"Fender's Dirty Little Secret"...

[tonewoods]

Interesting read....

[0le FUZZY]

...Thank yew fer that!!!!

...Makes yew wunner sumtimes about iss here inner-mess and how the dew dew git spread roun.

...I luv the finish onna 70s Fenners,


0le FUZZY

[Mark Davis]

He has his date wrong tho its not 1963 its after 1968.

[andy__woods]

yeah, and apparantly in the first fact, lacquer has been the "bottom line for creating great tome"

[JohnnyCrash]

Interesting stuff.

[hapichap]

Interesting in deed.

[Mark Davis]

Here is what Mark Kendrick masterbuilder at Fender said.

Pardon my typos. I've lost alot of brain cells in my day. Could it be the 'Nitro'.

The first Fender lap steel was finished in black enamel. When Doc Kauffman and Leo formed K&F guitars in 1945, their original instruments, including the amplifiers, were finished in a lead based, wrinkle coat enamel. A nice shade of Battleship Grey. That was the only color available. After expermenting with different woods other than pine for guitars, they began using nitrocellulose lacquer. They used what was available to the furniture trade at the time.
The original colors were blonde, sunburst, etc... just like your Grandmas coffee table.

Custom colors were introduced in 1955. Once again they were enamel. The same material they used in the auto industry. The enamel would not adhere to the stearate based nitocellulose sanding sealer. Acrylic lacquers were then developed by Dupont to be sprayed on material other than metal. "Duco colors". In order for the paint to adhere, Fender began using a Sherwin Williams product called Homoclad. It was a penetrating, heavy solid, oil based sealer used as a barrier coat to to provide better adhesion for their guitars with custom colors. It was applied by dipping the guitar bodies directly into a 55 gallon drum, filled with the product. ALL Fender guitars produced after 1955 used this product until 1967, when Fender began experimenting with polyesters an undercoat.

By 1968, virtually all Fender guitar products used polyester as an undercoat, including necks. It's a two part product using Methyl Ethyl Ketone(MEK) as a catalyst. The reason the face of the pegheads were not sealed with polyester, is because type 'C' decals (under the finish) would not adhere to the product. While it is true a few guitars may have squeaked by with homoclad, when homoclad wasn't available, they used a Fuller O'Brian product called Ful-O-Plast. PLASTIC!!! It's obvious to me that those necks or bodies were stragglers, having to be reworked for some reason or another and not shipped after the change.

I'd like to make one thing clear... ALL FENDER GUITARS PRODUCED AFTER 1968 HAD A POLYESTER UNDERCOAT WITH A LACQUER TOPCOAT!!! There is no specific ratio. Enough poly was, and is sprayed to properly fill the grain while preventig a burn through while sanding.

In 1983, Fender began using polyuerthane as a topcoat. It cured quicker. It had better clarity. It had more depth and gloss, and didn't melt when you accidently spilled 151 on it. Fender then discontinued the use of polyester on the necks. Polyurethane is a 2 part product using a catalyst.

Fender has continued to use polyester, polyurethane, nitro, homoclad, and Ful-O-Plast.

Nitro is not a superior finish. An electric guitar doesn't 'breathe' at 120 db.

Billy Gibbons, Geddy Lee, Alex Lifeson, Joe Perry, Jimi Hendrix, Eric Clapton, Roccco Prestia, Jimmie Vaughn, Nils Lofgren, Vince Gill, Chet Atkins, Tom Hamilton, Lenny Kravitz, Merle Haggard, Don Rich, Darryl Jones, Mike Stern, Larry Carlton, Peter Frampton, Sting, Marty Stuart, just to name a few. More are available upon request.

Hope this helps,

Mark K.

[Rufus]

Mark Kendrick who "knows" says the sealer was applied by dipping directly in a 55 gallon drum.

The "dirty little secret" article says that was an old wives tale, it was really sprayed on.

So who is "right"??? There are still discrepancies between the stories...

what are the sources of the "dirty little secret"??

All I'm saying is... you can't believe everything you read, well intended or not.

Misinformation on the internet?? Nah... never happen!

