It's in the lacquer . . .

[Nelskie]

Some of our members who are newer players might wonder why all the fuss over vintage instruments. Even though I am not a new player, I've always had an interest in the science of vintage guitars and gear, as many of those things often transcend themselves to other areas that can be vitally useful to my own playing, or gear.

I'd recently read an article in which Billy Gibbons (ZZ Top) was trying to explain why his # 1 Les Paul (which he has dubiously dubbed "Pearly", short for the "pearly gates" of heaven) has that sound. One of the things he'd mentioned was the finish, something I hadn't heard mentioned before.

Sure, I've heard / read other stories about some of the other things that vintage gear afficianados have claimed as the "magical element", including: the wood (old stand vs. new growth); others about the vintage hardware (metallurgy anyone?); and some that noted the old-school wiring / electrical (different types of bobbins, cloth-insulated wiring, certain waxes, etc.) Yes, indeed, the pursuit of the "grail tone" leaves no stone unturned.

As I was exploring this very topic on the internet, I found this article, in which the author determined that the lacquer used on vintage guitars (i.e. non-synthetic, non-polyurethane) was a key element of its sound / tone. To further bolster his claim, he actually stripped down, and refinished a new guitar with an older type of lacquer finish. You can check this story out for yourself at:

http://www.mother-of-tone.com/lacquer.htm

This is but one of the tons of cool topics about vintage guitars / amps. With all of the "experienced" players on our forum, I think it'd be a lot of fun to get a separate section / area together on the FN that explored some of the nuances of "vintage gear". As well, it'd be a great way to help newer players learn a bit about the guitar / amp technology of yesteryear, and how it has evolved into modern day.

[Robert****]

Good idea Nelskie, a "Vintage Gear" forum could be good thing for us! Let me ponder it for a short while.

The lacquer idea is very interesting. Great to see someone is sokeen on going all the distance in capturing that "holy grail"!

[Bloozcat]

There's always a great debate when the subject of guitar finishes comes up. Some will argue that nitrocellulose lacquer is the best finish, while others will say that a thin application of polyurethane or even polyester, is just as good.

For me it's nitrocellulose lacquer, hands down. I didn't come to this conclusion arbitrarily, but only after witnessing and participating in several experiments to test the finishes for their qualities as they pertain to guitar tone.

I mentioned a couple of times before that there is a custom guitar shop near me here in Florida. I've known the owner and his son for about 26 years, and I have learned a great deal of what I know about guitar building and repair from them. I spend more time researching pickups and associated electronics than they do, and I happily share my experiences with them as well.

As a custom guitar shop, they will build to suit a customers needs. They also have a line of what they call their "bare bones" guitars that offer only a few selected options. Among these options are the finish used on the guitar, either lacquer or urethane. I have witnessed several guitars being assembled with body wood from the same plank, and neck wood from the same cut of blank material also. In not just some cases, but in every case, the lacquer finished guitars had better tone. When I say better, I mean clearer, brighter, and more organic and natural tone. I have even played guitars that were brought to them for a new lacquer finish...both before and after the new lacquer was applied. In every case, the guitar sounded better with the new lacquer finish. We even conducted blind tests where four of us each listened to several guitars, not knowing which had the lacquer finishes and which had the urethane. We each picked out the lacquer finish over the urethane in each experiment. Even if I had wanted to believe that there was no difference, hearing was believing.

I generally try to stay out of the heated debates about which finish is best. It's hard to convince someone who's set on believing a certain thing that he may be wrong. I'm just content in the knowlege that I heard a difference in tests that were as fair and realistic as one could expect a test of this type to be. Believe me, it would have been a whole lot easier for me if urethane had won. I wouldn't spend so much time wet sanding and spraying as I do now if it had...

[Spudman***]

So is nitro not used commonly because it's hard to work with? If the sound is better it would make sense to finish a lot of the finer guitars with it.

[jpfeifer]

I've noticed this about guitars finished with nitro laquer too. To me the older nitro laquer no only sounds better, but it actually feels better too. It's not as slilppery or plastic feeling as poly urethane laquer.

They still use nitro laquer on many of the custom shop guitars from Fender and Gibson. Martin still finishes their higher-end guitars with it too.

