Vibra-Artiste De Luxe - restore or leave as is?

[shakedown]

Hello, everyone

I am glad to say that I have just become the proud owner of a Burns Vibra-Artiste De Luxe (photo below), and my trawling of the web suggests that you guys have pretty good knowledge of this guitar.

It all seems to be original and everything is there, with the exception of the truss rod cover. However, the paintwork shows the signs of its age, as does much of the hardware.

I am wondering whether to just leave it in its current condition (after an overall clean), or try to restore it to its former glory (replate the hardware and a fresh paint job).

Does anybody have any strong thoughts on the matter? Any advice would clearly be welcome!

Thanks

Chris

[RayL]

Clean up but otherwise leave as is. It will have more value (both in money terms and as a true example of the model) if it is as original as possible.

If I knew then what I know now then I might not have hacked my Artist around back in the '60s!

Ray

[noelford]

I was about to reply but then saw that Ray had said exactly what I was going to say.

[des mcneill]

I have to agree with the others, please don't touch it.

Des.

[Bluesnote]

Its a bit of a dilemma I think. I know it should be left in its present state to maintain its value and not be modified in any way but, if it were mine, I'd be torn between that and having it taken back to its original glory and being a nice gleaming playable guitar again
I like my guitars to be well polished and no marks on them as much as is possible. It looks a lovely looking guitar and could look way much better if it were fully restored.
I suppose it depends on what you value most and how much it cost you in the first place and if you want to maintain that value, and if you want to have it as an antique or as a playable instrument that you want to use every day.
I know most folk in here will shudder at my thoughts on the matter but if I came across such a find as this, I'd like to enjoy it as it once was and give it a makeover and just enjoy playing it(puts on tin helmet) and hope that it does'nt devalue too much, of course it goes without saying that it'd need to be restored properly and a fully professional job done on the finish and not a half-hearted attempt at it.
Thats my take on it anyway
Hugh.

[noelford]

I understand what you are saying, Hugh, but why does a guitar have to be an antique OR a guitar you play every day? Surely it can be both. My vintage guitars hang on the wall with my more modern ones. Yes, I look after them, but they do get played and even used for gigs. This Burns, if carefully stripped and cleaned, would look great. Genuine wear and tear that some folks pay a lot of money for if they buy a modern 'relic'. This would be the genuine article, with a real history. Much more interesting and satisfying to play ike that, I reckon.

[ecca]

I would be inclined to restore it if it were mine.
I can't see the point of having one eye on the resale value all the time, it takes away the enjoyment.
I'd get the parts re-plated and the body painted.
Sod it.

[shakedown]

Eric, Hugh, Ray, Noel and Des

Thanks for responding so quickly (Cliff Richard on BBC's Sound of the Sixties as I write), everyone.

It's sort of half a dozen of one and six of the other so far, with the balance perhaps in favour of keeping as is...

It's strage, isn't it? As I saw someone write on another thread, you wouldn't find an Austin Healey 3000 in a barn and be happy to keep its rusty whel arches, flakey paint, faded hood and pitted chrome. You'd be turned away of owner meetings. But strangely it's different with guitars it seems. And if whoever owns the Austin Healey name decided to reproduce the 3000 today, they wouldn't rust it on purpose. Unless that's a niche nobody has switched onto yet!

Does anybody actually know how many of these versions were actually produced? Reading between the lines, I thought somebody somewhere on the web was suggesting only six. But I find that hard to believe, cos I've found photos of three others on the web.

Thanks for your valued responses so far

Chris

[shakedown]

Oh, and here's a photo of the headstock to show the only bit that appears to be missing, the truss rod cover...

Chris

[Bluesnote]

When I did that last post I did think of a comparison with an antique car. I remember back in the eighties up Aberdeen way, I was delivering a bathroom suite to a customer, he asked if I would put the stuff in his garage which I did, when he lifted up the door there was a car which was covered in sheets which I instantly recognised as an E Type Jag by the shape. When I asked him if I was right, his eyes lit up and he whipped off the sheets anxious to show me what he'd done to the car. It was immaculate, a white soft top model fully restored, when I asked him if he drove it much he replied that it never turned a wheel as it was too valuable to take the chance on the roads, I remember thinking, what a bloody waste why have such a beautiful car as this and not have the enjoyment of driving it and showing the rest of the world what a job you'd done on it
I guess its the same with us guitarists, we value our instruments differently and have opposing views on what we should do with them.
The more I think about it the more I'm sure I'd give the said instrument a proper restoration back to its former glory.
Noel....I view it as these awful 'road worn' guitars that Fender do, making a brand new instrument look as if someone had dug the garden with it then put it up for sale
I just cant get my head around that one at all. Like I said, I like shiny and new looking with my guitars, but we all have our differing ideas which makes us guitarists such strange beings I suppose
Hugh.