Since I’ve had a couple of calls for Fender style guitars recently, I decided to revisit my method of producing logos on headstocks.
In the past I have screen printed logos directly onto the headstocks, I have also screen printed multicolor waterslide decals. The problem with direct printing is obvious. If you screw up printing nitrocelulose laquer, then you’re going to have to strip the finish off and start again.
I spent 40+ years in the graphis biz, much of which revolved around screen printing.
In the 90’s I had the good fortune to be able to collaborate with Tom Murphy (when he was running the Gibson Custom shop) on their first run of Les Paul Reissues. I taught the Gibson folks how to screen print Les Paul’s signature onto the headstocks in the way that it was done in the 1950’s.
It is completely unnerving to realize that you have a finished, an almost completely assembled LP Gold Top in your hands and if the signature misprints the guitar is going to have to be stripped and repainted.
BTW: The signature color is Rich Pale Gold Crescent Bronze powder mixed into clear laquer at aprox 1 lb per gallon.
With waterslide decals if you mess up, removal is easy, and you just apply another one.
The final step is to spray your finish (in this case Nitro through an airbrush) over the decal to build up enough material to hide the edges.
I bough a 20 pack of Hayes Paper A4 sized decal sheets from Amazon for $15.99 to run through my color laser printer as an experiment.
Knowing that a CMYK printer requires a white background to accurately reproduce colors, I was not certain that the experiment would be successful; but I am pleased to report while the color accuracy of the “metallic” section of the logo is not great the result is an acceptable look.
As is the case with everything graphic, managing your expectations and your art, to fit the process is key.
Since laquer screen printing inks are now running $70 per qt, and because after being mixed into laquers metallic powders have a shelf life measured in weeks it’s no longer cost effective for a small shop to bother screen printing. We won’t even discuss the clean up and solvent use, because its nasty and expensive.
The choice for me was obvious, despite my love for the processes I grew up with, I am willing to accept the changes made neccesary by the limitations of this process in exchange for the ease of production and the simplicity of application.