-
hi, I am considering on 2 vintage guitars with values > 7.500$ to do a refret. The guitars still have some fret material left, but would definitely improve if the frets are changed. One of them has audible issues in the cowboy-chord zone.
Would be interesting to know views on what a refret does on the market's perception regarding originality and, consequently, value. thanks for your input.
-
03-31-2014 07:25 PM
-
a well done refret shouldn't hurt the value.
it's one of those things that wears out eventually.
same w/ a replacement nitro pickguard.
-
The guitar did not leave the factory with worn out frets.
A great guitar is a great guitar, and should be treated so (for if it is not played - how great can it really be?). An inferior instrument is an inferior instrument, and should be on display, or used for occasional outings. That is up to the owner.
I really dislike the thinking that, "a guitar must be all original, to be worth its fullest value". "Fullest value" to whom???
Some arrogant "not so gifted player" who brags about his or her conquest? Are they aware of the great potential that a great instrument in tip top playing condition has? Do they care? Or is it that one excuse they can hold over your head when they want to weasel out of paying a good price for that great instrument of yours?
I understand purists, but don't care much to be around them.
If I were you, I might hold off as long as possible before re-fretting. I did that with a '62 Strat.
Then consider: how badly do I need to refret to get the maximum satisfaction from this guitar? If you are more concerned with its value, leave it alone. You can play another guitar instead, and protect its value.
No disrespect aimed at you, but I understand your predicament. And this is the marketplace we live in.
Enjoy.
-
if PLEK couldn't make it playable, i'd refret the SOB. i can't stand buzz or other issues.
i love great guitars but if they don't play well there is no point, at least for me.
-
thanks, I agree with all of you, they should be good players in the first place. The bug was set into my ear by a friend who advised against refret, saying that 'it costs 300£ and takes 500£ off the value', which sounds like a dire equation. Personally I would not have the idea that I pay less for a refretted guitar, but I would inspect if it's done well. So it seems it might boil down to trust in the tech one is using.
-
your friend is confusing a refret and a refin
refin costs a few hundred and takes away half of the value
refret makes a nice vintage guitar play better. there are no 'purists' that collect guitars because of the original frets. That is a fable.
-
I see. What happens to the nib in a refret though, and would a damaging of it be seen as a macule?
Originally Posted by fws6
-
I think it's hard to refret with the nibs intact. But others with more luthier/technician experience may chime in. Originally Posted by Phil in London
IMHO, binding nibs are there for production efficiency reasons, not because they provide anything useful for the player. Nibs seems to have a sort of cult status, and many find them cool (for no good reason I can see). In fact they have disadvantages. On a guitar I will actually play, those nibs will go at the first refret. I don't know if it will lower the resale value, but I doubt it. As late as yesterday, I wrote this in another thread here:
As for the neck binding going along with the frets, that's the so called fret nibs. Gibson did it routinely, and some builders (like Jim Triggs) does them too. They may look cool, but IMHP, they are a disadvantage. Often ebony fretboards swell and shrink a bit with seasonal humidity variations, and while the board shrinks, the frets remain the same, meaning the frets press the nibs outwards. That creates bulges or even cracks in the binding at the frets. On guitars without nibs, one can often feel the frets protrude a fraction of a millimeter in the first dry season of the guitars life. Whithout the nibs, it's easy to file the fret ends flush with the fingerboard and re-round them with a fret end file. With nibs, you have that bulging binding. I have a Triggs guitar with nibs, and they will certainly have to go at the first refret.
-
I'd say an experienced buyer would pay at least the same for a well-refretted instrument, assuming they intended to play it. There may be exceptions in the case of very collectible instruments, but in that case you would have to consider why you would be buying it. But for the great majority of older instruments, bought to be played, pro refretting can even add value. I always factor in the likely cost of refretting into any deal when buying; the chances of getting good frets on a guitar that has been played are not high in my experience. Originally Posted by Phil in London
As for the nibs, some purist believe they retain originality value, but it's oxymoronic; why refret a guitar and then attempt to disguise the fact? It's possible to get it done with nibs intact i expect, but would cost accordingly
-
I agree with everybody else - why would an unplayable instrument be worth more than a playable one? Happy everybody else seems to see it this way too.
With respect to my recently acquired Super 400 - the luthier of my trust was expressing a whole lot of respect with respect to the refretting job - he said that no matter how much care he exercises (and he promised to do this super carefully during his "best" hours of the day), it can happen that micro cracks in the binding will occur or worsen. It seems not to be without risks, but I also see no viable alternative.
-
Might be worth mentioning that i recently refretted an L4 I bought a few weeks ago. It had never been refretted, and had the original nibs.
