Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

freshmattyp wrote:I wish they'd cut the thin-skin marketing BS and spend the money where it counts - pots, switches and pickups. I'm sure for what they spend on the nitro, they could put in Fralins or Lollars.

Have to agree with re: Fenders marketing..sucks...wayyyy over priced for the quality on many items..Signature models...the whole Custom Shop line..don't get me started on their Masterbuilt series! . I do like the custom shops pups though...in particular the 50's and 60's models...like them as well as the Lollar blackface models though nothing can touch Jason's P-90's (magic)...Fralins seem very harsh sounding to my ear...

wj350 wrote:That was an interesting thread Richard (partly because I didn't realize anyone from FMC still posted there), thanks for posting. This input from Mike Eldred was interesting as well:

....We don't use Fullerplast anymore, because it had bad stuff in it, and I don't think they make it anymore. Cancer causing bad stuff! We use an acrylic urethane that is thin and achieves the same result without killing folks, and we're all about that.

Interesting that they don't use it anymore, although I do wonder why, and don't buy Mike's claim.

"Acrylic urethane" is a term I've not heard from my paint vendors, incidentally. But, urethane coatings can be more toxic than polyesters, ounce for ounce, especially if they contain TDI (toluene diisocyanate) or MOCA (4, 4 Methylene bis 2, 4 aniline) and even catalyzed urethanes retain some of their toxic characteristics, due to unbonded toxic substances, just like polyesters do, in the form of unbonded tin atoms. MOCA is pretty much a thing of the past, but isocyanates are still a popular component in urethanes.

This is, by the way, the limit of my empirical knowledge on this topic...organic chemists are welcome to jump in and expand or correct.

I have no opinion on the facts in the article but I will share my experience with a fender guitar finish. I have a 1966 Fender Mustang that I purchased in 1970. It was a nice daphne blue, no racing stripes and in pretty good shape. Being young and foolish I wanted to strip the paint and expose the natural wood finish. I used paint stripper and sandpaper. While the task was tedious it didn't take me long to get down to the bare wood which is the condition it is in today. The guitar did have a yellowish undercoat referred to. I definitely do not recall any type of "rock hard plastic coating" or "sandpaper barely scratching this coating". In fact, my recollection of the paint/finish prior to stripping it was that it was a little dull and not especially shiny. Maybe because the mustang was a student model at the time it didn't get the full finish treatment? I also have a 1991 strat plus. The finish on that guitar is vastly different than what was on my mustang. The strat finish is still smooth and glass like, so I can believe it has this type of plastic on it. Anyway, just offering my experience FWIW.

rick360 wrote:I have no opinion on the facts in the article but I will share my experience with a fender guitar finish. I have a 1966 Fender Mustang that I purchased in 1970. It was a nice daphne blue, no racing stripes and in pretty good shape. Being young and foolish I wanted to strip the paint and expose the natural wood finish. I used paint stripper and sandpaper. While the task was tedious it didn't take me long to get down to the bare wood which is the condition it is in today. The guitar did have a yellowish undercoat referred to. I definitely do not recall any type of "rock hard plastic coating" or "sandpaper barely scratching this coating". In fact, my recollection of the paint/finish prior to stripping it was that it was a little dull and not especially shiny. Maybe because the mustang was a student model at the time it didn't get the full finish treatment? I also have a 1991 strat plus. The finish on that guitar is vastly different than what was on my mustang. The strat finish is still smooth and glass like, so I can believe it has this type of plastic on it. Anyway, just offering my experience FWIW.

Definitely some cost-cutting at Fender in the mid-60s, they may have skipped the Fullerplast.

Fullerplast was originally instituted at Fender to save $$$, and it was estimated at the time that something like 20 hours was saved on each instrument, sanding and filling and sealing. I am skeptical about that number; more like 2-4 hours sounds about right, but even trimming a couple of hours off production time would be a huge savings. Finishing is always the bottleneck in guitar production.

They could have used less Fullerplast, by simply thinning the stuff more. This is typical shop procedure, which also compromises the durability and mechaincal spec of the stuff, hence the ease of removal.

All Fender electrics got this treatment from 1963 until recently, so the dullness in the four-year-old nitro finish on that Daphne Blue Mustang was normal...nitro requires lots of rubbing to keep shiny, which also wears away paint.

