Murphy Lab Finish Issues

Astronaut FX

Gold Supporting Member
Messages
8,016
Wait , what? So a guitar model that’s artificially aged to simulate the look of a vintage instrument, is continuing to “age” in an advanced manner, and that’s a problem for you? Isn’t that what you paid a premium for? I understand the relic crowd less and less every day.
 

calieng

Member
Messages
719
Oh no that's a bummer dude. Are you gonna roll the dice on a fourth one or just go VOS on the next?
I purchased a few of them already. Some are fine and others had to be sent back. Will not buy anymore - at least not until the issue is resolved. Some said on another forum that production had been stopped until the finish formula can be reworked. Anyone else hear a similar story?
 

calieng

Member
Messages
719
And for those with snide remarks please refrain. I am trying to get some info not critcism for purchase decisions. I am trying to find out how common this problem is. From my own experience I would estimate 25% of the guitars will need to be returned or refinished at some point. Maybe my experience is unusual or it is the norm? That is the question.

Thanks.

P.S. I have had or still own the following Murphy Lab guitars...'54 heavy aged, '56 ultra light aged, '57 light aged, '58 light aged, 2-'59 ultra light aged, 2-'59 heavy aged, 2-'60 heavy aged, '68 Custom ultra light aged, '64 SG ultra light aged, '64 ES-335 ultra light aged. That is my sample size.
 
Last edited:

Astronaut FX

Gold Supporting Member
Messages
8,016
And for those with snide remarks please refrain. I am trying to get some info not critcism for purchase decisions. I am trying to find out how common this problem is.

No one buys an expensive guitar with the understanding that the finish will immediately start lifting up and flaking off...
There’s nothing snide about it. Finish checking (cracking) leads to finish flaking. You paid a premium to artificially advance that process. You’re getting exactly what you paid for.
 

Astronaut FX

Gold Supporting Member
Messages
8,016
Sure that is why the dealers are taking them back no questions asked and apparently production is stopped.

Don't tell me what I paid for. You are just being a jerk.
I’m sorry you feel that way. I’m simply pointing out some facts. It’s unreasonable to expect to be able to artificially advance the aging process of a guitar’s finish to a certain point, and then permanently halt it.
You paid for an artificially aged guitar. It’s going to continue to age.
 

calieng

Member
Messages
719
I’m sorry you feel that way. I’m simply pointing out some facts. It’s unreasonable to expect to be able to artificially advance the aging process of a guitar’s finish to a certain point, and then permanently halt it.
You paid for an artificially aged guitar. It’s going to continue to age.
You do not seem to understand the difference between finish flaws and what a buyer is entitled to expect from guitar that ranges up to $10k and more in price.

You are entitled to your opinion but I am trying to help inform some people of a potential issue and get some more data incase I end up having to return more of them.

We do not need "I told you so" responses. Please just keep this discussion to facts from those who own these guitars and those who have already had finish issues.

The dealers have already accepted that these are flaws so that matter is settled.
 

Cheddar Kung Pao

Platinum Supporting Member
Messages
3,230
I’m sorry you feel that way. I’m simply pointing out some facts. It’s unreasonable to expect to be able to artificially advance the aging process of a guitar’s finish to a certain point, and then permanently halt it.
You paid for an artificially aged guitar. It’s going to continue to age.
you are completely wrong, and continuing to repeat your wrong claim is only making you look foolish.

finish cracking and finish adhesion are two separate things. And that's just the tip of the ice berg of why you're wrong.
 

Devnor

Member
Messages
3,775
I played a used Murph with the same issues. Didn't know it at the time and just thought it was a gnarly relic job in places. Thanks for the heads up.
 

calieng

Member
Messages
719
I played a used Murph with the same issues. Didn't know it at the time and just thought it was a gnarly relic job in places. Thanks for the heads up.
You are welcome.

The picture is of an ultra light aged '59 by the way. It is supposed to be like a guitar stored under the bed for 60 years and basically unplayed - at least that is how they have described the condition to be similar to. There should be no finish flaking off at all for that model.
 

Go Cat Go!!

Member
Messages
6,724
I remember this being an issue with MJT a few years ago. The finish would start flaking off after a few months. I'm sorry you're going through this OP. It sounds like you have a great collection.
 

Mike Duncan

Staff member
Messages
7,580
Looks like they've got some chemical that just isn't properly balanced.

I was like when PRS brought out the DGT goldtop in nitro in 2007 and the gold kept shattering - took them another few months to work out the formulation.
 

goose1441

Member
Messages
185
Holy cow, if your 25% estimate is anywhere close to right, that's a really tough look for Gibson, especially considering ML was supposed to be the epitome of "turning a new leaf" on quality for them.

Of course one relic joke had to be made, but yeah this is clearly not acceptable. Side note: the ultra light is much heavier than I would've expected from the name, at least from the one picture.
 






Top