[Vizcaster]

Puh-LEESE. Does the original source writer expect everyone to believe that nitro always makes a guitar sound better? because it "breathes" or because it wears off so easily"? how about that wonderful feature of cracking if you bring the guitar inside from a cold car trunk? Finding out that there was a synthetic resin finish on your vintage guitar really ruins your day?

I would have every respect for somebody who has evidence - from personal experience and not just from what they've been lead to believe - that a "thin skin" or "nitro" finish has any effect on the resonance of the instrument.

Got news for you. "Nitrocellulose" isn't what it used to be, either. The resins are modified with vinyl and other synthetic ingredients like plasticizers (oh, no, getting close to using that dirty word "plastic").

Maybe it's a "secret" because the backlash is unjustified. It's getting as if a good, hard, protective coating that looks good and stays shiny and pretty has becomes a bad thing.

[photoweborama]

You know, I buy such cheap guitars, I'll never have to worry about this..

[abcrelic]

None of this ceases to amaze me any longer. I am beginning to wonder when the bottom will fall out of this relic craze...probably the same time the chopper craze does - and hopefully never.

[Dave W]

Originally Posted by Rufus

Mark Kendrick who "knows" says the sealer was applied by dipping directly in a 55 gallon drum.

The "dirty little secret" article says that was an old wives tale, it was really sprayed on.

So who is "right"??? There are still discrepancies between the stories...

what are the sources of the "dirty little secret"??

All I'm saying is... you can't believe everything you read, well intended or not.

Misinformation on the internet?? Nah... never happen!

Mark Kendrick said that Sherwin Williams Homoclad was applied by dipping in a 55 gallon drum. That's a different sealer than Fuller O'Brien Fullerplast, which was sprayed on. Fender used both.

Fullerplast is actually a form of epoxy finish. Fuller O'Brien ditched it; there were environmental problems and they were bought by a conglomerate. So a different company makes it now.

It's no "dirty little secret" that Fender hasn't used nitro undercoats since custom colors were introduced. It's common knowledge among many Fender fans, and what Mark Kendrick said above was posted publicly at the FDP several years ago.

But the idea that plastic finishes don't "breathe" is absurd. All finishes allow moisture transfer, some a little more slowly than others. Even pigmented shellac finishes. And any competent finish chemist will tell you that lacquer (nitro or acrylic) is classified as a plastic finish anyway.

[GuitarJonz]

Fact:
I hate when people write articles stating "Facts", when they might only be "Opinions" or "Conjecture"

[Lostheart]

IMHO you cannot tell a difference in sound when doing a blind test and AB'ing guitars finished in nitro and poly. It's simply a matter of preference and how you would like your guitar to look 20, 30 years down the line. Nitro is much more fragile and ages a lot faster whilst poly holds up really well...

[beep.click]

I like it when they look pretty and sound good...

[voided3]

I guess that would explain why a plywood MIK '92 Strat body I have has a super thick epoxy like covering; I got it for free from a friend who dropped the guitar on concrete and it took a huge chunk out of the finish and it does look like it's about the same thickness as a low E string as mentioned in the article.

[musicalmartin]

I like nitro because it looks better, has a sort of classier finish as it usually looses some of its shine through playing .Thats why I like HW1 bodies .No idea about the tone ,its virtually unprovable due to variables at every stage of trying to prove it .I still think the biggest tone improver is a good amp.

[quackerz]

I love plastic finishes. Tough and glossy. Tasty too.

[Tedecaster]

So to further complicate things, it seems that "poly" could mean two different things dependent on a specific time period.

POLY-ester? or POLY-urethane?

[Vizcaster]

Yes. Poly-ester is a common sealer/undercoat that builds well and is usually topcoated with something else that can be buffed out. Poly-urethane simply is a different component. Then again, neither one of those terms accurately and completely describes a finish, since they're only the names of the resins which are but one of the ingredients. Says nothing about the solvents, carriers, modifiers, driers, whether it's a two-part or one-part finish, and a host of other factors. Then again, some people's eyes glaze over when you start talking about horsepower and torque - same thing happens when some people hear some words that they associate with "plastic"...

