Best pickup for vintage Tele

[mick]

I don't mind relics , to me there's nothing more cool than a beat up guitar , not sure I think that you should have to pay more for it though...but if people are buying they will keep making them , do wonder what they will look like in 50 years though.....


"'cept Fender " ................... I did say " winders "

Mick

BFG ? Badly finished Guitar ??

[kevinT]

I don't get that whole "pay a lot of money for a beat up guitar" thing! I bet you anything it started as a factory second, and they tried to figure out to sell a scratched guitar!

They probably got the idea from the carrot industry. ...How do you think we get those small bite-sized carrots. Carrot growers were throwing away tons of carrots each year because they weren't pretty enough for grocery store shelves. Somebody got the idea to take the ugly ones (seconds) and process and repackage them for us to eat.

[GlennW]

I think SRV's #1 was largely responsible for the popularity of the reliced (re-licked?) look. You know how people are, they see someone big with something and they want one too so they can be happ'nin. Worn instruments have been around for a long time, but I don't recall a specific market for that stuff until the last 10-20 years. Making new guitars that look battered is a business these days.

I love a good Tele sound too. Roy's neck pickup on the Snakestretchers album is one of my favorites. For the lead pickup, I'm not sure who or what, but I think it's Albert Lee on "Sweet Little Lisa" with Dave Edmonds. I bought a Fender "vintage" set around '89. Sold the neck, still have the bridge (no baseplate).

[mick]

I think the relics came about after a discussion between Keef Richards and Jay Black from the custom shop , he wanted some guitars that looked " old " for a tour , some of the distressed guitars were shown to dealers at a show and snapped up.. but who really knows ? Vince Cunetto maybe?

Mick

[RickyD]

David- From a distance, the ridges across the body might resemble grain curl stripes in the eyes of some... The stripped down, flat black thing is straight out of the Harley book before the factory customs took over. Think hard-tail panhead. Not a bad look, but it's a look that doesn't belong on a new insturment at a new instrument price, IMO.

Sweetfinger, +1 on the generation gap thing. You hit the nail on the head.

[ken]

I'm waiting for the Gib 'build your own LP' kits myself, simply a big block of wood, a razorblade, some wire and a $10000.00 price tag.

IMHO relicing is only cool if you did it yourself the hard way - years of hard playing. Have you seen the crappy 'relic jobs' some people do and sell on Ebay?
They don't even use the 'Dewalt method' anymore, I swear they tie 'em to the carbumper and take them for a drag or something. Pathetic.

Ken

[NightWinder]

I'm waiting for the Gib 'build your own LP' kits myself, simply a big block of wood, a razorblade, some wire and a $10000.00 price tag.

IMHO relicing is only cool if you did it yourself the hard way - years of hard playing. Have you seen the crappy 'relic jobs' some people do and sell on Ebay?
They don't even use the 'Dewalt method' anymore, I swear they tie 'em to the carbumper and take them for a drag or something. Pathetic.

Ken

Years of hard playing! My # 1 for yrs. "73 Deluxe. Yes, she is considered family! There is virtually no finish on the neck left. MAybe a tiny in the upper register.

[Wired]

That LP top looks figured to me. Bookmatched, actually - not sure why the blurb says "no figured top". Its probably a vaneer instead of a carved top. Many people feel that a thick coat of finish adversly effects the tone of guitars. If you asked me a few years ago, I would have though it was silly, but I'm starting to agree now. Modern finishes are very hard to relic "the old fashioned way" as they are extremely hard and resistant to chemical attack and cold checking etc the way nitro is. Surely this LP is not unfinished. I would guess that it has a coat or two of epoxy sealer or something. I actually think they look great! And if it does just have a thin coat of sealer, it would relic fairly quickly in the hands of an eager player.

[Wired]

Oh and my favourite tele pickups are Kinmans.

[ken]

I got yer hard playing right here...
This one was my favorite, until my hands blew out.
Mine's a 1961 with a 1979 Strat neck. I built it myself.

I always wanted a maple neck Jazzmaster but Fender only made a few in 1959.

Ken

PS. I also have some drums this color too.

