Tiger Tiger Color?

[TI4-1009]

One more thing that's been bothering me. Most of the photos of Tiger show the Tiger cap inlay as white/MOP. But in a few shots it really looks orange on top and white on the underbelly. The only time I was very close was for the brief time Tiger was at the RRHOF and I don't remember. "It could be an illusion, but..." Is it all white, or two-tone?

[softmachine72]

That is an illusion created by stage lighting i believe.

[TI4-1009]

"It could be an illusion (but I might as well try)..."

I think all of these are outdoor, daytime shows under natural light-




(this is also the photo where it "looks like" only one output jack is plugged in. Edit- now I remember- I think someone here explained that this was when Jerry sat in with someone else ast a benefit or tribute concert (for Bill Graham?) and wasn't using the OBEL)


(bridge pickup!)

If forced to speculate- since it usually looks all white, but sometimes parts of it look orange, I'd have to guess that Mr. Irwin used a different type of MOP for the upper body that refracts the light differently under some conditions to produce an orange-ish looking appearance?

Just another layer of magic that Doug built in? Maybe Tom Lieber knows- his job here is to shed light.

[Gr8fulGreg]

Someone did post some Really REALLY high Res photos a while ago... I have no luck finding them myself... even tho i would like to im trying to work them into my next tattoo.... Can anyone help here?

[Gr8fulGreg]

http://www.herbgreenefoto.com/gallery/5 ... -s-guitars

Found them

[softmachine72]

Those photos are pretty convincing. there is no orange MOP but maybe gold MOP. I find it interesting that the white is exactly where you would expect it to be on a real tiger i.e. paws and underbelly.

[waldo041]

Those photos are pretty convincing. there is no orange MOP but maybe gold MOP. I find it interesting that the white is exactly where you would expect it to be on a real tiger i.e. paws and underbelly.

exactly, you NEVER see latter/present day tiger with the color, only an all white tiger in every angle there is. if it were a lighting phenom there most certainly would be evidence of it. for instance, if it were lighting, then different angles of the 79 - 89 colored version would render all white halves or parts other then the consistent known parts(paws and under belly) but every angle in the pictures above consistently show 2 different version of that tiger, one colored and one all white. the colored version is seen throughout Tigers played years, 79- 89 but the white version only surfaces in the photos after jerry's passing. there are no pictures of him playing Tiger with an all white Tiger. don't know what happened, but i am trying my contacts to see if anyone knows. Tiger was refinished after it was mothballed so this could be where/why the change was made. or the original plate could have been broken, the battery is housed under it, so it had it's share of being removed. just some ideas but it definately changed.

peace,
waldo

[mijknahs]

Those pics are great! I've never noticed that the Tiger was 2 different colors. That's really cool. I wonder what happened to the original inlay?

[troehl]

[/quote]If forced to speculate- since it usually looks all white, but sometimes parts of it look orange, I'd have to guess that Mr. Irwin used a different type of MOP for the upper body that refracts the light differently under some conditions to produce an orange-ish looking appearance?

Just another layer of magic that Doug built in? Maybe Tom Lieber knows- his job here is to shed light.[/quote]

Pictures tell a thousand lies. so does light refracting, especially in photos.

here's a pic from 1980 where it doesnt appear orange or two tone.


also, the famous Tiger Poster (well-circulated) also is uniform in color and supposedly taken when it was first built (no scratches, dings, wear and tear, etc). In that poster it is very clear that the pearl does refract brightly in those spots but there is definitely no two-tone going on.

In my experience pearl has bright spots in its grain and that is likely what is causing the two tone effect. deceiving.

[jkstraw]

With my Tiger copy I can tell you those slot headed brass screws holding the inlay cover in place can break your heart! I have chipped the finish a few times while doing battery changes. In fact I have two inlay covers (one Tiger...all white MOP and a Jester image). I would not be surprised at all if Jerry, Doug or a member of the crew had multiple inlay covers made. I am sure the were swapping out the battery almost daily to avoid a potential on-stage disaster. Only stands to reason they would have multiples - probably tried some different things (like the two tone). All just conjecture of course - but seems pretty reasonable.

