Nitro vs Nitro vs Nitro...

[wet in davis]

I’ve had many high end acoustic and electric guitars from makers claiming old school nitro finishes. Only one instrument I’ve owned actually has aged to look and feel like a vintage finish. My Bagnasco and Casati slope actually looks like a vintage instrument after 6 years or so. (I don’t remember how old it is…)
I’m not sure it’s important but I wish builders would not claim they’re doing it “the old way” when that’s clearly a marketing claim. I won’t name brands but I’ve got “100% nitro finish” guitars that look shiny new after 10 years or more. (I also realize that for legal and environmental reasons it’s not easy. But I also think cost cutting plays a role..)
It looks very cool, but again, not sure it matters that much.

[jklotz]

The problem is nitro is kind of like curry. There are as many different versions of it as there are cooks. But it was like that back in the day too. These days, most builders use a lot of plasticers in the lacquer to avoid warranty claims, hence 10 year old guitars with lacquer finishes looking brand new. You and me may be able to appreciate the worn in look of a well loved guitar, but most folks would be demanding a new guitar if it had any signs of wear in the first 4 or 5 years.

[mercy]

I love an aged nitro finish but as was said there are different kinds of nitro. I think its a good compromise between French and poly. Unfortunately its hard to find any one doing an old school, or any school, nitro finish.

[wet in davis]

I got my B&C used at a bit of a discount because it had checking in the finish.
I suspect if I sold it I would lose money because of the dull, worn finish. On the other end of the spectrum you pay extra for a Martin aged or Pre War Co. guitar.
Real wear hurts value. Manufactured age increases value. It is what it is.

[Mr. Jelly]

My Martin 00-18 Authentic has a finish that is used only on authentic guitars. It is supposed to have a thinner finish and be a mixture that was used way back when. Something like that anyway. It builds up stuff that I have to clean off, often. I have never had this happen in over fifty years of playing. So what I am saying is it's way different.

[Steve DeRosa]

Sounds like Sunday at the dragstrip in 1966:

[archerscreek]

How worn and vintage do you suppose a 1936 D-28 looked in 1942, especially if it was lightly played and stayed in its case in a climate controlled environment most of the time as is common nowadays? That guitar would probably look fairly new, too.

[wet in davis]

Originally Posted by Mr. Jelly

My Martin 00-18 Authentic has a finish that is used only on authentic guitars. It is supposed to have a thinner finish and be a mixture that was used way back when. Something like that anyway. It builds up stuff that I have to clean off, often. I have never had this happen in over fifty years of playing. So what I am saying is it's way different.

Ya I’ve got an Authentic from Martin. 8 years old hanging in the open same as the B&C. The Martin looks pretty much the same as it did new.

[blindboyjimi]

Originally Posted by wet in davis

I got my B&C used at a bit of a discount because it had checking in the finish.
I suspect if I sold it I would lose money because of the dull, worn finish. On the other end of the spectrum you pay extra for a Martin aged or Pre War Co. guitar.
Real wear hurts value. Manufactured age increases value. It is what it is.

Originally Posted by wet in davis

Ya I’ve got an Authentic from Martin. 8 years old hanging in the open same as the B&C. The Martin looks pretty much the same as it did new.

The VTS (Vintage Tone System) came out on the 2015 models and all Authentics before had the normal thick Nitro that most companies use. I posted in Mr Jelly’s OP a while back urging him to buy an 00-18A. I’ve had previous Authentics and the newest ones are certainly the best. When you look at people’s collections you’ll see who would be put off by a ding, dent or wear marks (the majority) and those that would appreciate that your B&C that’s 8 years old automatically and no question sounds better today than it did when new and because of those other people in the market it’s cheaper yet better.

My collection has 30’s vintage guitars along with vintage inspired builders like Bill Tippin, Julius Borges, and Nick Kukich (Franklin), even the Waterloo. These guys achieve a tone that’s very vintage inspired. My Tippin is 21 years old and looks new. The finish has gassed off a bit and you can perhaps see a bit of finish sunken into the grain, but basically looks new. My Borges is super light weight and the finish is incredibly thin. Every used Borges I’ve seen has a checked finish. Mine doesn’t...yet but it won’t bother me, but it will de-value it by probably 20%. My Franklins are 40 and 31 years old and you’d think they are from the 1930’s. my Waterloo has a matte, very thin finish and I’ve relic’ed it, just for fun.