[David Schwab]

That LP top looks figured to me. Bookmatched, actually - not sure why the blurb says "no figured top". Its probably a vaneer instead of a carved top.

Are you talking about the picture I posted? It might be bookmatched, or just two piece plain top... but that's not wood grain you see, that's the grooves left from the CNC carving machine! That's raw wood with some red stain on it. It's not smooth either. What looks like curl is actually groves in the wood! They stay it's an "unsanded carved maple top". There's no finish on that guitar.

In Muscican's Friend description of the guitar says:

"A decidedly nontraditional Les Paul for rockers who want an LP with attitude and don't care about good looks.

When I opened the "shopworn" case the BFG came in, it practically leaped out and attacked me! I couldn’t believe my eyes. This guitar is the anti-Les Paul—not your Dad’s Les Paul. The guitar is clearly stripped-down: unsanded top, no binding, no pickup rings, no truss rod cover, no toggle switch rings, no fretboard position indicators (just dots on the side), and plain wooden knobs. (By the way, most pictures don’t depict just how raw the body of the BFG really is.)"

All that for $1,399.00!! I'll take a nice shiny black LP Custom anyday! I guess that makes me a dad! (well I am..) It's just an awful lot of money for an unfinished guitar. Go buy a cheap Epi and take a disk sander to it! Gibson is saying "we have some crap to sell you... bend over" And the fast food for slow people generation* snaps it up!

Many people feel that a thick coat of finish adversly effects the tone of guitars. If you asked me a few years ago, I would have though it was silly, but I'm starting to agree now.

No, it is silly. Unless we are talking about an acoustic or hollowbody, the finish really doesn't make a difference in tone. The problem is that cheap guitars, which sound bad anyway, have thick polyester type finishes on them. So people think the thick plastic looking finish is the blame! The finish is a small part of the instrument. It vibrates just like the body does. The harder the finish the better. Now an exception is oil finishes, which can indeed change the tone of the guitar, depending on how much you apply, and how deep it penetrates (which depends a lot on the wood the body is made from). Oils in the wood can damp the tone somewhat.

Now no luthier of any skill will use such an ugly finish as you find on cheap imports, but in some places, like CA, you can't spray lacquer, so other alternatives had to be found, such as UV cured finishes.

What about the fullerplast that Fender sealed their guitars with in the 70's? That stuff is a two part polyester finish. It's bullet proof! Anyone who has ever tried to refinish an old Fender will tell you that you can't remove that stuff without sanding it off. That never harmed the sound of the old Fenders though.

There are many examples that hard synthetic finishes have no ill effect on tone. I've played guitars I built with and without the finish, and there's no difference in tone at all. It's a myth.

Modern finishes are very hard to relic "the old fashioned way" as they are extremely hard and resistant to chemical attack and cold checking etc the way nitro is. Surely this LP is not unfinished. I would guess that it has a coat or two of epoxy sealer or something. I actually think they look great! And if it does just have a thin coat of sealer, it would relic fairly quickly in the hands of an eager player.

Finish is there to protect the wood from climate and other things. Nitro is not all that soft, and as an example I have a number of instruments finished in nitro that have some dings and scratches after 15 years, but the finish is not wearing off, except on one guitar where I didn't spray enough coats. I have seen so many silly fads over the years... first people didn't like lacquer on their necks.. because it felt "sticky"... lacquer doesn't feel sticky if you clean your freakin' guitar (and wash your hands)! Now of course it's back to lacquered necks. Then you have satin finished necks, which is either glass lacquer that is not rubbed out, and it will become glossy as your play it, or it's satin lacquer which has dulling agents in it... which is not any different than gloss lacquer, but they sell this crap to "eager players" who jump on every fad in the guitar magazines!

The new fad, which directly puts more money into the big guitar makers pockets is these "relic" instruments.

What's the "old fashioned way" to "relic" an instrument? That implies people used to do this stuff in the past! You know, most real vintage guitars are not a wreck at all. I have a 1959 Jazzmaster, a 1974 Mustang, and two '73 Rics. I've also had a 60's Vox Phantom XII and a couple of Mosrites. They were all pretty new looking. They don't look like a "relic" with finish worn off and stuff. And they were heavily played, judging by the fret wear. But they weren't abused.