The downside of nitro laquer is that it's a lot more fragile than poly urethane based laquer. It reacts to plastics, rubber, hand sweat, etc. But at the same time, this is a good thing too, because the laquer on the neck will begin to wear down over the years from your hands. A well worn neck with the old-fashioned laquer is one of the best things about vintage guitars.

-- Jim

[marnold***]

So is nitro not used commonly because it's hard to work with? If the sound is better it would make sense to finish a lot of the finer guitars with it.

The big strike against nitro is that it takes FOREVER to cure. In this day and age of mass production, it's just too expensive to have a ton of guitars around curing. That's why only the high-end guitars still have it. Polys cure quickly (a matter of days) and provide a tougher finish.

[SuperSwede]

Very interesting topic, Nelskie! A vintage guitar collector I once talked to said that the guitar (wood, lacquer, pickups et.c) is going through a constant change and thus makes the tone different from year to year. Also, a old instrument that has been played much sounds so much better than a "closet classic" old guitar since the parts have been vibrating together for so long. I look forward to more links like that! Again, thanks for bringing this up Nelskie!

[Katastrophe]

So is nitro not used commonly because it's hard to work with? If the sound is better it would make sense to finish a lot of the finer guitars with it.

It's also toxic, and pretty hard on the environment, but I've heard more experienced guitar players / builders say that nothing compares to the lacquer finish when it comes to allowing a guitar to resonate.

[Bloozcat]

So is nitro not used commonly because it's hard to work with? If the sound is better it would make sense to finish a lot of the finer guitars with it.

There are a few drawbacks to using nitro lacquer. marnold mentioned the curing problem, and jpfeifer mentioned the reactive properties of the finish.

Probably the biggest drawback to using nitro lacquer and why it's only used on high end guitars, is that it takes forever to apply....properly, that is. The prep work is extremely important and will go a long way towards determining whether you get the right result or not. First, the grain of the wood has to be filled thoroughly. A proper grain filling means that there is no pore showing at all before proceeding to the next step. That next step is either a sanding sealer, or a vinyl sealer (or Fullerplast as Fender uses). The purpose of this step is to level all surfaces before painting. The next step is a primer if you're using a solid color finish. The primer is usually white as that gives you a nice neutral and uniform base. With clear coat finishes clear sander sealer will be enough or a clear vinyl sealer can be used. The whole point of this prep work is to create a surface that is perfectly flat, free from dips, high spots, and grain pore openings.

When you're finally through with the prep work, you can begin spraying on the lacquer. This is actually the easiest part of the whole process. If your paint mixture is right - meaning your thinner cut, retarder (if necessary), and spray gun set up is correct, lacquer generally goes on very easily and evenly. It doesn't run easily once you get the hang of spraying it (which isn't hard). You will generally make four passes per coat and no more than two coats per session. Then you hang the guitar up (guitar, body, neck) and wait until it sets up for a day. You can then spray another four coats as the day before. After that you wait two weeks before the real fun begins.

Starting with 400 gr. wet/dry sand paper and a sanding block, you wet sand the surfaces until you get a uniform, dull flat finish that's free from dips and high spots (the dips will show up as shiny spots, the high spots as sand throughs). In the process of doing this, you will remove about half (or more) of the paint you applied. When the whole surface is satisfactorily sanded, you let the guitar dry and then begin the spraying again...and then the sanding...and then the spraying. Only when you've achieved sufficient build up of the lacquer with no sand throughs, low spots, high spots, exposed grain pore, do you proceed to the next level of wet sanding with 800 gr., 1000 gr., 1200 gr., and 1500 gr. sandpapers. Finally, after all of that, you can begin with the final polish. If everything was done correctly, your guitar will have a mirror finish with no ripples, no ridges, no orange peel, and no flaws. It will look far better than any urethane finish can...but at the cost of much of your time. The motor heads who build custom show cars still use lacquer for the same reason...it's the prettiest finish you can get.

So, still wondering why no one in the industry uses nitrocellulose lacquer on their $350.00 guitars? Hmmmmm....

[M29]

Hello,

Excellent description Bloozcat.

