Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

I just don't understand!!!
#1

Well I started working on that 38-17 I got a few months ago. It looked pretty good in the CL pic but when I got it home it really looked AWFUL. I think some previous owner took a can of brush on poly and thew it at the cabinet and then brushed out.
The front panel on this set is a photofinish job so that was going to be a problem. Can't strip it or I'll loose the photo. So I ended up hand sanding it to get the poly off. Shot it with some high gloss Mohawk clear. I was surprised that the photo was in excellent condition very nice looking and has striking grain pattern. Why would some moron do that to a nice set?? The rest of the cabinet is in good shape with a few dings here and there. Still have to do some more stripping of the rest of the cabinet but did the top with some sanding sealer and grain filler. Stripping those little nooks and crannies is a pita but in the end it should turnout to be a nice and somewhat rare set.
Terry
http://www.flickr.com/photos/53710524@N0...hotostream
ps. Will post a few pics of the progress when I get a chance
#2

My opinion is that today most people aren't really aware of how wood used to be finished, or even what photofinish is. I have read threads more than once where an unknowing owner of a radio was going to refinish it and sanded the photofinish right off before they realized what had happened.

If you think about it, poly has been around a while now and when it came out it was the "improved" wood finish that needed no where near the maintenance of lacquer. Plus it would not be affected by water the same way.

Gene
#3

Wow, you have your work cut out for you! Must have taken some mighty careful sanding to get rid of the poly on the photofinish. Keep posting progress pictures Terry. This one is going to be interesting.

Jerry

A friend in need is a pest!  Bill Slee ca 1970.
#4

I was surprised at how durable the photofinish was in terms of sanding. I started with 600G but ended up with using 320G to sand off the poly. There was a couple of spots I had to touch up because I wore though the photo but all in all it's pretty tough ( the photofinish). Tnx for the encouragement I need all I can get these days.

Terry




Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)
[-]
Recent Posts
Shadow Meter Bulb
Now if you had a set with a tuning light then the bulb type is important to the circuit, some sets used those prior to t...Arran — 04:58 PM
Shadow Meter Bulb
Ok. Thanks for the correction.RossH — 03:09 PM
Model 28L
For 28 you will probably need to buy a Hammond 125CSE. Or any of the series of the power you need, with SE suffix. Then ...morzh — 02:09 PM
37-60 revision 6
I am restoring a Philco 37-60 and it shows run 6 they removed the ground from G3 of the 6K7G and put the G3 to -2.5v for...bobbyd1200 — 01:01 PM
Shadow Meter Bulb
Mike is correct on the bulb connection, two separate circuits. I found that by rotating the bulb and sliding it forward ...RodB — 12:19 PM
Hickok AC51 tube tester
Cleaned ann contacts, switches and sockets, works great now.martinj — 11:32 AM
Model 28L
Hello, I'm restoring a Philco 28L and the output transformer is open. Part number of the transformer is 32-7020. Can...HORSTE — 10:32 AM
Philco 42-1008 conversion kit
I read about a kit to convert the variable speed changer in the Philco 42-1008 into a single speed unit.  That would rem...alangard — 09:30 PM
HiFi (Chifi) tube amp build - but my own design.
Tim Well...a chassis is metal. Magnetic or not, it does not matter. A transformer has some hum to it. It is natural. Th...morzh — 08:40 PM
Hickok AC51 tube tester
I thought the 83 tube was bad because it looked white but it tests strong. Blue gassy though. I checked the fuse, it was...martinj — 08:37 PM

[-]
Who's Online
There are currently 6321 online users. [Complete List]
» 1 Member(s) | 6320 Guest(s)
Avatar

>