All comes back to nitro finishes are fragile and the modern (since 1968 anyway) are more durable. There is so much hype surrouding nitro that it probably does affect the vintage market somewhat but I doubt if it will make a difference, say, for the entry level MIA line of "Highway One" guitars. Bottom line is do you like the way it looks? Do you care about how it holds up? And can anybody prove that it sounds different?

[0le FUZZY]

Originally Posted by Vizcaster

Puh-LEESE. Does the original source writer expect everyone to believe that nitro always makes a guitar sound better? because it "breathes" or because it wears off so easily"? how about that wonderful feature of cracking if you bring the guitar inside from a cold car trunk? Finding out that there was a synthetic resin finish on your vintage guitar really ruins your day?

I would have every respect for somebody who has evidence - from personal experience and not just from what they've been lead to believe - that a "thin skin" or "nitro" finish has any effect on the resonance of the instrument.

Got news for you. "Nitrocellulose" isn't what it used to be, either. The resins are modified with vinyl and other synthetic ingredients like plasticizers (oh, no, getting close to using that dirty word "plastic").

Maybe it's a "secret" because the backlash is unjustified. It's getting as if a good, hard, protective coating that looks good and stays shiny and pretty has becomes a bad thing.

...Ditto on that.

...Thanx fer typin.








(deranged internet-based alter ego, with my own lexicon and all.)

Please visit my page

[tonewoods]

"It's getting as if a good, hard, protective coating that looks good and stays shiny and pretty has becomes a bad thing."

Well, it is if you're trying to replicate the guitars that got us all excited in the first place and fetch the big bucks today--the 50's Blackguards....

"Custom colors were introduced in 1955. Once again they were enamel. The same material they used in the auto industry. The enamel would not adhere to the stearate based nitocellulose sanding sealer."

Relicers take note.....

[e-merlin]

Originally Posted by Vizcaster

I would have every respect for somebody who has evidence - from personal experience and not just from what they've been lead to believe - that a "thin skin" or "nitro" finish has any effect on the resonance of the instrument.

I wouldn't because they know what kind of finish is on their guitar. In order for it to be credible, the difference would have to be noticeable in blind testing where the subject didn't know what kind of finish they were playing.

A lot of people say they can tell what type of finish or what kind of wood just by listening, but when you ask them to do it without first knowing what's being tested, they waffle.

[DavidE]

Just once I wish somebody would actually offer a reason why dead cells (i.e. wood) need to "breathe". Put anything on thick enough and it's a problem...but Taylor guitars and many others manage to spray poly and eurethane finishes down to .005" or so these days. Good luck doing that with good ol' nitro! Fender moved away from lacquer because it was unstable and a total pain to use in a production setting. They were trying to do a good thing...so how about give 'em a break?

cheers

[BillyC]

I like polyurethane but my polyester finished guitars crack like a egg when you ding them..

[micpoc]

Originally Posted by 0le FUZZY

...Ditto on that.

...Thanx fer typin.

Ole FUZZY, you've got a GIF for everything, don't you?

[eryque]

I wasn't aware that this was dirty, or even secret for that matter. What's most interesting to me is that the evidence at that site (and offered in rebuttal here) is offered to us without crediting a source of first hand knowledge, which makes it somewhat dubious.

Regardless, I've always thought that "breathing" in this context meant resonating, and the first thing you do to get a glossy finish on wood is to cram all those open pores full of gunk (grainfiller, Fullerplast, or whatever), so I don't think that nitro allows guitars to resonate any better than poly-anything.

A thin finish (of any type) is going to affect the sound of a guitar minimally, and a thick finish (of any type) is going to affect it somewhat more. I think the effects are barely noticable on solidbody guitars, somewhat noticable on hollow and semi-hollow guitars, and readily apparent on acoustic instruments.

[e-merlin]

Originally Posted by eryque

A thin finish (of any type) is going to affect the sound of a guitar minimally, and a thick finish (of any type) is going to affect it somewhat more. I think the effects are barely noticable on solidbody guitars, somewhat noticable on hollow and semi-hollow guitars, and readily apparent on acoustic instruments.