[waldo041]

Pictures tell a thousand lies. so does light refracting, especially in photos.

here's a pic from 1980 where it doesnt appear orange or two tone.


also, the famous Tiger Poster (well-circulated) also is uniform in color and supposedly taken when it was first built (no scratches, dings, wear and tear, etc). In that poster it is very clear that the pearl does refract brightly in those spots but there is definitely no two-tone going on.

In my experience pearl has bright spots in its grain and that is likely what is causing the two tone effect. deceiving.

that 80's photo clearly shows a two tone tiger. and the tiger poster you speak of was definately not taken when tiger was first made, it's circa 1991 after it was refinished.

inconsistent angles and different lighting would never produce the consistent paw and underbelly white that all 79- 89 photos show if it were a refracting phenom. we would have multiple examples of an all white tiger in that timeframe. but the truth is, there is not. only post 91 photos show a consistent all white tiger. again, if it were a refracting phenom we would have several examples of post 91 tiger showing a orange tiger with white paws and underbelly but alas there is not. imho, the proof shows there was 2 versions. any one can run through the gamut of tiger photos from any of the time periods stated and the examples will show just what i have stated. some point inbetween 89 and 91 the tiger changed colors.

peace,
waldo

[Rusty the Scoob]

Perhaps the orange parts had a coating applied or some sort of etching done?

On the inlay that Cliff did for my Gibson he etched the lines under the SYF's left eye and others and warned me NOT to sand it or the detail would be lost. Perhaps when Tiger was refinished somebody inadvertantly sanded off whatever it was that made that part of the Tiger orange?

[troehl]

that 80's photo clearly shows a two tone tiger.

OK. If you say so.

The two following pics taken from the same show as above show two completely different refraction facets of the Tiger. Each one shows the Tiger in a different light, and therefore changes the bright spots from the paws and underbelly to the whole upper forearm—thereby blurring the theory of the two-tone white spots on the paws and under belly. Also, the two pics don’t look orange and white at all, they look grayish/green and white which is what normal mother-of-pearl look like in light; grays being a less reflective angle and the white being more reflective.

and the tiger poster you speak of was definately not taken when tiger was first made, it's circa 1991 after it was refinished.

I am aware that the poster was copyrighted in 1991 as it states that on the bottom, but who’s to say that the photo they used was from the same year that they first printed up a poster? Who’s to say it wasn’t?
I was unaware of any re-fin on Tiger in ’89-’91 era or any at all for that matter. Not saying it didn’t happen, just unaware. Where did that info come from?

I was under the impression the poster was of a brand new Tiger, since to my knowledge when it first came out was the only time it had all white pick-ups. I could be totally wrong about that, but I have never seen any shots from post ‘89-‘91 with all white pick/ups. Are there any?

Also, the bridge and tailpiece have no wear-and-tear at all in the poster. Or on the entire guitar for that matter. There are ample photos of late-era Tiger where plenty of wear and corrosion can be seen on both. Especially corrosion. There are pics out there of the bridge that is clearly pocked and pitted from corrosion. If the poster is of a late-era (post ‘89-‘91) Tiger did they replace the bridge and tailpiece with the re-fin?

How about the knobs, too? The tone knobs have no wear either. They are brand new in the poster. There are many pics available of later-day Tiger with worn down knobs.

Anyway, I agree with you, Waldo, that the pics posted earlier in the thread are pretty convincingly orange and white/two-tone, but it’s the chronology and facts that lead me believe it’s just light playing tricks on us.

Or…in all seriousness, maybe Garcia colored it with an orange marker. Seriously. He put stickers on his guitars for fun, so why not?

I’m sure this could all be solved with some interjection form Parish or perhaps Lieber. There are people on this site who are in contact, no?

[troehl]

pics got screwed up. here they are.

[troehl]

pics got screwed up. here they are.

I give up. Here are links to MInkin's page with the two pics.

http://www.minkindesign.com/photo/jgb/j ... 80-01.html
http://www.minkindesign.com/photo/jgb/j ... 80-02.html