Why use poly instead of nitro?

[Matt Cushman]

Here is a recent photo of my first guitar that I built in 2001. The finish is an early waterborne lacquer that I purchased from Stew-Mac. The finish is paper thin and the guitar sounds great and has been played on a regular basis. This early WB lacquer probably was not as high a gloss as the currant WB finishes attain, but not bad, you can see my bald head in the reflection in the lower bout.

[ptchristopher3]

Looks great Matt.

As a first guitar, from what did you make the Sacconi loop?

[vinlander]

I don't mind poly on the back of a neck of a guitar, actually I find it has less tendency to become sticky as it warms up during playing.
However I most definitely prefer Nitro in general.
On many import guitars, mostly the cheaper ones like my Emperor Joe Pass or former Regent for instance, the poly is too thick making it feel like a dipped in plastic toy...

[Matt Cushman]

Looks great Matt.

As a first guitar, from what did you make the Sacconi loop?

I think I purchased it from LMI. Made from nylon I remember it stretching for what seemed like a month to me.

[lawson-stone]

Here is a recent photo of my first guitar that I built in 2001. The finish is an early waterborne lacquer that I purchased from Stew-Mac. The finish is paper thin and the guitar sounds great and has been played on a regular basis. This early WB lacquer probably was not as high a gloss as the currant WB finishes attain, but not bad, you can see my bald head in the reflection in the lower bout.

Mic drop. Point made. Wow. Where's a towel to wipe this saliva off my chin...

[Cunamara]

Nitro ages, other paints do not.

That's not true. Nitro and poly might age differently, but both age.

But indeed there are many different kinds of "nitro" and "poly". Jazz guitarists (myself included) will probably be clamoring for "nitro finishes" for years to come. Of the 16 guitars I currently own, 15 are finished in Nitro and 1 is finished in French Polish. If a luthier made two identical guitars from the same batch of wood and applied a thin nitro coat to one and a thin poly coat to the other, I doubt any of us would be able to hear the difference in a blindfold test. I would much rather have a thin coat of high quality poly than a thick coat of low quality nitro.

Good point. I discussed this with a local luthier who makes very, very fine flattops (the famous James Olson worked for him when started). To paraphrase, he didn't think there was a difference in sond and uses nitro on many guitars not because it actually sounds better but because the customer believes it sounds better. And the customer gets what the customer wants, within reason.

The less wood there is, the more the finish is likely to matter IMHO (I say this without a shred of evidence to support it, BTW, so take that for the nothing that it is worth). Nitro versus poly on a guitar made from a 1 1/2" thick slab of wood? Don't make me laugh. A classical guitar with a top 1/8" thick? I think the finish is more likely to make a difference and a French polish will likely sound better on the same guitar than any sprayed-on finish. An archtop with a top about 1/4" thick would probably have so little difference in sound if finished with nitro or poly as to make no difference. Really thick versus really thin might make a difference in an archtop or an acoustic- probably not much if at all in a slab guitar.

[neatomic]

beautiful work matt c..and just to clarify, i was talking about water poly vs oil poly

cheers

[Matt Cushman]

beautiful work matt c..and just to clarify, i was talking about water poly vs oil poly

cheers

Thanks neatomic!

It always good to clarify things when discussing finish.

Waterborne finish has been a never ending challenge to find. Every year there is a "new and improved version" to learn how to use. Some of these formulas have been real duds. I now have a large supply of WB finish for household projects.

[JPG]

The one gripe I've had with the Gibbys I've owned is how the finish feels on the neck. My old 73, with gloss nitro, was sticky enough that I'd take a 3M scouring pad to it -- I even steel-wooled it twice a year for a few years -- because when I was under stage lights and sweaty, it was a bother. I've also owned two Faded SGs, and one reason I got them was that the neck didn't get tacky as much.

The many other guitars I've owned with poly finishes never gave me that hassle. And tonally, they worked well enough that I plunked down the piastres foor 'em.

I think finish matters a hell of a lot more for acoustics, but electrics? I doubt the pickups can register the difference.

I had that problem with a recent purchase, the ES-175. But it went away after a couple of days. The other Gibson guitars I have all feel great in that sense, warmer and more "natural". You can definitely feel the difference in your hands between the two finishes.

As for the sound I meant unplugged, only. That's where my Ibanez guitars sound dull in comparison. I'm sure it would hardly translate to the amplified sound, but you do feel it in your body, the guitar resonating (more on semis and solidbodies).

