Quote:
Originally Posted by maplebaby
Maybe because it's the most widely used finished in today's guitars and many people prefer it to nitro.
I'm going to be very bold and say there is really no difference in tone between the two. There are SO many other factors that effect tone you could argue to ad nauseum about why one guitar sounds better to one person than another and the finish would be way down the list of factors.
The main factor that effects a guitars tone in my experience is the expertise of the player. More practice produces good tone, that is if the practice is intentional. Less time on the minors and more time on the majors is what all of us musicians need if we are seeking the best tone. If we just want to nit pick things we can't definitively prove then the forums are the place to be.
|
I didn't say anything about tone. As a matter of fact I have two almost identically set up Zemaitis guitars, one with poly, built on a production line, and one built by a small 3 person shop! The poly sprayed as good as I've ever seen, and the other with lacquer, applied as good as I've ever seen. So I know poly can sound great. And I've modded both of these guitars with the same electronics (Tyson Tone Labs Precious and Grace pickups, VIP 500K pots, and .015 neck pickup cap, .022 bridge pickup cap). They have the same neck joint, top, scale length, strings, and woods. Does either guitar sound better? I guess that would be up to the person playing the guitar. I won't enter a debate about lacquer tone vs poly tone, it's pointless.
What I'm more concerned with, is how the instrument ages, and the ability to repair the finish if needed, as lacquer, to me, surpasses poly in both of these attributes, and @ $4319 I would expect it.
The whole idea of practicing over nitpicking over finishes has nothing to do with what I said. I practice hours a day, EVERY DAY, and make my entire living playing guitar, so my choice of lacquer over poly has nothing to do with that. And like I said, I have poly finish guitars, but I prefer a lacquer finish (at that cost), that can repaired easily, and wears in a way that I like. And no, I don't want the guitar to look RELIC'ed, I actually dislike that to the core, I just like the warm look of lacquer. And I take very good care of my instruments to keep them looking nice. And to me the way lacquer wears is a thing of BEAUTY! That is why I posted what I posted.
Even PRS has gone to a lacquer topcoat on their CORE models for that reason.
I have a 1994 Custom 22 that I've been playing lately that I love tone wise, but it's a quarter of a century old so I would loved to have it age a bit more, as it still looks brand new...
As you pointed out, many people would prefer that a guitar stays looking brand new, and for them, I'm glad they can buy a high end guitar that will stay looking new.
But for me, I think that a lacquer finish goes with the aesthetic of the whole small shop vibe. Especially when obviously using the design of a well established benchmark guitar, a vintage Les Paul. These H&Ds are cheaper ($4319) the the lower level R8 Historic Les Paul ($4999) so I would definitely consider one to purchase if they had the finish I liked. Not an argument, just thinking out loud. I would really like to see one of these H&Ds in a lacquer goldtop as that's my favorite finish.
BTW the reason I was looking at these guitars is that I've played some HD acoustics that I love the neck shape of, and that to me is more important than finish! I've sold two of my historics because of clubby necks!