I hate Fender's new Flash Coat finishes!

poly sucks worse!

 

I am of the rare group that could really care less. I like either finish and don't think there is any tonal benefit to nitro. If the bass plays great and sounds great I will take whatever finish comes with it.

 

People seem to love that chipped relic look, you can sell your bass for big money.

 

Imagine how not having a finish at all is worse. The natural wood finish much like those you see on Warwicks are very susceptible to getting marred.

 

Nitro is absolutely fine if you're careful with it and don't bang it around. Even my poly-coated basses get dinged up when I'm not careful.

 

Everything you just describe is why I want a nitro finish. lol I want to road wear a bass.

 

I'm ambivalent at best about nitro. The back of the necks are always sticky, and my hands never sweat. All my Gibbies are nitro and I'm never really happy taking them anywhere on a hot or humid day. The L-4CES is the worst for it. My chest will always make the back sticky not to mention the lower bass bout.

Thumbs up for a nice poly finish. If tonewoods on a solid body make any difference at all to the instrument's sound, then a poly finish can only make it better. A good, solid medium should produce better sustain. The string vibration, along with the pickups and other electrical bits and pieces in the chain all the way up to the speaker, will do the rest.
Some will say that nitro is thinner and produces a better sound. Others say they can't wait until it's all worn off. If this is true, why apply a finish at all? To protect the wood? If that's the case then a tough thick finish is just what's needed.

Acoustics (of any sort) notwithstanding, as the top and back vibration is what actually produces the sound at an audible level.
I've a Larrivee with rosewood back and sides that sounds loud and rich and it has one of those new uv cured finishes. Never sticky, but tough and stable regardless of humidity and temperature.

It's all subjective anyway.

 

This is a subject that's going to get near to my heart eventually, when I get to the paint stage on my Rick 4001 Clone build. I want a tough finish that won't easily chip, not into relic'd finishes at all. I see a lot of people using Stewmac and
Re-ranch rattle can Nitro, and it's absurdly expensive. From everything I've read about nitro, toxicity, long cure time, tendency to easily chip or crack, Poly is starting to sound like the way to go. Are any of the major guitar makers using nitro finishes any more? If so, what's the advantage?

 

Fender has the Classic Lacquer series, and the AVRI are all nitro.
Gibsons are almost always Nitro finish, too.

 

After years of thinking nitro sounds better I think I have finally concluded that it dont matter what its covered with, it makes no difference. As Ive said in another thread my new VM P sings, rings, rattles and has sustain to die for under a thick layer of poly...go figure! But my 71P in comparison isnt very resonant and has little sustain.

I would imagine the best finish is a very thin layer of poly..which Im sure they can do.

 

Fender wasn't using nitro in 1971. They stopped mid or latter 68 and not all finishes before that date are nitro. Also the 68 where polyester not polyurathane. Fender started dipping all bodies in Fullerplast sometime in 1963, with the finish nitro or otherwise, sprayed over that, Lacquer was put on top of the poly.

 

I believe they were using Fullerplast prior to 1963. Fender has basically been painting nitro over a plastic sealer for quite a long time. No "breathing" would be going on with that.

 

The thickness of the finish is the single reason that poly got such a bad stigma. People hated the frailty of the nitro finishes back in the day so when Fender (and other companies) started using poly they were putting on very thick coats of it. This was actually a desired feature back then and promoted as such. It was only years later that the whole "let the wood breath" thing came around and people equated all poly finishes to those awful thick finishes found on all of the 70's stuff. Theoretically there should be no difference between a thin nitro and a thin poly from a tonal perspective and the poly would have the benefit of being tougher. If the finish gets damaged though the nitro is way easier to spot repair.

 

Same here. I have and like both nitro and poly. I don't even remember which is which half the time.

 

I know, and this is probabaly another thread, but..

My 71 has its original finish but a previous owner hacked under the pickguard to badly fit another pickup so its lost its collectors thing anyway. The bass is heavy and never sounded great but does feel great!...Luckily I have the skills to do this. I have stripped the finish off the back keeping the front intact to see if I could maybe get the body wood to breath out, maybe even thin the thickness of the wood, whatever...But here's the thing. The sander took off the old poly finish relatively easy and then I hit Fullerplast....Jeez that stuff is evil. Its thick, and rock hard and tough, almost like a fitted plastic jacket...it took me ages with an electric sander to get to bare wood. So you see if they are using nitro today with a wink to the past but the past was full of Fullerplast under the nitro then the whole nitro thing as it stands is total..... B***s**t!

Anyway I have definitely noticed an improvement in the overall tone and sustain of the bass since removing one side of fullerplast...very pleased.

 

It's a "Vintage Reissue" right? Why not just get a American Standard or deluxe. They have nice Poly finishes that should survive the apocalypse.

 

IMO, the finishes Fender are putting out are nothing more than marketed ways to save money. The uber thin nitro finishes save money cause they only spray about 1/2 the coats they should be spraying. Imagine how much labor and material cost that saves you if you're putting out the number of instruments ea year Fender does? The satin finishes are another joke. Even less time and material involved into getting a bass body finished.

When I worked for American Airlines, there was a story about a flight attendant who noticed nobody ate the olives on their salad (back when they actually served food in coach class). AA stopped the catering company from putting the olive in the salad. It prob saved them .05 per salad. But compounded with the number of salads AA served in their flights, it saved them $100's of thousands of dollars per year. Same principal applies here. Fender is simply reducing costs by applying fewer costs of finish per guitar.