Inlays : On or Off?

pippy

Hello everyone and I trust you all had a very merry yule-tide!

Ben : Which post(s) did you read? And did you read all the posts in both threads?

If so then, hopefully, two things should be clear to you;

In the HN (NP) G-J (or whatever it was), my thoughts were as follows...

1) ...."IF I decide to re-instate them do I go for 'Historical Accuracy and Originality' or the more traditional - and certainly far less confusing! - 9th fret? I've been playing it quite a lot today and this 9th/10th thing is a Right Royal P-in the-A. The neck has, as you would expect, side markers and it's not easy trying to remember to compensate for the anomaly.

(However)

The funny thing is; when you get the hang of it the 10th position is in some ways a more logical position to be thus marked."

is how I finished the discussion before some imp suggested a sound-clip which led on to....

2) The second thread : "Me scratching around..." would leave you in no doubt of my understanding (or lack thereof) of the ways of G-J!

I'm curious; do I know you on the G forum? as there are many there well-versed in the ways of Django!

Philip.

Michael Bauer

Any side markers would not be original to your di Mauro, but would have been added later. You can certainly leave them as having been part of the guitars life.

I usually remove them from vintage instuments and use Whiteout to "paint" side markers on. One advantage is that, if you are a 9th fret guy, you can have the fretboard marker in the correct 10th position, but paint the side marker at the 9th fret. That way you get a historically correct guitar, but can play in your comfort zone. Whiteout comes right off, does no damage that I have ever been able to detect, and can be easily switched if a 10th fret guy wants to use your guitar. I usually keep a bottle with me in the case for such occasions.

klaatu

Philip, I only read one thread and was not aware of the other, so I do not seem to have gotten all of your thoughts on the question. I am not on the Gibson forum and I think I ran across that post after Googling "Di Mauro Special Chorus." So I'm afraid I don't know if there are people on there who are knowledgeable about GJ or not.

As to whether the 9th fret position marker is more traditional, I guess it depends on which tradition. I believe that the 10th fret marker was chosen by Maccaferri or Selmer because they wanted to make the guitars more attractive to the jazz banjo players who were migrating over to guitar in the 1930s. It is also used on mandolins. Since making the switch, I have wondered why it is now more common for guitars to have 9th fret markers, because it seems not to be especially useful to know where (for example) C# is on the E string, whereas knowing where D is would seem to be beneficial. The same principle applies to all the other strings. With 10 you get a natural, with 9 you get a # (or b).

Bohemian

No inlays

The originals were neither tasteful nor campy.

klaatu

Bohemian wrote:

No inlays

The originals were neither tasteful nor campy.

Well, since (as previously stated) I like the clean look of a marker-free fretboard, I would agree on esthetic grounds, were it not a highly recognizable vintage guitar. Philip may certainly choose to leave the inlays off, it being his guitar and all, but should he do so, he'll want to keep them stored away safely for any possible future owner who may wish to restore the guitar to its original state. At a guess, I'd say the resale value of the guitar has been reduced by several hundred dollars.

pippy

Hi there again, folks.

Thanks for the info re : the side markers, Michael. I didn't realise they were not original fitments. I'll leave them on, though, as they are quite handy to have!

And Ben; I will re-instate the inlays in their original positions. I've grown fond of the 10th position for those very reasons you mention.

Aesthetically I prefer the 'off' look but as I've intimated before I don't believe that I have the right to alter the instrument in this regard.

Philip.