cjd-player
Senior Member
Re: Completed the set! Updated with a slight tale of woe!
As a woodworker, I always get a good laugh at those kinds of statements. Pure marketing fluff. First, the wood does not need to breathe, it is already quite dead. Kind of along the lines of some wood care products that are marketed as "feeding" the wood. Absolute nonsense. If wood is dry and isolated from moisture and oxygen, it will last forever. No need for air or food to keep it around. Some pieces of ancient Chinese furniture with old "Chinese lacquer" are pristine after thousands of years because the finish totally isolated the wood from the atmosphere.
Second, the main reason a finish is put on wood is to seal the wood from moisture. We don't want the wood to "breathe" through the finish 'cause that would mean that moisture can get through the finish into the wood. On a guitar, that is a moot point because the inside surfaces are unfinished anyway. Mr. Gonzalez can rest easy that none of his precious guitars will suffocate since the wood can still breath from the inside. :mrgreen:
So, given the fact that the finish on a guitar is not really for isolation from moisture, it's function is to prevent damage from liquid contact (perspiration, spills, etc.) and to give some protection from physical damage.
Yes, the California limits on VOC emissions were a driving factor to move away from Nitro lacquer, but that does not negate or diminish that fact that the finishes that were developed as a result are superior to nitro lacquer in moisture insulation and are physically more durable. That would be like saying that a diesel train locomotive was only developed because steam locomotives were expensive to maintain. It's not the driving initiative that is important. The significance is in the superior product that is developed.
So saying that the new UV or catalyzed finished are only put on to speed production is not a complete argument. The new finish had to be at least as good as Nitro to be viable.
Nitro was used in past manufacturing because it was faster than the available varnishes. Nitro will dry to a sandable hardness in just a couple of days, and the next application melts into the previous layer. Neither of those facts were/are true with the older (non-catalyzed) varnishes. Old instruments were finished with various varnishes. It was probably Martin that moved to Nitro to speed things up in production of guitars. I doubt that they were worried about better tone.
Jim, I'm curious as to what makes you think that a Nitro finish is superior? You can find great sounding guitars with different finishes. It's not that Nitro finished guitars are the only ones that sound good.
capnjuan said:Dave Gonzalez talking about the virtues of nitrocellulose at 3:35 " ... helps the guitar breathe ... helps it be more resonant ... "
As a woodworker, I always get a good laugh at those kinds of statements. Pure marketing fluff. First, the wood does not need to breathe, it is already quite dead. Kind of along the lines of some wood care products that are marketed as "feeding" the wood. Absolute nonsense. If wood is dry and isolated from moisture and oxygen, it will last forever. No need for air or food to keep it around. Some pieces of ancient Chinese furniture with old "Chinese lacquer" are pristine after thousands of years because the finish totally isolated the wood from the atmosphere.
Second, the main reason a finish is put on wood is to seal the wood from moisture. We don't want the wood to "breathe" through the finish 'cause that would mean that moisture can get through the finish into the wood. On a guitar, that is a moot point because the inside surfaces are unfinished anyway. Mr. Gonzalez can rest easy that none of his precious guitars will suffocate since the wood can still breath from the inside. :mrgreen:
So, given the fact that the finish on a guitar is not really for isolation from moisture, it's function is to prevent damage from liquid contact (perspiration, spills, etc.) and to give some protection from physical damage.
Yes, the California limits on VOC emissions were a driving factor to move away from Nitro lacquer, but that does not negate or diminish that fact that the finishes that were developed as a result are superior to nitro lacquer in moisture insulation and are physically more durable. That would be like saying that a diesel train locomotive was only developed because steam locomotives were expensive to maintain. It's not the driving initiative that is important. The significance is in the superior product that is developed.
So saying that the new UV or catalyzed finished are only put on to speed production is not a complete argument. The new finish had to be at least as good as Nitro to be viable.
Nitro was used in past manufacturing because it was faster than the available varnishes. Nitro will dry to a sandable hardness in just a couple of days, and the next application melts into the previous layer. Neither of those facts were/are true with the older (non-catalyzed) varnishes. Old instruments were finished with various varnishes. It was probably Martin that moved to Nitro to speed things up in production of guitars. I doubt that they were worried about better tone.
Jim, I'm curious as to what makes you think that a Nitro finish is superior? You can find great sounding guitars with different finishes. It's not that Nitro finished guitars are the only ones that sound good.