Relic'd instruments look phony, not like a real old worn guitar. I have a 1938 King Mortone upright bass. The finish is a little worn in some places, but not as much as some "relic" guitars out there! And that's not a modern finish.

As far as checking the finish... there's been some good articled on that over the years. One technique involves albumen and one of those "air-in-a-can" dust off things. Another way is to use a soft sanding sealer with hard lacquer top coats. It will check like crazy! I have a bass finished that way, which unintentionally looks much older than it is.

Most people take reasonable care of their instruments, or else they wouldn't have lasted that long! Only the poorest examples of vintage instruments look that way. These are instruments that were not loved or cared for, and when they originally went up for sale as used guitars, no one wanted them, and they couldn't fetch a decent price!

I played the hell out of my Ric basses (and all my instruments), and except for some buckle rash, they have all their original finish, which is quite hard stuff (conversion varnish).

And what this relic fad is actually doing is pushing the price of really poor quality vintage guitars up, which makes the nicer ones way out of reach to most people. It's also pushing the price of normally finished guitars up, because they can get away with skipping the whole rubbing out and polishing part. So now we have a $1400 unsanded and unfinished Les Paul, while the "normal" ones are between $3000 and $5000! $3000 for a new Les Paul! That's crazy! I bought a used '81 Standard for $300 back in the late 80's. How much do you think they go for now?

I refinished a '55 Les Paul once that belonged to a guy in the band I was in. It was originally a gold top with P-90's, but at some point someone put patent decal humbuckers in and finished the guitar dark brown! He wanted a natural oil finish. I sealed the guitar, and applied a danish oil type finish (tung oil and varnish) The guitar looked like crap a year later! He never cleaned or waxed it, never touched up the finish, and ended up selling it because it looked so bad. He did not get what he should have for a LP that old! There's a moral to that story... hard film finish (like lacquer) protects the guitar.

That Les Paul has no finish at all on the top. It's raw wood. It's not even sanded. It's got no sealer.. you don't need to "relic" it, because it's already there. But... what will it look like in 30 years? Not a very good investment I think!

(yeah, I've grown to be a grouch!) Bah, Humbug I say!

Dave (who likes shiny guitars)

[*MDC reference... how that for obscure?]

[David Schwab]

Years of hard playing! My # 1 for yrs. "73 Deluxe. Yes, she is considered family! There is virtually no finish on the neck left. MAybe a tiny in the upper register.

Sweet guitar! I bet it sings.

I had an '81 in the same finish. It suffered a fall and the neck cracked. Luckily it also unglued itself from the tenon... that stopped the head from snapping off. I repaired it, but it was never quite the same. Boy I miss that guitar.

[NightWinder]

Yeah, this Mofo just kicks. Thanks for the comp. Although I am getting quite comfortable with this 76 custom I snatched, as it to was fairly mint ( traded it for some pickups!), Its already getting some wear on it? I think your sweat in each persons body does different stuff to the finish. Seems its at the same spots. The only thing I don't like about the Custom, Is that for r&d, it is probably best to use a standard. Most are using standards (cost), and the Rosewood/ebony debate. I use both for R&d, but rely on the Standards for final sayso.

[David Schwab]

Yeah, this Mofo just kicks. Thanks for the comp. Although I am getting quite comfortable with this 76 custom I snatched, as it to was fairly mint ( traded it for some pickups!), Its already getting some wear on it? I think your sweat in each persons body does different stuff to the finish. Seems its at the same spots. The only thing I don't like about the Custom, Is that for r&d, it is probably best to use a standard. Most are using standards (cost), and the Rosewood/ebony debate. I use both for R&d, but rely on the Standards for final sayso.

Oh yeah, I remember the guitar trade story. Customs were originally all mahogany too... no maple top. Les Paul said he wanted the Custom to have the maple top, but Gibson screwed that up, and running the strings under the trapeze bridge.

A buddy of mine has quite a collection:

He made the four guitars on the couch next to the black Custom. We are going to pick out a couple of nice ones and use the dimensions to make us a few Pauls.