What type of finish do Rickenbackers have?

[markophonic]

Are they Nitrocellulose laquer or some type of Poly?

Can't seem to find a definitive answer?

 

[CharlieO]

The finish on Rickenbacker guitars is conversion varnish. You can learn a lot about Rickenbackers at the forums at http://www.rickenbacker.com

 

[Rhomco]

Yep, Conversion Varnish is

the term they use for catalyzed poly-whatever-esterthane. Rickenbacker was the first US guitar maker to cut finishing costs by dropping the lacquer based finishing systems. They piled it on thick and it looks soooo nice. It was the perfect baseline for the asian companies to copy as it was cheap to do and much faster. Players today associate the thick poly finishes with cheap guitars but Rickenbacker has been doing it right under thier noses all these years. Let the Hall disciples begin......

 

[Dave W]

the term they use for catalyzed polyester. Rickenbacker was the first US guitar maker to cut finishing costs by dropping the lacquer based finishing systems. They piled it on thick and it looks soooo nice. It was the perfect baseline for the asian companies to copy as it was cheap to do and much faster. Players today associate the thick poly finishes with cheap guitars but Rickenbacker has been doing it right under thier noses all these years. Let the Hall disciples begin......

I'm not a "Hall disciple", but your statements are incorrect.

1) Conversion varnish is not an interchangeable term for catalyzed polyester. The resin in a conversion varnish can be one of several types: phenolic, alkyd, urethane or other. I don't know what Rickenbacker's proprietary formula is, but you're assuming something without evidence to back it up.

2) Rickenbacker finishes are very thin and always have been.

 

[beep.click]

Rickenbacker finishes are very thin and always have been.

Hmm, I don't know how thin "very thin" is, but I own 5 Rics. That finish looks pretty dang thick to me -- there's a nick or two where I can see to the bare wood, so I can see just how thick that stuff is.

 

[stantheman]

I think they're GREAT Tone Macheens....
But I've never played one that was all that playable.
I think most old Gretches are that way too, Great Sound but....
The NEW Gretches got it all - better make that ALL!!!
I just wish I could find a Ric with a nice Neck, I've played 381's and 330's
but never a 360. Maybe a 360'd trip the stan trigger :idea:
I was really into finding a 325 and then I played one and it was like - no.
All the ones I've tried had the thickest finishes I've ever seen with the EXCEPTION of a Sunburst 360WB - which I wasn't allowed to touch because I was covered in road dirt and reeked of tar.
Geez - some people
Of course every Fender was available for a test drive!
Anyway I went back - cleaned up this time, and it was gone.

 

[Dave W]

I've owned many Ricks too. Regardless of how it looks to you, they put their finishes on in multiple very thin layers and buff them out thinner yet. The total skin is very thin by any guitar finish standard. The finish appears to be deep, and it's designed to look that way, but it's certainly not thick.

Thickness of finish is usually independent of what kind of finish. Fender glopped on plenty of thick nitro finishes in the late 60s.

 

[CharlieO]

I think that you can learn a lot about Rickenbacker finishes by reading this thread at the Rickenbacker forum:
http://www.rickenbacker.com/forum_view_thread.asp?forum=RIC_Restoration,_from_Part_to_Finish&thread_name=Refinising&thread_id=1153&Page=1

FYI, two of the posters on this thread (jingle_jangle and Dale Fortune) are recognized experts in Rickenbacker restoration and refinishing, and I believe that one or both of them have years of experience from working at the Rickenbacker factory. They have the respect of John Hall, CEO of Rickenbacker, who also posts on the thread.

From the thread, you'll learn that Rickenbacker uses a polyurethane CV, not catalyzed polyester as suggested by rhomco. Jingle_jangle says that it takes about 6 ounces to properly coat a Rickenbacker, including the fretboard, while Dale Fortune says it takes about a quart to refinish a bass. I guess the difference is their personal methods of application and polishing.

Jingle_jangle also talks of stripping a Korean Gretsch, which had .015 of polyurethane, which in his words is "twice the thickness of a Rickenbacker's CV."

These guys have the experience, and their statements appear to have the blessing of John Hall, so I'd guess that they're fairly accurate.

 

[beep.click]

I just looked at a couple of my Rics again. The chip on the black 4001 bass neck shows the finish to be about the same as 6-8 sheets of copier paper -- the thickness of the finish is unmistakable. I bought this bass used, and there are a couple of pretty deep scratches that don't even make it through the finish. Scratches, not depressions -- in other words, it's the finish that is scratched away, not the wood that is pushed in. BTW, if this is a re-finish, it's a phenomenal job.

The chips on my white 330 guitar (due to an ex-roommate's cat, thank you) shows that finish to be about the same as 4-6 sheets of copier paper. So, noticeably thinner, but still pretty thick. I am the only owner of this guitar, so I know the finish is original.

I don't know what Ric historically has done, or what they "usually" do. I also don't know what constitutes "thin" or "thick," on other guitars. I know what these guitars have, and I remember the night the cat created the 330 chips -- the first thought through my head was, "I'd never have guessed this finish was so thick!" In other words, the finish never appeared thick; but it turned out that it was thick.

YMMV.

 

[CharlieO]

I just looked at a couple of my Rics again. The chip on the black 4001 bass neck shows the finish to be about the same as 6-8 sheets of copier paper -- the thickness of the finish is unmistakable. I bought this bass used, and there are a couple of pretty deep scratches that don't even make it through the finish. Scratches, not depressions -- in other words, it's the finish that is scratched away, not the wood that is pushed in. BTW, if this is a re-finish, it's a phenomenal job.

The chips on my white 330 guitar (due to an ex-roommate's cat, thank you) shows that finish to be about the same as 4-6 sheets of copier paper. So, noticeably thinner, but still pretty thick. I am the only owner of this guitar, so I know the finish is original.

I don't know what Ric historically has done, or what they "usually" do. I also don't know what constitutes "thin" or "thick," on other guitars. I know what these guitars have, and I remember the night the cat created the 330 chips -- the first thought through my head was, "I'd never have guessed this finish was so thick!" In other words, the finish never appeared thick; but it turned out that it was thick.

YMMV.

Read the thread from the Rickenbacker forum that I linked to in my previous post. It appears that white Rickenbackers may be finished differently, without conversion varnish, to avoid yellowing. If this is true, its finish might be thicker than other Ricks. Also, concerning the black finish on your bass, I have seen plenty of Rickenbackers with chips, or with finish wear on the back. There's no way that the finish on any of them was as thick as 6 or 8 sheets of copier paper. On my first 330 in the 60's, I got a tiny ding on the headstock. I can tell you that the varnish on that headstock was also very thin.

 

[beep.click]

It appears that white Rickenbackers may be finished differently, without conversion varnish, to avoid yellowing. If this is true, its finish might be thicker than other Ricks. On my first 330 in the 60's, I got a tiny ding on the headstock. I can tell you that the varnish on that headstock was also very thin.

FWIW, my three "white" Rics are QUITE yellow now. They were quite white, when I bought them. It has been an interesting process to watch, because it wasn't at all uniform; the yellow kind of "grew." The 360-12 is a 70s model; the 330 is early 80s (before they went to black hardware); the 610 solidbody has the black hardware. My 330 has the chips.

I have no experience with the 60s models.

Also, concerning the black finish on your bass, I have seen plenty of Rickenbackers with chips, or with finish wear on the back. There's no way that the finish on any of them was as thick as 6 or 8 sheets of copier paper.

If you're ever in California, come on over -- I'll show you mine! Like I said, if it's a re-finish, it's an amazing job...

BTW, the bass is from 1975, according to Ric's serial number decoder.

 

[aznrambo481]

Rickenbacker was the first US guitar maker to cut finishing costs by dropping the lacquer based finishing systems. They piled it on thick and it looks soooo nice. It was the perfect baseline for the asian companies to copy as it was cheap to do and much faster.

When they did start doing this? I'm interested..

 

[beep.click]

Read the thread from the Rickenbacker forum that I linked to in my previous post.

Thank you for the link; interesting information.

 

[CharlieO]

FWIW, my three "white" Rics are QUITE yellow now. They were quite white, when I bought them. It has been an interesting process to watch, because it wasn't at all uniform; the yellow kind of "grew." The 360-12 is a 70s model; the 330 is early 80s (before they went to black hardware); the 610 solidbody has the black hardware. My 330 has the chips.

Somewhere on the Rickenbacker forum, John Hall does say that the formula for the polyurethane CV has changed over the years, and I'd bet that the way they paint white guitars has changed, too. I'd guess it's possible that some white guitars have a CV finish, and others don't.

Concerning the bass, it seems to me that some guitars have a thicker finish on the neck (which would be subject to more wear) than on the body. Do you think that this might be true of yours? Another thought is that solid-color (opaque) finishes are probably thicker than the fireglo (I've only owned fireglo Ricks) and mapleglo.

 

[beep.click]

Somewhere on the Rickenbacker forum, John Hall does say that the formula for the polyurethane CV has changed over the years, and I'd bet that the way they paint white guitars has changed, too. I'd guess it's possible that some white guitars have a CV finish, and others don't.

I'm guessing they change everything, at least a little bit, sooner or later.

Concerning the bass, it seems to me that some guitars have a thicker finish on the neck (which would be subject to more wear) than on the body. Do you think that this might be true of yours?

Entirely possible!

When I was looking at the bass this morning, I also checked out a couple of chips on the back of the body (totally forgot they were there). The body finish might be a tad thinner than the neck, but still pretty hefty.

Another thought is that solid-color (opaque) finishes are probably thicker than the fireglo (I've only owned fireglo Ricks) and mapleglo.

Could easily be! I have a mapleglo 360, but there are no chips on it, so I'm really not sure how thick it might be. It's awful pretty, either way.

 

[urizen]

I've got a Fireglo 330 from built in Nov. of '66, bought used for me by my father in early '68---I've had it and hauled from Hell to here and back ever since. Its finish has worn (rubbed) through to the wood pretty neatly at most of the body contact points around the ("sharp") edges along the upper bouts---it appears to me to be a pretty thin and I see no evidence of a primer/poly coat (assuming I would recognize it). I don't see any wear-spot or chip where it looks thicker or even as thick as a standard printer paper stock, and it's been both soft enough in places to "give" in to dents/pressure "scratches" (as when the weight of something with a dull edge must have been pressed/pushed against the wood) and resilient enough not to chip or crack in those areas in lo these long years.

BTW, it's a wonderful and, to me, beautifully built guitar---the toasters have mellowed really sweetly so that it sprangs AND jazzes pretty well, AND still has some twang .

 

[markophonic]

Thanks for the info guys!

I was looking at a 620 that the owner had sanded the neck down a little to make it less tacky or sticky feeling. He wore through a small spot...the finish did not look to be "thick" at all.

I had an older 360 that had the fireglo finish that the colors looked really nice...the newer ones look like crap to me...I'm wondering if the red in the finish will age/fade a little over time.

 

[beep.click]

BTW, it's a wonderful and, to me, beautifully built guitar---the toasters have mellowed really sweetly so that it sprangs AND jazzes pretty well, AND still has some twang .

This is me, being envious -- I'd LOVE to have me some toasters. Tried a friend's (some signature or reissue model, looked similar to my 360), and it put my 360 to shame.

 

[Roli]

So what's the secret of those toasters? Are they "underwound" or is it the magnet or the thickness of the wire?

 

[markophonic]

I just bought a Midnight Blue Ric 620 on Ebay...gonna put some toasters in it and maybe a silver or gold pickguards.

I've been on a spree lately...got the Ric, an Orville Les Paul Goldtop (from here on the classifieds) and three Zemaitis copies...a metal top, a disc front and a shelltop.