natural finishes and resonance

[LarryL]

Re: natural finishes and resonance

Oh yeah, when you drop a Duncan Distortion into a guitar and play it through an SLO 100 or Bogner Ecstacy worrying about the effect of the finish becomes kind of silly. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

In theory a thin finish should sound better. Given the choice I would take a super thin nitro finish over urethane any day. I think the particular piece of wood has much more to do with the sound than the finish though. I've seen pre-CBS strats that had a microscopically thin finish, especially after shrinking over the years. Some sound great and some are average. I'm also a big fan of the early 70's 3-bolt Strats that most vintage snobs hate. They have a much thicker poly finish and in general don't sound as good as the 50's / 60's Strats. I have played some though that are big, loud, resonant guitars even with the thick finish so it's not true that it will always smother the tone. I tend to think that the 70's guitars get the bad rap again mostly because of the lower grade and heavier wood.

If you look at our favorite Charvel San Dimas guitars many of them had a very thick finish. A bunch of primer covered by a bunch of poly. Many of them still sound great. As for the oiled necks that everyone loves, they feel great but don't give nearly the amount of protection that a lacquered neck will. I've seen, played, and owned many C/J guitars over the years that had neck issues because of this, way more than other brands I've owned.

[Jim Shine]

Re: natural finishes and resonance

"I'm also a big fan of the early 70's 3-bolt Strats that most vintage snobs hate. They have a much thicker poly finish and in general don't sound as good as the 50's / 60's Strats. I have played some though that are big, loud, resonant guitars even with the thick finish so it's not true that it will always smother the tone. I tend to think that the 70's guitars get the bad rap again mostly because of the lower grade and heavier wood. "

I agree with most of your points, but there are a few things I don't agree with 100%. In my mind there are more likenesses between a '69 Strat and a '72 than a '72 and a '79. I will explain. First, before late 1975-early 1976 the finish on Fenders was no different than a 1968-1971 finish. It was just as thin (still thicker than nitro) and even had nitrocellulose color coats. Then the finish changed to a significantly thicker style that was mostly sealer coats. The pickups were changed in 1974. Even the neck and tuner construction changed around 1976. By 1977 the routing templates changed and the neckpockets became larger than needed allowing necks to shift around. Add to all this as you mentioned the heavy wood. Production also stepped up to crazy levels. Rob Schwarz (who still works at Fender) once told me concernbing late 70's production:

"Back in the days when I worked in the woodshop at CBS Fender, largely because we were a union shop (I believe thats why), manufacturing operations were monitored closely using time studies. Work/speed standards were set using the results of those time studies. Pair that with the fact that after the initial body routing of the body block (of wood), most everything after that was done by hand. First the contour cut was traced using a pressboard jig. The body was then taken to the band saw where the basic contour was cut out. After that it was taken to a large belt sander where the contour would be finalized (aside from fine sanding). The union standard at the time I worked in woodshop for cutting the contours on the bandsaw was 150 bodies an hour. That includes the front contour as well. The standard for belt sanding the contours was 350 bodies an hour. We would punch a time card on the clock and note the operation as we completed each one. So because of the speed required, as well as the fact that they were hand cut and sanded, there was quite a bit of variance in the 70's and early 80's. In some cases, since the standard was set pretty high in this operation, quite a few guys would make a minimal cut, a minimal sand, and pass it on down the line. Since everyone down the line through to the the final inspectors continued to pass these through......they continued to vary like that. Manufacturing at its finest, eh???
The contours are now part of the computerized NC router process and therefore you see no variance there today. Life is good."

[paige]

Re: natural finishes and resonance

comparing finish on a body is like comparing batteries in your favorite stomp box. I can't tell the difference but some say they can, who am I to say they are wrong (just anal). And yes I have tried both idea's just to see if I can tell and I can't

[dinkyjacksonman]

Re: natural finishes and resonance

Natural finishes are my favorite finishes.
Maple top, Mahogany, Korina are great looking IMO.
Also Alder is nice too.

[LarryL]

Re: natural finishes and resonance

[ QUOTE ]

I agree with most of your points, but there are a few things I don't agree with 100%. In my mind there are more likenesses between a '69 Strat and a '72 than a '72 and a '79. I will explain. First, before late 1975-early 1976 the finish on Fenders was no different than a 1968-1971 finish. It was just as thin (still thicker than nitro) and even had nitrocellulose color coats. Then the finish changed to a significantly thicker style that was mostly sealer coats. The pickups were changed in 1974. Even the neck and tuner construction changed around 1976. By 1977 the routing templates changed and the neckpockets became larger than needed allowing necks to shift around. Add to all this as you mentioned the heavy wood. Production also stepped up to crazy levels. Rob Schwarz (who still works at Fender) once told me concernbing late 70's production:

"Back in the days when I worked in the woodshop at CBS Fender, largely because we were a union shop (I believe thats why), manufacturing operations were monitored closely using time studies. Work/speed standards were set using the results of those time studies. Pair that with the fact that after the initial body routing of the body block (of wood), most everything after that was done by hand. First the contour cut was traced using a pressboard jig. The body was then taken to the band saw where the basic contour was cut out. After that it was taken to a large belt sander where the contour would be finalized (aside from fine sanding). The union standard at the time I worked in woodshop for cutting the contours on the bandsaw was 150 bodies an hour. That includes the front contour as well. The standard for belt sanding the contours was 350 bodies an hour. We would punch a time card on the clock and note the operation as we completed each one. So because of the speed required, as well as the fact that they were hand cut and sanded, there was quite a bit of variance in the 70's and early 80's. In some cases, since the standard was set pretty high in this operation, quite a few guys would make a minimal cut, a minimal sand, and pass it on down the line. Since everyone down the line through to the the final inspectors continued to pass these through......they continued to vary like that. Manufacturing at its finest, eh???
The contours are now part of the computerized NC router process and therefore you see no variance there today. Life is good."



[/ QUOTE ]

That's some excellent info. Jim. The key for me is staying in the early 70's. My cutoff is '75 with '74 and earlier being preferred. I can deal with the one piece trem. but the staggered pole pickups are much preferred. The '73-'74's were under a grand a few years back and are still affordable if you aren't looking for a mint one. Both of mine are light and sound as good or better than pre-CBS Strats I've owned, thick finish and all. They are also cheap enough where I have jumbo frets (courtesy Mr. Galloup) and oiled necks w/o worrying about destroying the value.

[ChickenScratch]

Re: natural finishes and resonance

Larry, those are beautifull man! Yngwie's at home looking at that picture and touching himself right now! LOL

[Jim Shine]

Re: natural finishes and resonance

I am with you on the cutoff point. Some of the best Strats I have had were from that early 70's era. Three years ago I had a dead mint late 1973 in black that was perhaps in the top 10 guitars I have ever played. I sold it for $2K and was laughing..I think the buyer had the last laugh on me. I will dig up a pic later.

[Jim Shine]

Re: natural finishes and resonance

Sooner than later...lol.

[LarryL]

Re: natural finishes and resonance

Damn, that black one does look clean. I've always wanted a black one but it's so tough to pick out a refin on these. It's pretty easy to identify an original sunburst or blonde (white) one. When you start dealing with black, candy apple red, etc. you really have to be careful.

That black one would be over $3k today on ebay I bet given the condition. Strats seem to have taken quite a jump in the last couple of years. I sold my beat but original '62 for $7500 about three years ago which was a fair price. They seem to be $12k now. I'll take a '73 any day over a relic that is priced $500 higher or more.

[Madness]

Re: natural finishes and resonance

This is taken from an issue of Guitar One...Noise and feedback section.

Q: How does the type of finish on either an acoustic or an electric guitar affect it's sound?

A: Most luthiers believe that an instrument sounds best with no finish at all, but without one, temperature and humidity changes, dirt, and skin oils could damage the wood in a matter of months. Today, the vast majority of factory- made guitars are finished with a catalyzed polymer coating-a tough, fast curing finish that can be applied thick or thin, in glossy, semi-gloss, or matte textures, and with either mild tints or totally opaque colors.
Although tincture and opacity don't affect tone, thickness and texture do. Ideally, a thin finish is best, but less expensive instruments often have thicker finishes to hide imperfections in the wood and to allow more aggressive sanding and polishing. Buyers are sometimes seduced by thick finishes which can look rich and often sound poor. Gloss and matte don't directly affect a guitar's tone, but many players feel that a matte finish feels friendlier to the skin, especially on the neck. On the other hand, a matte finish can sometimes exaggerate the sound of sleeves or skin rubbing against it.
Many high-end, handcrafted guitar are finished in nitrocellulose laquer, which can be applied in a gradual series of extremely thin coats. The curing of nitro. over the years causes an instrument to improve if properly maintained.
----------------------------------------------------

I don't necessarily agree with all of that. I have professionally finished a few guitars in my day and found that the thickness doesn't necessarily affect tone, I believe it is more dependant on the materials used. Hope this was of some help to those who haven't seen it.

[pro-fusion]

Re: natural finishes and resonance

All things being equal, I'm sure a thin finish sounds a little better. However, things are never exactly equal between two different pieces of wood, even of the same type.

On the strat thing--I had a cream-colored early '70s strat years ago with a rosewood board. Total Blackmoregasm! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Mine had skinny frets, though, which I hated, and I've never been much of a single-coil enthusiast.