-
I the thing I heard is with nitro is its easier for the wood to out gas, dry out, and aged faster than poly.
-
11-12-2013 03:47 PM
-
don't see any need to be apologetic when stating a preference for nitro..aprt from the subtler aesthetics, and attractive ageing, it's also easier to repair, as new nitro will melt into old. I suspect it's no accident that gibson have stayed with a form of nitro. Once a poly finish chips or cracks, that's pretty much it - even a CA fill will show. Personally I find that a nitro finished neck sticks less than a poly finished one - so I don't agree at all that there's no functional difference.
There are some water based finishes e.g. KTM9, that have some of the look of nitro, although they apparently need greater care in application, so not suitable for factory instruments perhaps. I always felt that that Guild guitars would have done better in the market had they stuck with nitro
-
Nitro also thins and often darkens with age whereas poly will look the same forever, an issue for those who prefer the vintage patina of older guitars.
Last edited by AlohaJoe; 11-12-2013 at 04:40 PM.
-
I like nitro for the way it looks and ages. It just feels more organic as a finish, comparable to varnish or French Polish (shellac). I don't know if it does anything for sound but I love a good romantic story as anybody else.
Practitioners of French Polish in the classical guitar world claim that shellac does not damp the spruce top's resonance. FP is also easy to repair as new finish melds with the old. Ironically, nitro is seen as the new "cheap" finish in classical guitar building and makers are trying to convince their clients that nitro works just as well as FP except that it is a lot hardier! The same rationalisation applies. Most classical guitars have nitro-finished backs and rims but FP tops today. But polyester or polyurethane is definitely sacrilege to classical guitar builders.
Nitro seems to work itself into the grain of the wood. Poly-whazzit looks like it sits on the surface of the wood enshrouding it in a plastic film like Saran-wrapped wood.
Ever walked barefoot on a solid wooden floor varnished and a polyurethane finished solid wooden floor? Even the feet can feel the difference underfoot. The former feels like walking on real wood; the latter feels like walking on plastic.
After French Polish and varnish, nitro just looks and feels better to me. It does not seem to harm the guitar so what's not to like (except that nitro is hazardous to apply)?
That is my story and I am sticking to it.Last edited by Jabberwocky; 11-12-2013 at 06:52 PM.
-
According to an article on Finewoodworking.com that I came across whilst researching finishes for a current project:
"The plastic look that's sometimes ascribed to polyurethane and catalyzed lacquers has more to do with the incorrect application of these finishes than it does with the finishes themselves. On open-pored woods (plainsawn ash or oak, for example) the application of thick varnish and lacquer can result in a soupy look on the surface. This is a consequence of the finish film bridging across the open pores rather than flowing into them. By thinning these finishes you can achieve more attractive results. My favorite method to apply oil-based polyurethane is to thin the finish 50% with mineral spirits and wipe it on."
-
I just saw that Jimmy is now offering lessons by Skype. I think that's really cool.
-
I never took a lesson via Skype and always wondered if it is really worthwhile doing something like that.
Originally Posted by Jim Soloway
Those lessons are not cheap and I wouldn't feel comfortable with a teacher who can only see/listen to what I am doing/playing through a little screen and, often, a weak audio/video connection.
-
regarding a JH vs a 175 it's like apples/oranges. *NOTHING* sounds like a 175. If you want that vintage jim hall / pat metheny tone, only a 175 sounds like that. The Sadowsky is a very cool guitar but sounds nothing like a 175
-
I don't believe the Jim Hall was designed to sound like a 175. The problem with a "175" is consistency. One may sound "great" to you and the next one like a piece of .... The Jim Halls are very consistent. If that is the "sound" you like, you will get it with every single Jim Hall. I'll take my Jim Hall any day over any Gibson. It's a personal decision.
-
You're missing some context. One poster on this thread said to get a JH instead of a 175. My reply was just to say that they are apples/oranges which you just reiterated.' Originally Posted by jaco
And frankly, the inconsistency is highly overrated IMO. Yes, some are 10s and others might be 7s but just about every 175 i've ever played sounds characteristically like a 175.
-
I have a Jim Hall, which I really like, but I cannot get that 175 sound out of it, either. The closest I've come is with a 1x12 cab, partially open back, and an EQ pedal. Still not there. I really like the JH, like the scale and size, but may still wind up chasing a 175 down ( and keep the Hall.) I may also swap out the pickup for a higher wind bucker to warm it up, a trick that worked well with my L5.
