Refinishing a vintage ukulele

Appalachian picker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2013
Messages
166
Reaction score
0
In anticipation of getting a vintage Barry Tone with the usual scuffs, scrapes and nicks that accumulate with age and playing, I was wondering what the conventional wisdom is regarding refinishing, or at least touching up these wear spots.

Is it more typical to preserve the "patina" of age and wear? Or do most refinish the instrument? The Barry of my desire is not a Martin or similiar high dollar rarity but a more blue-collar player of the Harmony ilk.

One reason I ask is that I've seen many an "Antiques Road Show" episode where the expert advised against restoration in favor of preserving the patina and character of the piece.

Obviously I guess it all comes down to my individual desire....but what do ya'll do?
 
If you anticipate any collectable value down the road, don't touch it.
 
I think you have to evaluate the instrument in question. If the finish were so deteriorated as to seriously detract from your enjoyment of the ukulele, then I would say refinish it. However, I have found that many instruments transform with a really good cleaning and some touch up. It is your ukulele and you can do as you wish. I personally don't mind a vintage ukulele with some bumps and scrapes. I touch them up to make the color match as much as possible, but mostly I just leave most things alone and enjoy it the way it is.

If you have a Harmony baritone or the like, and you do a really good refinish job, and it is something you are going to keep, then you just make it prettier. If you plan to sell it, I would say leave it as it is. I don't usually consider buying refinished vintage instruments as I like them to be just as perfectly or imperfectly it has survived the years. When you get it, post some pictures!
 
If you plan to sell it, I would say leave it as it is. I don't usually consider buying refinished vintage instruments as I like them to be just as perfectly or imperfectly it has survived the years. When you get it, post some pictures!

Yup. It's pretty hard to "unrefinish" them. If you're thinking about selling someday, you never know what the next person will regard as desireable -- and top dollar worthy!
 
Yup. It's pretty hard to "unrefinish" them. If you're thinking about selling someday, you never know what the next person will regard as desireable -- and top dollar worthy!

Good points made by all. I imagine at some point I will sell - in 20 years or so! A few blemishes certainly won't hurt the playability. I think of Willie Nelson and that beat up old Martin N-20 ("Trigger) he plays. Patina adds character!
 
I would keep the wear. I am against refinishing any instruments. They should wear their battle scars with pride. It shows what they've been through, the music they created, the history of the musician(s) that played it, etc. My Harmony baritone isn't pretty, but she's a player. She was played so hard I had to replace the frets on it. The finish, as messed up as it is, stayed. I also have a ~1925 soprano that has a lot of play wear on her. She's keeping her badges with pride.

Just my sentimental two cents.

Dan
 
Don't worry about a few scars and scratches

Guitar players pay extra money to Fender to buy brand new "distressed" guitars. FenderDistressedGuitar.jpg
So they can match their pre-ripped jeans, and at the hat store "Lids" at the mall I see they are selling pre-ripped hats as well.

I'm surprised no ukulele maker has any distressed new ukuleles for sale.

I have bought many older ukuleles, and the wear and scars have not bothered me.
The only time I have sent a ukulele off to be refinished was one I bought on ebay, that had damage so bad, that the entire top had to be replaced. And then to get the whole finish even, to match the replacement top, it made sense to refinish it, to make all sides even.
 
Well, its a Harmony baritone folks. It is not going to be worth a lot of money in any condition. If the dings and scratches don't bother you, fine, but I have refinished a handful of these ukes and have always gotten more money for them after they were looking good again. I have even re-topped a few with spruce tops, which were much better sounding than the thick mahogany tops they come with. My advice is to do what you want, this is not a valuable instrument in terms of money, IMO.
 
For me, there's nothing better than an aged vintage instrument that has been played and worn.

My Favilla has that old Jazzy smoke filled sound with a top that is marked like and old blues player's face; scarred from too many bar fights over whiskey and women. I think if I were to re-finish it, it would lose it's soul.
 
Well, its a Harmony baritone folks. It is not going to be worth a lot of money in any condition. If the dings and scratches don't bother you, fine, but I have refinished a handful of these ukes and have always gotten more money for them after they were looking good again. I have even re-topped a few with spruce tops, which were much better sounding than the thick mahogany tops they come with. My advice is to do what you want, this is not a valuable instrument in terms of money, IMO.

My thoughts exactly regarding the monetary value.
 
What if it's like a Kamaka Gold or white Label? Would refinishing that, lower the resale value?

Yes! Don't do it to a Kamaka.

