Thick Guitar Finishes

[boots]

Am I the only one on TAG crazy enough to do this?

My main squeeze is a 1990 American Strat. It's a great instrument. Very solid, great sustain. It has the Lace sensors, which I'm not a big fan of, but it sounds great. Not exactly a classic Stat, but a fine insturment.

It has a really heavy clear coat finish over the paint, and I was wondering how much that might constipate the sound. So I have been sanding away at the clear coat with a brillo pad to thin down the clear coat. I don't know how much difference it makes, but to my eyes, I like the resulting dull finish better than the almost plastic looking shiny clear coat.

I have always appreciated a good beat-up old Strat. There seemes to be something to the idea that the finish on a guitar constipates the sound. I'm thinking about examples like Walter Trout's Strat, and Rory Gallagher's. Those guitars have a real throaty sound. Also John Lennon's Epiphone - it had a real rew sound on Let it Be after he sanded all the finish off.

Am I crazy to take the finish off of a perfectly good Strat? I wouldn't do it to an old classic model. I don't think I'll ever sell this guitar, so why not?

For the record, I always thought the Road Worn series of guitars was stupid. It seems like you should have to play a guitar hard for many years to get it to look that beat up. But I don't think those old classic Fender guitars ever had a heavy duty clear coat over the paint. The clear coat is nearly bullet proof. I have played this guitar for 20 years, and it hardly has a ding on it. I just want to take off the bullet proof coating so that it can experience life a little.

[Reeltarded]

I have removed finish for sound on vintage guitars before. They were used guitars at the time. If it's a player anything is up for discussion. I like unfinished necks too. Pisses people off, people who don't own the stuff act like you are a savage. Ok, so I am. Anyhow..

Beat up stuff sounds better.

[HeeBGB]

The problem is that if you like the guitar the way it is and removing the finish changes it in a bad way....it will be tough, if not impossible, to go back.

I remember reading the story about EVH removing a big chunk of wood from his favorite Ibanez Destroyer. The one on the album "Women and Children First". It changed the tone for the worse and obviously he couldn't put the wood back so he ended up not using the guitar anymore.

I would be leary of changing a guitar that I already like for this reason. I would just build or buy another one.

I am a fan of Relics BTW. But more importantly I like the thin skin finish of Nitro....and the non plasticky feel of nitro as well.

[crbowman]

I have a '72 Telecaster Custom with maple neck. Got the guitar for next to nothing many years ago because it had that poly clear coat on the neck and was basically unplayable. I swear it looked like they applied that clear coat after the the thing was already fretted. like it actually climbed up the frets and got worse the higher you went up the neck. Took it to a local luthier who completely stripped, refretted, and refinished the neck with with a thin nitro finish. Now it plays absolutely wonderful. Did Leo's boys not play the things before they sent 'em out the door?? I've played several early 70's maple necks that were similar to this, but this one was absolutely the worst!
Not sure what effect stripping the body would have on the tone, but stripping the neck damn sure improved this one.

[JazzGuitarGimp]

I bought a new American Standard Tele in the mid 90's - maple neck. After i had it a few weeks, I started noticing a milky-colored, stiff film peeling off the tops of the frets when I would bend a string. Upon closer examination, it was evident they had sprayed the entire neck after the frets were installed.

To go back to the EVH story, and with my limited knowledge, removing a chunk of wood and stripping the finish are two completely different things. The resonance of the wood is a good thing - don't want to disturb that by removing any. The finish, on the other hand (and again, as best as I can tell) dampens the wood's natural resonance and removing the finish only "opens up" the natural sound of the instrument.

I have had several guitars made for me. The first is a hand-carved archtop guitar. The luthier had me come up to play the guitar "in the white" (no finish) so that if I wanted any adjustments such as thinning the neck a bit, he could do it before the finish was applied. Don't get me wrong, the guitar sounds amazing with the finish on it, BUT, it's not as good as it sounded unfinished.

