Reptile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I HATE people that make guitars "vintage". I mean
> it's such a lovely instrument, how could you take
> a take a big sanding machine over it? And scratch
> off the paint? I mean natural aging can look cool
> but that's because it's been damaged by love, ya
> know?

Yes and no...Aging can actually be a god thing. From an esthetic point of view: I just like the look of dull nickel better than shiny nickel, and I like a dull nitro finish on honeyburst better than a shiny finish on a chery burst. I do NOT like the scuff marks that Fender puts on the fingerboard of their maple necks, it just looks totally fake. From a players point of view: a new instrument almost never plays really fine. Several years of playing just smooths out the rough edges of a new guitar: the finish gets smoother on the back of the nck, the sides of the fingerboard gets rolled off a bit, the edges of the body becomes less sharp under your forearm. A light murphy age really doesn make a guitar a better playing tool. If you go further (scratches etc.), well that's a matter of personal opinion. I have a copy of a '54 Strat by one of the best Dutch luthiers (Erik van der Haar), and this guitar can fool even the best experts into thinking it is an original one. It looks like an original one, but more important: it plays and sounds like an original one.

Mathijs

I see your point. But in my opinion, for me, a guitar can only be pre-played by ME, not a machine, not anyone else. It's like blue jeans.. when you buy them, they look really new and kind of shitty.. if you wear 'em for a year, it starts getting rough on the edges and stuff.. it looks allot cooler. But nowadays you can by pre-roughened jeans..

You have to let the guitar get used to you, you know? Not have a machine or someone else get used to it for you.

i dig what you're saying when it comes to new instruments - it's very romantic (in a good sense) to tame it yourself.
but of course genuinely vintage instruments (or just plain second-hand ones) have been "pre-tamed" by someone else.
i guess we need to ask Keith about the pedigree of this 345: [www.keithrichards.com]
or maybe there's an on-line "ask Pierre" forum somewhere?

wow, way cool - look what the gallant Rockawhile on shidoobee's come up with -
photos from 1964 of Keith's new white ES-345 with its original owner. it is a genuine vintage buddy:


those shots are from Lark Street Music, which is the place that sold the guitar to Keith,
and the first owner confirms that he ordered it with that custom white finish. cool! :E

Keith, be well - all the way, baby, all the way



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-09-28 12:05 by with sssoul.

Wow, cool! Not very surprising it is a genuine vintage but cool indeed.

genuinely originally white too! wonders never cease.

Keith, be well - all the way, baby, all the way

That's a great find, the pictue of the guitar with the original owner! So it is genuine after all!

And to Reptile: I also see your point, but ever since the 1950's guitar making changed, and for example the lacquer changed (nitro today is really different from nitro in the '50's). If I want my 2004 Custom Shop Les Paul to look like a relic one, I need to take it out daily on stage for the next ten years. And, I do play about 5 different guitars on every gig, so I have to wait anothr 50 years before my new guitars feel worn in..I'd then rather pay a guy at Fender to roll the edges of the neck, and to buff the shiny lacquer into something duller!

Mathijs

Mathijs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Reptile Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I HATE people that make guitars "vintage". I
> mean
> > it's such a lovely instrument, how could you
> take
> > a take a big sanding machine over it? And
> scratch
> > off the paint? I mean natural aging can look
> cool
> > but that's because it's been damaged by love,
> ya
> > know?
>
> Yes and no...Aging can actually be a god thing.
> From an esthetic point of view: I just like the
> look of dull nickel better than shiny nickel, and
> I like a dull nitro finish on honeyburst better
> than a shiny finish on a chery burst. I do NOT
> like the scuff marks that Fender puts on the
> fingerboard of their maple necks, it just looks
> totally fake. From a players point of view: a new
> instrument almost never plays really fine. Several
> years of playing just smooths out the rough edges
> of a new guitar: the finish gets smoother on the
> back of the nck, the sides of the fingerboard gets
> rolled off a bit, the edges of the body becomes
> less sharp under your forearm. A light murphy age
> really doesn make a guitar a better playing tool.
> If you go further (scratches etc.), well that's a
> matter of personal opinion. I have a copy of a '54
> Strat by one of the best Dutch luthiers (Erik van
> der Haar), and this guitar can fool even the best
> experts into thinking it is an original one. It
> looks like an original one, but more important: it
> plays and sounds like an original one.
>
> Mathijs


I'm in a kind of yes/no opinion too.
You have seen my Rockinger Tele, which used to be brand new.
I played it myself for ca.25 years now, and like the look of it today.
[iorr.org]

Now I've got this brand new Lite Ash Tele (nice guitar) but it looks disgustingly new. [iorr.org]
My Bassplayer even asked me if I had any strings on it^^, when he first saw it.
That's because the neck is nearly white and really comouflaged the strings - lol.
Now thanks to that link , Mathjis, I found a thread about tinting a neck with shoe polish
shoe polish, yeah. I've never heared that before, but reading that thread sounds very promissing. I'll try that as soon as I get home
[www.thefenderforum.com]
I don't mind the shiny hardware, but the neck is a must for me.

deleted



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-07-15 03:26 by Jed Clever.

The best picture I have of my Tele (japanese made Fender)

[beta.yousendit.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-05-12 14:37 by DandelionPowderman.