With guns, instruments or old furniture refinishing is for stuff that is cheap and can never be valuable. Like a $50 Harmony that would be worth $100 if it was in perfect shape, but is in sorry, ugly shape, refinishing it will not make it worth less, if you do a good job.
 
Last edited:
As Pondoro asy,"Don't do it." I'd rather buy a vintage instrument in it's origianal condition and have the discretion of leaving it like that or having my own trusted luthier doing the work. When I see a re-finshed one, my first thught that it was pretty beatup before the work.
 
I'm against refinishing unless it is absolutely necessary. When I am trying to figure out what that "absolutely necessary" threshold is, I consider two aspects. One has to do with how bad the finish is. A little wear or crazing does not induce me to even think about refinishing. Finish that is flaking off or about to is another story. The other consideration is value, and of course, this is related to the first concern. If an ukulele's value is diminished, let's say for the sake of argument, by 40%, but the ukulele in question is in such bad shape that it's worth less than that much as is, it's time to consider doing some work, or having some work done. Even in these instances, I am loathe to refinish. There are better alternatives. In one of the albums on my profile page I have some before and after pictures of a Hollywood Concert ukulele. It was in horrible shape when I got it: big cracks, missing bridge and inlays, cracked braces, etc. But the worst of it was the finish. About half of it was already gone. The rest was crazed badly enough that it wouldn't be long before it came off altogether. The darker areas on the upper bouts were dark because of dirt. When I cleaned it, it was bare wood, and pretty badly chewed up at that. If you look at the pictures, you will see a lot of whitish streaks running down the top. It seems somebody poured some booze on it, maybe even a few times. The instrument had clearly been abused. I sought the advice of some luthiers I respect. Rick Turner's advice was particularly helpful.

The first thing I did was use an amalgamator to re-adhere the flaking finish. Here's a link to Frank Ford's site about amalgamating a failed finish:

http://www.frets.com/FretsPages/Luthier/Technique/Finish/Lacquer/Amalgamator/amalgamator1.html

Then I sealed everything with a few thin layers of shellac. Using some wood dyes mixed with shellac, I carefully painted in the areas where the color had been lost (upper bouts) to match the surrounding areas, and built up successive layers of shellac, sanding lightly in between coats, until everything was level. After this had dried for a while, I used 0000 steel wool to eliminate scratches. Actually, I made a very fine scratch pattern going with the grain so that it is invisible. Lastly, I used the steel wool with wool lube to polish it to a desirable degree of sheen.

Ostensibly, sanding off the old finish and starting over would have been faster, but the process I used, I think anyway, is preferable for a few reasons. It still has some of that patina. I didn't fill in all of the dings. It is less sterile in appearance than refinishing. Also, the shellac is removable, although I'm not sure why anyone would want to go back to the mess it was before.

Most of this stuff I learned about through conversations on this forum. In the end, however, understanding that I learn much faster and better if I have someone who know what they are doing show me, I sought out instruction. I found an antique finish expert. I pumped a lot of time and money into the instrument and my instruction, but to me it was worth it. It might not be for others, and I'm not sure if what I have in the instrument is more than it's worth. I mean to say it was a labor of love rather than one done in consideration of investment value.
 
hmgberg - That is a beautiful restoration of a uke that was probably worthless in the original condition. You indeed increased the value. I don't know anything about Hollywood ukes but I am guessing they are not highly collectible. You did the right thing.

I am also guessing that a Kamaka in the same sorry shape as hmberg's Hollywood would be expensive and would justify having a pro do the work. I am not slighting hmberg's work, just saying I would try the same thing at home with a cheap name, but send for the pros with a Kamaka.
 
Last edited:
I'm against refinishing unless it is absolutely necessary. When I am trying to figure out what that "absolutely necessary" threshold is, I consider two aspects. One has to do with how bad the finish is. A little wear or crazing does not induce me to even think about refinishing. Finish that is flaking off or about to is another story. The other consideration is value, and of course, this is related to the first concern. If an ukulele's value is diminished, let's say for the sake of argument, by 40%, but the ukulele in question is in such bad shape that it's worth less than that much as is, it's time to consider doing some work, or having some work done. Even in these instances, I am loathe to refinish. There are better alternatives. In one of the albums on my profile page I have some before and after pictures of a Hollywood Concert ukulele. It was in horrible shape when I got it: big cracks, missing bridge and inlays, cracked braces, etc. But the worst of it was the finish. About half of it was already gone. The rest was crazed badly enough that it wouldn't be long before it came off altogether. The darker areas on the upper bouts were dark because of dirt. When I cleaned it, it was bare wood, and pretty badly chewed up at that. If you look at the pictures, you will see a lot of whitish streaks running down the top. It seems somebody poured some booze on it, maybe even a few times. The instrument had clearly been abused. I sought the advice of some luthiers I respect. Rick Turner's advice was particularly helpful.

