R6 Jaeger Make Over

[fred dons]

as far as I know it is stained when applying the filler

 

[Revolver1]

Ah, so is this the Aniline Dye? And then just a clear Nitro top coat?

 

[guitarbob123]

Well when you spend real cash things are different. At least in my experience. I digress. Enjoy the journey of tone. If the end result is great that's what matters

I'm sorry but direct me to an original finish 1956 Goldtop Standard for 12k and I'll buy two of them and pay in physical cash.

These things are listing for 50k and upwards at Gruhns, Carter, ECG, TR Crandall etc.
Walking in and slapping down 12k cash for any original finish 56 goldtop will see you laughed out with the same 12k still in your pocket.

Cash brings things down but you're only achieving that if someone finds grandpa's guitar under the bed and you get to it before anyone else.

 

[ADP]

Oh I didn't realize it needed to be original finish. The wood and the objective of this project, let me be more accurate, could be had for $12k.

 

[Subliminal lanimilbuS]

I would imagine actual chemicals are going to be different. Unless someone has the exact recipe for the materials used to create the lacquer and more importantly can get them. Cotton is commonly used to create nitrocellulose, but back then wood fibre, etc. was used too. They also used other ketones, etc. in their solvent mixture that aren't commonly used today. Most of them were more volatile which helped the solvent to evaporate faster. They also gave the lacquer a lower viscosity which helps with final adhesion. Basically, they soaked and dissolved better into what you were applying them too. I also think some of the thinners used for the pore filler are not commonly used today. I don't think it was done to the level of many guitars today as you can usually see ridges from the grain in the lacquer if you look up close to a 50's Gibson finish. Very noticeable on lower end models and decreases up the highest end models which probably got more coats of lacquer as well. I tried to find some old pics of wood filler being applied, but all I could find is pics from 2010. Even though it is different in chemical composition to the filler used in the 50's and might not bleed into the lacquer in the same way it looks very close in color to the pore filler color you see inside the cavity picture I posted above. The best you can hope for is something that is similar to what they used in the 50's.

 

[Subliminal lanimilbuS]

Just read some later posts. The dye is in the filler.

 

[garywright]

be clear that you want a dark back/neck sans gold sprinkles

 

[Subliminal lanimilbuS]

When the lacquer was sprayed onto the filler they dissolved together and the color bled into the lacquer. The red aniline dye was the worst for bleeding.

 

[Revolver1]

Hey Subliminal, great info there. Thanks for that. I had a feeling the chemicals might be different. But it was the filler, dye and lacquer I was never quite sure what was going on and the bleeding. Really interesting, thanks.

 

[Revolver1]

Oh I didn't realize it needed to be original finish. The wood and the objective of this project, let me be more accurate, could be had for $12k.

O.K but not really.

The objective of this project is to cure a guitar I love of intrusive dead spots and gain some finer details of a 56 guitar in the process.

Binning this guitar at £4800 then buying a real 56 for 12k and then paying for the work to be done to restore the 56 probably wouldn't leave me with much change out of 20k, it'd probably end up costing more than that in the end. Which is give or take twice what I'm paying here.

 

[ADP]

But you'd have a real '56 Les Paul... worth many times more than what you would have paid. Whatever the case, I'll stop giving my opinion and start making more popcorn.

 

[Revolver1]

be clear that you want a dark back/neck sans gold sprinkles

Yeah, I have images to use as a guide but I also accept it's hand made and will be unique to some degree.

Florian said he does it exactly the same way they did back in the day and that's good enough for me. I said just do your thing, those two guitars I saw in person looked absolutely stunning so I'm expecting my guitar to come out similar in every way.

I'm not going to pretend I've not been thinking about it but it also occurs to me I can't imagine finishing tequnics, conditions and process were technically as good as they are today. I highly doubt they had the type of spray booths used today with filtered air and immaculately clean NASSA like conditions. Those guitars were finished on the shop floor, surely there must have been a small amount of contamination from time to time?

I don't really know because I've not seen original guitars like some of you guys have.

Out of interest have any of you noticed anything like this on an original? Or were they all immaculate?

