Why use poly instead of nitro?

[rio]

I have been looking for info on this and can’t seem to find anything. When you have a brand like Ibanez making high quality guitars comparable to any other major production guitars, why are they and others using poly instead of nitro? Is it cost related, easier to apply in terms of labor, a conscious decision to have a more protective finish? I know that poly is generally more associated with cheaper guitars so I’m wondering why a lot of nicer guitars also have poly being used.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[rlrhett]

You’ve answered your own question. Factories use UV curable poly because they stick it in a UV booth and it cures in minutes rather than 10 days. It is also more forgiving of heavy coats.

Glop it on, nuke it, and buff it out. All in one day rather than two weeks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Doctor Jeff]

"Environmentally unfriendly, volatile and a total sod to work with... But enough about Jeremy Clarkson - what's all the fuss about nitrocellulose? And why do guitar players still want to have their instruments covered in it?"

LOL...

Here's everything you wanted to know about nitro vs poly:

Lacquer/nitro finishes: what you need to know | MusicRadar

[John A.]

I have been looking for info on this and can’t seem to find anything. When you have a brand like Ibanez making high quality guitars comparable to any other major production guitars, why are they and others using poly instead of nitro? Is it cost related, easier to apply in terms of labor, a conscious decision to have a more protective finish? I know that poly is generally more associated with cheaper guitars so I’m wondering why a lot of nicer guitars also have poly being used.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Nitro is much more dangerous to work with (it's both toxic and explosive). That plus (in some areas) strict environmental rules on release of VOC's make it very expensive to spray it on a production scale. It also does require more labor because it generally has to be applied in more coats than polyester or polyurethane (which can be done in multiple thin coats, but are often done in a thicker single coat) I think the association with cheapness has more to do with thick, poly finishes, especially polyester (as opposed to polyurethane), which have a tendency to look like a layer of plastic.

John

[John A.]

It can be a little too much like The Gear Page to say “poly” and “nitro”. I mean sure, first off they are not women wrestling stars. But more to the point, there is a huge difference between Polyester and Polyurethane, both of which are used on guitars. Further today’s nitrocellulose lacquer is rather different than many associate with vintage instruments.

There could also be acrylic finishes. I do not specifically know of any but they would end up in the TGP phrase “poly”, since it has come to mean “not lacquer”.

Polyester is associated with the thickest of the thick finishes that we all have seen and felt. It is rather associated with very low cost instruments.

Polyurethane can be applied remarkably nicely in a coat similar in thickness to many lacquer finishes, thinner than some.

My Epi Elite Byrdland has a very very nice, and incidentally thin, polyurethane finish, with visible ‘sink back’ into the spruce and even maple grain.

*****************

In my opinion a fine polyureathane finish can be done at somewhat lower cost, and and with notably less environmental and workplace issues - which partially equate to cost.

Gibson has in later years moved to what is, in my opinion, a notably softer and stickier finish. This certainly reduces checking, and many were completely unbothered by the truly sticky goo from the early 2000’s. I eventually sold my HR Fusion and L4 CES because of the soft sticky finishes.

Many are completely unbothered by this.

It seems that things are better now, with Gibson lacquer finishes being still soft, but not sticky. In my opinion.

****************

Many modern nitrocellulose lacquers contain silicone and also alkyd resins (like what is in old fashioned “oil paint”). There are also plasticisers of one sort or another in there.

This is not inherently evil. I love the Cardinal lacquer. Much beter than the Belen SIL, and even a little better than the McFadden - now called Seagrave lacquer. Yet Cardinal has all the additives mentioned, and probably more that I am unaware of.

All in my opinion.

***********************

Some work very hard at preferring lacquer as a finish. Fortunately there are many guitars finished with lacquer.

But in my opinion the difference between a Benedetto or Collings lacquer finish and that of a Gibson guitar makes lumping them together a little inaccurate. The final finish work on Gibson guitars pales in comparison.

Likewise lumping my Epi Elite Byrdland with many guitars dipped in “poly” (whatever one thinks they mean by that) is similarly absurd.

All in my opinion.

In my opinion.

Chris

I have a completely bog-standard run of the mill American Standard Strat, and I don't know whether I just got lucky, but its polyurethane finish (3-color sunburst) is beautiful. It has the sort of depth people associate with nitro, and it even has what looks like grain figure in the the alder body. I know the finish is thin on a account of the dings and divots I've put it in it. OTOH, the polyester finish on my D'Angelico is indestructible (trust me). I also have a nitro-finished Brand-G flattop. The finish looks to me like it's thicker than my poly-finished guitars, and it's definitely not indestructible. They all sound good to me, as does my I-don't-know-what-it's-finished-with Godin. I never thought about the finish material in buying any of them.

The day I see a well controlled, double-blind experiment of a statistically significant sample of guitars that are the same in every way except finish material that demonstrates a difference in sound is the day I'll believe there's a difference in the sound of finishes. Until then, I'll continue to ignore finish material (probably after then, too).