ROCKMAN

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> it looked like a Black & Decker to me, CC -
> maybe a late-70s model.
> have some popcorn. :E


I think its a Mc Cullogh chainsaw, but I 'm not so much into these kinda electric axes
[cgi.ebay.de]

Keith Mc Cullogh

LoFL!
thanks Open-G honey - another axe identified, i love it!

a couple of nice shots of Keith's ES-355s -
he has (at least) two black ones, right? is there a "double" of the red one as well?


- 2003 courtesy of planet.nl via Mathijs (don't know who took it, sorry!)


- 2003 courtesy of Mathijs (don't know who took it, sorry!)

In the last pic of Keith with the black 355 I lamost like the red jacket as much as the guitar.
I must say Mathijs, I have developed the utmost respect for you and your knowledge on guitars all. Hats off.
I would love to see a shot of the 'aged' Strat that you refer to; as aged by your buddy the Dutch luthier. Because on ething I pride myself on is that I usually can spot the aged ones over the real ones. But not just from a pic. In the fake aging process I have found that even the best ones still don't stick with really scuffing the places that a true player will use more than anyhting. In other words: the top of the guitar where the inside of your right elbow lays and constantly rubs, the bottom of the pickguard of course shoudl be "used". The pickguard is a no-brainer but I find that very often the wrong parts of the body are aged. And more than that I find that on the neck the wrong frets are aged. To where they might age the 4th fret as much as the 5th, which is of coursde ludicrous. Now I kniw I am just mentioning the most elementary trip-ups. any 'ager' worth his slat knows this. Yet once you hold these aged guitars in your hand actually, as a PLAYER, it is usually not too hard to find things that don't ring right.
I am in no way trying to dispute anyhting Mathijs is saying. I just want to share what I have run into on my end.

"...no longer shall you trudge 'cross my peaceful mind."

x



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-08 02:00 by Beelyboy.

leaving the reply doesn't make much sense now that Beely's deleted his post, so ...
hm, how about this question: how many times has Keith brought out his red 355 on this tour?
i've only seen it in photos from two shows: Philadelphia in 05 and Little Rock in 06.
has anyone else seen it at any other shows?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-10-15 10:54 by with sssoul.

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> a couple of nice shots of Keith's ES-355s -
> he has (at least) two black ones, right? is there
> a "double" of the red one as well?
>
> [img.photobucket.com]
> guitars/gibson_ESmodels/2003_ebony355_planetnl_mat
> hijs.jpg
> - 2003 courtesy of planet.nl via Mathijs (don't
> know who took it, sorry!)
>
> [img.photobucket.com]
> guitars/gibson_ESmodels/2003_redES355_mathijs.jpg
> - 2003 courtesy of Mathijs (don't know who took
> it, sorry!)

I actually believe he only uses one ebony (not black!Ebony has a greenish hue) and one cherry 1959 ES-355.

Mathijs

x



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-08 02:03 by Beelyboy.

... okay, since Beely's removed his post, my reply doesn't make much sense!
but anyway, for posterity, here (again!) is a fine page that outlines the differences
between ES-330s, 335s, 345s and 355s: [www.provide.net]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-09-30 17:50 by with sssoul.

>> i know mickt USUALLY was on the les paul ... is there a link to a thread on taylors' gits ...
or gonna be any interest on a thread on his guitars? <<

funny you should mention that! i've just gotten a lot of photos of Mick T's guitars from the good Mathijs
and i'm sorting them out to start a Mick T's Guitar Thread. stay tuned! :E

x



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-08 02:00 by Beelyboy.

our comrade Toru-A just posted this very cool shot on another thread:


- Jamaica, nov/dec 72 by Koh Hasebe (courtesy of Toru A)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-16 16:05 by with sssoul.

... and we'd better have Keith's previous ES-355 in this thread too.
i understand from our kind patient learned & good-lookin Guitar Connoisseurs that it's a 1959 model,
and on the 69 tour Keith used it for Little Queenie. it was among the ones that was stolen at Nellcote.


- MSG 1969 (don't know who took it, sorry!)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-16 16:08 by with sssoul.

the same guitar (i think!) with a few of its esteemed colleagues in 1971:


- Nellcote 1971 by D. Tarle (courtesy of mainstreet skyblog)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-16 16:07 by with sssoul.

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> i hope he will let us know when it's
> from and who took it,
> but until further notice ... hm, is that
> pre-Nellcote 71? unless of course that's one of
> the ES-355s
> that they got to replace the ones that were
> stolen.

above photo and tongue on Malcom on another thread were taken at Jamaican session in 72-73 by legendary Koh Hasebe.
belows are 2005 and BTB guitars.

thanks Toru A! have some popcorn :E
i believe those sessions in Jamaica were all in november/december 72, no?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-16 16:13 by with sssoul.

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> thanks Toru A! have some popcorn :E
> i believe those sessions in Jamaica were all in
> november/december 72, no?

Right. It was december in 1972 but photo was credited in 1973.
Mr. Hasebe visited Jamaica to shoot the recording and interview session for their first coming.
They brought Japanese ancient recorder(pipe) and shamisen as souvenir.
That's why we could hear the sound of it in "Can you hear the music", I guess.

way cool, Toru A - thanks for the photos and the fascinating details.
and of course if there are more of Mr Hasebe's photos from those sessions around,
we'd all love to see them. have some more popcorn

ROCK & ROLL


It´s Only Rock´n Roll