Heads up

[uwe]

Crucify me, but I like to see the grain, especially on a non-natural color like gold. I know its currently fashionable to do it on furniture as well, but I like it.

And I like the "applied with a kitchen brush" finish of Gibson as such as well. Looks organic and human handish to me. That hi-gloss stuff looks in my eyes dead, boring and sterile. It's the Wishbass demon in me, I know ...

Besides, the wood breathes more that way and that is good for the sound ... There, I said it. I now have to ...

[Blackbird]

The Gold EB looks really nice to me.  I can't say I mind the grains not being filled.

[drbassman]

Yep, my gold Midtown LP has some grain showing, but not as bad as some of the pictures in this thread.  To be frank, I could see the bass costing twice as much if they did a completely proper grain fill with the multiple steps of filling and sanding required.  I would classify the Midtown finish as good to very good, but not great.  Overall, it looks good and I can live with it.  But it could have been a bit better as well as more costly.

[drbassman]

Crucify me, but I like to see the grain, especially on a non-natural color like gold. I know its currently fashionable to do it on furniture as well, but I like it.

And I like the "applied with a kitchen brush" finish of Gibson as such as well. Looks organic and human handish to me. That hi-gloss stuff looks in my eyes dead, boring and sterile. It's the Wishbass demon in me, I know ...

Besides, the wood breathes more that way and that is good for the sound ... There, I said it. I now have to ...

I agree with Uwe, it definitely doesn't have that mile deep sterile poly look and that is a good thing.  I hadn't really thought of it that way.  No matter what you think of Gibson's finishing, I like mine for both its looks and price.

[neepheid]

I'm not going to crucify you, Uwe, you are more than entitled to your opinion and I respect that.  It's just that I want finish I could dive into.  Blue over quilt maple that looks as deep as the ocean itself, for example.  I don't find it sterile at all, I am deeply suspicious of any non-shiny basses.  As far as I'm concerned basses are meant to be shiny, and I mean proper shiny, with clearcoats like glass.  Anything below that cheapens the experience for me.  I don't like satin finishes (it's not an emulsioned wall), and whether or not the unfilled grain is intentional, it just looks like a rookie refinisher's mistake to me.

That gold EB should be luxurious looking, as befitting the nature of the substance it is aping.  If it had a uniform, shiny, high gloss finish I'd have had it in a snap.  I got so excited when I saw the thumbnail, then I was like "awwww!" when I saw the enlargements

As I've said already, if Gibson are intent on making instruments at this price point then maybe it's time to look into poly finishes instead of doing half finished (or should that be half begun?) nitro ones.  Would you like it if your car was finished in this manner?  I suspect not.

[gearHed289]

Wow, I'd be pissed if I bought one of those anniversary birds and it showed up looking like that. Not what I would expect from a gold Gibson. 

[66Atlas]

Personally I like the "open grain mahogony" high gloss finishes like the 50th Anniversary bird and the Pelham Blue on the NR reissues.  It think it adds a depth to the finish that would otherwise come off kind of plain.  That said, I cant stand the finish on the EB for a couple reasons. Mainly I'm not a fan of semi-gloss and satin finishes, but also just dont find the ash grain that appealing.

I guess it's probably smart of Gibson to offer something at a lower price point like the EB.  I just wont be buying one unless they decide to gloss it up and I'd probably be willing to pay more if they did.  

[uwe]

I'm not going to crucify you, Uwe, you are more than entitled to your opinion and I respect that.  It's just that I want finish I could dive into.  Blue over quilt maple that looks as deep as the ocean itself, for example.  I don't find it sterile at all, I am deeply suspicious of any non-shiny basses.  As far as I'm concerned basses are meant to be shiny, and I mean proper shiny, with clearcoats like glass.  Anything below that cheapens the experience for me.  I don't like satin finishes (it's not an emulsioned wall), and whether or not the unfilled grain is intentional, it just looks like a rookie refinisher's mistake to me.

That gold EB should be luxurious looking, as befitting the nature of the substance it is aping.  If it had a uniform, shiny, high gloss finish I'd have had it in a snap.  I got so excited when I saw the thumbnail, then I was like "awwww!" when I saw the enlargements

As I've said already, if Gibson are intent on making instruments at this price point then maybe it's time to look into poly finishes instead of doing half finished (or should that be half begun?) nitro ones.  Would you like it if your car was finished in this manner?  I suspect not.

Different tastes! Actually, a car fin like that would be cool and I'd lap it up. Never been much of a fan of shiny surfaces on anything, I like a surface to have structure, I'm haptic, glossy stuff you are never allowed to touch for the fingerprints you leave on it. (Edith wants- and of course gets - all our furniture highest gloss white, am I living in a hospital or what?   ) It's what Japanese companies do!  

I'm like that with women too, make-up that covers all facial skin irregularities is not for me. House of Wax. I'm more the freckles guy.

Could it be that the collective tastes of my beloved brethren here (mirror view hi gloss fins, grain filled to the max, chrome and nickel) are a tad bit old-fashioned?

[amptech]

I'm like that with women too, make-up that covers all facial skin irregularities is not for me. House of Wax. I'm more the freckles guy.