John

[ptchristopher3]

Hi John,

I find myself thinking that way too. Do not particularly care what it is finished with.

On the other hand I did a major restoration project on a mid-60’s Strat a few years ago and was able to blend new lacquer with old in a way that would not have been possible with another finish.

Also I bought my Eastman 805 for somehting like $400 because it needed some minor repair and finish work. This would not have been practical on a non-lacquer finish.

But those are unusual situations.

[Thumpalumpacus]

In a sentence, ease of application and, in the case of thicker coats, enhanced durability.

I used to own a cedar-topped Takamine flat-top with an incredibly thin poly finish -- one of the most resonant guitars I've ever heard in my life.

[John A.]

Hi John,

I find myself thinking that way too. Do not particularly care what it is finished with.

On the other hand I did a major restoration project on a mid-60’s Strat a few years ago and was able to blend new lacquer with old in a way that would not have been possible with another finish.

Also I bought my Eastman 805 for somehting like $400 because it needed some minor repair and finish work. This would not have been practical on a non-lacquer finish.

But those are unusual situations.

Reparability strikes me as a legit big advantage of nitro. Lord knows my nitro-finished Gibson flattop needs it ... Wait, check that, my dripping-with-mojo, breathably-finished vintage treasure shows great patina and character.

John

[Stringswinger]

It can be a little too much like The Gear Page to say “poly” and “nitro”. I mean sure, first off they are not women wrestling stars. But more to the point, there is a huge difference between Polyester and Polyurethane, both of which are used on guitars. Further today’s nitrocellulose lacquer is rather different than many associate with vintage instruments.

There could also be acrylic finishes. I do not specifically know of any but they would end up in the TGP phrase “poly”, since it has come to mean “not lacquer”.

Polyester is associated with the thickest of the thick finishes that we all have seen and felt. It is rather associated with very low cost instruments.

Polyurethane can be applied remarkably nicely in a coat similar in thickness to many lacquer finishes, thinner than some.

My Epi Elite Byrdland has a very very nice, and incidentally thin, polyurethane finish, with visible ‘sink back’ into the spruce and even maple grain.

*****************

In my opinion a fine polyureathane finish can be done at somewhat lower cost, and and with notably less environmental and workplace issues - which partially equate to cost.

Gibson has in later years moved to what is, in my opinion, a notably softer and stickier finish. This certainly reduces checking, and many were completely unbothered by the truly sticky goo from the early 2000’s. I eventually sold my HR Fusion and L4 CES because of the soft sticky finishes.

Many are completely unbothered by this.

It seems that things are better now, with Gibson lacquer finishes being still soft, but not sticky. In my opinion.

****************

Many modern nitrocellulose lacquers contain silicone and also alkyd resins (like what is in old fashioned “oil paint”). There are also plasticisers of one sort or another in there.

This is not inherently evil. I love the Cardinal lacquer. Much beter than the Belen SIL, and even a little better than the McFadden - now called Seagrave lacquer. Yet Cardinal has all the additives mentioned, and probably more that I am unaware of.

All in my opinion.

***********************

Some work very hard at preferring lacquer as a finish. Fortunately there are many guitars finished with lacquer.

But in my opinion the difference between a Benedetto or Collings lacquer finish and that of a Gibson guitar makes lumping them together a little inaccurate. The final finish work on Gibson guitars pales in comparison.

Likewise lumping my Epi Elite Byrdland with many guitars dipped in “poly” (whatever one thinks they mean by that) is similarly absurd.

All in my opinion.

In my opinion.

Chris

While there are many cogent points in this post, there are some missing points as well.

Nitro can be repaired (drop fills and the like) Other paints cannot (at least as easily or as well). This is important to some who like to keep their instruments looking as new as possible.

Nitro ages, other paints do not. This is also important to some. When Gibson went to Chrome plating instead of nickel, traditionalist guitarists complained that their guitars always looked new. So Gibson went back to nickel. Some guys want to see the yellowing and finish checking that comes with nitro over time.

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.

[iim7V7IM7]

I have guitars finished with nitrocellulose laquer, oil varnish and French polish shellac. The quality of their finishes is more reliant on the expertise of the person that prepared the guitar surface, prepared the finish, applied it, sanded it, drop filled it as appropriate and buffed or polished them. Good finishes take time and skill. Most of these guitars took between 4-6 weeks to go through their finishing process. All of these finishes are quite thin (.002” to .004”). I see many modern high gloss nitro finishes that were applied quite thick .008” to .012”). You can measure it when the finish is scraped before gluing the bridge on a flat top.

[JPG]

As a player I prefer nitro. The feel is different, warmer, adjusts to your hands temperature. The guitars seem to respond a lot better, vibration wise. I had/have several Ibanez guitars. The finish is perfect in each one but at the same time they all sound very dull and uninspiring when not plugged. I guess one of the reasons is the poly finish.

