Restored?

[drc]

Had what became a heated discussion amongst some guitar geeks the other day… What do you guys think it means when a guitar is “restored”? How far can a finish restoration go before it is considered “refinished”?

IMO restored vs refinished makes a big difference in resale value.

 

[HeyMikey]

IMHO refinishing is a component or subset of restoration. It should be disclosed as should other work that was done. “As part of the restoration abc was repaired, 123 was replaced, xyz was touched up or refinished. …”

 

[chazmo]

IMO restored vs refinished makes a big difference in resale value.

I'm interested in what you mean by this, drc. Can you elaborate a little?

In my mind, when you talk about a restored guitar, its value all depends on what was done to restore it and whether or not it was meant to be restored to "as it left the factory" specs or not. Folks sometimes go to extreme lengths around here (as you know) to try to get period-correct replacements for parts -- especially with the electrics -- to "restore" their axes. No question, this kind of restoration adds to value.

But when you're talking wood work, like repairing binding, patching holes, cleating cracks, and indeed refinishing, this is all clearly negative with regard to originality of the item. It's totally complicated how these things will affect value, though. Here's my example of a completely restored acoustic with many things about it that are not even meant to be original (such as wood bindings)... See the attachments of my Tom Jacobs retored Mark VI Artist Special. This guitar was literally a dumpster basket case before the restoration. So clearly it's worth more than before that. But it's not at all in original condition... And, it had to be completely refinished, by the way.

 

[twocorgis]

I'm interested in what you mean by this, drc. Can you elaborate a little?

In my mind, when you talk about a restored guitar, its value all depends on what was done to restore it and whether or not it was meant to be restored to "as it left the factory" specs or not. Folks sometimes go to extreme lengths around here (as you know) to try to get period-correct replacements for parts -- especially with the electrics -- to "restore" their axes. No question, this kind of restoration adds to value.

But when you're talking wood work, like repairing binding, patching holes, cleating cracks, and indeed refinishing, this is all clearly negative with regard to originality of the item. It's totally complicated how these things will affect value, though. Here's my example of a completely restored acoustic with many things about it that are not even meant to be original (such as wood bindings)... See the attachments of my Tom Jacobs retored Mark VI Artist Special. This guitar was literally a dumpster basket case before the restoration. So clearly it's worth more than before that. But it's not at all in original condition... And, it had to be completely refinished, by the way.

I remember some of the 'before" photos well. I think it was @ladytexan who found that guitar.

 

[chazmo]

I remember some of the 'before" photos well. I think it was @ladytexan who found that guitar.

At LMG1, Tom asked me to try to convince the Guild guys to try to get some Braz from their stash as part of this restoration. They weren't receptive to that, but Tom got the replacement wood elsewhere a few years later. He did a nice job rebuilding the back.

 

[twocorgis]

At LMG1, Tom asked me to try to convince the Guild guys to try to get some Braz from their stash as part of this restoration. They weren't receptive to that, but Tom got the replacement wood elsewhere a few years later. He did a nice job rebuilding the back.

He sure did!

 

[Default]

What irritates me is when you see a vintage guitar with all the hardware replaced, and painted with a rattlecan, and the perpetrator proclaims it "restored".

That word does not mean what you think it means...

 

[GAD]

Go ask a museum restoration expert what “restored” means.

To me, restored means 100% returned to original specs. Refinishing can be OK if the same formula and process was used thus making the guitar look like it came from the factory. Patching a finish so it looks like it came from the factory using exactly matched formula and possibly pigment would also be OK.

Anything that deviates from the original finish or hardware is not a restoration.

 

[mavuser]

In short @drc, a refinish value depends largely on who did the work, how it was done, and what was used. generally speaking however, a total refinish would be a significant cost, as well as a significant reduction to the vintage/original value of the instrument. I think if you have a $4,000 instrument that was vintage all original, a properly refinished example might be worth around $2,000-2,500, and the refinish job may have cost around $1,000...just my opinion, but I think i'm pretty close. It's certainly not something you would do for profit. If only parts of the guitar were touched up, that is totally different.