Are there any relic instruments that truly get as beat up as this Custom Shop guitar?

#101
Son of Wobble said:
Interesting pick holder! What gives?
Click to expand...

...a sticky pick-guard? :rollno: I made picks with a small disc magnet embedded in the center - have to have some metal part like a cover to take advantage of it and not all platings work. The thicker the pick the better - this example is a Fender thin and is kinda pushing it popping out with use.

fullsizeoutput_d4b.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Son of Wobble
#103
JIO said:
...a sticky pick-guard? :rollno: I made picks with a small disc magnet embedded in the center - have to have some metal part like a cover to take advantage of it and not all platings work. The thicker the pick the better - this example is a Fender thin and is kinda pushing it popping out with use.

View attachment 2744915
Click to expand...

Now you have me thinking that with magnets embedded in my fingertips, as well a computer chips.... And with an operator sitting just offstage.....


wireless-safe-remote-control-systems-2.jpg
yellow_bass_guitar_by_ivanlee.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Iridescentone and JIO
#109
It's a Jaydee which had a *very* rough life...

The guitar has peeled and cracked finish which was a result of it being left in a car on a hot day in Brazil. A couple of more factors contributed to this though. First of all, the guitar was built on Diggins’ kitchen counter where he didn’t have proper tools or the environment for a professional paint-job. And second, he had to rush the whole process since he was due to join Tony as his guitar tech for the US tour.
Click to expand...

source: Tony Iommi’s Guitars and Gear
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sartori and Son of Wobble
#110
Templar said:
Quick, everyone....avert your eyes!....lest we face the heresy that Gibson guitars can lose their finish like Fenders can! OMG where's the Talkbass Safe Place?....I need a puppy!

(just joking, puppy not really necessary)

View attachment 2745045
Click to expand...

As mentioned in the post above mine, not a Gibson, but Mikes a little above sure are real Gibby's!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sartori, ajkula66 and Son of Wobble
#113
Here's my only entry for a rode hard bass...my '81 1K. A one-owner bass that I rescued off ebay in '03. The original owner played it into the ground, then pawned it. Frets were totally shot and the neck had a nasty ski-jump that I couldn't get out myself. Shipped it off to M. Dolan for a refret, it came back as a perfect player sans ski-jump.

100_1430_00.jpg

100_1432_01.jpg

100_1433_01.jpg

100_1439_01.jpg


Compare the abused one above with this nice '80 1K, which was well cared for all its life....played but never abused.

100_1429.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: JIO, Sartori, ajkula66 and 3 others
#114
ajkula66 said:
This statement doesn't seem to mirror my own experience with older Gibsons that I've owned or seen over the past 35+ years. The only ones that age *somewhat* similar to what one is accustomed to seeing on Fenders are gold tops. Gibsons most certainly ding easily just like any nitro-finished instrument, and finish checking is omnipresent but the lacquer seems to hold on better to the wood than it does on Fenders. Guilds are pretty much in the same boat, can't say anything about Rickenbackers since I don't have enough experience with them.

Does any of this really matter at the end of the day? Not in my book. Personally, I pick the instrument by the way it feels and sounds, the looks have always been the least of my concerns otherwise I wouldn't have owned the scary amount of "molested kittens" with various brand names that I've played, loved and cared for throughout my career.

My experiences only.
Click to expand...
I haven't owned vintage Fenders, but I have a '68 Gibson. The finish is in excellent condition. It wasn't for lack of being dragged around. It was the only bass I owned from about 1983 to 2009. I just flat have never seen a Gibson as worn looking as some of the Fenders that are around. Better finish? More survivors? I don't know. Same with Rics. You see the occasional thrashed Ric, but their finishes appear to hold up better. I suspect Fender was building to a price point, and didn't use as high a quality finishes. Just speculation on my part, and it doesn't make any difference in what the instrument sounds like or feels like.

