How much does a perfect finish matter to you?

Ignored Member

Ignored Member

Neutered male
Let's assume we're talking about a brand new guitar that is not deliberately relic'd.

I just happened to read a thread on another forum where somebody was complaining about a new guitar with overspray, orange peel, etc. Obviously, it was proof to everyone the manufacturer's quality was headed to crap.

And, of course, there was Doug's recent situation (Doug is certainly not headed to crap, however).

Honestly, I'm not sure I would even know overspray or orange peel if I saw it.

If the guitar played right and sounded great, I can't see myself caring. It's going to get dings and wear sooner or later anyway.

But that doesn't make me right compared to somebody who does care. A new guitar is a pretty rare and special thing to most people. I can see a valid point that it should be perfect so as not to ruin the experience.

What's your take?
 
Last edited:
It depends a lot on the guitar in question. My Corsair was an $800 guitar marked down to $400. I think it’s probably because there are some pencil marks that didn’t get cleaned off the binding on an f-hole before the poly went on. For $400 I can live with that. Likewise, I can live with a gold blob here and there on the Les Paul Tribute I got for $500 when they blew them out. But I’d have demanded a replacement at full price. And if I payed thousands of dollars for a handmade instrument and it showed up with a legitimately botched finished I’d want a replacement and assume the maker doesn’t live up to his prices.

That said, I think most of the people bitching about finish details on expensive guitars are just nitpicking at the combination of wood and nitrocellulose (remember how it “breathes”, cork-sniffers?) because they just realized that they paid $4,000 for a guitar and can’t actually afford it.
 
I'm not picky on guitars I own in the sense of what will happen. I was ticked a bit when I saw that my Dean had a finsh problem and wanted to send it back, but I loved the way it played and sounded.

I have bought pre damaged instruments before on the cheap, so I guess the Dean only bugged me because I felt the salesmen had possibly pulled a fast one on me. And were probably sitting somewhere laughing over Kaffee und Kuchen and saying:

Jens: " bwahahaaaa wir haben dieser Arsch in Marksteft voll abgezockt....."
Dieter: "Ja, der Blödel...."
 
Doesn't really bother me unless it is glaringly obvious that the painter has no idea what they were doing. If I like how a guitar plays and it has a few finish imperfections it wouldn't make me change my mind about purchasing it. The serial number on my Gibson LP Studio isn't completely filled and I noticed it in the store but I liked the guitar so much I didn't care. Now it goes nicely with all of the dings in the corners of the headstock and the giant crack at he base from a broken headstock repair. Plus if it were to ever get stolen there are some features that are unique to that guitar to hopefully aid in its recovery. Although I am pretty sure somebody would pick that guitar up and be like, "Holy shit this guitar is really heavy and it is beat to shit........not worth it." :)

When I was powder coating we wanted to have a bit of orange peel so I tend to like it.
 
jp_nyc said:
That said, I think most of the people bitching about finish details on expensive guitars are just nitpicking at the combination of wood and nitrocellulose (remember how it “breathes”, cork-sniffers?) because they just realized that they paid $4,000 for a guitar and can’t actually afford it.
Click to expand...

There is some truth to this.

Lots of factors IMO:

1. People tend to think all builders are created equal and therefore all guitars should be as good as ones that cost 2, 5, 10, 100x more.
2. People tend to think that all boutique builders are immortal, gods among men, flawless humans
3. People tend to bitch less (publicly) in direct relation to how expensive the guitar is. They'd rather quietly unload it.
4. Some people have learned you can by and try even when it's written against in a contract/terms and conditions by bullying the builder/seller into giving them what they want.
5. Some people are just stupid.
6. Some people think every luthier, plumber, contractor, painter is a crook. (some are!)

#4 is very prevalent. "Well wait till I just post this online unless you give me what I want (so I can go try something else and do the same tactic)". That one gets real old.

Then there are items #1 and #2. I've seen Gustavson's with burn thru's on the finish. Walkers with sunken finishes. Hubers with the occasional human flaw... actually scratch that. The germans never have human flaws :wink: . Kolls with a slight amount of filler around inlays. Ect Ect. These were tiny, tiny things but there. It happens to all of us.

Where it shouldn't be acceptable? Mass production lines that crank out so much volume that they can afford to pick and choose on the final QC. Even smaller "boutique big brands" (Collings, Anderson, Suhr) do more volume in a day than most 1-3 man outfits do in a month. Even they can be a bit more picky at the end. A 1-3 man shop just trying to survive, pay the bills may sometimes have to roll the dice over some human element. Also, the big boutique guys, they generally have specialized labor, not one person who does everything.

Theres also:
7. As each instrument gets better, the "flaws" become more obvious because. Follow me here. I've gotten early guitars of mine, like #3-20 early back for tune ups from time to time. I see things that make me cringe now. Those owners LOVE them. Then you get a situation where a guitar I looked at I thought was one of the nicest, flattest (something I've struggled with for years to get that last bit of "chop" out) finishes ever gets kicked back because it's one or two tiny flaws stand out more by comparison.

So solution? Relic em all!
 
Not so much. I am a fan of nitro rubbed finishes which end up "dull" as many people see them whereas I see them as glowing. To each their own.
 
Mark Wein said:
I don't really care although if I spent a ton of money on a guitar I'd want it to be right. And then I'll fuck it up myself :embarrassed:
Click to expand...
This. If I'm paying $250, then all I really care about is playability for that price. If I'm spending $2500+, then it better be damn near perfect.
 
I'm not sure I'd even notice unless it was right on the top. And even then, slap a sticker on it and call it a day. :embarrassed:
 
On electrics I would say that finish means little to me.

On archtops, classicals, acoustics then finish means everything to me...
 
This is a really tough question to answer. I won't spend a ton on a guitar because I can't afford it, so in the range I tend to spend, I am expecting finish flaws and overall flaws. If I were to drop a ton of cash on a guitar and I got it and found some flaws, I would be a little pissed. Take for instance the guitar Doug just had the issue with. That would not bother me at all. Hell, I don't think I would have even noticed them and if I did, I would have thought I did made those little marks when I tested it out. But shit happens, if there was a big enough flaw, and it would have to be pretty big (if it were cosmetic), I would contact the builder and ask for a partial refund, maybe $100 or so.
 
Chad that's the other side of the coin.

Sometimes we miss things. I offered multiple options to not only make it right but go above and beyond with the customer. All I was met with was hostility and a condescending attitude.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top