If I had it to do over, I think I would rather have had a good 175 1st, but would probably still wind up with other stuff, in the quest.
Jack, good to see you back from your hiatus from here and TGP - always appreciate your understanding and viewpoint.
-
I can get mine to sound quite 175ish but anyways all this is subjective IMHO. I bought it used and maybe the pickup has been changed or maybe it's the amp combination. I don't know. Acoustically it doesn't sound anything like a 175 and is brighter and more acoustic sounding. Electric, it sounds to me like the classic laminate tone.
-
It IS subjective, but a fun pursuit, as long as I remember that I should PRACTICE more and worry less about tone… it already sounds pretty good
The JH is a great guitar, feeds back less than a solid top, plays great, looks beautiful and is a small emotional connection to one of my idols (as is the L5) - can't let it go, but I've never had a good 175, so that's on the list! (right after an EJ Strat, a VOS 61 SG in yellow, a Sadowsky nylon string, and, and….)
I will say that I usually trust Jack's ears, with the exception of his love/hate affair with GB-10s. I could never let mine go!
-
i'd love to hear a bruno sound like a metheny/hall/pass 175. Any clips? I'm up to 12 GB-10s now. Oy...If only I had kept the one that had full size humbuckers in it Originally Posted by yebdox
It IS subjective, but a fun pursuit, as long as I remember that I should PRACTICE more and worry less about tone… it already sounds pretty good
The JH is a great guitar, feeds back less than a solid top, plays great, looks beautiful and is a small emotional connection to one of my idols (as is the L5) - can't let it go, but I've never had a good 175, so that's on the list! (right after an EJ Strat, a VOS 61 SG in yellow, a Sadowsky nylon string, and, and….)
I will say that I usually trust Jack's ears, with the exception of his love/hate affair with GB-10s. I could never let mine go!
-
OK, I'm adding that one to the list. I saw a pic of Benson with one of those, but I would have to be pretty brave to mess with an already great guitar and start cutting holes.Oy...If only I had kept the one that had full size humbuckers in it
After that, all I'd need is one of those rare "Wes Pauls".
-
where is that picture from? I don't think gibson ever made something with a hollowbody and a top that thick. I saw a Jon Hill hollowbody with a top that thick though. Sounded awful, lol.
-
Read about one for sale a couple years back on Gbase, just googled that and it came up.
-
here are a few clips. None of them sound like a 175. You can hear in the first clip that it really doesn't have a true archtop sound. You can get some pretty and mellow jazz guitar sounds out of it as witnessed in the 2nd and 3rd clips but it was designed to be played in a loud environment and as such, doesn't have the liveness of a true archtop.
-
-
I like this tone. How close is this to your favorite 175, Jack?
-
it's close but that instrument needed some tweaking. If you listen carefully , there are some sympathetic vibrations going on with the low strings that detracted from the overall tone. Never figured out where that was coming from . Could have been the pickup vibrating, the bridge pieces, a cable inside the guitar or something else, but that guitar was very close.
OTOH, it was a bit too lively and was more prone to feedback than I'd like. That's one of the problems with a single pickup guitar. And Tom's tops are so thin that they actually vibrate more like a solid top than a plywood top.
I still think my favorite guitar tone is a '60s or early '70s 175.
this tone is fantastic even through the bad recording you can hear the guitar's voice.
-
Sounds very nice, but it's a solid top on a Kessel, unless I'm mistaken(?) Let's look for good 175 clips. I'm sure we'll know it when we hear it.this tone is fantastic even through the bad recording you can hear the guitar's voice.
Update: my bad, didn't know they were laminated spruce!!!!
-
no, the maple tops were plywood. The early '60s models were spruce. The later '60s models were maple ply like the 175s. Gibson never made a solid maple top hollowbody unless you count the semi-hollow 336 or les paul supreme Originally Posted by yebdox
-
I tried a couple of the Brunos and couldn't get into them. Nice guitars for sure but a bit too small for me. I settled on the Jim Hall which I love, but definitely a bit different vibe than my 175, which is a mid-80s model.
-
Does it not seem that the Bruno and the SS-15 were rather close in spec. for the same product line? (A little depth and nut width variation.) Glad to see they kept the 1 3/4 nut SS-15.
Chris
Reply With Quote
Recommandations for Hollowbodies for $600 and under?
Today, 05:20 AM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos