iiipopes wrote:
Unless there is so much finish gone that there are issues of bare wood wearing or getting damaged from perspiration or other severe issues, for value he'd be better off letting it alone, possibly having a good luthier touch up the places that have gone to bare wood to prevent any deterioration, clean it up, have a good set up done, get a good set of strings, and just play it and enjoy it in it's "patina" condition.
Remember -- Fender is now charging about double the price of a new Am Std P-bass for one that has been given the "road worn" look on purpose by the custom shop -- go figure!
If I may differ in opinion from my good friend Scott...
If what your friend has there is a celebrity-owned or very rare bass (say, a '60s 4001), I would agree wholeheartedly with Scott's comments and recommendations.
What's more, if you and your friend are both newcomers to the amazing world of Rickenbacker instruments, and (as newcomers often are) short on knowledge and possibly on pocket cash as well, Scott's advice is quite sound.
However, if your Rickenbacker bass falls into the vast majority of instruments out there, being a working instrument with no definite provenance or claim to fame, and you choose to have a knowledgeable pro refinish or "restore" it , keeping its character in mind, you will not see any appreciable decrease in investment, provided you sell it to a knowledgeable enthusiast. In fact, it's not unusual for owners to be able to recover their investment, and one hopes, once the economy recovers, even see a slight profit if the project is carefully intentioned and managed.
In other words, a $1500 bass with a really nice $1500 restoration could bring $3000 in time. How much time depends on too many factors to list, but unless you really mess it up, you won't lose money in a fair deal.
And, if economics are less important than your desire to make it "new" or make it "yours", go ahead and get it done, and enjoy it for years to come. Ricks generally appreciate unless terribly abused or defaced.
