I am having a "boutique" instrument restored (including a whole body refinish) and the luthier doing the work told me that the instrument is now finished and that he had been waiting for a nitro topcoat to dry and harden. My first reaction was ... ugh why nitro? Can anyone enlighten me? I don't know what the original finish was, but it was something hardwearing like a gloss polyester and assumed he would use something similar since it was a restoration, not a reinterpretation. To me nitro is something that is soft, i.e., marks easily, wears away (relatively) quickly (and I have seriously caustic sweat), checks on sudden temperature changes and I have no interest in anything that looks or could be described as "mojo" or "road-worn". What do you think? Am I overreacting or do I need to ask him to remove the finish (and is that a big deal)? His e-mail suggests that it is just the final coat that is nitro. The luthier is not local to me so I cannot inspect the work.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Nitro related question
- Thread starter JDGA fan
- Start date
- Jun 28, 2005
- 1,015
- 18
- 87
- Disclosures
- Builder,mcdcustomguitars
This certainly is a conversation that should have taken place before the work began. Nitro is the choice finish of most refinishers but it is not nearly as durable as Poly. However, 90+% of customers want the Poly removed and replaced with Nitro, so you are in a small minority Basically you should have asked and he should have advised you prior to begining. I think you are both to blame for the misunderstanding.
Rocky
Rocky
Musiclogic
Commercial User
- Aug 6, 2005
- 6,505
- 73
- 60
- Disclosures
- Owner/Builder: HJC Customs USA, The Cool Lute, C G O
I would have to agree with Rocky.
Also, how your bass looks is directly attributed to how YOU treat it. Nitrocellulose lacquer will protect the wood just fine if you take care of it. Your sweat has little to do with finish wear unless you don't clean the bass. I have my main axe(84 Ric 4001) that was played for 14 years 5-6 nights a week with a very active stage show(Metal Band). It has a nitro finish and looks very good with a few light scratches, so it depends on if you take care of the bass or just hack it and pack it.
Also, how your bass looks is directly attributed to how YOU treat it. Nitrocellulose lacquer will protect the wood just fine if you take care of it. Your sweat has little to do with finish wear unless you don't clean the bass. I have my main axe(84 Ric 4001) that was played for 14 years 5-6 nights a week with a very active stage show(Metal Band). It has a nitro finish and looks very good with a few light scratches, so it depends on if you take care of the bass or just hack it and pack it.
My understanding is that nitrocellulose lacquer breathes, letting the wood continue to dry over time, and a polyurethane finish is a plastic finish that does not breathe. This is why most people prefer the nitro-lacquer finish, and part of the reason why older instruments (typically finished in nitrocellulose lacquer) sound the way they do vs. new instruments ...
I agree with Rocky also. Lack of communication on both sides. There's nothing wrong with nitro if you look after it. By the time you've worn through the nitro you'll be an old man... 
mikeyswood
Inactive
Polyester, or any other distillate of BP-A, is my preferred finish. The strength and durability as well as touching-up over time cannot be beat.
Nitro is what Leo used because that is what was available from the paint stores back then. There is no physical benefit to nitro. There is only perceived mojo.
You have to have an EPA approved facility to spray the more explosive resins. Very few have that and it adds greatly to the expense.
This was a complete gaff in communication. You should try to see what you are able to salvage, but without specifying a solute you were at the mercy of that sprayer's default.
Nitro is what Leo used because that is what was available from the paint stores back then. There is no physical benefit to nitro. There is only perceived mojo.
You have to have an EPA approved facility to spray the more explosive resins. Very few have that and it adds greatly to the expense.
This was a complete gaff in communication. You should try to see what you are able to salvage, but without specifying a solute you were at the mercy of that sprayer's default.