Anyway, I know you have vintage, new and perhaps that re-topped guitar I loved. I’m a huge fan of B&C and if I were in the market, I’d have no hesitation.

[RoyBoy]

The tonal value of nitro cellulose is that it is a cousin of the wood it's on (cellulose) so it sinks/melts into the wood more easily as opposed to sitting on top like poly. As it ages it sinks further into the wood, eventually revealing pores on mahogany and rosewood. Look close at an old guitar sometime. I've built and finished mandolins and got a glossy flat surface when buffing out. If the finish isn't too thick, within a year you can see the grain lines of the spruce telegraphing through the sheen of the top. This thin, consolidated finish is more fragile than poly but makes for great tone. Thus people are willing to pay more for it even though it's more fragile.

[Simon Fay]

There is a lot of misunderstanding out there regarding finish types and materials - especially about nitro breathing and being similar to cellulose/wood. A good read on the subject is Brian Howard's discussion:

http://howardguitars.blogspot.com/20...cquer-era.html

I don't agree with everything Brian says - in particular, regarding tone. I notice a difference between how finish types affect the sound of the guitar body pre and post finish. Certain thin finishes like shellac and varnish don't seem to change the tone at all - whereas, a thin polyester finish will without question dampen and kill some of the sound of my guitars every single time. These aren't massive changes and I doubt a typical factory guitar that is built more heavily and less responsive would see much of a difference between finish types. That said, I do absolutely agree that finish film thickness is extremely important. The film needs to be very thin if you don't want to negatively impact the tonal potential of the guitar.

I also don't agree 100% on the repairability aspect of modern finishes. While decent, I believe nitro and shellac are superior in this regard.

I'm currently using nitrocellulose lacquer on my instruments but it is by no means the best guitar finish. Each finish type has its pros and cons.

[nchin241]

My gathering is that modern nitro formulas differ quite a bit from the old days. By every metric *except* for guitar players who want forced patina and checking, these things are seen as improvements to the material.

People seem to forget that just like urethanes are to nitro lacquer, nitro lacquer itself was the cheap and inexpensive alternative to the historical methods of french polishing stringed instruments. It was cutting edge stuff at the time and the instrument companies did it because folks were spraying everything with lacquer back in the day; coffee tables, lawn chairs, automobiles, etc. Wasn't much consideration about how ' sonically resonant' lacquer was going to make a '55 Bel Air.

[J Patrick]

all I know from both buying a lot of guitars with nitro finish and spraying a few dozen of my own builds is that it ain’t all the same...lots of variation that is the result of a number of factors...the lacquer formula itself...the spray equipment and method of application....the wood that is being finished and the prep it received...the person applying it....the environment it’s sprayed and cured in...lots of ways to end up with different results....

...that said...all of my guitars that have nitro finishes which is probably about 15 of them...seem to age at what I would call a fair rate...they don’t look shiny and new after 10 years of use...that’s for sure...

[Mr. Jelly]

Originally Posted by blindboyjimi

I posted in Mr Jelly’s OP a while back urging him to buy an 00-18A.

I want to thank you for your input. It was part of the information that I thought about when making my decision. You were right about the neck by the way. It's an enigmatic guitar and I find that only fitting that I should have one. Thanks, this guitar and I are on a journey now. It's turned out better then I imagined it could.

[383roller]

Originally Posted by J Patrick

all I know from both buying a lot of guitars with nitro finish and spraying a few dozen of my own builds is that it ain’t all the same...lots of variation that is the result of a number of factors...the lacquer formula itself...the spray equipment and method of application....the wood that is being finished and the prep it received...the person applying it....the environment it’s sprayed and cured in...lots of ways to end up with different results....

...that said...all of my guitars that have nitro finishes which is probably about 15 of them...seem to age at what I would call a fair rate...they don’t look shiny and new after 10 years of use...that’s for sure...

I think this sums it up as in there are production variables. I’ve got many nitro finished guitars ranging in 80-7 years old. They’re all different but same in most ways.

My custom that was sprayed 7 years ago by a local guy, I requested “just nitro” - I think is truly that, it has very long checking and more than any others I have. All my guitars are treated well and comparably.

I think new epa compliant production nitro is probably the farthest from true nitro up to this point, I don’t have facts to back this up; just experience in seeing the differences through hundreds of examples including Fender.

With this in mind it makes every guitar different in one of its many ways, and gives us something to ponder.