Tiger Tiger Color?

[waldo041]

the light refraction theory is plausible, but does not stand ground with later era tiger. why is there absolutely no evidence of the same colored tiger in photos from 91 to present day. plenty taken with different lights and angles but absolutely NONE with the color and specific placement of that color in any of them???if it is a light refraction phenom, then there would be examples in later era photos of tiger, which there are nil.

this example shows the colored tiger and it's white parts very well.
http://www.claytoncallphoto.com/Music/G ... &lb=1&s=XL

here is a great example with stage lighting eliminated.


these 91 photos show what tiger "under lights" looks like with no color.
angle 1
http://www.claytoncallphoto.com/Music/G ... &lb=1&s=XL

angle 2
http://www.claytoncallphoto.com/Music/G ... &lb=1&s=XL

some clear example of what white tiger looks like from a distance


and another


peace,
waldo

[troehl]

this example shows the colored tiger and it's white parts very well.
http://www.claytoncallphoto.com/Music/G ... &lb=1&s=XL

In this photo the Tiger does appear orange, but, oddly, so does all of the land in the globe on the headstock, which we all know to be green/blue pearl.

Cameras and lighting can play serious tricks on us. We all know that the earth in the globe is not orange pearl, yet in this picture is appears to be, which means to me that something is happening with the lights. maybe the camera was picking up wavelengths that we don't see, or maybe the change is in the developing. Maybe it's a degradation due to scanning, saving files, sending, resaving, etc. Digital decay, if you will. Whatever it is, common sense tells us that things aren't always as they seem in photos. Especially with stage lighting, distant shots, and being decades away from the originals.

[waldo041]

. Whatever it is, common sense tells us that things aren't always as they seem in photos. Especially with stage lighting, distant shots, and being decades away from the originals.

if this is true for ALL the 79 - 89 examples, please explain 2 things. 1.) why is it consistently the paws and underbelly that are white and not the whole head or half the body of just the tail? in all the shots from this time period, surely there is a closeup that shows a lack of consistency and render one of the above scenarios with all the lighting and angles available? and second, with the many photos 91 to present, why is there not 1 single shot of any orange tiger like the 79 - 89 shots. surely lighting and angles play a part in those photos as well? can you point to one post 91 closeup photo that only has white paws and underbelly and the majority of the tiger orange?

peace,
waldo

[tcsned]

Forgery?

[TI4-1009]

Ah HA Waldo- so you're the one who stole poor Chris' issue of Guitar Player! He's been looking for that for 25 years....

I never noticed the humbuckers on Tiger in that photo- what are they?

I like the idea of two different Tiger caps. "Outside the box", but fits the facts. Good one. I'll bet Lieber knows.

[waldo041]

those are dimarzio super 2's and this is how we know he switched to the super 2's.

as for lieber knowing. truth be told, although lieber was there to rough cut the neck and body wings. he was not there when it was all put together. in fact, i do not believe lieber has ever seen or touched the real tiger in it's complete state in person. any info aside from the earliest stages of tiger are second hand. i personally helped him with the actual wiring of tiger and wolf, and sent him plenty of good quality pictures of both. we discussed both guitars at length and my info comes straight from these talks. that said, lieber knows how to contact doug and will not allow any one else to, so maybe if he is gracious enough he will find out the info we seek. i have already sent a request to my parish contact, so maybe something will come down from that route.

peace,
waldo

[jkstraw]

Hey waldo - how often did Brawer work on Tiger? Maybe he has some info - I know Danny Ransom and Brawer have a good relationship with Larry Robinson...being an inlay guru he may have a line on the history. Just thinking out loud

[TI4-1009]

those are dimarzio super 2's and this is how we know he switched to the super 2's.

? When did the Super 2s change from rectangular like that to "two ovals"?

Wow, I knew Tom had left Irwin before Tiger was completed, but I didn't know he was that distant from the finished product!

[waldo041]

? When did the Super 2s change from rectangular like that to "two ovals"?

don't know when the super 2's changed, but JG changed to the regular looking versions in 1988.

peace,
waldo

[TI4-1009]

"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.

I took a real close look at the Irwin poster that's on ebay now and I'd reluctantly have to agree that it shows a brand-spanking new Tiger. No sign of wear on anything, all the brass is pristine. Any post Rosebud photo I've seen of Tiger (including the Herb Greene's linked here), and my memories from my RRHOF view are of a very Jerry-ized broken-in Tiger. Irwin may have given it a going over, but I don't think he made it look brand new again.

(unrelated note- someone on this board has changed their iconic avatar to their new toy. Sweet.)

[mijknahs]

I do agree that it's a different cover plate (or at least different inlay). The original one from the 80's definitely has some gold going on for the tiger color. Maybe gold foil? It does look pretty cool with the orange fur and white paws/underbelly. An all white tiger doesn't look as good.

[softmachine72]

I ordered some gold MOP and I going to experiment and see what I can come up with. See if I can get the same effect.

[TI4-1009]

[Mr.Burns]

waldo041 wrote:
this example shows the colored tiger and it's white parts very well.
http://www.claytoncallphoto.com/Music/G ... &lb=1&s=XL


In this photo the Tiger does appear orange, but, oddly, so does all of the land in the globe on the headstock, which we all know to be green/blue pearl.

What's up with the weird, shiny anomalies in the center of the headstock in this photo? And check out the way the grain of the body is accentuated, especially on the lower horn side. Weird, but cool.

[TI4-1009]

Yeah, I've been assuming that the one rectangular white spot on the headstock is a ding- it's in quite a few photos? Or else he had a piece of tape there for a l-o-n-g time. Miniature setlist a la McCartney's Hofner?