And I would go so far as to say that physics would back this notion up. I really don't think a 2" thick plank of wood is going to resonate much at all. I certainly don't think a 1/25 thousanths of an inch thick finish (using Warmoth's claims on their finish) is going to hinder that resonation.

[Rufus]

Not everybody that prefers a nitro finish does so because they believe that it "breathes".

I've never held a pre-CBS nitro finished guitar and have no idea what it feels or sounds like. I have, however, finished a guitar with Reranch nitro. I much prefer the LOOK and FEEL of "modern" nitro over the plastic-y feeling poly that Fender puts on its guitars of today.

Plain and simple...notice I didn't say anything about superior TONE or "breathing"!?!

Just like the rosewood vs. maple fretboard debate... it doesn't affect the tone to any provable extent, but does that also make you an "idiot" if you prefer one over the other? Or how about color? Does sonic blue sound any different than a blackguard?

I propose that Paul institute a banner on top of the TDPRI informing posters that any new threads that include the words "nitro", "breathe", "tone", "rosewood vs. maple" subject the poster to immediate banishment to the FDP or some other page.

(Edited for grammar; or lack thereof)

[Mark Davis]

Trees are just like people they breathe when they are alive when they are dead they dont breathe.

Wood does however react to different temps and humidity conditions after its dead.

I think the thin nitro finish so it can dry out and breathe more is probably the biggest myth in guitar discussions.

[Rob DiStefano]

Yep, that catalyzed epoxy finish is MURDER to work on and/or with - I will NOT do a refret on a Fullerplast Fender neck ... unless I'm well compensated for all that effort and time. YMMV.

[Rufus]

For the record, I don't believe that wood drying out would change the tone to any appreciable extent.

ANY kind of finish - nitro, poly or stucco, is gonna prevent the exchange of moisture between the guitar and the outside atmosphere.

BUT.. how about when that finish is worn off?? Is it possible for the body to change its moisture content when the bare wood is exposed? If the outside air has less moisture content than the wood of the guitar, then it is certainly possible to "dry out".

Now- which finish is gonna naturally wear off faster?
Nitro, poly (artificial "relics" notwithstanding) or stucco?

Whether or not it affects the "tone" is for your ears to decide.

[Rob DiStefano]

Originally Posted by Rufus

... ANY kind of finish - nitro, poly or stucco, is gonna prevent the exchange of moisture between the guitar and the outside atmosphere. ....

Nitrocellulose lacquer will NOT inhibit the flow of moisture, it will shrink forever until it checks and cracks and waffles. IMHO, nitro shouldn't even be called a "finish", it's really that bad.

[Rufus]

Originally Posted by Rob DiStefano

Nitrocellulose lacquer will NOT inhibit the flow of moisture, it will shrink forever until it checks and cracks and waffles. IMHO, nitro shouldn't even be called a "finish", it's really that bad.

You're a very experienced and knowledgeable guy Rob...but I'd have to ask what you're using as a basis of that statement saying it will not inhibit the flow of moisture.

My very limited experience and understanding is that the NITRO may continue to gas-off and shrink for years, but that doesn't necessarily mean that moisture passes thru an intact finish (maybe you're referring to when the finish finally cracks and checks, but I was referring to an intact finish).

I don't think anyone has ever done a study measuring the moisture content of wood at finishing and then again, years later. That would definitely provide the answer and settle the "moisture" debate (but not the "tone")

I'm not criticizing you or your point of view... just asking what its based on or clarifying your statement, for my own education.

My point is that so much information (on every subject, not just guitars) that was passed on for years and is taken at face value as "fact" is very often proven to be not correct at all.

Which was my original question about the "dirty little secret" article... or any article for that matter... What are the sources??

[Mark Davis]

If you make a guitar and dont use ANY finish of any type the wood will warp.

Thats really what the finish is for to protect the wood and keep it from warping.

I agree 100% with Rob nitro shouldnt even be called a finish.

