AVRI 65 JM owners: how is the finish aging?

[spacecadet]

I'm actually surprised to see how the finish seems to come off in chunks like that. That looks more like my 66 Mustang than a vintage Jag or JM.

I still have basically zero wear on my AV65, but then I don't play it a lot.

46346, most of those just look like scuff marks that could be polished out if you wanted to. (Though there are obviously some deeper gouges too.)

[46346]

>triple post>

[46346]

>double post>

[46346]

can't believe it's been two years since my post above, regarding the Firemist Jazzblaster (AV65 that i modded). i've lost a few more chips of paint since then and I made the mistake of hanging it on a rubber insulated wall hanger, off and on over a few weeks, and the nitro finish quickly morphed to goo, where are the headstock meets the neck, from contact with the hanger . I must say, I'm kind of annoyed at how easily the finish chips off of the guitar. I haven't seen much for checking or other subtle changes that I find appealing... it looks like there may have been some yellowing but not very much – I have not pulled the guard off in over two years. tho I'm thinking of getting an anodized black guard for maximum sexiness, and when I do I'll take a look for sure at the fade or color change. but I kind of wish the finish was actually just a little more durable. like I said earlier time or I'm not babying it – but I am certainly not thrashing it about either. Perhaps it's just like it was in 1965 (or by now, 1968...), but I'm not a big fan of paint chips showing exposed wood, as opposed to showing an undercoat or just some cool looking checking pattern. The firemist silver/blue/green metallic is such a stunning finish in itself that I kind a wish it would hold up better. of course, I knew from the start that it would be a thin skin in the least and maybe even more sensitive to decay, as this was clearly advertised as such. but I prefer yellowing and checking type of decay over paint chips, which are quite numerous on this guitar. it's actually the most randomly chipped of any of the guitars I have from the 50s 60s 70s 80s 90s etc. it actually got me wondering, does fender still do factory re-fins?

my firemist silver AV65 is by far the most sensitive finish i've encountered. within a couple months i had several dents, which didn't bother me, but was still a bit surprising. i had gotten a nice discount from new, due to two very slight dents that rendered it B-stock anyway.

i take care and maintain the guitar, but i don't baby it. this one is eight months old, and it's been a pretty busy time of a lot of experimental stage gigs, house concerts, gallery shows, and club gigs. and quite a lot of extended technique, using tools on the strings, etc. i'm careful not to gouge the lovely finish with my implements... but quite often i set the guitar down without a proper stand, and it gets knocked around a bit.

i'm surprised, but generally pleased at how it is accruing a natural worn relicness. but i'm not into the couple of chips where i kind of expect to see an undercoat or fullerplast, but it seems to go straight to wood instead. perhaps those spots will round out to those crazy smooth wear spots on vintage nitro.

i had the guard off the other day, and i couldn't see any evidence of yellowing yet.

[/quote]
[/quote]

[Marc]

i'm surprised, but generally pleased at how it is accruing a natural worn relicness. but i'm not into the couple of chips where i kind of expect to see an undercoat or fullerplast, but it seems to go straight to wood instead. perhaps those spots will round out to those crazy smooth wear spots on vintage nitro.

i had the guard off the other day, and i couldn't see any evidence of yellowing yet.

I also have a Firemist Silver JM from the ltd run Fender did of the AVRI '65. I got it used but in mint condition a couple of years ago. It's only had bedroom use but is never in its case. Despite being pretty careful it has collected several dings and paint chips and a tiny amount of checking around the neck plate. No yellowing but some fading where the pickguard is when I lifted the hood - it doesn't really get any sunlight exposure.

I was also surprised not to see a white undercoat exposed by the chips so my guess is Fender did use some kind of grain filler but is likely transparent. I know sometimes back in the day colour was sometimes applied straight onto the wood perhaps as a 'rush job' to fill back orders.

I'm not too bothered by the fragile finish as it is what I kind of expected. I've seen posts elsewhere on the web where people are quite annoyed by how easily it gets damaged and have returned instruments. After the complaints, I think Fender were probably feeling "damned if they do and damned if they don't" as people have been asking for authentic finishes for a long time and then complain about it. Having said that, the Custom Shop finishes in both NOS and Relic don't chip so easily so the flash coat technique was clearly something new they tried out and not just 'marketing speak' for something they already did.

I'm not certain but I believe the new 'original series' reissues has tried to address the fragile finishes and get the best of both worlds. They no longer refer to it as 'flash coat'. One thing I think is a shame is for the 64 reissues (Tele) and 65 reissues (Strat, JM, Jag) they no longer have the vibrant 'target burst' sunbursts where the yellow was solid and you can now see the grain. This is understandable though as technically the new original series are no longer a specific year even though the Strats, Jags and JMs are closest to 1965.

Perhaps someone with an Original Series can let us know if they still chip so easily.

[46346]

aye - the flash coat was a cool experiment. would be interesting to compare to the thin skins as they age.

interesting if indeed Fender has accepted some returns. i wonder if they refinish them and sell them as B-stock, or what?

hopefully the overall decay on mine will look more coherent over time. i'd probably only refinish it if Fender would do it for me. i just love the idea that i finally have an actual Firemist Silver from the factory.

who knows... maybe the flash coat versions will be considered rare and desirable someday.

[spacecadet]

I'm not too bothered by the fragile finish as it is what I kind of expected. I've seen posts elsewhere on the web where people are quite annoyed by how easily it gets damaged and have returned instruments. After the complaints, I think Fender were probably feeling "damned if they do and damned if they don't" as people have been asking for authentic finishes for a long time and then complain about it.

To be fair to Fender, the pics so far in this thread don't really look like the way vintage JM finishes age. They look more like the way vintage Mustang finishes age, which used a slightly different process. Still nitro on top, but something about the paint and undercoat was different and it tended to check ridiculously easily and come off in chunks like this. People tolerated it because that was their "cheap" guitar.

Vintage JM's tend to have a lot less checking and more rubbing type wear in the most touched areas, which looks a little smoother. And the whole guitar gets dull as the finish seems to sink in to the wood and collect microscratches all over the top coat.

Also to be fair, this is the reason Fender switched to poly in 1968. They got complaints back then about fragile finishes too. So they should have been prepared for it now.

I don't know, I feel like this "flash coat" thing was probably intended to promote quicker aging just like the thin skins do, but something about it's gotta be different from what they did in the 60's. It's not aging the same way. It seems a lot more brittle. The original JM finish seemed softer, to the point that it could be rubbed away. But it didn't chip as easily.

[Marc]

I don't know, I feel like this "flash coat" thing was probably intended to promote quicker aging just like the thin skins do, but something about it's gotta be different from what they did in the 60's. It's not aging the same way. It seems a lot more brittle. The original JM finish seemed softer, to the point that it could be rubbed away. But it didn't chip as easily.

Agreed - almost definitely not an accurate process but as you say an intention stab at fast aging without bashing them up. It might not just be the process but also the chemical formula of the paint - pollution laws may have banned certain additives and made a difference who knows ? It's worth noting that metallics were not all nitro back in the day, I think they were acrylic with a clear nitro coat on top which I suspect is what my Firemist Silver is.