's I've seen have been particularly light and bright, probably to better show off the highly (overly) flamed maple tops (which as a purist, I don't like to see on new examples of these models).

 

=====

 

Edit for Sheraton... "JMHO" = Just my humble opinion.

[sok66]

My experience with "vintage" Gibsons goes back to when they were still in the shipping cartons and were referred to as "new". So, in general when I look at new red Gibson's my memory references go "the red is too dark". The originals did fade quickly if exposed to sunlight and most of them have definitely faded over time, but "back then" new vs "now" new, they're a bit more "red" now. Again, JMHO.

 

Edit to add, they're also "shinier" now. In the day the gloss dissipated pretty quickly. The new Gibsons in my collection seem to stay shiny way longer than they did in the day, and the finishes seem to be thicker than my vintage ones.

[JimR56]

I respect your opinion and experience, sok66. As I said, I've seen considerable variety in new finishes, but it's far more common for me to think "that's too bright" or "that's got too much orange in it", than to think "that's too dark". I usually react that way when I see the "wine red" that they introduced in the 70's (never warmed up to that... I'm a cherry red guy thru and thru). Also, when I look at vintage Gibsons with cherry red finishes these days, I'm often aware of how dark and rich the cherry color looks. For example, here's a shot of my '62 Sheraton which I bought last year:

 

 

Dark and rich, and I see a lot of vintage 355's that are dark like this. I know that some have faded, but I feel like I encounter just as many or more unfaded examples, and have a fair sense of what's out there (btw, I guess I don't go back quite as far as you do, but I've been at this awhile too... got into vintage Gibsons about 35 years ago).

 

Here's an example of a new 355 that just looks garish to me:

 

 

And here's a photo I found online of a new 335. Too bright, too much orange, and yes, too shiny!

 

[sheraton]

I respect your opinion and experience, sok66. As I said, I've seen considerable variety in new finishes, but it's far more common for me to think "that's too bright" or "that's got too much orange in it", than to think "that's too dark". I usually react that way when I see the "wine red" that they introduced in the 70's (never warmed up to that... I'm a cherry red guy thru and thru). Also, when I look at vintage Gibsons with cherry red finishes these days, I'm often aware of how dark and rich the cherry color looks. For example, here's a shot of my '62 Sheraton which I bought last year:

 

 

Dark and rich, and I see a lot of vintage 355's that are dark like this. I know that some have faded, but I feel like I encounter just as many or more unfaded examples, and have a fair sense of what's out there (btw, I guess I don't go back quite as far as you do, but I've been at this awhile too... got into vintage Gibsons about 35 years ago).

 

Here's an example of a new 355 that just looks garish to me:

 

 

And here's a photo I found online of a new 335. Too bright, too much orange, and yes, too shiny!

 

 

 

I agree, when Mick and Jimmy decided to have a soda "My favorite flavor, CHERRY RED"! Red as in a cherry. Not red as a FIRETRUCK. I prefer the old tone. There's a great book entitled THE GIBSON BURST by Jay Scott and Vic DaPra that offers in depth descriptions of the red analine die that faded in the sunlight. BTW dealers were advised not to display cherry red instruments in their windows as the fade occurred quite quickly.

 

The shade on your SHERATON is "What I'm talking about." It's got style and grace without pokeing the eyes of the viewer. A friend in the fashion business once said that you want to create an impression but after the show you want people to say "Wasn't she dressed well." Not "Did you see what she was wearing"?

 

The new choices are garish, I'm in complete agreement but what's a guy to do?

[Danny W.]

This is my Custom Shop CS-356--doesn't look garish to me, either on-line or in real life:

 

 

 

I did have a 1994 ES-355 that was very orange red:

 

 

The guy I sold it to sent it back because of the color, even though I had accurately described it and posted color-correct photos. As soon as I received it, he had a change of heart, so I sent it to him again. It was an really nice guitar, and I'm sorry I just didn't tell him no when it came back.

