|
|
#1
06-15-2010, 07:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Varish, lacquer .... ?
Hello all, I'm totally new to this. I have an old guitar that I wish to keep. It's pretty beaten up, tons of dings and scratches but, sounds very nice.
I'd like to make it look a bit nicer. Especially to seal up the scratches. It's an old 1970's Yamaha with a shiny finish. What can be used to touch up the scratches? Thanks to all in advance. 
|
|
#2
06-15-2010, 09:12 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
You should probably just refinish the entire thing. A touch up job won't look uniform because of the age of the finish that is currently on there. Plus you don't know what the material is. Whatever it is, you'd want it to be the same.
You have plenty of options. If I was you, I'd go to the guitar store and ask them to pick out a couple guitars with different finishes to see which you like. Definitely try: A Seagull (necks are matte finished) Something with a nitro finish Something with a poly finish If they have really high end guitars, try a french polish I like French polish on the top, back, sides and headstock, with a matte finish on the neck. For me, that is the best combination. If you go with french polish, be sure to pick up a book (Ebay or something) and read up on how to properly do it. It's a lot of work, but if you love that guitar it may be worth it.
|
|
#4
06-16-2010, 10:09 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
There's a site called reranch with lots of information on refinishing guitars. as for materials, you can check Luthier's Mercantile International or Stewart MacDonald's. However you'll need to know what kind of finish is on there in the first place, whether it's nitrocellulose lacquer or some sort of modern polyester or polyurethane finish. Nitro can be recoated and spot repaired very easily, but it's not too durable a finish. Poly is much harder to repair without leaving witness lines where the old finish leaves off and the touchup begins.
Quite frankly, finishing a guitar is at the pinnacle of the art of wood finishing. Any defect will show, whether it's a pinhole or spec of dust or a drip or sag, and achieving a glass-smooth finish that's durable enough to be handled takes some talent. Not to discourage you, but a guitar would not be the place to start learning about refinishing furniture. If you want it to look a little less beat up, then try any of the guitar polishes such as Martin (made by Guardsman furniture polish) or Planet Waves (smells like cinnamon candy) or Gibson pump polish. They'll temporarily minimize the appearance of scratches in the lacquer.
|
|
#7
06-22-2010, 04:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I really wouldn't mess with the finish unless you are experienced in instrument finishing. If you are experienced in instrument finishing you would tell yourself "Just play it and leave the finish alone."
|
|
#8
06-22-2010, 07:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The difficulty with refinishing an instrument is that you would, at the very least, have to remove the bridge. On instruments built with hide or aliphatic glues, these come off easily with proper application of heat. Places like C.F. Martin will remove the neck of the instrument as well if a complete refinish is to be done.
Depending upon the model of Yamaha, it's likely that it was assembled with something far stronger. Additionally, if it is a laminated guitar as many lower-end Yamahas were, removing the bridge can cause the top material to delaminate. Then there is the possibility of changing the sound of the instrument. The bottom line is that it could wind up looking great and sounding bad. I would be more inclined to touch it up here and there and let it go at that. The patina on an older instrument, acquired through age and honest play, is far more appealing to me.... Just my opinion.
|
|
#9
06-24-2010, 02:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I bet your Yammy has got a reasonably thin finish so there's probably little point in stripping it to wood.
I've just stripped the entire "industrial" finish from my Recording King 000, but doing so is not the for the faint hearted, though Im glad I did it cause there's some lovely rich mahogany underneath the inch thick poly that was on there. Don't do it unless your really confident in the careful use of power sanders, strippers etc, though the re-finishing is as easy as sanding the wood till very smooth followed by a couple of coats of nitro, cut back with an auto cutting compound.
|
|
#10
07-03-2010, 08:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
FYI
I was watching a antique road show one time where they had an old martin guitar. The owner mentioned that he had considered refinishing it. The appraiser gasped and said NEVER refinish a guitar no matter how beat up it is. It retains the value better in it's original state..... my 2 cents.
|
|
#11
07-04-2010, 08:09 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
New finish will undo all of those years of aging, opening up, maturation or growth of the sound, whatever term you prefer. Lets say that you have an nice 1940's Banner Gibson Dread. You like the guitar but you can't stand all of that crazing and cracking found on the typical old Gibson. An instrument like that could be worth thousands to a collector as it with all of it's original finish intact. If you refinish it completely, including stripping, bridge and neck removal with requisite sanding, scraping and prepping, you can deduct approximately 50% from the otherwise original value should you wish later to sell the instrument. Forget the value. I'm interested in the subtle sounds of a vintage guitar. A complete refinish is something that I would never do. I might touch one up here and there, but never an overspray or a complete strip since the results may not sound very good when you are done. JMO.
|
|
#12
07-04-2010, 09:09 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Zigeuner - in agreement as it were with your point, I had a 1971 Martin D-18 which had what I thought were just this side of major problems. In short, I felt like I could not take it out for gigs. Yes, it is worth about $2,200.00 in it's present condition, but I do not consider it a viable tool; more so, a collection piece to put on display. What I really needed was a new, fully functional tool to gig with. The music store happily traded me a new Martin GC-MMV for it. The new martin sounds better, looks better, is made with better woods, and will last all of MY lifetime, and probably beyond. The reason they traded?....because the old one had more value, even in it's deteriorated state to a "COLLECTOR" than the better sounding, better made new one....
If I already had a decent guitar to use I might consider myself a collector, but then I have never considered guitars as anything more than a tool.... I am sure if I were stinking, filthy rich I might think differently...
|
|
#13
07-04-2010, 09:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Collectibility is in the mind of the beholder. Usually scarcity is one element of value. Supply and demand is important. The concensus of opinion is that 1970's Martins aren't all that collectible at this point since there were a lot of them made. Nonetheless, I see the guitar store owner's point since people are calling 1970's guitars "vintage" these days. Enjoy your new guitar! 
|