 

[Revolver1]

But you'd have a real '56 Les Paul... worth many times more than what you would have paid. Whatever the case, I'll stop giving my opinion and start making more popcorn.

Hey ADP, no sweat. I'm enjoying your input and the conversations we've had. All points of view are valid, interesting and welcomed. Its always good to look at it from different points of view. There have been a few things discussed here that I hadn't even thought of when I thought I'd thought of everything. So that's cool.

Bottom line is although I don't regret one little bit what I've spent here if I didn't have the initial problem I probably never would have considered doing something like this. It's financially on the brink of being beyond my means justification wise. Going down the real 56 rabbit hole is just way out of my league, I can't entertain it.

But I will say I have loved every bit of this experience, the ups the downs and everything in between.

I need to stop spending money on guitars and buy a house before my Wife leaves me - that's my reality. ?

 

[Revolver1]

And now for today's update... Florian asked me where I would like the Dot placement over the i and I opted for the 56 type positioning to keep it right. I think it looks great!

" I found a pretty position which aesthetically is looking good for an artist's eye. (And guitarists are artists ? ). You see it when you have the headstock right in front of you.

After routing the Holly Veneer flush with the sides of the headstock I carefully tape the surface to avoid chipping when redrilling the tuner-holes.
I carefully place my template and mark the position for the logo.

Not bad considering the tuner holes, the entire headstock and even the logo itself are not 100% as the originals. Originals weren't all the same either because they were handmade.

Then I glue the logo in with tinted fish-glue, It's tinted with lamp black. "

 

[MattD1960]

Hey ADP, no sweat. I'm enjoying your input and the conversations we've had. All points of view are valid, interesting and welcomed. Its always good to look at it from different points of view. There have been a few things discussed here that I hadn't even thought of when I thought I'd thought of everything. So that's cool.

Bottom line is although I don't regret one little bit what I've spent here if I didn't have the initial problem I probably never would have considered doing something like this. It's financially on the brink of being beyond my means justification wise. Going down the real 56 rabbit hole is just way out of my league, I can't entertain it.

But I will say I have loved every bit of this experience, the ups the downs and everything in between.

I need to stop spending money on guitars and buy a house before my Wife leaves me - that's my reality. ?

Never give into that kinda pressure..... U can always build a little hut out of all the guitar cases and she can live inside.

 

[Revolver1]

Hahaha... I've at least got the funeral plan covered. I'm going up in a Pyre of guitars Navajo style.... ????

 

[Revolver1]

It has had me thinking though... I don't think I'd even want an original 56 in all honesty.

Yeah, it'd be nice but I mean I read through Wilco's 56 conversation thread and at the end you see him playing it out and I have huge respect because that's what the guitars there for. It's what it was borne to do. But I'd be terrified to leave the flat with it, come to think of it I'd be terrified to leave it in the flat incase it got broken into and stolen.

For me it's just too much money wrapped up in a guitar.

I guess that's the great thing about the Historics. All the big names have toured originals at some point but even they don't really do it anymore now the Historics have gotten so close. Sure, they record with originals where that extra 5 - 10% makes a difference even if only in feel. But unless your Joe Bonnamassa (and that's his thing) it doesn't make alot of sense to subject a guitar like that to the rigors of the Road.

There are quite a number of big names that have had guitars made over and I believe there is a sonic improvement to be had.
I think the make over definitely has its place, that is until Gibson can commercially produce a guitar as they used to. But I'm not sure it can be done on the scale they operate at.

 

[Revolver1]

So here we have the logo in all its glory. Note, the ferrule isn't pushed all the way in yet.

 

[fred dons]

i assume he taped over trusssrod nut before spraying as the "nut" now looks like a chibson

 

[Revolver1]

Not sure mate but it does look like it's been sprayed over. I didn't know that was a Chibson give away.

Having said that though my Nashville 64, 335 and my 64 Murphy Lab S.G are both sprayed over.

What does it all mean?

Just looking again that maybe looks like a sleeve over the truss rod threads to keep the paint off? Otherwise it might be a socket for an allen key but I wouldn't think so.

Still, we will find out....