Just as well I did; the old fret ends were pushing against the nibs and deforming the binding. Once I had cut away the nibs prior to cleaning the board, the pressure on the binding eased and I was able to get it all back into place with just a couple of micro cracks. I agree with oldane that the 'nib' fetish is totally misplaced, from a functional point of view.
-
thanks, that helps... it seems the equation is: refret retains (and potentially improves) playability, while some (mostly non player) buyers might see it as disturbing originality. Cutting down on the nibs seems to share the same pattern - it potentially improves functional aspects, while some buyers might be shocked by the degrading of their fetish.
Merci! :-)
-
Frank, thats interesting. Please let me know how it goes, your experience could be valuable for a quite similar upcoming task. :-) Originally Posted by FrankLearns
Good luck!
-
@oldane; retaining binding nibs are anything but a production efficiency. It probably takes a luthier or a production company 3 to 4 times longer to scrape the binding away in between the frets, leaving just the fret nib there. It is done purely for giving the aesthetic look of a *finished* fret board end. When scraping the binding away, rushing or careless work can cause scraper blade chatter . . leaving marks or ridges in the fingerboard. That causes additional delay to correct the marks. Originally Posted by oldane
When fret nubs are done correctly, buy a competent person . . one can not see or even feel the seam beteewn the fret end and the nub. It represents no impediment to playing what so ever, unless done poorly. Also, it is possible to do a refret and leave the original nubs intact . . . and it's possible to do it well. However, it's such a time consuming, tedious and arduous job . . you'd be very hard pressed to find someone who wanted to do it . . and if you did it would more than likely cost a small fortune. More often than not, refrets are done over the binding and nubs are removed. For those really weird people (such as myself) who insist upon a certain aesthetic accuracy . . the binding is removed with the frets. The new frets are installed . . new binding is applied, then scraped to once again create the nubs and the entire neck gets a refin.
EDIT: However, it is worth pointing out that the rebinding and the refin will devalue a truly collectable vintage instrument even more so than a refret over the binding will.
We really need the likes of a PT Chris to add his opinions and expertise on this matter.
@ FrankLearns; for a guitar such as your newly acquired mid '70s Super 400CES . . a refret over the binding would probably be the most adviseable way to go . . not withstanding your own personal preferences. As beautiful as that guitar is . . it's intrinsic value right now is as a player's guitar. Super 400CES' from the '70s will not develop any significant collector's value until long after you've left this world to join the big jazz band in heaven . . which I hope will be no sooner than many decades from now.
@ fws6; there are indeed purists who collect guitars and value them based upon 100% pure original unaltered state of being. I often reference the infamous Brock Burst as a gold standard, of sorts. That 1959 Gibson Les Paul Standard is in totally original condition, and valued much higher because of it. The tuner head of the 6th string has shrunken and discolored to the point where it's almost unidentifiable as a tuner head. The owner takes his heart into his mouth when and if tuning it. If that tuner should disintegrate in his hand due to its brittlness . . it would result in a devaluation of 10s of thousands of dollars due to having a replacement tuner head installed. It would also cause him many sleepless nights disparing over the fact that his prized possession is no longer 100% original. He'd also probably give up his first born before doing a refret.
@ Jimmy Mack; Not wishing to pick a fight with you here . . but, I really don't quite know what to make of your post.?
So, in essence . . the answer to the OP's question . . at least in my mind . . is that it really depends upon the guitar in question and its intended usage (or non usage) and also what one actually considers to be a vintage guitar vs an older used one . . . as to whether or not a refret will devalue a guitar. Because, the truth of the matter is . . in some cases a refret will definitely devalue a guitar . . in other cases it will not and as stated might actually increase it value.Last edited by Patrick2; 04-02-2014 at 09:32 AM.
-
What ever you decide, nibs or no nibs, go with an industry recognised luthier/repairman. That would add kudos to the guitar.
-
Preserving the original look as much as possible is a good approach. If a valuable old guitar needs a refret, then spare no expense. It will pay off in the long run in preserved value. I would try to keep the nibs and the current patina of the fretboard wood, even if it will cost more.
I also like the idea of finding a high-profile luthier with a good reputation to do the job. Document everything. A good story in itself can add value to antiques and collectables.
I have done at least one refret retaining nibs on a Gibson, and replaced binding on one recreating nibs like the original. It's just tedious work, that's all. But you don't want me. You want somebody, for example, like my friend Sonny Thomas up in Tennessee. He's good, and he gets a lot of work simply because when he had a shop in Nashville he maintained guitars for Chet Atkins. People want their guitars touched by the same hands.... Somebody like that with only one degree of separation from the undisputed greats wouldn't hurt. I'm sort of speculating here. I'm not part of the vintage/collector marketplace. I don't do appraisals. But it seems to me that careful steps like this would up the odds of getting a good job done without hurting the resale value. It might be a good idea to ask a vintage dealer who they would recommend for the job.