 

My faded cherry 1996 L-5CES Thin is very bright, but more red than orange:

 

 

Personally, I like them all--it would be boring if they were all the same color.

 

Danny W.

[sheraton]

This is off the topic but, is that President Lyndon Baines Johnson on drums?

 

What's the chance you're playing "Hail to the Chief"? :-)

[Danny W.]

This is off the topic but, is that President Lyndon Baines Johnson on drums?

 

What's the chance you're playing "Hail to the Chief"? :-)

 

No & "highly unlikely"

 

but funny.

 

Danny W.

[JimR56]

This is my Custom Shop CS-356--doesn't look garish to me, either on-line or in real life:

 

 

That's a stunning guitar, and it's not difficult for me to see why some would find it attractive.

 

I've always pretty much disliked new guitars. I don't like to look at guitars that are beat up, but I do prefer to see some "patina", whether it's the mellowness of an aged finish, or the yellowed binding, or the gentle aging/wear of the gold plating. In the case of a 355 like yours, that flame is just too much for me, since you would never have seen that much flame on an original from the 50's/60's; and a guitar with 100% perfect, shiny gold plating like that just doesn't do it for me. To each their own.

 

I also love the smell of a vintage hollowbody, so I admit I'm weird.

[JimR56]

I did have a 1994 ES-355 that was very orange red:

 

 

That's exactly the type of finish I was talking about in my initial posts, which I encounter more often than anything that's on the other end of the spectrum (something that looks too dark).

[Versatile]

JMHO?

 

I also had to look up JMHO

 

I am used to IMHO...

 

But I may add JMHO to my lexicon of internet abbreviations

 

Heaven knows what Joe'predictive text' would make of it all

 

V

 

[Versatile]

This may have been mentioned already

 

There are 2 aspects to the colour and it's retention on a typical Gibson archtop or whatever....

 

The initial colour and stability of any dye used (propensity to fade = fugitive nature)

 

And the darkening/yellowing of the clear Nitro lacquer on exposure to light (mainly UV)

 

Making for interesting ageing....

 

V

 

[sheraton]

No & "highly unlikely"

 

but funny.

 

Danny W.

 

Hi Danny,

 

Your 356 is a great combination of grain character and color, not to mention binding on the f holes. That's what I've been searching for with no result. I located a tobacco burst 07 (used) that had great color and grain but the binding on the frett board was "choppy" and there was a crack between the back and the binding that ran about 90 degrees at the bottom of the instrument. I suggested that the owner drop if off at a local luthier for evaluation but he refused.

[Danny W.]

Hi Danny,

 

Your 356 is a great combination of grain character and color, not to mention binding on the f holes. That's what I've been searching for with no result. I located a tobacco burst 07 (used) that had great color and grain but the binding on the frett board was "choppy" and there was a crack between the back and the binding that ran about 90 degrees at the bottom of the instrument. I suggested that the owner drop if off at a local luthier for evaluation but he refused.

 

It is a beautiful guitar and was a custom order, which is how it got binding on the f-holes.

 

Danny W.

[j45nick]

Red is hands-down the hardest color to photograph. I have a 2009 cherry Nashville Historic '59 ES 335, and it photographs an opaque fire-engine red when the flash hits it. Without the flash, it just looks dull and lifeless in photos.

 

In the flesh, it's a shimmering translucent cherry/burgundy color--more cherry than burgundy, for sure--and I think it's gorgeous.

 

Of course, Gibson didn't make any red ES 335's in 1959 (so they say), so this one is really a unicorn rather than a '59 Historic.

 

When I first opened the case--bought it based on photos and description only--my first thought was "whoa!". My wife said "wow". "Wow" was my second thought as well. If you're going to be an aging rocker, you might as well look the part.

[sheraton]

That's a stunning guitar, and it's not difficult for me to see why some would find it attractive.