I will agree on ´natural´finishes on cars, furniture and people. I thought of a joke here with cavities and filler but I´ll let it go.

But for my gibsons, It´s gloss and filler all the way. I do love a couple my 60´s EB basses with natural ´worn´cherry, but that´s different - the grain is still filled.

[Granny Gremlin]

Could it be that the collective tastes of my beloved brethren here (mirror view hi gloss fins, grain filled to the max, chrome and nickel) are a tad bit old-fashioned?

If anything, grain showing is more old fashioned (e.g. the 70s teak furniture craze and 50s bleached/limed finish craze... and just about anything before that, especially as regards musical instruments).  Opaque super high gloss is more a modern thing.

Anyway, I'm with you on the grain showing thing, but I think it's also a matter of degree (it can be borked).  It's wood, so in my mind, if you're going to fill the grain and finish opaque, the thing might as well be some other matierial, like a Dano or Dan Armstrong. ... that said I've never been a fan of heavily figured  and super-polished maple either (too blingy) though I get the appeal.  I like class and character that isn't overstated (also why I prefer nickel hardware vs shiney chrome or flashy gold.... black is OK, but doesn't always work for me, especially if mixed and matched with chrome or something else).  Generally I prefer matte to gloss on most things.

My tung oil finished EB3 is one of the best looking/feeling instruments I have ever played (and before anyone screams, it came to me sanded down to the bare, if still cherry-stained, wood with most of the hardware in a plastic shopping bag, rest missing).  No filler (though oil tends to do a little of that for you if done right).

[amptech]

I can see why people like oiled finishes on woods like maple, but when wood with grain as deep as mahogany
I think they look more dirty than worn. Even quite new instruments (some, not all) I have seen have that unwashed (and slightly dazed) look..

I can see it from a tone-point-of-view, but then you don´t need ocean deep finishes just because you fill the grain.
I want to be able to sweat my EB down at a show, and clean it up after. 

[uwe]

"I can see it from a tone-point-of-view ..."


 

THOUGHT CRIME!!! Doubleplusnotgood.

[Dave W]

I like unfilled grain with transparent or translucent finishes, providing it's done right. I'm okay with matte or semi-gloss finishes if they're done properly. Even solid colored finishes like the gold can look nice in matte, filled or unfilled. My Melody Maker looks very nice in white satin.

The problem is that Gibson doesn't do it right on many of these. Some of them look like they were run through a spray booth operated by a baboon. None of the smoothness of my $250 Melody Maker, and some of these are $2000 basses. Just awful.

[TBird1958]

 It' s nice if they buff a little of the Baboon fur out before shipping.

[Granny Gremlin]

I like unfilled grain with transparent or translucent finishes, providing it's done right. I'm okay with matte or semi-gloss finishes if they're done properly. Even solid colored finishes like the gold can look nice in matte, filled or unfilled. My Melody Maker looks very nice in white satin.

The problem is that Gibson doesn't do it right on many of these. Some of them look like they were run through a spray booth operated by a baboon. None of the smoothness of my $250 Melody Maker, and some of these are $2000 basses. Just awful.

I do agree with that.  ... I just don't claim to be able to tell from an online sales pic how bad the finish is (I believe you guys, that Gibson needs to pull up it's socks in that department though, because  a number of you have bought new basses and complained in the past, going back a good few years), but they seem to only put the better-done ones up for display in local stores here.

I can see why people like oiled finishes on woods like maple, but when wood with grain as deep as mahogany
...
I want to be able to sweat my EB down at a show, and clean it up after.  

See, I would be hesitant to finish a maple instrument in oil.  This is because maple is much more prone to warping and damage (greying) due to moisture exposure (or humidity fluctuation) than maho.  That said I have done this to a maple neck (1980 Gibson Sonex Custom 6 banger).... but I only risked it because a) I actually have a spare neck (Sonexes are bolt on) and b) it's 3 pc opposed grain laminated neck vs 1 pc so warp risk is reduced.

Trust me, oil looks great on maho (e.g. my 60s EB3) ... by deep I assume you mean physically (pores etc, vs visually) because maple certainly tends to look deeper (especially figured - that's the whole point), but maho is physically deeper.  Sanding, including final stages where you wet the wood first (to raise the grain) goes a long way here.  The manual rubbing in of the oil also acts as a buffing stage - kinda fills the grain a bit with a mix of oil and superfine maho dust. It also forms a bit of a protective film (like laquer does) after several coats (but thinner/softer).  For something like a bass I always do like a bagillion coats, 1 or 2 a day lovingly and patiently rubbed in, for weeks.  If done right (and maintained), tung oil will easily protect yer EB3 from a drenching performance.    I haven't needed to reoil it yet (been almost 10 years, actively gigged as a main player for the first 5 or so), though just recently it occurred to me that I should as it is starting to look a bit duller than before (I've been procrastinating because Lucy don't leave the house much anymore anyway).

Think of it this way, have any of your unlaquered fretboards (just about anything rosewood or ebony that isn't a Ric) been damaged by your sweating?  Those are just oiled.