The first thing I did was use an amalgamator to re-adhere the flaking finish. Here's a link to Frank Ford's site about amalgamating a failed finish:

http://www.frets.com/FretsPages/Luthier/Technique/Finish/Lacquer/Amalgamator/amalgamator1.html

Then I sealed everything with a few thin layers of shellac. Using some wood dyes mixed with shellac, I carefully painted in the areas where the color had been lost (upper bouts) to match the surrounding areas, and built up successive layers of shellac, sanding lightly in between coats, until everything was level. After this had dried for a while, I used 0000 steel wool to eliminate scratches. Actually, I made a very fine scratch pattern going with the grain so that it is invisible. Lastly, I used the steel wool with wool lube to polish it to a desirable degree of sheen.

Ostensibly, sanding off the old finish and starting over would have been faster, but the process I used, I think anyway, is preferable for a few reasons. It still has some of that patina. I didn't fill in all of the dings. It is less sterile in appearance than refinishing. Also, the shellac is removable, although I'm not sure why anyone would want to go back to the mess it was before.

Most of this stuff I learned about through conversations on this forum. In the end, however, understanding that I learn much faster and better if I have someone who know what they are doing show me, I sought out instruction. I found an antique finish expert. I pumped a lot of time and money into the instrument and my instruction, but to me it was worth it. It might not be for others, and I'm not sure if what I have in the instrument is more than it's worth. I mean to say it was a labor of love rather than one done in consideration of investment value.

Hollywood Ukes are highly collectable and somewhat rare. Refinishing the uke with the shellac was the right thing to do. I am glad it worked out for you. This thread however, is not about highly collectable ukes, its about a baritone Harmony uke, worth about $250 in top condition. No luthier likes to refinish a valuable instrument of any kind, and I have a policy against this practice, even if the owner insists on having it done. I have refused do finish or restoring finish on collectable Fenders, Martins, Gibsons and older high end violins. The customer usually goes ahead and botches the refin by themselves, there is nothing I can do about that. If after the screw up they bring it back to me and a then agree to do the job, I will triple the price.

I will however strip the finish off an old trade violin or guitar that is at deaths door. IMO, to take a old Harmony uke, violin or guitar that needs work is not doing harm, it is giving that inferior instrument a new lease on life and giving someone a chance to play it again. These are not valuable instrument in a monetary sense and they never will be. We do not have to treat them as such just because we think they could be valuable, they are not. I am personally glad most people do not want to touch them, because they probably will screw it up and then luthiers like me get to undone the screw ups too.

If you think leaving a beat up instruments in bad shape ads mojo or gives it soul, well I hope that works for you. I don't agree with that assessment in most cases. The instrument is a tool and has no more mojo than an old door knob. Mojo is in the hands of the player.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the compliment. I really like Hollywood ukuleles and they are collectable, but in that condition...not so much. I did seek out expert instruction, and I paid for it to the tune of...well, let's just say a lot. I wanted to learn more about finishes. Not all expert luthiers are experts at finishes. I know of several who have other craftspeople do the finishing for them. Then, finish conservation and restoration is something else as well. The guy who taught me started out as a luthier and then trained in antique restoration, studied finishes exclusively for a year. He does work for museums, so I figured I was in good hands.

There are so many things to consider. The type of finish and the type of damage is where you start. I'm fairly certain that the Kamaka has a nitrocellulose finish on it. Nitro loses its elasticity over time and will start to deteriorate even if the instrument is well taken care of. If it has been exposed to extremes temperature or humidity, it will deteriorate more quickly. An amalgamator will cure most of these problems. It re-wets the old finish, blends with it, and allows it to dry more slowly. If the finish is clouded (blush), it is because moisture has gotten under it. The slow-drying amalgamator allows the moisture to evaporate out. Now, I'm sure purists would say that the process is akin to over spraying, and it is. In fact, over spraying accomplishes the same thing. However, if the finish is failing, I think the responsible thing to do is to salvage as much as you can of it. That's the difference between conservation and refinishing.

