My baby needs a BATH!

[thebowl]

I took delivery of my 1991 ASAT Signature today. The good news- it is in excellent shape, in terms of wear and tear. One very small nick in the vicinity of the jack, and one little nick on the neck. Apart from that, the body looks new. The bad news - this puppy is DIRTY. I seriously believe that it has never been broiken down and cleaned since it was put together.

I have my guitar cleaner, chrome cleaner and car wax (for the pick guard), but I have a couple of areas where I would like expert advice.

1.The saddles - should I hit them with some chrome cleaner? Noxon?
2. There is some oxidation on the poles in the bridge pickup. Light sanding? Gummi stone?

And, if I decide to address the spot in the neck, later on, what type of finish do I need to look for?

Thanks for any advice.

[Elwood]

For the poles,
check out the glass fiber cleaning tool in this thread:
http://www.bassesbyleo.com/forum/viewto ... ?f=4&t=318

congrats on the new(old) ASAT
(pics?)


elwood

[Salmon]

I read in your other post that this is Redburst. You should post pictures, especially of the nick you are asking about. Depending on what color the finish is at that nick it could make a difference on the approach to take or at least to consider. Gibson recommends using a sharpie in some instances believe it or not. I am only mentioning it here because it is interesting but I am not recommending or discouraging it.

[youtube]rTVScFJoe24[/youtube]

[youtube]PBKSrfFKIPg[/youtube]

[thebowl]

Here we go. This is definitely an "after" shot.

[thumb=][thumb]

[thebowl]

And another, now that I seem to have the hang of it.

[thumb=]/thumb]

[LeoFThe Champion]

Congratulations on that ASAT it looks like a ripper!

[Salmon]

Ooo! Nice.

That isn't Redburst though.

Redburst transitions to solid black on the edges.

Going by the grain I think this is the one that was for sale by someone in Indiana or at least I cannot rule it out and it is Cherryburst and definitely beautiful.

[KenC]

It's definitely Cherryburst. Redburst didn't show up until some point in the BBE-era. What kind of pickups are those?

Ken

[darwinohm]

Great looking guitar. Ken, I had the same thought as they look like Alnicos, not MFD's. I wonder if they have been replaced. Still a sweet guitar. Salmons picture is interesting as it seems to have the same pickups. The guitar on the left looks like Fender saddles and bridge plate. Has someone imposed the leo signature on the guitar on the left? If you look closely, the pickguard on the guitar left looks slightly different. -- Darwin

[Elwood]

Great looking guitar. Ken, I had the same thought as they look like Alnicos, not MFD's. I wonder if they have been replaced. Still a sweet guitar. Salmons picture is interesting as it seems to have the same pickups. The guitar on the left looks like Fender saddles and bridge plate. Has some imposed the leo signature on the guitar on the left? If you look closely, the pickguard on the guitar left looks slightly different. -- Darwin

I think most the differences we see are due to different camera/phones . The different angle makes the grain a different color ( look at the wormy figuring just under the bridge on the right ). The contrast dif might be making the sig and guard look different ...looks kosher to me.

Thanks for the pics, I wish I never sold my Classic .

[Salmon]

The difference you are seeing in the signature is caused by the sharpening I did on the left image to bring out the grain. Elwood is correct about the way the angle difference effects the appearance of the grain. I see so many close similarities that I am very certain these are the same guitar. You would never see any two pieces of wood sharing as many grain lines let alone on the same cut of a guitar's body wood. Maybe you can see the oval under the signature in both images. That squiggly pattern on our right under the bridge plate is in both as well. It is interesting what results from slight differences in light, camera angle and different cameras.

[KenC]

Ken, I had the same thought as they look like Alnicos, not MFD's. I wonder if they have been replaced.

That's what it looks like to me. Both MFD pickups on an ASAT Classic have adjustable pole pieces. My ASAT Classic Custom is a couple of years younger, but this is what the stock MFDs look like:



Ken

[fianoman]

Here we go. This is definitely an "after" shot.

[thumb=][thumb]

Congrats on the ASAT! Looks good!

That looks like a fun "classic" combo with the Peavey Classic and the ASAT Classic. I bet you get some classic tones out of it.