The use of poly finishes, I tend to believe, has to do with music stores.. they endure a lot better the daily aggression.

[Matt Cushman]

A thin durable, repairable and smooth to the touch finish is best. I have found the new waterborne hybrid alkyd varnish is able to check all the boxes. The drawback here is a few sealer and many top coats are needed in order to build up the final finish thickness and there is a week of curing before the final buffing can be done. The varnish buffs to a high gloss and looks like poly.

[ptchristopher3]

Matt,

Considering is is waterborne, do you first shoot a grain raising coat then sand that back?

[neatomic]

there's a reason oil based poly is recommended standard for wood floors..its wickedly durable!!!

nitro and my beloved french polish way less so..

water polys are somewhere in between..but dont get the shine that oil polys do


as per iim and matt c, taking your fat time really makes a finish right..no rushing

oil polys last forever and are super resilient..they can also be drop filled invisibly with superglue...and they dont check like nitro when exposed to varying temps..i understand why modern guitarmakers use it

nothing lets wood breathe like delicate french polish tho...the olde violin makers knew

cheers

ps- french polish, the shellac based and the water based are also way less toxic..for a small shop or hobbyist, it's the way to go

when you see clips of jimmy D spraying nitro up close with no protection...ugh...not good


ala the 30 sec mark or so

[Matt Cushman]

Matt,

Considering is is waterborne, do you first shoot a grain raising coat then sand that back?

I seal the wood with a sprayed thin cut shellac as a sealer. Then I build up the shellac by padding on additional coats. The varnish goes over the shellac. With lots of light sanding between coats.

[ptchristopher3]

Ah, makes sense. The idea of spraying waterborne anything on bare mixed spruce and hardwood would worry me.

Sounds like a great solution.

”solution”,...get it

Trying to be cogent here.

*********

I see no reason why a waterborne polyurethane or alkyd would be less glossy than a petroleum based finish once the time is there for it to cross link.

Thanks for the hands-on info vs. web speculation

[neatomic]

[QUOTE=ptchristopher3;844929]

I see no reason why a waterborne polyurethane or alkyd would be less glossy than a petroleum based finish once the time is there for it to cross link.

/QUOTE]


experience creates reason

cheers

ps- ever see motor oil in a rain puddle..what part shines?? haha

[ptchristopher3]

Indeed, and experience with modern finishes shows, surprisingly to me (and possibly unfathomable to others) that the gloss is there with waterborne finishes.

It is nice to see.

The tricky part is solved by Matt with the shellac.

I think that furniture finishers (who require less final quality) sometimes simply spray the work with water then sand the raised grain before applying a waterborne finish.

[neatomic]

Indeed, and experience with modern finishes shows, surprisingly to me (and possibly unfathomable to others) that the gloss is there with waterborne finishes.

It is nice to see.

ok

respect

cheers

[ptchristopher3]

Hi Nea’

No need to agree with me at all. I really enjoy your input and steering of the discussion.

I am just going on what I observe with the ever evolving world of finishes.

I am regularly surprised by things, and wrong often.

These threads can be tricky because some have hands-on info, some have great conceptual knowledge, and a few pull stuff from the pooper and present it, along with unrelated boasts.

A public forum.

[neatomic]

Hi Nea’

No need to agree with me at all.

I am just going on what I observe with the ever evolving world of finishes.

I am regularly surprised by things, and wrong often.

oh, i'm not agreeing!!!

merely agreeing to your right to disagree..and always with respect for your wisdom here..which i always read and appreciate

cheers

[ptchristopher3]

Great to know Nea’.

Thanks and salute.

[Thumpalumpacus]

As a player I prefer nitro. The feel is different, warmer, adjusts to your hands temperature. The guitars seem to respond a lot better, vibration wise. I had/have several Ibanez guitars. The finish is perfect in each one but at the same time they all sound very dull and uninspiring when not plugged. I guess one of the reasons is the poly finish.

The use of poly finishes, I tend to believe, has to do with music stores.. they endure a lot better the daily aggression.

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.

[rlrhett]

I’m not sure why people get wound up about this, but FWIW I don’t think polyurethane is “inferior”. I CAN be applied with the care of nitro. But it also can be applied thicker and quicker than nitro and still polish to a high gloss. It can be abused more easily than nitro, and so often does.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Longways to Go]

This discussion reminds me of acrylic vs oil paint for artists-- as in painters-- which is how I make my living.

Acrylic paints are water based and modern. Oil paints -- linseed oil based mostly -- are historic. Shellacs are very old too, similarly derived from old wood finishes. Lots of tree sap and plant resins in those old ideas.

If you talk to an art museum conservator, you will often hear the opinion that anything that hasn't been around for a few hundred years is unproven. So oil might be good for the long run (if done with care), while acrylic is more in the "we'll see what happens" situation.
waterbased finishes are convenient, but haven't yet proven themselves over the test of time.

That's pretty much my take on Polyurethane and plastic too.

Time will tell.