Looks like a very early headstock shape, but...

[Hamer Dave]

Another riddle for all you wizards. Share your thoughts on this one. I got it so many years ago at a guitar show. Note extra long headstock shape. It came with bulls eye grovers, and Gibson chrome covered pickups if I recall. No visible serial#. I'm near positive a sustainblock bridge. All the parts have been saved/contained in one of those plastic deli containers which I don't have access to at the moment. Want to say pots were dated early like 1977? I sent photos many years ago to Kim Keller I believe (or Jol Dantzig, or he showed them to Jol?), and he didn't seem to give much Hamer connection to it, or was it more so that it was all modified after market, with the contours, and M.O.P. logo etc. He felt it was refin'd (so I since took it upon myself to strip the body, and discovered the flame veneer underneath). It had what I would call thick 'finish shrinkage', as it had similar to what the ground looks like, in a drought. Y'know with those cracks in the dirt, kinda like a mini ant sized earthquake? Anyway I stripped the paint off, noticed the flame veneer, and also the joined piece of mahogany at the one horn. I also figured I'd eventually put a burst on it, covering the horns with an opaque paint (hiding the joined piece). Check the photos closely, and give an opinion. I hear so many stories now, and wonder if this could have been something finished after being put aside due to an issue during production in the early years, or just an early special mod? Hoping some of the characteristics in the details shown can give some answer? And the parts that came with it.

Note long headstock, with tuners far off truss rod.

Mother of pearl logo...

Forearm body contouring, note the mahogany showing under veneer at the contour.

Back is a bit blotchy, as I bleached the top to try and help clean it up.

Dave

[Hamer Dave]

Possibly, an early Sunburst originally with binding? I know that squared edge can be aggravating, and possibly had it contoured for comfort. I know I love the Eclipse I just got, with the contour. But why the horn join, and logo?, etc. I can post larger photos, or others if it helps see details. I uploaded these 'small' thinking that would be sufficient.

[polara]

The treble side horn is not the usual shape. Very puzzling but that sure looks like nothing but a sustain block would go there

[cmatthes]

If it actually ever WAS a Hamer at one time, it was drastically altered afterwards by a sick, sick person.

My thought is more that it was a flawed/trashed instrument body/neck that was rejected for some reason, ended up being bandsawed/dumpstered and dug out of the trash and slapped together by the dumpster diver. If not that, maybe a stolen instrument that the thief needed to doctor up beyond recognition.

A lot of things are wrong with this one, based on what I can make out of the pictures. Even the old inlaid logos I've seen from the earlier days (they are rare) were the correct size for that time, and had the "USA" inlaid after the name.

It looks like a cool project for a beater though, but I wouldn't put a lot of money into it...unless you like losing money!

[Steve Haynie]

At one of the first open houses there was a Hamer with a long thin headstock similar to the one in your photo.

[murkat]

It might have been a Hamer body at one time,

But,

that is not a Hamer neck.

A. tenon to body goofy

B. Heel to body wrong

C. truss rod, truss rod oriface, nut, headstock, name... all wrong.

D. fret board dot markers wrong

E. frets even look wrong.

Just sayn from what I can see in those lil pics

[Hamer Dave]

The treble side horn is not the usual shape. Very puzzling but that sure looks like nothing but a sustain block would go there

Yes, it did come with a sustain block bridge. I can clearly see that the treble horn was completely joined with a single block of mahogany(no maple veneer there), so something interesting happened.

I'm thinking it was put aside, and finished by someone later. After hours, or ?. Maybe they f'd up that treble horn, and that was the reason. Who knows? That's why I put it out to all the wizards as a riddle, without an answer at this point. I do think it's early from the 70's though. And someone preferred the more comfortable forearm contour, which is understandable.

You guys think that top would look ok, if done up in a trans finish? There's black in the grain from the past paint, but understand they'll sometimes stain black, and sand to help the grain 'pop'. I bleached it in an attempt to lighten it up. My idea would be to seal it, then maybe a light trans, and burst the edges opaque to hide the lack of veneer at the treble side horn, and where they skimmed off the maple veneer on the contour. it's a great playing solid guitar when all together. Should send it off to Kim to do his magic...

[Hamer Dave]

It might have been a Hamer body at one time,

But,

that is not a Hamer neck.

A. tenon to body goofy

B. Heel to body wrong

C. truss rod, truss rod oriface, nut, headstock, name... all wrong.

D. fret board dot markers wrong

E. frets even look wrong.

Just sayn from what I can see in those lil pics

I should post up a more detailed photo when I have the guitar. I did notice that 'heel to body' transition. I believe this thing was refinished, and in the process the contouring etc. was done as well. I was feeling they 'filled' that heel transition or something. I never stripped that area to reveal. I should also compare with my earliest Hamers.

[morningstar]

Hamer USA used to have a rule (the last time they did refins) that they would not accept a refin job that had already been stripped due to the hazard of incompatibility between any chemicals used to strip the guitar and those used to refinish it.

Is that still the rule?

morningstar

[Hamer Dave]

Hamer USA used to have a rule (the last time they did refins) that they would not accept a refin job that had already been stripped due to the hazard of incompatibility between any chemicals used to strip the guitar and those used to refinish it.

Is that still the rule?

morningstar

I planned on doing it myself. When I get the shop set up. Y'know, after I get the studio done, etc.

Ok, I put up larger versions of my kinda crappy pics, if it helps at all. I did respray the neck after I had to repair a neck break. It was perfect, 'til the paint sunk in after a few years.

[Steve Haynie]

Hamer USA used to have a rule (the last time they did refins) that they would not accept a refin job that had already been stripped due to the hazard of incompatibility between any chemicals used to strip the guitar and those used to refinish it.

Is that still the rule?

morningstar

I think Hamer required a serial number on the guitar or they would not touch it.

Go with an opaque color on that guitar.

[serial]

If you have a full-on shot, I could tell better. Need to look at the whole neck.