"Fingernail marks" on Martin

[Turp]

Just my 2 cents. If it were mine and I'd not spend the money on the repair. Cosmetics considered, this isn't bad to me because it adds character. I would only fix something that effected playability or long term maintenance.

I feel like the marks have minimal market effect due to the scarcity of these guitars. If you have it fixed the value will only minutely be improved. If I were considering purchase, the character would not be a strike against it.

[Seijou]

You guys are right - I came to my sense. I put the money towards getting a FWI second saddle from Bob Colosi. Much better use of the money!

[Turp]

Much better than fixing marks.

[Seijou]

By the way, his 'seconds' are perfectly functional, they just don't look as clean (I think due to the bleaching). I think most people don't even notice the difference, really.

Saved 30% by going with a FWI 'second'!

[state-it]

Originally Posted by Seijou

...
I'm most worried since the fingernail marks having pierced the finish... I would like to seal it, even if the visual markings don't go away...

I wouldn't worry about it not being sealed.
The whole of the inside of the guitar is unsealed.

[Alter]

i have had several guitars with marks like that, nothing to worry about. every time you mess with a guitar (specially in terms of refinishing, sanding etc.) you might try to fix a cosmetic issue and end up changing the sound of the guitar.. so my views on the matter have always been to leave the instrument as it is. it adds charachter and history after all.

[Von Beerhofen]

I wouldn't really bother about such a cosmetic thing. It just means you don't have to worry as much yourself about inflicting simmilar dammage (best avoid that though).
You'll feel much worse when you get your first real dent on your 4000$ new guitar. At some point in time you might want a new guitar yourself and sell this one, that's when you really have to start worrying and then the question becomes, was it worth the extra spending?
It's all just superficial dammage, I have it too on one of mine, but I'm still hanging on to it the way it is and it's the guitar I can take with me no matter where I go. The undammaged ones stay at home!

Ludwig

[silverfox103]

Originally Posted by zimfan

My 1st thought: Your guitar, do as you like with it.
My 2nd thought: What a waste of money. Used bought guitars invariably have scratches, dings, and blemishes. Its called "mojo." What are you going to do after you have those scratches repaired, and then one day it falls over creating fresh dings? In my experience, drop fills leave dark marks over time making it even worse. Refinishing is expensive, risky, and lowers the value of any instrument. Better off leaving it alone, imo.

Agree with Zimfan, it's like buying a used car, it's not going to be perfect. You didn't buy it new, off the showroom floor at sticker price. You got a used car.

Tough love: put on your big boy pants and accept it (and enjoy it) for what it is!

Tom C.

[mc1]

it's an interesting question, but i'd tend to agree with the let it be folks. makes it look like it has more history to me.

maybe you can turn it into a good story in case someone asks. (then add some chords, and you have a ballad - viola!)
.

[state-it]

Originally Posted by mc1

... viola!

I thought it was a guitar