-
Ken, I'm curious, or maybe have misunderstood- does this mean you'd refret without sanding and trueing the fingerboard first? Originally Posted by kenbennett
-
Yes, I might try to do that in some cases, have done so in a few cases, especially on partial refrets like an old Martin that has only been play with open chords. If the fretboard is close enough and preserving the look was important to the value, I might just clean the slots, repair any chips, then make up for slight irregularities of the board in the fret leveling process. You can only go so far like that, but a guitar doesn't have to be perfect to play really well. If you want to keep the look, then there may compromises elsewhere. Originally Posted by Franz 1997
One thing is certain. If you level the board the nibs and the antique look of the wood are gone.
-
Ken, thats very helpful, thanks a lot. I can see that a refret needs some planning as to who and where, and a good discussion of the options.
-
I once had a refret done leaving the nibs intact. It was a bit more costly because the luthier said it was only possible on guitars that needed no leveling which makes sense
@patrick -> the les paul thing is silliness in a category all of its own. But there is no 7500 archtop that would devalue because of a properly performed refret
-
Of course, how far would you go to keep the fingerboard intact?
Finger fudge or no finger fudge?
Fresh is best!
The smell was something else! Much better now.
-
Agreed! I always reference the Brock Burst thing as an extreme example. It is definitely an extreme examply . . but an example none the less . . and one that happens far more often than people think. When you look at some of the late '50s and early '60s collectable Strats that are sometimes offered for sale within the collector's community . . high on the list of features will be "original frets". And that's a guitar that could pretty much have been refretted without a trace of it ever having been done. But, it's very important to people of a certain mind set. Originally Posted by fws6
I also agree that almost any arch top with an average perceived market value of around $7,500 . . even up to $10,000 . . . will not be devalued by a fret job, if done perfectly. My reply to your post was specifically to this statement;
"refret makes a nice vintage guitar play better. there are no 'purists' that collect guitars because of the original frets. That is a fable."
You'll also notice that I referenced as much when I mentioned to Frank Learns that I didn't think a refret would devalue his beautiful Super 400CES. However, a dead mint all original D'Agelico New Yorker, or a dead mint all original 1959 Super 400CES would be worth considerably more than those that which might have been gigged extensively, needed and received a fret job. That's all I'm trying to say here.Last edited by Patrick2; 04-02-2014 at 09:26 AM.
-
Patrick, I stand by what I wrote as a player and lover of guitars. Not a technician or investor. Guitars should be played.
My response may have been motivated by: a friend who doesn't want to play his "re-issue" guitar because he wants his children to inherit it at its full (potential) value.
-
Jimmy, the problem [as I see it] is that you are not stating coments such as "guitars should be played" as your own personal opinion. I and probably anyone else can accept that comment as your own personal opinion. But, you are stating it as a pre determined law. You are stating that and other comments you made as mandatory and factual rules of guitar ownership. But, that's not yours or anyone else's call to make . . with anything other than your own guitars. Originally Posted by Jimmy Mack
Then you catagorize collectors as "some arrogant not so gifted player, who brags about his or her conquest".
Do you think that's a fair and unbiased assessment of guitar collectors? I don't.
Regarding your friend who purchased a guitar he wants to pass down to his children as a new and unused musical instrument intended to be an heirloom . . . do you really think you have the right to be judgemental of that friend for doing so . . . and still call him a friend? Is it a written law that the reissue he purchased MUST be played? Your friend bought that guitar . . not you or anyone else. He can play it, not play it . . or use it as fire wood if he chooses to. His guitar . . his call to make. You can like it, or not like it . . but you probably shouldn't be judgemental of his decissions to do as he pleases with his possessions.
You started off your post with the words . . "The guitar did not leave the factory with worn frets" . . but then went on to say that you held off as long as possible before refretting your '62 strat. I don't get that? Did you not want to "maximize satisfaction from this guitar" . . as you advised the OP to do? Are you not "aware of the great potential that a great instrument in tip top playing condition has?" (those are your words . . not mine) Why didn't you refret it as soon as it need it it, instead of holding off as long as possible?
That's what I meant when I said I didn't know what to make of your post. It was filled with judgemental and contradictory comments.
-
I like the extra bit of width you will get from a refret if you install the frets over the binding. You end up with more playable real estate on the fretboard (if you have a guitar where the strings can be pulled off on the 1st or 6th string). i have performed this on two guitars I was going to sell. I purposly aquired a used guitar that had this done to it.
Reply With Quote
4 Micro Lessons, all under a minute, no talking.
Today, 05:16 PM in Theory