[Reeltarded]

Frets always go in before finishing. The plasticizers in those poly finishes is the difference between an explosive volcano (to thick) or a runny 25 year flow that hurts nobody. It's all about who mixed the batch, and did they take lunch before hey finished using that last can.

The real problems at guitar plants of the 70s was when hippy burnouts took the jobs that experience pattern makers used to do. Too many people look at guitar building as an arts and crafts project. Don't read the Foxfire series. Don't make an owl headed fiddle.

[vibratoking]

I have a 1990 American Strat Plus and it has a relatively thin finish. It also has a light and lively body - nice sounding guitar once I replaced the Lace pickups. Interesting that yours seems much thicker.

My 1978 Strat has a THICK finish. Did I day thick? Like as thick as a dime. It is not nearly as lively. I have thought about stripping the 1978, but it's a resale killer. For reasons unknown, a have seen mid to late 70s Strats selling for close to $2000. Also the paint on the 78 was put on over the poly?

[HeeBGB]

I think you are missing my point. Which is that removing the finish could change the guitar for the worse and once it is done you can't go back. If it works out in your favor...great but there are no guarantee's. In the event he doesn't like the results he's wasted his time and devalued his guitar considerably. Not something I am willing to do with an instrument. If I don't like it I simply sell it and move on.

And I have built a number of guitars myself. One has no finish and I like it that way.

To go back to the EVH story, and with my limited knowledge, removing a chunk of wood and stripping the finish are two completely different things. The resonance of the wood is a good thing - don't want to disturb that by removing any. The finish, on the other hand (and again, as best as I can tell) dampens the wood's natural resonance and removing the finish only "opens up" the natural sound of the instrument.

[boots]

I appreciate your point Hee. I reached the point where I could say with certainty that Strat is such a part of me, that I'm sure I will die with it in my hands. I know I will never sell it, so I'm not worried about killing the resale value.

So far, I have only thinned the clear coat somewhat. I don't plan to take it all the way down into the paint. I think that by removing some of the coating, maybe normal wear and tear can now take place. The poor guitar can't even get any battle scars the way it was, cuz it was wearing a flak jacket!

I'm not going to beat it up on purpose, but I feel like any Strat worthy of playing the blues ought to have a few well earned battle scars.

[Structo]

John Suhr said once that the reason the imports and some less expensive guitars come with the mile deep poly finish is because of the unskilled labor being used in the factories.

It gives them a cushion when wet sanding and polishing so they don't burn through the finish.

If you have ever finished a guitar with nitro lacquer, you know well how easy it is to overheat the lacquer and burn through it.

I have no problem what so ever with poly or urethane finishes as long as they are kept thin.

The old adage about nitro lacquer letting the wood breathe is malarkey.

In fact in the early years of Fender (1960 to around 1965) they used a product called Fullerplast as an undercoat to fill and seal the wood before painting it.
It is a poly product.

Here is some scuttlebutt about it.
http://www.caraguitars.com/fullerplast.shtml

The reason Fender and others moved away from Nitro Lacquer is because it was not a stable finish and would check when exposed to hot and cold temperatures.

Fender pretty much followed the auto industry as they moved on to better finishes that could stand the elements.

Some people, especially the relic guys, like nitro for that reason.

But as far as any finish allowing the wood to breathe is just urban legend.

[Reeltarded]

Yes all that. If you want your guitar to breathe, fill it with screw holes.

[Zippy]

Finish has little to do with the density of the wood and how it transmits/reflects vibrations.

[Reeltarded]

Mahogany electrics can go without a finish, but basswood gives up without a thickish skin to balance the sound out. Finish is like a splint or a neck brace. Sort of.

[Structo]

I should have prefaced my post with a "IMHO".

This can get very controversial, especially at that big Gear forum.

I will say this, one of my best sounding strats has a very thick poly finish.

I am more inclined to believe that the pickups and neck actually play a bigger role in how a guitar plays, sounds and sustains.
Not to mention the bridge and strings.

YMMV

[Reeltarded]

Do the flubby ruler on a table edge thing with 4-5 different kinds of rulers and a paint stick. That is science.