- Joined
- Feb 11, 2009
- Messages
- 23,297
- Reaction score
- 19,123
- Location
- NJ (The nice part)
- Guild Total
- 112
Ah yes, the LavaBurst. I have another one with a similar finish and top but it's not quite as amazing as the original.
Me want.........LavaBurst. Too funny. Very, very beautiful, though!!!!!
The purpose was to hide inferior-looking spruce — just like gold-top Les Pauls were originally painted to hide inferior-looking maple.
And to flip this, a story which I believe to be true but cannot reveal my source, is that a factory attempted to spray some bursts on a production electric guitar. The bursts were so bad that the guitars were refinished in solid colors and then the marketing weasels sold those "custom colors" at a slight premium over the usual finished.
Well of course it did. I didn't say Les Pauls came first. I said they painted tops gold for the same reason: They didn't like the look of some of their maple cap wood.This is the internet, after all, where anybody can print anything and everybody else can agree, or not.
That said, there are anecdotes that have "sunburst" finishes on musical instruments at least as far back as WW I and possibly as early as 1906 on Gibson mandolins, so the burst predates the Les Paul.
Yes, bearclaw is popular now. It wasn't popular when I bought my first guitar. That's why they made sunbursts.There are also anecdotes that what constituted "inferior" has varied over time and is a matter of opinion. Consider "bearclaw" on acoustic tops as an example of something that was once considered a flaw but is accepted or sought after now.
Right. Which can explain why they would have flaws to cover.There were similar finishes on 19th century furniture at least in the sense that the center was deliberately lighter than the edges. That was done for decorative purposes.
So, like many ideas that cannot be attributed to a single source where the source documented the motivation, maybe the burst guitar finish originally had some other purpose than to hide "inferior" wood.
There is documentation that Gibson used bursts during WWII and the factory workers thought that was being done because of the wood available during WW II.
Who said there was? Did I miss something?(There is no truth to the rumor that Gibson had to compete with Howard "Spruce Goose" Hughes for spruce).
Hey! Foul! You want us to prove what we're saying, but you're not going to? Hmpf.I believe the cover up story in various times and places but I am not going to claim that is why the 'burst was originated or first used.
And to flip this, a story which I believe to be true but cannot reveal my source,
I'm shocked! Shocked!is that a factory attempted to spray some bursts on a production electric guitar. The bursts were so bad that the guitars were refinished in solid colors and then the marketing weasels sold those "custom colors" at a slight premium over the usual finishes.
True for American fretted instruments, but those early Gibson mandos w/ darker edges and lighter center were made to replicate the quality craftsmanship of European violins…which while not ever technically considered “bursts”, some absolutely visually are…and predate any guitar/mandolin bursts by HUNDREDS of years!! (Often accidentally, as when applying a natural stain to the instrument, being an arched body front and back, the stain would penetrate less in the center, and more along the edges where it would pocket. There are 300-400 yr old instruments one could visually consider a “burst” by today’s definition.This is the internet, after all, where anybody can print anything and everybody else can agree, or not.
That said, there are anecdotes that have "sunburst" finishes on musical instruments at least as far back as WW I and possibly as early as 1906 on Gibson mandolins, so the burst predates the Les Paul. There are also anecdotes that what constituted "inferior" has varied over time and is a matter of opinion. Consider "bearclaw" on acoustic tops as an example of something that was once considered a flaw but is accepted or sought after now.
There were similar finishes on 19th century furniture at least in the sense that the center was deliberately lighter than the edges. That was done for decorative purposes.
So, like many ideas that cannot be attributed to a single source where the source documented the motivation, maybe the burst guitar finish originally had some other purpose than to hide "inferior" wood.
There is documentation that Gibson used bursts during WWII and the factory workers thought that was being done because of the wood available during WW II. (There is no truth to the rumor that Gibson had to compete with Howard "Spruce Goose" Hughes for spruce).
I believe the cover up story in various times and places but I am not going to claim that is why the 'burst was originated or first used.
And to flip this, a story which I believe to be true but cannot reveal my source, is that a factory attempted to spray some bursts on a production electric guitar. The bursts were so bad that the guitars were refinished in solid colors and then the marketing weasels sold those "custom colors" at a slight premium over the usual finishes.
Showoff.amber burst
Do you live in a park? Very mice!amber burst
Those top 2 and 1/2 rows....finishes look just like a lot of violins to me.
Also shows there was no standard then...like expected today. When you hear Lemon, or ice tea, or tobacco, or cherry, .you know exactly what to expect. I guess back then, whoever was working that station on that particular day. (My favs of this group is definitely the top row!)