'Open pore' finishes?

AndrewG · #1 01-30-2019, 08:18 AM

Seems a lot of manufacturers are cutting costs by leaving out the pore filling stage, including National; my Style 1 Tricone had an open pore 'finished' neck.
This just smacks of cheap to me, while the makers tell us it's actually better for tone. I don't buy that, and I dislike the unfinished feel of open pore timber.
I was interested in the Eastman E1-OM until I discovered it had the open pore thing. Sorry, no sale

.

bluesfreek · #2 01-30-2019, 08:22 AM

I have owned a couple of "open pore" finished acoustic guitars and one was laminated the other a Hagstrom solid cedar top over mahogany. While the Hagstrom sounded good it did get dented and dinged up easily. Not something I'd buy again. I prefer a gloss finish.

Osage · #3 01-30-2019, 08:43 AM

To me it looks like what it is: cheap.

gr81dorn · #4 01-30-2019, 08:43 AM

I'm in the faction who really prefers the open pour finish, though it might stem from the fact that I prefer satin finishes to gloss and it's become commonplace for those doing satins to not do filler, relieving them of many steps on coats and sanding. It makes for a guitar that feels better to me, but I can see the argument for gloss. Those whose gloss is too sticky, however, are not for me.

The happy medium would be a filled satin finish, which some do amazingly well and it's smooth and feels great, not sticky or tacky at all.

In the right instrument, it works completely. In nicer stuff, it definitely feels like a corner being cut, even when it is just the neck and the rest of the instrument is shiny gloss.

DownUpDave · #5 01-30-2019, 08:58 AM

I have a couple open pore finish instruments. While I prefer the appearance of pore fill and high gloss these open pore finish instruments are very road worthy. In other words I can take them out anywhere, like camping, and not worry about scratches scraps and scuffs. One of those is the Eastman E 100 LTD 12 fret in my signature and it is a great sounding and playing guitar.

It is cheap.....at $700 compared to a similar Martin 00 12 fret at $3000.

hat · #6 01-30-2019, 09:06 AM

I have an L00 type guitar that I wanted to retain that look of a vintage low cost guitar, so I did an open pore finish on it. It looks just like I wanted, and the plus side is it's a very thin finish.

Treenewt · #7 01-30-2019, 10:12 AM

I have an Eastman E1OM, and the finish doesn’t bother me at all. Mine had a gloss top, though, and I’ve heard some of the newer ones do not. That might have changed my mind. For sure it’s a cost cutting measure, but I still say tone is king. It’s not massively different to me than a satin finish, and to be honest, if it helps the tone, it’s worth it. My E1 is a fantastic guitar regardless of price.

#8 01-30-2019, 10:18 AM

I've never heard anyone claim that open pore finishes improve the tone, but whatever. If you don't like something, don't buy it. Lots of folks can build you the guitar of your dreams.

stephenT · #9 01-30-2019, 10:22 AM

I prefer the tactile feel of very little finish and I believe it contributes to a better sound.

My Martin D Jr is a marvel of minimal finish and the finish on my Waterloo is perfect, just enough to look great. I spray nitro cellulose lacquer on my electric guitar builds, the feel and tap tone changes with grain filler and too many coats of finish. The art is knowing where to stop.

fazool · #10 01-30-2019, 10:27 AM

I prefer very thin satin finish. Lowden's french polish is my favorite. I love the durability of my Taylor's UV cured polyester but it does feel thick to me.

I don't mind my Ibanez's OP finish but it definitely feels cheaper

lowrider · #11 01-30-2019, 10:37 AM

Like most things; it depends.

I like a gloss finish the best, don't have any problem with satin, but really don't like big craters in my guitar.

Muddslide · #12 01-30-2019, 10:43 AM

On most guitars I like a gloss finish or possibly satin with filled pores. I agree it may be a cost-saving measure for manufacturers, but I can also see the argument that the wood is more "open" from lack of a thick glossy finish.

I still prefer gloss overall, and the open-pore finishes I've seen over natural wood do look kind of chintzy to me, but for Christmas I got a cheap Ibanez grand concert guitar in "weathered" (as they call it) black/open pore finish with white binding and I think it looks and feels sharp.

I tend to not care for painted or stained acoustics...I personally think glossy black acoustics usually look cheap, but on this black Ibanez I think the open pore look is pretty sharp.

MIGAS79 · #13 01-30-2019, 10:46 AM

I liked it a lot on the AC240 I had. Kept a great guitar cheap. It had the best tuners I’ve had, bone nut and saddle and retails for like $299. Great deal. I just have a one in, one out policy currently and couldn’t pass on a Guild.

mercy · #14 01-30-2019, 11:47 AM

The top is never filled, gloss or not and it is what produces most of the sound. Im sure everyone knows it is a marketing spin to reduce production cost. Having the back not filled is not going effect the sound much. As with everything some people will like it.

micahwc · #15 01-30-2019, 01:42 PM

I hate gloss finishes, especially on necks. I like satin finishes and open pore finishes. I understand that it is a cost saving step, but in my mind leaving the pores open makes more sense to me as far as tone is concerned. Why wouldn't a thick finish effect the tone?

My favorite bass guitar has no finish on the neck, just bare wood. I don't think that makes it sound any better but it feels better to my hands and thus I play it more than my others.