Tele heel black marks??

[derekwarner]

Allan......Fender being American and so is of Imperial dimensions, I just rechecked my 70's double-bound sunburst original body as 1.748", or 0.002" [two thou] under the 1 3/4" slab finished width

Having said this, any solid-body guitar body undergoing a resurface/colour/refinish, with obviously end up with a body surface 'minor' width reduction

So your final size as shown [mechanically] is really neither hear, nor there....[I could come under question or fire on a sonic, or harmonic quality]

So I eat my OZ hat....& reckon the guitar body you have is a hacked about [by the neck pickup cavity], Fender product

Would like to see [and hear] the final resurfaced guitar...don't rush the process.....good luck!

Derek

 

[allangracechurch]

Allan......Fender being American and so is of Imperial dimensions, I just rechecked my 70's double-bound sunburst original body as 1.748", or 0.002" [two thou] under the 1 3/4" slab finished width

Having said this, any solid-body guitar body undergoing a resurface/colour/refinish, with obviously end up with a body surface 'minor' width reduction

So your final size as shown [mechanically] is really neither hear, nor there....[I could come under question or fire on a sonic, or harmonic quality]

So I eat my OZ hat....& reckon the guitar body you have is a hacked about [by the neck pickup cavity], Fender product

Would like to see [and hear] the final resurfaced guitar...don't rush the process.....good luck!

Derek

Derek you have been really helpful man. When I exchanged 4 of my guitars for this one the owner did say he was not sure about the body as he had gone as far as the primer before refinishing it a few years back. Everything else about the guitar says 1967 the neck the pups the pots and the wiring so I thought what the hell let's get it. But I had to reach out to you and the folks here, as well as a couple of my friends here in the UK, to see what you came up with and I am glad I did as I think we can safely say it is a much buggered about Fender vintage 67 or thereabouts body. As for the refinish not sure what do with it - I am thinking natural showing all the "battle scars" or perhaps either a white or red nitro re-finish. I will post some pictures once I put it back together again, cheers!

 

[skunqesh]

Derek you have been really helpful man. When I exchanged 4 of my guitars for this one the owner did say he was not sure about the body as he had gone as far as the primer before refinishing it a few years back. Everything else about the guitar says 1967 the neck the pups the pots and the wiring so I thought what the hell let's get it. But I had to reach out to you and the folks here, as well as a couple of my friends here in the UK, to see what you came up with and I am glad I did as I think we can safely say it is a much buggered about Fender vintage 67 or thereabouts body. As for the refinish not sure what do with it - I am thinking natural showing all the "battle scars" or perhaps either a white or red nitro re-finish. I will post some pictures once I put it back together again, cheers!

sounds like a great project - and i for one look forward to seeing or reading any progress you make.
No worries if it takes weeks to months to years.
it's always a treat to see an old road-warrior guitar make a comeback.
cheers!

 

[allangracechurch]

Here are pictures of the neck. The one thing that struck me is the indentation (the straight line running across the heel area where the body meets the neck as well as what appears to be a very faint signature of sorts. I think the nut is original but I am virtually certain that is has been refretted at some point.

 

[Antoon]

But why did you remove the CAR finish in the first place? I would go for a vintage blonde finish (looks great on ash) and keep the neck pocket with the remnants of the original
blonde finish as-is.

 

[allangracechurch]

But why did you remove the CAR finish in the first place? I would go for a vintage blonde finish (looks great on ash) and keep the neck pocket with the remnants of the original
blonde finish as-is.

The original finish must have been removed years ago and when I got it a few weeks ago it had been refinished in CAR by the previous owner who had only got as far as the white primer and had not discovered that it had a veneer underneath that primer. The reason I removed the finish was because I wanted to find out what I had as the previous owner was not sure that it was a 67 body. At least now thanks to everyone here I can with some confidence say that it is a 67 body, albeit battered about but that adds to its charm. I am not sure what the wood is at the moment but vintage blonde does look good and I do want to keep the remnants of the original finish.

 

[Antoon]

The original finish must have been removed years ago and when I got it a few weeks ago it had been refinished in CAR by the previous owner who had only got as far as the white primer and had not discovered that it had a veneer underneath that primer. The reason I removed the finish was because I wanted to find out what I had as the previous owner was not sure that it was a 67 body. At least now thanks to everyone here I can with some confidence say that it is a 67 body, albeit battered about but that adds to its charm. I am not sure what the wood is at the moment but vintage blonde does look good and I do want to keep the remnants of the original finish.

The wood looks like (finely grained) ash to me.

 

[allangracechurch]

Thanks Antoon appreciate it

 

[Sea Devil]

From the photos, I'd say that the small, coarser-grained area near the output jack is not a separate piece of wood, just an area where more of the soft part of the grain was lost during aggressive sanding.

The original shape of the round-over (AKA corner radius or chamfer) has also been lost, as has the flattish spot where the output jack rests. The guitar was indiscriminately sanded at least once; I guess that's why someone thought veneer was a good idea.