One thing I found with Nitro and also Acrylic Lacquer is that in time it can crack or what painters used to call alligator. There can be problems with some of the finishes on guitars such as the sunburst finish which is similar to a candy finish on custom cars or bikes. You have to put so much material on to fill grain and build up the depth in color and clear that you get a very thick layer of material and it has trouble flexing with the changes in humidity and temperture over its life span. The paint can end up cracking after it flexes back and forth over time, it may not do it early on because the paint is taking so long to totaly cure and by nature lacquer is somewhat flexible. This does not happen with all finishes but some that requiered a good deal to fill and cover. Like Bloozcat said you have to let each session dry overnight or longer, this will help to make the finish more stable before you apply more paint. This is also where Lacquer works the best on guitars. It resonates and moves with the wood and flexes with the changes in the environments that it is in. The new poly finishes are so hard they tend to choke off the resonants and can end up having a harder plasticky tone.
Lacquer also has a tendency to shrink as it drys. This is another reason to let each paint session dry overnight. This way when you are finally finished applying your last coat the previous coats are pretty dry underneath, although it will take a good deal of time before the material as a whole is (really) dry and it could sometimes take months before it is done moving on you. What happens is as the paint shrinks our nice glossy finish dulls out and the paint can shrink into the sand scratches in the underlying layers. You can get products today that will help seal the underlying layers but then you run the risk of loosing the special properties of the Lacquer that you were after in the first place.

These were some issues I run across while painting custom lacquer candy and pearl finishes during the roaring sixties when lacquer was at it's peak. Oh the good old days... It does make me wonder what is going on under the poly finishes of today while the wood is expanding and contracting. I guess the poly just acts like a turtle shell during all this.

I hope this is of some help.

M29

[Nelskie]

I guess the poly just acts like a turtle shell during all this.

That's pretty much the jist of things, isn't it? Or, at least according to that article. I also recall some other statements that the author made regarding the tone-zapping characteristics of pickguards & pick-up covers. Collectively speaking, these things apparently contribute to the toneless-ness of today's guitars, that is, when compared to the vintage models of yesteryear. While that is just one man's opinion, and perhaps a pretty one-sided view at that, there is still quite a bit of evidence to support the sublimely divine tones achieved with vintage guitars. Of course, this is not to say that today's guitars don't sound good - just another take on things. The oldest guitar I own (1990) wasn't even a sapling way back in the 1950's, or even the 60's for that matter!

Yes, there a million ways to dissect the science of good tone. But whether you're pushing it through new or vintage, tube or solid state, it's all meaningless without the most important, most essential element: YOU!

[M29]

Hello Nelskie,

I guess I should have kept my mouth shut, I am beginning to see a very deep contraversy on this finish business, I guess that is what happens when an amature steps into it.
Concerning pickup covers and pickguards what is that all about. Haven't they been on guitars since the beginning what does that have to do with "toneless-ness" of todays guitars? When did I say this? I made a post on what I know about applying lacquer to a lump of wood I didn't mean to imply that one was superior to another just different. They all sound good to me and I happen to like the newer finishes duarability and shine. Uh oh...I should not have said that.

Good by

M29

[Spudman***]

I'm not sure that I buy the "tonelessness" of newer guitars. The Joe Satriani model, the Steve Vai, the Robben Ford, the Andy Timmons, the blah blah blah models all coming out today must sound good or the artists wouldn't be playing the new ones. (please don't start a rant about endorsements)

Seems to me like new poly finished guitars sound just fine. I hear a lot of great tones on new records by new artists using newer non-nitro instruments. Maybe there is a hint of mojo difference in the nitro guitars, but if it is so troublesome to use for a minuscule tone difference then maybe it isn't worth the price or effort. I guess in the end it will come down to what the consumer wants. Ah, consumption.

I personally haven't tried a nitro finished guitar or compared one to anything. I'm just amazed that here on the lil ol' fret we can get such great information.

Thanks everybody.

So is all the prep work just so you can get a perfectly flat, mirror smooth finish? If it wears quickly I'd settle for a bumpy finish anyway. By the way...the Squier satin finish standard guitars do seem to resonate a lot more than the gloss finish guitars.

[Nelskie]

I guess I should have kept my mouth shut, I am beginning to see a very deep contraversy on this finish business, I guess that is what happens when an amature steps into it.

