Nitro vs. Poly Debate

Andrew Lamprecht

Minion of One
I was looking around online just to see what types of finishes have been used throughout the history of electric guitars (specifically my teachers 1994 strat (other thread)) and i found this quote from Fender's Mark Kendrick:

"Pardon my typos. I've lost alot of brain cells in my day. Could it be the 'Nitro'.

The first Fender lap steel was finished in black enamel. When Doc Kauffman and Leo formed K&F guitars in 1945, their original instruments, including the amplifiers, were finished in a lead based, wrinkle coat enamel. A nice shade of Battleship Grey. That was the only color available. After expermenting with different woods other than pine for guitars, they began using nitrocellulose lacquer. They used what was available to the furniture trade at the time.
The original colors were blonde, sunburst, etc... just like your Grandmas coffee table.

Custom colors were introduced in 1955. Once again they were enamel. The same material they used in the auto industry. The enamel would not adhere to the stearate based nitocellulose sanding sealer. Acrylic lacquers were then developed by Dupont to be sprayed on material other than metal. "Duco colors". In order for the paint to adhere, Fender began using a Sherwin Williams product called Homoclad. It was a penetrating, heavy solid, oil based sealer used as a barrier coat to to provide better adhesion for their guitars with custom colors. It was applied by dipping the guitar bodies directly into a 55 gallon drum, filled with the product. ALL Fender guitars produced after 1955 used this product until 1967, when Fender began experimenting with polyesters an undercoat.

By 1968, virtually all Fender guitar products used polyester as an undercoat, including necks. It's a two part product using Methyl Ethyl Ketone(MEK) as a catalyst. The reason the face of the pegheads were not sealed with polyester, is because type 'C' decals (under the finish) would not adhere to the product. While it is true a few guitars may have squeaked by with homoclad, when homoclad wasn't available, they used a Fuller O'Brian product called Ful-O-Plast. PLASTIC!!! It's obvious to me that those necks or bodies were stragglers, having to be reworked for some reason or another and not shipped after the change.

I'd like to make one thing clear... ALL FENDER GUITARS PRODUCED AFTER 1968 HAD A POLYESTER UNDERCOAT WITH A LACQUER TOPCOAT!!! There is no specific ratio. Enough poly was, and is sprayed to properly fill the grain while preventig a burn through while sanding.

In 1983, Fender began using polyuerthane as a topcoat. It cured quicker. It had better clarity. It had more depth and gloss, and didn't melt when you accidently spilled 151 on it. Fender then discontinued the use of polyester on the necks. Polyurethane is a 2 part product using a catalyst.

Fender has continued to use polyester, polyurethane, nitro, homoclad, and Ful-O-Plast.

Nitro is not a superior finish. An electric guitar doesn't 'breathe' at 120 db.

My first year at Fender I personally painted approximately 46,000 guitars. I like polyester. I like Nitro colors too. But maybe I'll let the players that use poly (ester or urethane) speak for themselves...

Billy Gibbons, Geddy Lee, Alex Lifeson, Joe Perry, Jimi Hendrix, Eric Clapton, Roccco Prestia, Jimmie Vaughn, Nils Lofgren, Vince Gill, Chet Atkins, Tom Hamilton, Lenny Kravitz, Merle Haggard, Don Rich, Darryl Jones, Mike Stern, Larry Carlton, Peter Frampton, Sting, Marty Stuart, just to name a few. More are available upon request.

Hope this helps,

Mark K."

This was addressed to someone on the Fender forum and I just thought it was good information.
 
Last edited:
Re: Nitro vs. Poly Debate

I'm on the fence about a lot of this stuff being SUBSTANTIAL in terms of tonal improvement/quality. Yes, putting 5 low-tension, high-mass springs on, instead of 3 standard springs made a substantial difference but that is actually physical metal added to the block, to the claw. The finish issue, in my mind, is extremely subtle and not worth losing any sleep over.
 
Re: Nitro vs. Poly Debate

I am not convinced it makes a real difference as long as it's not an overly thick finish.
 
Re: Nitro vs. Poly Debate

I am not convinced it makes a real difference as long as it's not an overly thick finish.

+1. The last time I saw a long thread here on on poly/nitro, the final consensus was that the material used doesn't matter as much as the thickness.

For most of us, that means you tweak your tones as best you can, with whatever finish your guitars have on them now. The average guy probably isn't a good enough player for the poly/nitro thing to matter. There's a lot of other things to focus on. You can get hung up on things that others would never notice, like if you're a bedroom-only player, or if you get onstage and don't play so well; no one's going to be asking about your guitar's finish. You may walk off stage thinking: "If only this guitar had nitro on it." and the crowd is saying to themselves: "It sounded like that guy was wearing glovers when he was playing." Keep things in perspective.
 
Re: Nitro vs. Poly Debate

Awesome.

In your face, nerds.

I, for one, will be finishing all Phinn Guitars with the tears of baby pandas mixed with melted rubber from west African tire fires.

You know, for tone.
 
Re: Nitro vs. Poly Debate

The problem is almost no-one building fairly to relatively inexpensive guitars uses a THIN poly. Not Fender, not Ibanez, not Epiphone, not Jackson, etc. Buy a MIM or American standard or a Epi Les Paul, and the finish is hard and thick.

