1962 Strat

Rabs

So this is not really modding or making but I thought may be of interest to some.

I have this 62 Strat that im currently working on...  Just doing a service and stuff assuming nothing is too broken (it hasn't been played for years).. But obviously I wouldn't want to put any new parts on this or anything disrespectful like that...

So things of note...  the first thing I said about it when I saw it was, its been painted.. And indeed its a sunburst under that fairly bad paint job (which I found slightly painful to know)...  And also a  good sign of its age is its got a slim curved fretboard rather than a slab which I think changed in 1963 so it would date the guitar correctly.

Anyway heres some pics.,..  When I get it open I will post some more 

http://i.imgur.com/fzjG8QS.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/CCcxnGo.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/vyDLU8R.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/a1N551x.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/8quiQp0.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/AdBn2CA.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/HoDxrm1.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/BkK9OhO.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/KzqyteZ.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/bJU3NSF.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/nGPd19M.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/GUApDxi.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/KTTtbYI.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/pKtnXJ0.jpg

Gagaryn

Very nice, even with the paint job. Looks like pretty wide frets on it too but could just be the angle. I love the look of clay dot markers - I tried without success to colour the dots on my relic JM to look something like that - without success!

WezV

Gagaryn said:

Very nice, even with the paint job. Looks like pretty wide frets on it too but could just be the angle. I love the look of clay dot markers - I tried without success to colour the dots on my relic JM to look something like that - without success!

The problem with most repro clay dots is they don't absorb dirt and oils like the old ones.  The old ones can be all kind of colours, but generally you see darker dots on darker boards

i make them from old harvite poker chips. Reportedly the same material originally used. This is relatively soft (like the originals) so easy to install on a fretted neck.  They are also slightly porous... You can get the vintage tint just by wiping the board with thinners to redistribute some natural rosewood oil.



nice guitar rabs.... how much are you allowed to do to it?

Rabs

WezV said:

nice guitar rabs.... how much are you allowed to do to it?

Hmm, not much   

It depends on how its all functioning.. He says its nothing but some scratchy pots which if its the case I will open it, try to clean them as best I can and then clean the fretboard, re-string and set up...

But really that's all you want to do to a guitar like that...  Its well worn and should stay that way 

If something is broken then we will talk about sourcing some vintage pots or whatever.. So we will see what happens 

Ive already had some people ask me to measure the neck size and the pickup output.

Rabs

Gagaryn said:

Very nice, even with the paint job. Looks like pretty wide frets on it too but could just be the angle. I love the look of clay dot markers - I tried without success to colour the dots on my relic JM to look something like that - without success!

The thing is I was talking to someone about this.. He said (and I trust him) that at the time Sunburst was the only colour available unless you ordered something from the custom shop... So a lot of people painted over them BUT if it was actually done by Fender then its actually pretty rare...

Personally im not sure.. I need to take a closer look.  From the quick go over yesterday id say the paint job wasn't that great. So im going to do some research and see what I should look for. If indeed its possible to tell the difference.

WezV

Rabs said:

WezV said:

nice guitar rabs.... how much are you allowed to do to it?

Hmm, not much   

It depends on how its all functioning.. He says its nothing but some scratchy pots which if its the case I will open it, try to clean them as best I can and then clean the fretboard, re-string and set up...

But really that's all you want to do to a guitar like that...  Its well worn and should stay that way 

If something is broken then we will talk about sourcing some vintage pots or whatever.. So we will see what happens 

Ive already had some people ask me to measure the neck size and the pickup output.

Yeah, it pays to document what you can whilst you have the chance.  

I wasn't suggesting you route it for a floyd or anything like that

Rabs

WezV said:

Rabs said:

WezV said:

nice guitar rabs.... how much are you allowed to do to it?

Hmm, not much   

It depends on how its all functioning.. He says its nothing but some scratchy pots which if its the case I will open it, try to clean them as best I can and then clean the fretboard, re-string and set up...

But really that's all you want to do to a guitar like that...  Its well worn and should stay that way 

If something is broken then we will talk about sourcing some vintage pots or whatever.. So we will see what happens 

Ive already had some people ask me to measure the neck size and the pickup output.

Yeah, it pays to document what you can whilst you have the chance.  

I wasn't suggesting you route it for a floyd or anything like that

Well I say that because the first thing that came to mind when he said it used to be a sunburst was OHHHH id love to try and restore that (if that's even possible)... But then I realised that the paint job itself if officially done or not was also really old. So then it becomes part of the guitars history and should (I think) be respected...

So yeah.. I don't think theres much point trying to polish it or anything.  Just give a good clean and make sure the electrics are working and its set up well.

Gassage

I would suggest it's 63 not 62. Or if 62, very late. Pickguard is wrong.

Rabs

Gassage said:

I would suggest it's 63 not 62. Or if 62, very late. Pickguard is wrong.

You may be right...  Im no Fender expert when it comes to dating them (im more on the Gibson side ) 

However in looking about it does say that the early L series could be late 62... PLUS theres the thin fretboard which they changed to using a thicker slab board in 1963...