It sure doesn't mean you can't wear out the finish on non-Fender instruments. It just seems to take a bit more effort and time for some reason.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ajkula66
#115
Gaolee said:
I haven't owned vintage Fenders, but I have a '68 Gibson. The finish is in excellent condition. It wasn't for lack of being dragged around. It was the only bass I owned from about 1983 to 2009. I just flat have never seen a Gibson as worn looking as some of the Fenders that are around. Better finish? More survivors? I don't know. Same with Rics. You see the occasional thrashed Ric, but their finishes appear to hold up better. I suspect Fender was building to a price point, and didn't use as high a quality finishes. Just speculation on my part, and it doesn't make any difference in what the instrument sounds like or feels like.
Click to expand...

Have a look at post #105. Play 'em hard enough, and....

I've had a couple old Fenders as messed up as Watt's Gibsons, back in the day. But nowadays I wouldn't touch one like that with a ten foot pole. Those dark raw wood areas are petri dishes impregnated with all manner of disgusting DNA stuff. I figure if bacteria, viruses, and even plankton can live in outer space they can surely live on an earthbound guitar.

Am I a germaphobe? Maybe, but I'm definitely not a germaphile.
 
#116
Templar said:
Have a look at post #105. Play 'em hard enough, and....

I've had a couple old Fenders as messed up as Watt's Gibsons, back in the day. But nowadays I wouldn't touch one like that with a ten foot pole. Those dark raw wood areas are petri dishes impregnated with all manner of disgusting DNA stuff. I figure if bacteria, viruses, and even plankton can live in outer space they can surely live on an earthbound guitar.

Am I a germaphobe? Maybe, but I'm definitely not a germaphile.
Click to expand...
I edited after looking at those photos. You can wear out the finish on anything, but I think Fender finishes wore out a bit faster. Maybe. I don't know. I wouldn't buy one that looks that bad.
 
#117
Gaolee said:
I edited after looking at those photos. You can wear out the finish on anything, but I think Fender finishes wore out a bit faster. Maybe. I don't know. I wouldn't buy one that looks that bad.
Click to expand...

Agree, no doubt about it. But it's hard to quantify, as there are so many more Fenders out there than any other single brand. Factor in the tendency for players taking better care of their more expensive guitars, and....

Still, Fender definitely had issues with "peelers" back in the day. Seems like the period from the late 50's thru the early 60's may have been the worst, at least in my experience. Probably why they changed their finish process soon after?

Also, I've noticed that sunburst Fenders from '59 and '60 seem to have been uber-susceptible to UV rays, causing the red part of the burst to vanish. Just like Gibsons of the same era. Coincidence? I have my own theory as to why.
 
#118
Templar said:
I have my own theory as to why.
Click to expand...

Would love to hear that one. Seriously.

But back to the topic - kind of - I do expect some level of wear when buying instruments nowadays since most of the stuff that I'm interested in was built prior to 1990, with majority of my "targets" being a good bit older. Having said that, anything that looks really trashed is getting a pass, regardless of what it is and the price point involved. I'm happy to leave Mr. Mayer's Strat and Mr. Watts' Gibsons - as well as their lookalikes - in possession of their current owners to enjoy them...

My $0.02 only...
 
#120
Gaolee said:
I haven't owned vintage Fenders, but I have a '68 Gibson. The finish is in excellent condition. It wasn't for lack of being dragged around. It was the only bass I owned from about 1983 to 2009. I just flat have never seen a Gibson as worn looking as some of the Fenders that are around. Better finish? More survivors? I don't know. Same with Rics. You see the occasional thrashed Ric, but their finishes appear to hold up better. I suspect Fender was building to a price point, and didn't use as high a quality finishes. Just speculation on my part, and it doesn't make any difference in what the instrument sounds like or feels like.

It sure doesn't mean you can't wear out the finish on non-Fender instruments. It just seems to take a bit more effort and time for some reason.
Click to expand...

The obvious reason for more distressed Fender instruments is a thin nitro coating which shrinks as the years pass and the fact that their guitars and basses were played more than any other instruments during that 50-60's (and into the 70's) time period. (Gibson guitars also but not so much basses)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back