Why did the custom shop change the pore filler and back finishing?

[thin sissy]

Thanks for clarifying! Looks like my R8 is the same era 2007 as your R9.

 

[MWR]

The backs on my 2018, 2019, and 2020 Historics all look about the same as the backs on my 2003-2004 Historics. They're all a medium red color with pore filler that bleeds.

From around late-2006 to 2012 the back finishes were changed to a recipe that didn't bleed at all. I believe that both the filler and the lacquer changed, but I'm not sure. The color was more rust-like and the grain didn't pop out as much. Late-2006 was also the start of the VOS finish as I recall.

I haven't owned any Reissues newer than 2020, but I do recall seeing photos of some later models which had overly dark back finishes. This may have been in 2021 or 2022.

I loved that older Historic dark burst you used to post. The color and top were phenomenal. Do you still have it?

 

[Ed A]

I remember having lunch with Murphy a bunch of years ago and he said that the custom shop got away from doing the backs correctly, Im gonna guess we had that lunch some time between 2007 and 2013..... but Im still questioning why the pore filler on the backs of the current Murphy Labs (Ive had a few of them dating from '21 to '24) looks almost black instead of cherry? And doesnt spread into the surrounding lacquer..... wonder if it has anything to do with the new fast checking lacquer or maybe to do with the problem they initially had of the finish flaking off the backs... I heard that was an issue with pore filler adhesion.... In any case as someone else said earlier their are bigger problems in life to worry about LOL

 

[Ed A]

I remember having lunch with Murphy a bunch of years ago and he said that the custom shop got away from doing the backs correctly, Im gonna guess we had that lunch some time between 2007 and 2013..... but Im still questioning why the pore filler on the backs of the current Murphy Labs (Ive had a few of them dating from '21 to '24) looks almost black instead of cherry? And doesnt spread into the surrounding lacquer..... wonder if it has anything to do with the new fast checking lacquer or maybe to do with the problem they initially had of the finish flaking off the backs... I heard that was an issue with pore filler adhesion.... In any case as someone else said earlier their are bigger problems in life to worry about LOL

 

[gmann]

Sounds like a question for Mat Koehler.

 

[DANELECTRO]

.... but Im still questioning why the pore filler on the backs of the current Murphy Labs (Ive had a few of them dating from '21 to '24) looks almost black instead of cherry? And doesnt spread into the surrounding lacquer.....

I browsed around through my photo archive and I can't find any images that I saved showing the super-dark backs, but I recall seeing a number of those guitars online and thinking to myself "what the hell is up with the ultra dark backs". They didn't look like you would picture an un-faded factory-fresh 1959 back might have looked like, they were just ultra-dark marron-red backs that didn't look historically correct at all. As I recall, this lasted for maybe a year or so of production and then the color lightened-up again.

 

[Wizard1183]

I remember having lunch with Murphy a bunch of years ago and he said that the custom shop got away from doing the backs correctly, Im gonna guess we had that lunch some time between 2007 and 2013..... but Im still questioning why the pore filler on the backs of the current Murphy Labs (Ive had a few of them dating from '21 to '24) looks almost black instead of cherry? And doesnt spread into the surrounding lacquer..... wonder if it has anything to do with the new fast checking lacquer or maybe to do with the problem they initially had of the finish flaking off the backs... I heard that was an issue with pore filler adhesion.... In any case as someone else said earlier their are bigger problems in life to worry about LOL

I think the “almost black” is an accumulation of aniline cherry in the pores. But if the binding bleeds, you better believe it all bleeds. You just don’t notice it. But stick that back in a hot sun for a few hours and you’ll see that aniline dye disappear even in the pores

 

[HanaBanana]

I browsed around through my photo archive and I can't find any images that I saved showing the super-dark backs, but I recall seeing a number of those guitars online and thinking to myself "what the hell is up with the ultra dark backs". They didn't look like you would picture an un-faded factory-fresh 1959 back might have looked like, they were just ultra-dark marron-red backs that didn't look historically correct at all. As I recall, this lasted for maybe a year or so of production and then the color lightened-up again.

Would this count as a super dark back? It's my 2021 R9 (non-Murphy) and it's definitely darker than older reissues or most newer ones. It's also got massive amounts of binding bleed that I hope will go away in time...

 

[jb_abides]

Would this count as a super dark back? It's my 2021 R9 (non-Murphy) and it's definitely darker than older reissues or most newer ones. It's also got massive amounts of binding bleed that I hope will go away in time...View attachment 27598

I'd say that's a beautiful robust darker factory cherry back from the contemporary era.

Most of the "super dark backs" under discussion above were rather opaque, with more of a turd-like appearance, rather than cherry-turned-dark-walnut...

Like this HJ-era R7, an extreme example:

 

[HanaBanana]

I'd say that's a beautiful robust darker factory cherry back from the contemporary era.

Most of the "super dark backs" under discussion above were rather opaque, with more of a turd-like appearance, rather than cherry-turned-dark-walnut...

Like this HJ-era R7, an extreme example:

View attachment 27600

Ahhhh, I get it. But I thought the dark back R7s are black and that's part of the "dark back" spec? Do R9s (or 8s or 0s) have a "dark back" spec?

 

[jb_abides]

Ahhhh, I get it. But I thought the dark back R7s are black and that's part of the "dark back" spec? Do R9s (or 8s or 0s) have a "dark back" spec?

On this forum and elsewhere in the Vintage and Historic Reissue sphere, 'dark back' described R2-R7 Goldtop backs, to distinguish from the default 'normal' ones which typically have a natural finish, such as:



For Bursts / R8-R9-R0s, the prior discussion in the thread was taking about the gradation in hue of the Cherry finishes, their tendency to bleed onto the binding, and the color of the underlying pore filler.

Yours is rather Bing 'dark cherry' and robust, yet still very transparent showing the grain and dark filler. This was not really the norm throughout prior decades of the Reissues, with some almost taking upon a pinkish 'smoked salmon' [I am winging it here with the nomenclature, ha], to other more pronounced cherries, and even some seen as Bing to Dark Cherry. It varies, even within the year.

Reference that prior discussion, I don't have much to add pinning down a change around that time. Off hand, I think I only have one R9 from 2007. Yes, I've lost mental track of some of them, having 2003, 2005, 2007, 2013 and onwards in the stable. LOL. I don't bother remembering which are bleeding, having bled out, or in process. I know some have more than others, that's about it. Not bothered by it, I was just acclimated to it, being part of the deal then.

Not sure if this is conclusive, as I've just picked a few R9s by year, in different lighting conditions, etc. --

First, current 'typical' R9s:




Then, from older to younger...

Lighter 2003s with some underlying 'salmon' also filler contrast isn't as distinct:




2005s:



2007s:



After 2013, a 2014:

 

[LPR6]

Ahhhh, I get it. But I thought the dark back R7s are black and that's part of the "dark back" spec? Do R9s (or 8s or 0s) have a "dark back" spec?

More of a dark brown on an R7 and they don’t bleed like the red ones. This pic was taken in direct sunlight. It’s much darker looking inside the house. I don’t believe that I’ve seen a dark back R8 or R9.