[eryque]

Originally Posted by Rufus

My very limited experience and understanding is that the NITRO may continue to gas-off and shrink for years, but that doesn't necessarily mean that moisture passes thru an intact finish (maybe you're referring to when the finish finally cracks and checks, but I was referring to an intact finish).

Nitro has a lot of properties, but creating a moisture barrier isn't one of them. That's why grandma made you use coasters on her old coffee table. The heavy white rings were where the moisture got underneath the finish.

Poly will create a mooisture barrier, and the rings just need to be cleaned.

Nitro mostly just makes things look pretty, but doesn't do a good job of protecting them.

[Rob DiStefano]

Nitrocellulose lacquer - the product we all wished could do the job.

There are more than a few web references to issues with the finish material we call "nitro", as having all the concerns I'd previously typed. Wiley Scientific did a research article on the relation between the moisture vapour permeability and moisture vapour adsorption of regenerated cellulose films. The conclusion showed the hygroscopic nature of nitro - the abstract reads ...

"Hydrophilic, regenerated cellulose films are characterized by certain adsorption properties. These investigations were aimed at determining to what extent the moisture content of a film might decide its barrier capacity against water vapour. The experimental materials were an unlacquered regenerated cellulose film and one varnished on both the sides with nitrocellulose lacquer. The investigations allowed us to propose some models that formally describe the adsorption process of water vapour through films at different values of ambient relative humidity. In addition, we determined the functional relation between the water vapour permeability of the films under investigation and their moisture contents and equilibrium ambient relative humidity values. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd."

An article in WoodDigest offers ...

"Standard nitrocellulose lacquers are the lowest performers of coating systems available to the industry. Typically noncatalyzed standard lacquers range between 18 to 22 percent volume solids (the percent of the total volume solids of the coating that do not evaporate and remain on the substrate to form the protective film). These low-cost, single-component lacquers are easy to spray and have short dry times. They add a warm amber color to the finish and have a soft “close to the wood” appearance. These lacquers are easy to repair and are used on production furniture, low-end cabinetry, and other special applications, such as acoustical musical instruments, to retain sound quality. However, to achieve film build, they require labor-intensive multiple coats and do not provide high levels of moisture, chemical or scratch resistance. In areas of the country where environmental regulations are not strictly enforced, standard lacquers are still largely used, but as regulations become stricter, it is advisable to phase out of this technology into the higher solids coatings."

I kinda think of nitro as Goretex - both breathe.

[Nick JD]

Seems to me it's not the coating/finish that's the problem, it's the thing underneath. I've always thought wood was an inferior material for building something that should resonate equally depending on temperature, humidity and age. I strongly believe that if the guitar was invented last year, it would not be made from wood.

Musical instruments are made from wood because musical instruments are made from wood - not because it's the best material.

[Rob DiStefano]

Originally Posted by Nick JD

Seems to me it's not the coating/finish that's the problem, it's the thing underneath. I've always thought wood was an inferior material for building something that should resonate equally depending on temperature, humidity and age. I strongly believe that if the guitar was invented last year, it would not be made from wood.

Musical instruments are made from wood because musical instruments are made from wood - not because it's the best material.

Would (wood? ) that be true we'd all be flocking to buy a Rainsong instead of a Martin/Guild/Taylor/Larrivee/etc. Wood is still an extremely viable medium for making electric and acoustic instruments. However, at the rate that *good* wood is being depleted, it might someday be cheaper to make an all-graphite guitar.

Good seasoned wood that's been very thinly coated with a polymer will always yield yeoman duty, for the very most part. YMMV.

PS - I've got a few really cheap solid body electrics made from that super high growth paulownia wood (grows at least 10 feet per year, to as much as THIRTY feet per year!). My conclusion is that it's an AMAZING tone wood - extremely resonant and VERY light weight. We should all hope to see more of its use for guitars, both solid and acoustic.

[e-merlin]

Since we're discussing moisture absorption or lack thereof, isn't that one of the reasons fret ends protrude in the winter when the air is dry? I mean, poly or nitro, the neck dries out and you get fret end problems, right?