Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

Is this true?

http://www.caraguitars.com/fullerplast.asp

Yup, and YUP!!!

I'm glad you found this, JDog...I almost coulda written this myself, and gives lie to Fender marketing's BS about "thin shell nitro" guitars.

I'm sure going to keep this link and show it to anyone I can when I hear that ol' nitro buzz starting up again.

Here are some interesting additional links:

http://www.tdpri.com/forum/telecaster-d ... plast.html

And an interesting discourse on finish and tone in general:

http://music-electronics-forum.com/arch ... -3038.html

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

Cool link, but finish type is the last thing I'm concerned with. I just like guitars that sound good.

We like to concern ourselves with all aspects of guitar construction and finishing, and this is closely tied in, of course, with playability and sound.

Some folks have a natural curiosity about this stuff; others could care less. To those of us who find this interesting, even the non-pro contingent, it is an ongoing debate with both subjective and objective factors involved and people on all sides weighing in.

There's no question that, from a scientific (objective, measurable, quantifiable) perspective, the difference between unfinished and finished is measurable.

However, whether this difference is of importance to humans and can be detected by the human ear, and how this differs from individual to individual, is the crux of the biscuit, and the reason that Fender and others can get away with the puffery that they employ in their marketing.

It's funny, a few months ago, I found this type of stuff facinating. I didn't want a guitar finished in anything but thin nitro, with Alnico pickups, and a tube amp was a dream.

Then I started listening to recordings of my live playing, and realized that all that detail wasn't important just yet!

Ha!

So a Fender has more plastic than my 3 year old's toy guitar.

I'll just add that to my list of "Reasons I hate Fender Guitars".

Reason No: 1,346 - Nasty hidden plastic coating.

Well, heretic that I am, I am a big fan of Fender guitars, though I don't think I'm the only one here! .

I would just add I don't think it's much of a "dirty secret". I think most Fender aficionados have known about the poly undercoats for some time--log on to any Fender-oriented board and there are usually a couple conversations on the subject of finishes.


Bill

I also don't think it's that big a deal, considering it's been used for more than 45 years now. Not all had this either - read the article the page links to. Fender cut a lot of corners when finishing those guitars back in the '60s.

Doesn't change the fact that the Stratocaster and Telecaster are two of the best guitar designs ever. On the other hand, casts more blame on their marketing department...

wj350 wrote:Well, heretic that I am, I am a big fan of Fender guitars, though I don't think I'm the only one here! .

I would just add I don't think it's much of a "dirty secret". I think most Fender aficionados have known about the poly undercoats for some time--log on to any Fender-oriented board and there are usually a couple conversations on the subject of finishes.


Bill

A lot of us are big Fender fans.

I just have a hard time believing that a hardwood guitar encased in a thick layer of polyester resin, with a thin coat of nitro on top, is going to sound any better than a hardwood guitar encased in a thick layer of polyester resin, with a thick coat of nitro on top, as Fender claims.

Here's what a lot of players believe; a quote from "Joe" in a Harmony Central review of a thin-skin Strat:

"The thin nitro finish lets the alder breathe and combined with the one piece maple neck it oozes vintage fender tone as the vibration of the strings resonates through it.?"

Fender themselves coulda written this blurb; it nicely sums up their sales pitch on "Thin Skin Nitro" finishes. Unfortunately, just as you couldn't breathe with a plastic bag over your head, neither can the wood of this Strat breathe through the thin nitro finish, as underneath it is a thick plastic coating. My own experience with Fullerplast-sprayed Fenders indicates that it is anywhere from .015-.030 thick, with .060 on some areas in order to get the wood to be as flat as a piece of glass. In finishing terms, that's thick.

Mateybob wrote:So a Fender has more plastic than my 3 year old's toy guitar.

Yeah, but your kid's toy guitar probably has more lead in it.

Have owned and have a few guitars with a thin nitro finish..built by Bill Nash. They do seem more resonant (I think a good tight neck joint helps this also). The guitars do sound more lively when played acoustic...through the amp I can't tell any difference.....Hmmm ...maybe a coat of plastic OVER the nitro

jingle_jangle wrote: I just have a hard time believing that a hardwood guitar encased in a thick layer of polyester resin, with a thin coat of nitro on top, is going to sound any better than a hardwood guitar encased in a thick layer of polyester resin, with a thick coat of nitro on top, as Fender claims.

Here's what a lot of players believe; a quote from "Joe" in a Harmony Central review of a thin-skin Strat:

"The thin nitro finish lets the alder breathe and combined with the one piece maple neck it oozes vintage fender tone as the vibration of the strings resonates through it.?"

Fender themselves coulda written this blurb; it nicely sums up their sales pitch on "Thin Skin Nitro" finishes. Unfortunately, just as you couldn't breathe with a plastic bag over your head, neither can the wood of this Strat breathe through the thin nitro finish, as underneath it is a thick plastic coating. My own experience with Fullerplast-sprayed Fenders indicates that it is anywhere from .015-.030 thick, with .060 on some areas in order to get the wood to be as flat as a piece of glass. In finishing terms, that's thick.

'Morning Paul! Probably helps show how un-savvy I am re marketing...I always thought the point of "thin skin" thing was more tied to how the guitar finish aged as opposed to it's sound--giving a vintage "checked" kind of patina sooner than a regular lacquer finish.

I agree, I don't get why they just down say what they're doing, charge accordingly, and charge more for genuine lacquer-finishes as their costs dictate. Just out of my own curiosity, is that what their "custom shop" is doing?

It's funny though (or possibly just indicative of my less-than-gifted ear)--although I own a couple of the Fullerplast/Lacquer finished Fenders (A/V series guitars), two of my absolute favorite Fenders are pure poly--my Am Dlx V Neck Strat and my Baja Tele.


Bill

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.

Here's a quote that Fender's Custom Shop Manager, Mike Eldred posted over on another forum.

"...Do the Time Machine NOS '56, '60, '65 Strats currently produced by the Custom Shop use any poly or urethane undercoats? If I understand you correctly, they probably don't..."

We don't make the 65 except a Custom order...it would be period correct to have a cataylized undercoat though.

The others, no.

http://www.fenderforum.com/forum.html?d ... 2512:15:41

I interested in the topic because I had acquired a NOS '61 Strat a week or so before the thread was started. That said, after playing the new Strat for a while, I could care less.

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.