 

I've always pretty much disliked new guitars. I don't like to look at guitars that are beat up, but I do prefer to see some "patina", whether it's the mellowness of an aged finish, or the yellowed binding, or the gentle aging/wear of the gold plating. In the case of a 355 like yours, that flame is just too much for me, since you would never have seen that much flame on an original from the 50's/60's; and a guitar with 100% perfect, shiny gold plating like that just doesn't do it for me. To each their own.

 

I also love the smell of a vintage hollowbody, so I admit I'm weird.

 

Like canteloupes, you gotta smell'em just to be sure it's a maple and not mahogany block inside! :-)

[Danny W.]

 

 

That's a stunning guitar, and it's not difficult for me to see why some would find it attractive.

 

I've always pretty much disliked new guitars. I don't like to look at guitars that are beat up, but I do prefer to see some "patina", whether it's the mellowness of an aged finish, or the yellowed binding, or the gentle aging/wear of the gold plating. In the case of a 355 like yours, that flame is just too much for me, since you would never have seen that much flame on an original from the 50's/60's; and a guitar with 100% perfect, shiny gold plating like that just doesn't do it for me. To each their own.

 

I also love the smell of a vintage hollowbody, so I admit I'm weird.

 

If that was supposed to be a repro of a vintage ES-355 the flame might be inappropriate, but it's a CS-356, which looks like a smaller version of a 355, but isn't. With a solid maple top and a piece of solid mahogany carved to form the sides and back, it's a modern guitar and hasn't even been in existence long enough for vintage specimens to exist.

 

I have to admit, having had been a vintage guitar collector for many years that I much prefer my guitars to be shiny new, even the ones I gig with every day, and that when Gibson started making great guitars again in the early '90's I replaced all my vintage ones with new ones. Haven't had any urge to go back the other way.

 

Danny W.

[BigKahune]

.

Man, Danny has some beautiful guitars.

 

But on the topic - to my eyes - the "darker reds" are looking wine red, the "cherry reds" are have a nice duller tone, the "brighter reds" look a bit to much like fire engine red, and the "orangey reds" are just too orange. A lot of SG players complain about the "orangey red" of the VOS cherry finish.

 

BTW, interest topic Sheraton. . B)

[sheraton]

If that was supposed to be a repro of a vintage ES-355 the flame might be inappropriate, but it's a CS-356, which looks like a smaller version of a 355, but isn't. With a solid maple top and a piece of solid mahogany carved to form the sides and back, it's a modern guitar and hasn't even been in existence long enough for vintage specimens to exist.

 

I have to admit, having had been a vintage guitar collector for many years that I much prefer my guitars to be shiny new, even the ones I gig with every day, and that when Gibson started making great guitars again in the early '90's I replaced all my vintage ones with new ones. Haven't had any urge to go back the other way.

 

Danny W.

 

I've ordered an EASTMAN T186MX that's a carved mahogany body and sides with a carved maple top, 2 Seth Lover humbuckers, ebony Gabon fingerboard, sunburst, stop tail and hard case. As I understand the construction differs from a 335 in that the solid block does not extend to the extreme back of the cavity creating a more "hollow body" tone. Who know's what that will be like but it's "different" from an all maple laminated GIBSON 335.

 

I own 5 Fender (4 Tele - 1 Strat) but I'm trying to purchase a 335. As with all brands it takes some study to become familiar with the ins and outs of color and options. That combined with a distasteful experience with a ( two actually) current Chineese SHERATON (hence the name) I've held and played about seven 335's in 2 states and find each one different in tone and feel. No small part of the difficulty is that there are NO stocking distributors who have loads for on the lap and against the rib case decision making. I've had some 335's that seem to be "dead". When you plug them in, it'a a different story but I'd prefer one that sounds right (like a bell) to my ear prior to eletrification. If it's an order from GIBSON, there's no return per se. They'll replace it but I'm reluctant to be shipping back, and back, and back ..........

 

I've located a red 07 that's being shipped in for "evaluation", it's rather a bright firetruck tone of red. I'd prefer it were more toward the "wine - burgundy - 1968 Pontiac GTO" shade, but there's little choice at this time.