On the contrary, M29. I thought your comments were very insighful. My reason for posting was to hear other opinions, and I am very pleased to see so many good responses. And controversy? Nah - just me being inquisitive. All are welcome to voice their opinions.

Concerning pickup covers and pickguards what is that all about. Haven't they been on guitars since the beginning what does that have to do with "toneless-ness" of todays guitars?

It was mentioned in the linked article under my original post. Here is what the author of that article stated, and I quote:

Any musical device sounds good, when the distortion mechanims that would make it sound bad, are not present.

For example: What must be absent for any electric guitar to sound good:

1) plastic lacquer

2) plastic pickguard

3) pickups that are filled with plastics

Not sure where this guy is going with this point, but from my perspective, he seems to imply that guitars with these characteristics don't sound good. Shows you what he knows.

When did I say this?

You didn't. The inference noted in my previous post were towards to the author of the article (*see above quote), and not you. I'm sorry if it seemed otherwise.

[Nelskie]

I'm not sure that I buy the "tonelessness" of newer guitars.

Yeah Spud - me neither. I wonder if the guy who wrote that article is affiliated with Mr. Know-It-All over at Amptone.com. Together, Young Skywalker, they could rule the musical universe as one.

Seems to me like new poly finished guitars sound just fine.

You're absolutely right! But there are many factions of thought about what equals great tone. I just thought it'd be interesting to see where our fellow Fretters were at as far as the topic of finish was concerned. After I'd read the article, it just seemed like a totally different angle on the tone equation.

[M29]

Hello Nelskie,

I have been wanting to contribute to Roberts site and help out when I can and I thought some of my experience may be helpful. I have been concerned that I may be coming across as a know it all or arrogant. That is the last impression that I want to leave. Please forgive me if this is the way I have appeared.

I am an amature to playing the guitar and this is what I was refering to in my last post but I have had some experience working on them as well as other wood projects. Thank you Robert for allowing us to toss this stuff around on your website.

M29

[Spudman***]

M29

Dude. We're glad to have you posting. I don't think you have to apologize for anything. I never would have thought about that stuff at all if you didn't put it out there. Isn't that what it's all about? We are guitar players. We put it out there...and get righteous babes.

Why is everyone so damn nice on the fret? Oh yes, because we rule.

By the way...do you still paint?

[Bloozcat]

Hello Nelskie,

I have been wanting to contribute to Roberts site and help out when I can and I thought some of my experience may be helpful. I have been concerned that I may be coming across as a know it all or arrogant. That is the last impression that I want to leave. Please forgive me if this is the way I have appeared.

I am an amature to playing the guitar and this is what I was refering to in my last post but I have had some experience working on them as well as other wood projects. Thank you Robert for allowing us to toss this stuff around on your website.

M29

Relating experiences you've had isn't arrogant, it's enlightening. We all have opinions about things, but the ones that have the most meaning are most often related to actual experiences...good and bad. I sometimes wish I knew nothing about lacquer as a finish. It's a real pain in the butt to use (properly), but because of direct experience I can't deny it's worth. So I have a Strat body hanging up at home with four coats of lacquer on it and still weeks away from being finished. If I'd chosen urethane it would have been done two weeks ago.

Sometimes, ignorance truly is bliss...or said another way, you can't miss something you never knew. But, I guess that's the nature of learning. The more you learn and know, the higher you set the bar as to what you're willing to accept. Remember when you were pretty happy with a crappy guitar because it was better than the crappier one you used to have? Knowlege has a way of doing that to you.

[marnold***]

I think this may be akin to the tubes vs. transistors arguement. I think most tone freaks would insist that tubes are the way to go. However, I don't think that the average music listener could tell the difference.

It reminds me of a comment that a salesman made back in the day when I was buying a DOD bass chorus pedal. He was trying to say in a kind way that I really didn't need it and the audience wouldn't notice its effect. But he then added (and this is the point) that if it makes _me_ feel better and think that I sound better, then I'm going to play better, enjoy the whole experience more, etc.

Someone who is convinced that you can only get good tone from a vintage instrument is going to hate the sound of a new instrument even if to everyone else's ears, he sounds awesome. I'm sure that there's some science behind it. I'm also sure that some of it is how a person "feels" about that particular instrument.