Enjoy your new toy.

[thebowl]

First, it is the same guitar, purchased from a fellow in Indiana who was the friend of the (deceased) former owner. The red strings were the first things to go. Nothing else was changed, although I broke it down and cleaned basically every part, although I did not remove the neck. Same bridge, same pickguard, etc. Just cleaned thoroughly and waxed. I may actually take another pass at the bridge plate; the height adjustment screws on the saddles are a bit oxidized, so I think I will wind up taking them completely apart.

According to the seller (who was very candid that he had no first hand knowledge) based on notes from the actual owner, the guitar has a Seymour Duncan in the neck, and a Tom Anderson in the bridge. Based on a notation on the bottom of the neck pup, I have already been able to confirm that it is, in fact, an old Duncan Vintage Stack pup. The neck pup has no markings on it, but I have no reason to doubt the information I was given.

The thing just WAILS. By happenstance, I have a 2011 60th Tele at my house right now, that I was thinking of buying from a friend. I want to get the same strings on both instruments, and I will post some thoughts on how they compare, although I recognize that this may be of limited interest, given that I am not running G&L pups.

[Salmon]

Although you may lose some interest there is always interest in such things on guitar forums.

I love MFD's but I am interested anyway. Sound samples would be extra interesting.

With the stacked PUP it must be quiet compared to the single coils of the Tele, assuming there are traditional SC's in the Tele. MFD's are generally much quieter than Alnicos. I guess the original owner had his reasons and preferences like everyone else.

Please follow through on this comparison you described.

BTW, I just noticed the reflection in the mirror of the picture above seems to indicate a large room. Maybe it is an illusion with the recessed lights lined up. I had thought that was a spacious rec room. Was that taken in a restaurant or bar setting? Bright lights on = after/before business hours maybe?

[darwinohm]

Thanks for the clarification as the saddles looked so differently in the picture after being cleaned. Given that my vision could be better it was hard for me to tell. Very nice guitar and looking forward to the tone report compared to the Tele! -- Darwin

[thebowl]

Salmon - it's my basement/man cave. I built the bar myself.

I never got to the point of a true apples to apples comparison with identical strings, and the 2011 60th Anniversary Tele is now gone to a new home, but I played it quite a bit along side my ASAT, when they were both new to me, and both had nickel-wrap strings. So I will share my opinions, as requested.

First, the feel of these guitars. Although it is probably difficult for me to be objective, the ASAT just seems more comfortable to play. The Tele felt thicker in the body and the neck (those are obviously measurable matters, and I have not done so). I love the fat frets on the ASAT, and it is probably my favorite neck, just super smooth; like butter, LOL. The Tele's neck felt sticky, in comparison. The Tele had rolled steel saddles, with height adjustment screws that stuck up; not comfortable at all. The barrel saddles on the ASAT are great to rest the hand on. Although the Tele is a fine guitar, the ASAT simply has a more refined feel to it.

Sound. The tele is definitely louder, and both pups delivered a more "metallic" sound, as compared to the ASAT; very noticable. But again, I prefer the ASAT. I am told the former owner used it in a recording studio. I will never know what possessed him to select the pups that he put in it, but it makes perfect sense that he used it to record. It will give you that Telecaster "honk", plenty of micro-tones and harmonics, but the sound it delivers is crystal clear, just remarkably so. And it will sustain on and on and on...Again, the word "refined" comes to mind. It is prepared to produce as good a sound as you can create, kinda like driving a Porsche, where the limit is gonna be your own ability, not the car's limits. The Tele is a very nice guitar that would provide wonderful Chickin pickin' or rockabilly, maybe some straight up country. Wit the ASAT, it's a matter of "where would you like to go tonight?" And I think the ASAT has better sustain. The notes seem to take forever to decay.

I have owned it for several months now, and I am still in head-shaking mode when I play it. As Teles are known for, it exposes every mistake you make, but when you play something right, the payoff is worth the effort.

[Salmon]

Thank you. I enjoyed reading your comparison. You said the Tele was "metallic" How would you describe the opposite of metallic? Warm?

[thebowl]

Warmer is probably a good term. More rounded.