How does this undercoat differ from undercoats used by other guitar manufacturers, like RIC and Gibson? I thought everybody used some sort of sealer prior to paint so, to my untrained mind, this doesn't seem like a bad thing. I do agree the marketing should be more honest, but, hey, it's marketing!! Ever watch info-mertials? (no offense to anyone in marketing intended)

On my 1985 built `62 U.S. VRI Strat, "the buckle rash" that developed during the guitar's early use revealed a bit of a clear coat of something underneath the finish coats, next to the bare wood. I assume that this was Fullerplast, or whatever they were using that year as an undercoat. It didn't bother me one bit, and I've always thought the guitar sounded great. The only thing that did bother me was the incorrect placement of the double dots on the 12th fret on the early U.S. reissues.

nukebass wrote:How does this undercoat differ from undercoats used by other guitar manufacturers, like RIC and Gibson? I thought everybody used some sort of sealer prior to paint so, to my untrained mind, this doesn't seem like a bad thing. I do agree the marketing should be more honest, but, hey, it's marketing!! Ever watch info-mertials? (no offense to anyone in marketing intended)

It's a polyester sealer coat. I am not familiar enough with the history of Gibson sealers to comment yea or nay on this; RIC used CV for sealer coat in the past, but have switched to a different material and I believe with the advent of the UV cured CVs and grain filler, the sealer may change once again.

It's sad that we have grown to expect lies from marketing people; an entire culture of cynicism is troubling to contemplate, and compromises the original function of marketing, to create public demand by increasing awareness.

jingle_jangle wrote:Fullerplast was originally instituted at Fender to save $$$, and it was estimated at the time that something like 20 hours was saved on each instrument, sanding and filling and sealing. I am skeptical about that number; more like 2-4 hours sounds about right, but even trimming a couple of hours off production time would be a huge savings. Finishing is always the bottleneck in guitar production.

They could have used less Fullerplast, by simply thinning the stuff more. This is typical shop procedure, which also compromises the durability and mechaincal spec of the stuff, hence the ease of removal.

All Fender electrics got this treatment from 1963 until recently, so the dullness in the four-year-old nitro finish on that Daphne Blue Mustang was normal...nitro requires lots of rubbing to keep shiny, which also wears away paint.

http://www.provide.net/~cfh/fenderc.html

During 1963 and 1964, when guitar production was really high, bodies destine to be a custom color often didn't get the yellow stain, Fullerplast, primer, and clear coat procedure. After all, if the shop was really in a hurry it can just spray the color coat right over the Alder without any preparation paint (if need be). All they did was spray more color coats (especially if a clear coat wasn't used). This would cost more in materials (custom color paint was the most expensive paint Fender used), but it sure was quick. And often, they didn't even clear coat the color. This was truly a "rush" paint job.

There are many '60s Fender bodies out there simply sprayed with a color coat over bare wood...not even a clearcoat.

Those guitars lacking the undercoat and clearcoat are possibly the examples that some go nuts over wrt "mojo" or tone. I don't know. I've played an original `62; aside from an appreciation the pronounced fretboard radius and general respect for the age of the guitar, I don't really like playing anything that old-it just feels...old. I'd much rather play one of my new, nicely set up, US VRI Stratocasters.

I just found this thread and thought this would provide some interesting reading. I am not an expert by any means but this guy provides a lot of info, and a good friend of mine who is a licensed vintage instrument dealer/specialist in in agreement.

http://www.provide.net/~cfh/fenderc.html

jingle_jangle wrote:Personally, I tend to side with Dave Schwab on this topic...

Hey cool! I just rejoin this forum after a long absence ... and I stumble upon my name! lol

I'm honored.

We were just talking about this at the MIMF forum, and as I always say, I don't see how a thin film finish will effect the sound of an electric guitar. I've played guitars with no finish at all for weeks, and then finished them with catalyzed nitro, and I don't hear a difference.

I agree, they need to stop this nitro sounds better BS.

That Fullerplast stuff is bullet proof!

Welcome, Dave!

Fullerplast is indeed bulletproof, as is the catalyzing polyester they use on those Indonesian and Mexican Fenders.

I've modded and refinned a number of Mexican Strats and Duo-Sonics and the only way to strip them is abrasively...even aircraft epoxy stripper does little to get the polyester off.

jingle_jangle wrote: the only way to strip them is abrasively...even aircraft epoxy stripper does little to get the polyester off.

+1. We're going to try a heat gun on the next one.

jdogric12aolcom wrote:

jingle_jangle wrote: the only way to strip them is abrasively...even aircraft epoxy stripper does little to get the polyester off.

+1. We're going to try a heat gun on the next one.

This should work, I think.