But its certainly from around then.  I guess I may learn more if I were to take the neck off but I doubt I will be doing that..  Maybe the pots can help if they have codes on them?

Danielsguitars

The best fender I've played was a gold 62 strat, it really changed my mind and felt very different to other newer fenders I've tried

Gassage

Rabs said:

Gassage said:

I would suggest it's 63 not 62. Or if 62, very late. Pickguard is wrong.

You may be right...  Im no Fender expert when it comes to dating them (im more on the Gibson side ) 

However in looking about it does say that the early L series could be late 62... PLUS theres the thin fretboard which they changed to using a thicker slab board in 1963...

But its certainly from around then.  I guess I may learn more if I were to take the neck off but I doubt I will be doing that..  Maybe the pots can help if they have codes on them?

@rabs

Other way around- Slabs were from 59 until c. June 62.

Rabs

Gassage said:

Rabs said:

Gassage said:

I would suggest it's 63 not 62. Or if 62, very late. Pickguard is wrong.

You may be right...  Im no Fender expert when it comes to dating them (im more on the Gibson side ) 

However in looking about it does say that the early L series could be late 62... PLUS theres the thin fretboard which they changed to using a thicker slab board in 1963...

But its certainly from around then.  I guess I may learn more if I were to take the neck off but I doubt I will be doing that..  Maybe the pots can help if they have codes on them?

@rabs

Other way around- Slabs were from 59 until c. June 62.

Ahh.. ok cheers 

Gassage

It's weird; basically Fender changed to round lam as although more work the glues of the day weren't man enough to ensure consistant slab lamination. Purists say a decent slab is the best. I have both a 60 slab and a 64 round lam. To be honest they're both great, the slab a little darker bassier sounding, but then that partic guitar is a few ounces heavier so who knows!

Rabs

Gassage said:

I would suggest it's 63 not 62. Or if 62, very late. Pickguard is wrong.

I opened her up and took some measurements today if anyone is interested..  Also I noticed that the shielding plate had a number on it that ends in 62...  Sooo...  I doono...  Maybe its a very late 62? (or is that just a coincidence).

In taking out the screws.. I always lay them out in the same pattern as they come off the guitar so that each screw goes back in the same hole...  You gotta be anal with a guitar like this 

http://i.imgur.com/uogk7Qy.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/yAXgw3a.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/3N9kkt6.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/xGBpqxS.jpg

Heres the pickup measurements

Bridge

http://i.imgur.com/f0gYtpZ.jpg?1

Mid

http://i.imgur.com/IxRjk5G.jpg

Neck

http://i.imgur.com/dKmQxvn.jpg?1

Then some neck measurements

http://i.imgur.com/E3FxE7P.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/EnmuKM4.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/zIrWaHJ.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/6t6wXWp.jpg

and a 7.25" radius

http://i.imgur.com/jR0UyZL.jpg

Gassage

Got a shot of the heel of the neck?

Rabs

Hows this

http://i.imgur.com/ySV1ysX.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/GUApDxi.jpg

Gassage

@Rabs

By the way, really good point re screws- on neck bolts, they always wear the differently, but in the same pattern (bottom left screw wears the most and so on...) and a collector will spot this a mile off

prowla

Are those bridge saddles original?
(It looks like pots have been replaced at various times.)

ICBM

It's a late '63 or even an early '64 - the pot code visible on the neck tone pot is the 48th week of 1963. Sadly the other two pots have been replaced, the volume with a crap quality far-east one - at the very least you should re-replace this with a proper CTS.

You may find other dates on various parts, the youngest one always indicates the earliest possible date for the guitar of course - assuming it's original. Parts like pots will always pre-date the final shipping of the guitar by a week or two at minimum, usually longer.

Don't bother trying to source overpriced and quite likely scratchy vintage pots - it's a player-grade guitar, strict originality is no longer of any consequence. Use the best modern parts you can. Try cleaning the neck tone pot if you can, and if it doesn't work then replace it as well but keep this one safe, since it has the date code.

Well done for preserving the screw layout correctly too - you're right, it's important.

Rabs

Cheers guys...

And well it will be up to the owner what he wants to do...  Ive told him we should replace the input jack.. its REALLY bad... I could sand the corrosion off it, but really that seems silly..

As for the pots...  He thought only the volume pot had been changed... I can see that all three are different.. The other tone pot has natural corrosion on it at a similar level say to the jack.. So its been in there quite a while. There is some numbers and letters on the top of it but  could barely make them out..  I will have a closer look at it tomorrow. So if he wants to change them that's fine by me  but he didn't seem to want to mess with anything like that.. so we will see what he says.. And actually neither tone pot seemed to do anything when I tested it out plugged in.. So they may both need to come out. In which case I will suggest changing all three.

And im not such an expert on Fenders.. If this were a Gibson id know everything     So I don't know if the saddles were changed...  What I can tell you is that everything on here is old..  maybe not as old as the guitar.. But it all looks appropriately dirty and corroded where you think it would be.

Rabs

Ohh.. I do have a close up of the bridge

http://i.imgur.com/J315T5F.jpg