NITRO CELLULOSE

[rcgpny1]

What year did Hamer stop using nitro?

[bubs_42]

I started my reply with "I think" so I just shut up.

[Andrew]

1992 is the first year that most were finished with catalysed cross-linked cellulose acetate.

All the 1991 Hamers I have handled have been nitro-cellulose.

[ARM OF HAMER]

I remember seeing something here on the HFC as it being 1991..................anyone else?

[rcgpny1]

Thanks! I wonder what the reasoning was to switch...usually the only reason to not use nitro is one of cost or trying to get the instruments out quicker.

[sixesandsevens]

I started my reply with "I think" so I just shut up.

That post made my day.

Thank you bubs.

[Stike]

Thanks! I wonder what the reasoning was to switch...usually the only reason to not use nitro is one of cost or trying to get the instruments out quicker.

Nitro. is a good bit less expensive than most catalyzed finishes and Hamer's finish schedule with the CAB urethane wasn't a whole lot faster than a typical nitro. schedule. The switch was most likely to use a finish that would be less likely to yellow and crack.

[Andrew]

Thanks! I wonder what the reasoning was to switch...usually the only reason to not use nitro is one of cost or trying to get the instruments out quicker.

Nitro. is a good bit less expensive than most catalyzed finishes and Hamer's finish schedule with the CAB urethane wasn't a whole lot faster than a typical nitro. schedule. The switch was most likely to use a finish that would be less likely to yellow and crack.

There is no doubt that the catalysed finish is more durable. But I have often wondered whether the change was more related to environmental protection and health & saftey advice as far less solvent is used. Especially avoiding the cellusolves (ethoxy-ethanol etc.).

[Hfan]

1992 is the first year that most were finished with catalysed cross-linked cellulose acetate.

All the 1991 Hamers I have handled have been nitro-cellulose.

I have wondered what my 93 Special was..not poly?

[Stike]

1992 is the first year that most were finished with catalysed cross-linked cellulose acetate.

All the 1991 Hamers I have handled have been nitro-cellulose.

I have wondered what my 93 Special was..not poly?

Polyester, polyurethane..... Poly. has become message board speak for pretty much anything that isn't nitrocellulose. Here's the tech sheet on McFadden's (now made by Seagrave) L- 4108 which on another page of the website is called a polyurethane.

http://www.lawrence-mcfadden.com/tech_bulletins/TB_L4108_L4164.pdf

[Andrew]

'Poly' should be reserved for POLYESTER, which is a nasty cheap finish. Urethane cross-linked lacquer is in a different class but is technically a polyurethane. The Hamers finished in this CAB-urethane look good and it could never be mistaken for a polyester-type paint.

CAB = cellulose acetate butyrate.

But I still prefer nitro-cellulose for all its faults.

[Stike]

Polyester gets a bad rap from bad imports. Tom Anderson, Suhr, & Taylor do a nice job with polyester topcoats.

[Steve Haynie]

Music Man uses polyester finishes, too.

[Stike]

Music Man uses polyester finishes, too.

Yep, I probably should have added "to name a few".

[Andrew]

There are three reasons polyester is seen as inferior:

it is easy to get a gloss without any buffing;

it can be sprayed thick in a single coat;

it can feel horrible.

So it is cheaper but I do agree most of the snobbery comes courtesy of the thick finishes on cheap guitars.

[hamerhead]

Bubs still wears his polyester coat.

[rcgpny1]

I used to work for Steinberger and then for Spector. At Steinberger we used "gel coat" which was a catalized poly finish. At Spector I was the sole finisher and we used only nitro. Funny the Steinberger were basically built outside-in. The first thing done in making them was a spray of gelcoat in the molds. I dont know if they still do it that way. From my experience of owning mostly Gibsons, an early Hamer and more recently a PRS,which had a relatively thick poly finish that always felt kinda cold....I'll take nitro every time. In doing refinishing work for people the sound of some Ibanez instruments I worked on improved noticeably when I stripped their finish and refinished them in nitro.

[Jim P]

I'll take nitro every time. In doing refinishing work for people the sound of some Ibanez instruments I worked on improved noticeably when I stripped their finish and refinished them in nitro.

Yeah, I was just going to ask what the general train of thought is regarding the notion of finishes and how they affect tone. There seems to be a gazillion naysayers who'll say that the difference in finishes don't have an effect on the tone of a guitar, but from my experiences, I've always felt that my nitro-finished guitars sounded superior.

[cynic]

Most finish guys are also players and share the opinion that any finish, if applied properly, has no more effect on tone than another.

The majority of players with little to no practical knowledge of finishes, and seem to feel the type of finish makes a very discernible difference.

I tend to side with the finish guys, but don't have a strong preference one way or the other in what I play.

[rcgpny1]

Most finish guys are also players and share the opinion that any finish, if applied properly, has no more effect on tone than another.

The majority of players with little to no practical knowledge of finishes, and seem to feel the type of finish makes a very discernible difference.

I tend to side with the finish guys, but don't have a strong preference one way or the other in what I play.

Well...I am a finish guy AND a player. I have been playing for a long time..have played all over the country including Madison Square Garden and to my ears..which are very discerning...finish material has an effect on tone....of course up to a certain point. A guitar finshed in heavy polyester will not sound as good as one with no finish or a nitro finish. A guitar with a thin finish of other material will sound more similar.

[cynic]

Just cause I'm the curious type, how many single guitars have you personally finished in some sort of poly (not a factory paint job), then stripped and refinished in nitro to compare?

The only comparisons I've seen have been factory paint to after market paint. Who's to say if it's the skill with which the finish is applied or the material itself?

[hamer4ever]

I have a 2005 Hamer catalog that claims each guitar has 14 thin coats of lacquer. So is false and or misleading? Hamer guitars are my #1!

[Andrew]

I have a 2005 Hamer catalog that claims each guitar has 14 thin coats of lacquer. So is false and or misleading? Hamer guitars are my #1!

Many here have seen it being done - not exactly 14 every time , say +/- one or two. Guitars went round on a track to get repeated coats. And the post-91 finish, as stated above, is a catalysed lacquer. So no - it's not misleading at all.

[Stike]

Maybe not intentional but I think it's a little misleading. They list it as lacquer and I'll wager that a fair number of people automatically think "nitro." when they read the word lacquer. Granted most product sheets are written by sales and marketing folks who don't know/don't care so like I said probably not intentional.

[Andrew]

Words is words.............

If you want to be pedantic the word lacquer is derived from the lac bug (not a beetle) of India, shellac being made from its secretions (ughhh!). True beetle lacquer is a pretty ancient material in the Orient.

Cellulose nitrate is therefore, strictly speaking, a 20th century synthetic coating; cellulose acetate/butyrate is so close chemically they could both be considered lacquer in guitar-speak, as distinguished from polyester. But none of them are really lacquer in the true sense.

Guitar catalogues are full of nonsense and hyperbole but on this occasion I have to defend Hamer: it isn't misleading.

As an aside the lac is a true bug (hemiptera), whereas some (you know who you are) call bloody everything with more than four legs a bug. Which only goes to show how easily words can become corrupted.