I understand why they do it- its easier and more durable, but it sucks.

PRS (USA guitars) is a company that uses a very good Poly finish- SUPER thin, but it's also very hard too. Same for the USA Dean ML custom I had (though it was a bit thicker than any of the PRS I have had).
 
Re: Nitro vs. Poly Debate

You guys are a bunch of unbelievers. I built a guitar that had decent but not great tone and sustain. I finally decided to change pickups hoping to solve the problem. When I removed the pickguard I discovered the real culprit. There was a pencil line where I had not routed the middle pickup hole wide enough. I was blown away by the difference once I erased the line and reinstalled everything. Now people ask me every day if I am using a Sustainiac or if I have magic fingers or something.
 
Re: Nitro vs. Poly Debate

You guys are a bunch of unbelievers. I built a guitar that had decent but not great tone and sustain. I finally decided to change pickups hoping to solve the problem. When I removed the pickguard I discovered the real culprit. There was a pencil line where I had not routed the middle pickup hole wide enough. I was blown away by the difference once I erased the line and reinstalled everything. Now people ask me every day if I am using a Sustainiac or if I have magic fingers or something.

Was it dark or light pencil? 2B or not 2B?




Cheers......................................... wahwah
 
Re: Nitro vs. Poly Debate

After doing a lot of research on current finishing materials, i'm inclined to think the type and thickness of the base coat will have the most effect. There are softer and harder base coats ; some luthiers use epoxy, superglue etc as sealer/grainfillers, which are obviously going to form a very hard skin on the wood, other preparations are much softer.

To my way of thinking that's going to affect the way the wood resonates (and yeah, of course some people are going to say it doesn't matter, the wood has no effect, the sound comes from the pickups, blah blah .... when in fact the sound comes from all the elements combined into a certain recipe, some of which may be planned, and some of which may be happenstance).

I'm getting tired of the views of people who will discuss microscopic details of differences between pickup types and magnet swaps but diss the effects of wood types, finishes etc. It can all make a diference, sometimes significant, sometimes not. Some people can hear the differences, some can't, just like changing pickups or swapping magnets.

Modern Nitro is not like the early Nitro, it has plasticisers added to prevent checking. But like i said, i personally think the base coats and sealers would make more difference, as will the overall thicknesses of the various layers and the total thickness of everything that is on the wood.
 
Re: Nitro vs. Poly Debate

modern am std fenders are being finished thinner than pre-2008 standards. The base coat is thinner. and they are polyurethane rather than the polyester used on MIMs. I wouldn't lump MIMs and MIAs in the same talk about finish thickness.
 
Re: Nitro vs. Poly Debate

The quality of wood first, thickness of finish second, and used used third.

I gave up on the ply vs nitro thing long ago.
 
Re: Nitro vs. Poly Debate

This is the way I see it. Nitro and Poly have different feels to them. I'm not sure if the difference in tone isn't there because the physical and chemical differences in the compounds of if the individual playing changes play style ever so slightly with the more comfortable finish.

The thing I believe is that you'll get the best tone out of any instrument when you are the most comfortable with it. Whether it is a shred stick, a Les Paul, or a big ass hollow body, you'll get the best tones out of the one that you can play with the most comfort. If you feel that either nitro or poly finishes are more comfortable to you, then go with the one that makes you happy.

In short, a happy player will play better.

Well, unless you're channeling frustration into some sort of brutal black/death/thrash metal and kicking ass with that tone, but that is besides the point.
 
Re: Nitro vs. Poly Debate

for me it's about the feel

i can feel my nitro-finished guitars vibrate better...i connect with them more easily.

when i switch from my SG to my Strat it's like there's a barrier keeping me from actually touching the Strat.
 
Re: Nitro vs. Poly Debate

You can get hung up on things that others would never notice, like if you're a bedroom-only player, or if you get onstage and don't play so well; no one's going to be asking about your guitar's finish. You may walk off stage thinking: "If only this guitar had nitro on it." and the crowd is saying to themselves: "It sounded like that guy was wearing glovers when he was playing." Keep things in perspective.

This is good advice. Most of the people in the crowd probably don't care what pickups are in our guitars either; even fewer, one imagines, care what magnets are in those pickups. There are probably plenty of players out there who have ordinary stock magnets in their humbuckers but could play circles around guys with fancy roughcast or un-oriented magnets. Tone is in the hands.

Edit: I hope you don't get too mad. I was just trying to spread the good feelings around. :friday:
 
Last edited:
Re: Nitro vs. Poly Debate

I refuse to waste any more time on discussing the tonal impact of nitro vs poly...much like the PCB vs handwired debate you often trying to talk to people that have experience with only one or the other option and are just close minded...however what I will say is that if you've ever played a guitar with a real nitro finish that is broken in you will know for fact that NOTHING feels like a good nitro finish!
 
Re: Nitro vs. Poly Debate

You guys are a bunch of unbelievers. I built a guitar that had decent but not great tone and sustain. I finally decided to change pickups hoping to solve the problem. When I removed the pickguard I discovered the real culprit. There was a pencil line where I had not routed the middle pickup hole wide enough. I was blown away by the difference once I erased the line and reinstalled everything. Now people ask me every day if I am using a Sustainiac or if I have magic fingers or something.
:lmao:
 
Back
Top