The French polishing (shellac) can fix a lot of woes by itself. A few thin coats will hold things in place and it can be polished up nicely. Once again, it can be removed with alcohol. Rick Turner calls it a "magic sauce." I haven't tried it on spaghetti yet. I must say, I was mystified by all of the material I read about the process. The truth is, it isn't that complicated. Actually, when the process was invented, the guilds, protecting their incomes, proliferated the notion that it was too challenging and should not be attempted by untrained individuals. Somehow, I think, a lot of that has been passed on into the present day. Finishing a white instrument (unfinished) in shellac is a bit more difficult, but applying shellac over an existing finish isn't so much of a problem. I say that now after having been taught but...

hmgberg - That is a beautiful restoration of a uke that was probably worthless in the original condition. You indeed increased the value. I don't know anything about Hollywood ukes but I am guessing they are not highly collectible. You did the right thing.

I am also guessing that a Kamaka in the same sorry shape as hmberg's Hollywood would be expensive and would justify having a pro do the work. I am not slighting hmberg's work, just saying I would try the same thing at home with a cheap name, but send for the pros with a Kamaka.
 
Hollywood Ukes are highly collectable and somewhat rare. Refinishing the uke with the shellac was the right thing to do. I am glad it worked out for you. This thread however, is not about highly collectable ukes, its about a baritone Harmony uke, worth about $250 in top condition. No luthier likes to refinish a valuable instrument of any kind, and I have a policy against this practice, even if the owner insists on having it done. I have refused do finish or restoring finish on collectable Fenders, Martins, Gibsons and older high end violins. The customer usually goes ahead and botches the refin by themselves, there is nothing I can do about that. If after the screw up they bring it back to me and a then agree to do the job, I will triple the price.

I will however strip the finish off an old trade violin or guitar that is at deaths door. IMO, to take a old Harmony uke, violin or guitar that needs work is not doing harm, it is giving that inferior instrument a new lease on life and giving someone a chance to play it again. These are not valuable instrument in a monetary sense and they never will be. We do not have to treat them as such just because we think they could be valuable, they are not. I am personally glad most people do not want to touch them, because they probably will screw it up and then luthiers like me get to undone the screw ups too.

If you think leaving a beat up instruments in bad shape ads mojo or gives it soul, well I hope that works for you. I don't agree with that assessment in most cases. The instrument is a tool and has no more mojo than an old door knob. Mojo is in the hands of the player.

Yep! A little bit of patina is expected, but a little bit of patina and "at death's door" are quite different conditions. If it is a good/valuable instrument especially, I think the respectful thing to do is conservation / preservation, give it a "new lease on life." On the other hand, conservation can be time consuming as compared to stripping and refinishing. If we are talking about a Harmony ukulele, then maybe the latter is the better solution.

This whole mojo thing has me nonplused at times. I tend to think of mojo more in relation to design than owner abuse, but that's just me apparently. It's kind of crazy that people pay more for new instruments that have been "relic'd" and less for vintage instruments that have a ding or two. I mean, it's a challenge for me to reconcile these ideas. Bottom line is, an ukulele is an "instrument" for making music. If something has happened to it that impairs its effectiveness or longevity as such, it should be addressed, I think anyway.

Once in NYC, I was looking in a window of an instrument store at two Les Paul Junior guitars. I don't play guitar, but I was curious because the guitar on the right was brand spanking new and the price tag on it was less than on the one on the left which looked as though it had been in a fire and otherwise abused for 40 years or so. Seriously, it looked like a hunk of charcoal. I asked the clerk to explain this to me. To my surprise he said that they were both new instruments, but the one on the left had been "relic'd." I asked him to repeat that because I hadn't heard that word before. He told me all about it. Then I said, "Oh, I thought it was a badly damaged vintage instrument." He replied that if it was a vintage instrument, it would cost much more than either of the two in the window...if it was in good condition, of course.
 
The advice from the pros here has been spot on.

I haven't seen the uke, but my approach to restoring finishes is to use Behlen's Qualarenu first...and very carefully. It will restore some of the plascicizers to the original lacquer. Then I might do some shellac drop filling of the deeper dings followed with French polish. It's laborious but you can restore rather than refinish, and in so doing help protect the wood while preserving a lot of the character. Shellac seems to be a forever finish...properly cared for Martin guitars from the mid to late 1800s that are shellac finished (either French polished or brushed) look great.

Refinishing will become more normal over the next 50 years as old lacquer simply fails and starts to flake off the wood. Dupont chemists figured that nitro lacquer would be good for about 75 years. Given that instrument companies in the US started using it in the late 1920s, there you have it. Many vintage instrument finishes are in their final days.

OK, off to spray some polyester...
 
Top Bottom