Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

Faded or not?


TarHeelKid

Recommended Posts

I think Gibson is selling themselves short by using the term "faded". I have owned several of these models and believe that they would be better off using "satin" as the finish description. None of the models were actually faded or appeared to have any kind of wear or fading on them, they just were not glossy. Worn just sounds bad, in my opinion. Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Gibson is selling themselves short by using the term "faded". I have owned several of these models and believe that they would be better off using "satin" as the finish description. None of the models were actually faded or appeared to have any kind of wear or fading on them, they just were not glossy. Worn just sounds bad, in my opinion. Thoughts?

Yes I agree with you there.....

 

When they released the Traditional Satin models a short while ago I had a discussion with someone about the fact that they said they wouldnt pay that much for a worn finished guitar.. I was like, no its not worn just a Satin finish... These ones http://www2.gibson.com/Products/Electric-Guitars/Les-Paul/Gibson-USA/Les-Paul-Traditional-Mahogany-Satin.aspx

 

Anyway as I said back then, the terms Worn and Satin seemed to be used wrongly sometimes... The worn finished are called that as they just have less coats of nirto on them and they tend to ware down quickly according to some.. Ive got a LP DC Faded, ive had it for four years now and it still looks perfect. The Satin fiished ones have the full coats just arnt buffed up to be glossy... And as I finished a guitar myself once with nitro, I know you get the choice of Satin or Gloss finish just like you do with normal paint.

 

So yes there is some difference but they need to be more clear on which one is which :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Gibson is selling themselves short by using the term "faded". I have owned several of these models and believe that they would be better off using "satin" as the finish description. None of the models were actually faded or appeared to have any kind of wear or fading on them, they just were not glossy. Worn just sounds bad, in my opinion. Thoughts?

 

 

I agree. From the ones I have seen the "faded" finish is more satin and the finish is a really nice look. "Worn" on the other I just don' get. Making them look old with exposed wood to make it appear "worn" I just don't get.

 

That said cosmetics is secondary to feel but if I'm gonna spend good cash on a nice guitar, I want to give it the "worn" look myself. Or even better, I will just find an old guitar where the "worn" look makes sense and gives it true character knowing the bumps dents and scratches came from real playing and belt buckles rather that created in a factory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. From the ones I have seen the "faded" finish is more satin and the finish is a really nice look. "Worn" on the other I just don' get. Making them look old with exposed wood to make it appear "worn" I just don't get.

 

That said cosmetics is secondary to feel but if I'm gonna spend good cash on a nice guitar, I want to give it the "worn" look myself. Or even better, I will just find an old guitar where the "worn" look makes sense and gives it true character knowing the bumps dents and scratches came from real playing and belt buckles rather that created in a factory.

You see again... The terminology needs to be clear..

 

Worn Finish in most cases doest mean Aged which is what I thik your refering too.. So like the Tribute Studios have the so called "Worn" finish, but they arnt aged they just have less coats of paint on them so ware quickly (or more quickly than a fully finished guitar)

 

Where as what your talking about is often the Aged VOS finish. Which yes I dont understand why youd pay for a worn looking thing lol (unless it was actually real aging ;))

 

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You see again... The terminology needs to be clear..

 

Worn Finish in most cases doest mean Aged which is what I thik your refering too.. So like the Tribute Studios have the so called "Worn" finish, but they arnt aged they just have less coats of paint on them so ware quickly (or more quickly than a fully finished guitar)

 

Where as what your talking about is often the Aged VOS finish. Which yes I dont understand why youd pay for a worn looking thing lol (unless it was actually real aging ;))

 

:)

 

 

Ya Rabs I think you are right. I looked on the Gibson site and all the "worn" finishes I see look like the satin finish. I must have been thinking of the Fenders where there is a real worn look with exposed wood as if the finish wore off.

I knew I remembered seeing it though..lol.. just must have been a Fender and not a Gibson.

 

http://www.fender.com/en-CA/products/roadworn/road-worn-60s-stratocaster

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the marketing folks fellas. With all the excitement about "relics" the term faded evokes a bit of that feeling. They save a little money by leaving off the gloss coat and laying off some buffers and get clever with the name to draw in the customers. Actually quite clever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great insights, thanks fellas. I love these Gibson models because of their affordability and they carry the same hardware as some of the $2k+ models, allowing people to own a sweet SG or LP who normally could not. The Fender Road Worn guitars are just ridiculous to me. They look like they were drug behind a pickup truck on a mountain road.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have three guitars that we will call "non-shinny".

 

Picture13.jpg

 

The 2009 silver burst Raw Power Les Paul Studio is just a thin nitro finish with no clear coat and no buffing. In does however have some gain filler so that the wood grain isn't all that apparent. I didn't buy this guitar for it's looks. I bought it for its all maple construction, playability and sound. However it's looks have grown on me.

 

Picture12.jpg

 

The 2005 Les Paul DC Faded Cherry is also a thin layer of nitro over a bit of grain filler. Slightly less gain filler than the Raw Power as you ca start to see the wood grain. Again I bought this guitar for it's playability and P90 sound. The finish, like the Raw Power, feels slick and fast. It's looks good I guess. I tend to shy away from Cherry most of the time but this one was a good deal.

 

Picture10.jpg

 

Finally I have a 2008 SG Special Faded. This guitar has a thin layer of nitro over no grain filler at all. It is hands down my favorite finish on any of my Gibson guitars.

Picture11.jpg

 

 

I can see how the term "faded" fits this guitar as its look reminds me very much of Mike Watts old bass or any number of old SGs I have seen other the years.

 

 

 

post-5100-1236515190.jpg

gibson%20sg%20guitar-241992004796311190.jpg

 

 

Not that the names of the finishes are all that impotent to me but I think if it were my call to make I would adopt a number system for the various types of nitro finished at Gibson. The higher the number the more work and effort went into the finish. My faded SG with no filler and one thin coat of nitro would be a #1 finish. The Faded Cherry Les Paul DC would be a #2 since it does have some grain filler. The Raw Power would be a #3 because it has more filler. Maybe even a #4 since it also has a bit of a burst. And so on and so on... But that's just me.

 

I have 3 other Gibson guitars that have very shinny finishes. Oddly enough they don't get played as much as these three.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...