[iim7V7IM7]

As an example of the time, cost and experience required for thin nitro finish. This guitar shown in white below went into John Buscarino’s spray booth for sealing and sunburst dyes back in early December ‘017.





It was masked, sealed and a burst applied by mid/late December ‘017. The masking is to minimize the scraping required for areas such as the rosette, purfling and binding.





The last coat of nitro (Cardinal) was applied in early January ‘018.



Four weeks latter (his typical drying time), upon examining the guitar, he finds a small area that shrunk into the grain of the spruce top. This requires filling and airbrushing a small area. This will require further drying before it can be polished and buffed (>2 months in total).

My point behind this, is a thin, properly applied nitro finish takes skill and time to execute. It has more to do with who prepared and applied it than the inherent chemistry of the finish IMO.

[rio]

Regarding Ibanez, all of the Japanese made ones I’ve had have all been resonant and pleasing acoustically for laminates. Surprisingly good in fact. The cheaper ones I’ve had and played have been more dead sounding though that is to be expected I think.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Thumpalumpacus]

I had that problem with a recent purchase, the ES-175. But it went away after a couple of days. The other Gibson guitars I have all feel great in that sense, warmer and more "natural". You can definitely feel the difference in your hands between the two finishes.

I hear you. We should remember that our body chemistries are unique, and no doubt the finish will react differently. My Paul was my #1 for fifteen years, and the problem just wouldn't go away.

As for the sound I meant unplugged, only. That's where my Ibanez guitars sound dull in comparison. I'm sure it would hardly translate to the amplified sound, but you do feel it in your body, the guitar resonating (more on semis and solidbodies).

Yeah, I've owned a couple of Faded SGs and they were certainly more vibrant. I can see where playing unplugged would matter to someone on a hollow-bodied archtop than on an SG, but as noted above, the vibrancy I felt in my ribs with those SGs didn't seem to show up in the amplified response, even at the high SPLs I hit playing rock. I do think on hollow-bodies, the thinness of the finish matters.

[JPG]

Regarding Ibanez, all of the Japanese made ones I’ve had have all been resonant and pleasing acoustically for laminates. Surprisingly good in fact. The cheaper ones I’ve had and played have been more dead sounding though that is to be expected I think.

Yes, the only Japanese one I own is 70s Rocket Roll (Flying V) very thin finish. The other ones are all chinese(?) an AFJ95, an AR325 and an AS153. All great guitars in their price range but that failed to give me that "major click" andI always felt it due to the thick finishes.

I hear you. We should remember that our body chemistries are unique, and no doubt the finish will react differently. My Paul was my #1 for fifteen years, and the problem just wouldn't go away.

That got me worried when I got the 175 because it was really an unpleasant feeling. I kept polishing her hard for a week or so using a microfiber cloth and also one of those guitar polishing sprays from Nomad - and it went away for good. Maybe my hands "adapted" to it (very dry skin) .. at first I also feared the finish on the guitar could have not yet "dried" completely.

Yeah, I've owned a couple of Faded SGs and they were certainly more vibrant. I can see where playing unplugged would matter to someone on a hollow-bodied archtop than on an SG, but as noted above, the vibrancy I felt in my ribs with those SGs didn't seem to show up in the amplified response, even at the high SPLs I hit playing rock. I do think on hollow-bodies, the thinness of the finish matters.

I have a couple of Standards. Actually I was playing one of them. I love this guitar and one of the reasons is the feeling of comfort and warmth I get from it (the 2 Bare Knuckle "Stormy Monday" pickups may play a role, too ).

In the end I believe this may be all very subjective and kind of a psychological/wishful thinking reaction that wouldn't resist a couple of solid blindtests.. but guitars have this effect on us! In my case the ones that click the most just happened to be nitro (and Gibsons)

[Jp267]

I have a friend that has a 60s Alpine White SG that's yellowed over the years it's like a source of pride or something. IMHO I think it's kind of of ugly. It's like a 70 year chain smokers white walls. To each their own I guess.

Sent from my XT1635-02 using Tapatalk

[Jp267]

I agree that Samick I had and returned had more coating on it than any guitar I've seen and it sounded dead. The Ibanez I traded it for has a very light coating. Almost nothing and it sounds much more alive and has a beautiful woody tone acoustic and amplified. I think it's possible to suck the life out of tone wood with too thick of coating.

Sent from my XT1635-02 using Tapatalk