 

[derekwarner]

I agree with Sea Devil here, when we view the image of the width of the body by the jack-plug cavity, we see a change an apparent direction of the timber growth rings [caused by the method of cut] being quarter sawn, over slab sawn

So we see a grouping of growth rings above, and below an area close by jack-plug cavity with also aligns to the axis o the control plate cavity

What appears to be a glued joint is actually one piece of the timber, is simply the intersection of the growth rings. Looking on the face of the timber gives the impression of a softer [quicker growing inserted timber]

So the yellow lines I have drawn represent each growth ring.........the section without an intersecting growth ring is the section of the timber at the quarter sawn line

The Red X is the jack-plug cavity.....I hope this makes sense

Derek

 

[allangracechurch]

From the photos, I'd say that the small, coarser-grained area near the output jack is not a separate piece of wood, just an area where more of the soft part of the grain was lost during aggressive sanding.

The original shape of the round-over (AKA corner radius or chamfer) has also been lost, as has the flattish spot where the output jack rests. The guitar was indiscriminately sanded at least once; I guess that's why someone thought veneer was a good idea.

Really useful obs thanks

 

[allangracechurch]

I agree with Sea Devil here, when we view the image of the width of the body by the jack-plug cavity, we see a change an apparent direction of the timber growth ring grain [caused by the method of cut] being quarter sawn, over slab sawn

So we see a grouping of growth rings above, and below an area close by jack-plug cavity with also aligns to the axis o the control plate cavity

What appears to be a glued joint is actually one piece of the timber, is simply the intersection of the growth rings. Looking on the face of the timber gives the impression of a softer [quicker growing inserted timber]

So the yellow lines I have drawn represent each growth ring.........the section without an intersecting growth ring is the section of the timber at the quarter sawn line

The Red X is the jack-plug cavity.....I hope this makes sense

Derek View attachment 999323

Thanks Derek really useful man

 

[allangracechurch]

Thanks Derek really useful man

Any thoughts on the neck pictures?

 

[allangracechurch]

Really useful obs thanks

Any thoughts on the neck pictures especially the indented line I mention?

 

[derekwarner]

To answer your question Allan, initially, it would suggest to be a genuine Fender 67/68 maple neck

However to understand better, it would be helpful to see a number of 'Full sized' images from the nut, to the say first 6 frets in the greatest magnification/clarity you can provide

[NB...when uploading, the system gives the option of Full Sized..select this option]..example below

Derek

 

[allangracechurch]

OK here goes - I think that it has been refretted at least once

 

[Sea Devil]

It certainly has been refretted at least once, and the front was taken down to the wood at that point. The back of the headstock has been more lightly sanded and still has a whisper of the original finish. Fret size is surprisingly close the the original size. Normally, one would go slightly wider, except on an instrument where original appearance is paramount, to disguise some of the inevitable damage to the fretboard, which can happen even when the frets are pushed out from the side.

 

[derekwarner]

Cosmetic only, the turner post ferrule on A appears to have been removed possibly with a 'Fire Axe'? however I am not quite sure how the strings have impacted and worn into the arm timber shoulder outboard of the nut?

Again cosmetic, however if the arm timber is truly flat, the geometry between the height of first fret to the height of the timber between the first fret and the nut, does not quite ring true [no pun] as would not each string 'buzz' on the first fret?

I have a pretty low action, but without 'buzz' and have approx 0.008" to 0.006" clearance at this point.....[admitably, say 3 turns on each post]

We must remember, the design of each tuner post with the slot and diameter profile, dictates the first wind of each string forces the position of the wind down toward the tuner ferrule, so increases the string angle between the nut and the tuner - same series turners as Allans instrument]......

Derek

 

[allangracechurch]

It certainly has been refretted at least once, and the front was taken down to the wood at that point. The back of the headstock has been more lightly sanded and still has a whisper of the original finish. Fret size is surprisingly close the the original size. Normally, one would go slightly wider, except on an instrument where original appearance is paramount, to disguise some of the inevitable damage to the fretboard, which can happen even when the frets are pushed out from the side.

Thank you for your further obs what do you think made that indent line in the heel area? Could be that the neck was never taken off until much later in life?

 

[allangracechurch]

Cosmetic only, the turner post ferrule on A appears to have been removed possibly with a 'Fire Axe'? however I am not quite sure how the strings have impacted and worn into the arm timber shoulder outboard of the nut?

Again cosmetic, however if the arm timber is truly flat, the geometry between the height of first fret to the height of the timber between the first fret and the nut, does not quite ring true [no pun] as would not each string 'buzz' on the first fret?

I have a pretty low action, but without 'buzz' and have approx 0.008" to 0.006" clearance at this point.....[admitably, say 3 turns on each post]

We must remember, the design of each tuner post with the slot and diameter profile, dictates the first wind of each string forces the position of the wind down toward the tuner ferrule, so increases the string angle between the nut and the tuner - same series turners as Allans instrument]......

Derek

View attachment 999604
View attachment 999623

Thank you Derek for your detailed obs any thoughts on what could be the cause of the indented line in the heel of the neck?