Page 1 of 1
Difference Between 1960 and 1990 Finishes
Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2000 7:01 pm
by admin
I have a 1966 450/12 in Fireglo and a 1993 350 in Mapleglo. I treasure both of these instruments but can't help but notice that the 1990's finish appears much thicker. First of all, is it just my perception or are newer finishes thicker? In additon, if my perception is accurate what is the reason for the difference in the thickness of finishes?
Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2000 7:16 am
by markthemd
The finish that your 450/12 has is thinner today than it was the day you got it.
all finishes shrink as they age.With any solvent based spraying system there is this phenomenom.
Where it is conversion varnish or nitro cellulose lacquer or acrylic lacquer or acrylic urethane,etc.
The amount of materials may be more on the new guitar ,as there have been many changes as to the amount of solids in the materials.The EPA has asked makers of paints to up that component to allow the solvents to be lessened.This is one facet that makes for a lower 'volatile organic compound' or VOC.
Anyway ...finishes shrink.Polyester finishes shrink the least.But Rickenbacker,to my knowledge has never used that material.
And!!! the little cracks in the finish are natural.The expansion and contraction of wood at it's rate and the expansion and contraction of the finish at it's rate are always different.
That is why you get those little lines.
"Well I have a 25 year old guitar that never goes anywhere and I polish it twice a week with "Mel's Wonder Glow" polish ,and it doesn't have any cracks!"
Well if you looked with a good magnifying lens you will see some evidence of finish cracks.There is no way around it and you can not stop it.Just like crows feet around the eyes...it happens.