 

"TOO MUCH MONKEY BUSINESS" for meeeeeeee ..............

 

Don't 'cha love this message board!

[sheraton]

.

Man, Danny has some beautiful guitars.

 

But on the topic - to my eyes - the "darker reds" are looking wine red, the "cherry reds" are have a nice duller tone, the "brighter reds" look a bit to much like fire engine red, and the "orangey reds" are just too orange. A lot of SG players complain about the "orangey red" of the VOS cherry finish.

 

BTW, interest topic Sheraton. . B)

 

 

BULLS EYE! I was unable to put it so succinctly.

[milod]

I think Versatile pretty well hit it.

 

My first job in the publishing business came at age 19 testing ink and paper. It's pretty important to have both in balance when folks are spending bundles of cash on advertising very expensive products. What results came off the spectrophotometer gave that 19-year-old potential "power" of shutting down a 4-story high, block-long press and all the people working on it.

 

So... I think I "see" color. I've also made a large part of my living from color photography the past 30 years, so... Anyway, I seem to recall also that a bandmate's cherry 335 in the mid '60s was cherry red pretty much by definition - but I also recall a bit of yellow in it too. Fading of some pigments and changes in the wood and "paint" medium for the pigments make interesting changes, at least partly reflecting environmental circumstances.

 

The wood itself on the laminate top will affect color, as will the medium carrying a given set of pigments. The pigments themselves may well have changed even though technically meeting certain specs - and the specs themselves may have changed.

 

Another factor is that to some extent the lighting we view things nowadays is different from what it was in the 1960s, and our brains actually will add or subtract color depending on the "color temperature" in which we view objects or even a computer screen. That's why the "northern light" standard went, in ways lost out to the spectrophotometer.

 

m

[Danny W.]

I think Versatile pretty well hit it.

 

My first job in the publishing business came at age 19 testing ink and paper. It's pretty important to have both in balance when folks are spending bundles of cash on advertising very expensive products. What results came off the spectrophotometer gave that 19-year-old potential "power" of shutting down a 4-story high, block-long press and all the people working on it.

 

So... I think I "see" color. I've also made a large part of my living from color photography the past 30 years, so... Anyway, I seem to recall also that a bandmate's cherry 335 in the mid '60s was cherry red pretty much by definition - but I also recall a bit of yellow in it too. Fading of some pigments and changes in the wood and "paint" medium for the pigments make interesting changes, at least partly reflecting environmental circumstances.

 

The wood itself on the laminate top will affect color, as will the medium carrying a given set of pigments. The pigments themselves may well have changed even though technically meeting certain specs - and the specs themselves may have changed.

 

Another factor is that to some extent the lighting we view things nowadays is different from what it was in the 1960s, and our brains actually will add or subtract color depending on the "color temperature" in which we view objects or even a computer screen. That's why the "northern light" standard went, in ways lost out to the spectrophotometer.

 

m

 

Funny you should mention this. In the 1970's I was a design project engineer for a company that was an industry leader in densitometry and spectrophotometry. One of the things I designed there was the first non-contact system that could take readings from a web press on the fly. Here's a photo of me from '74 testing a prototype on a home-made press simulator:

 

 

As part of this, I studied color theory with our staff colorist, who had literally written the industry reference book on the subject, as a consequence of which, I know far more about the subject than most men.

 

As you point out, there are many factors that affect our perception of color, and the fact still remains that while the eye is very poor at quantitative analysis, it is superb at qualitative analysis, so people can easily pick up even very slight mismatches while not being able to describe exactly what they are. Besides color and lighting, surface texture, gloss and sheen come into play, and these are factors that even spectrophotometers have trouble dealing with properly. You also touched on metamerism, which is one reason making non-detectable repairs is harder than it looks.

 

Note that the ear is much like the eye, which accounts for the ever-running battle between theory and practice in audio.

 

Danny W.