Why did they stop with the nitrocellulose?

Well they haven't really.
OK the standard, deluxe and most of the mexican models use urethane or polyester but there are a good few guitars that use cellulose. Time machine, vintage hotrod, vintage reissue, highway one and the mexican roadworn guitars. The vintage reissue and i suspect highway guitars have a urethane undercoat, its definately not thinskin. I dont know about the roadworn. The timemachine and hotrod guitars have a finish so thin you can see the body joins underneath the paint.
I suspect they stopped using cellulose in favour of urethane because urethane is stronger, more durable, costs the same as cellulose but dries quicker and doesnt make a scrap of difference to tone.

_________________
No no and no

expensive, large spraying shops detrimental to the environment...



...welcome to the forums, by the way, and sorry for the brief reply!

Lots of information about finishes here; maybe more than you'd want but an interesting read nonetheless...

[edit] heh... no matter how quickly I try to respond, someone will always jump in with a much more useful reply...

Didnt fender update the plant with a $10M (figurative) extraction unit just so they can spray cellulose?

_________________
No no and no

I'm sure they did, I just remember that the original reasons that nitrocellulose was phased out were expense and new environmental regulations... I think all the auto shops were required to switch over. Nitro wasn't very durable or colourfast for automobiles, but at least you could buff out scratches...

[another edit] I just skimmed that article I linked to above... it's truly exhaustive, and I'll have to go back for a thorough read. Seems that automotive cellulose lacquers are forbidden in some U.S. states, but "furniture" cellulose is freely available and legal to use -- just expensive. Apparently for every gallon of unthinned lacquer sprayed, about five pounds of volatile organic compounds make their way into the atmosphere. The V.O.C.s mostly come from the solvents used to thin the lacquer to the point where it can be sprayed.

The newer high-solid paints have the same ratio of V.O.C.s per gallon, but they contain more pigment and so require fewer coats and less spraying. There's some experimentation going on with water-based paints, but not with much success so far by the sound of it.

Hi soya: Niki's spot on with all of that, including the part about Fender building a new spraying facility specifically so that they can efficiently shoot nitro at the Corona plant - contrary to popular internet mythology.

Frankly, nitrocellulose is yesteryear's material and nobody would use it anymore if it weren't for the superstitious preference for it that many guitarists exhibit.

As a younger company PRS decided to make guitars with modern finishes from the outset and have only very occasionally grudgingly produced nitro finishes in the face of persistent customer demand.

I did a bit of public guitar finishing on this Forum earlier this year and used nitro for the feeble reason that I knew many would suppose I'd settled for "second best" if I did my prefered waterbase finish. Having shown I can do it you'll never again see me use nitro on this Forum!

Cheers - C

Hello Soya,

My humble opinion:

Nitrocellulose does have it's own unique tactile
interaction with skin. Also when it comes to aging,
nitro does it in a far more gracefull way.

I'm not really a nitro nut and do like the armor like
durability of urethane,but I am glad we still have the option.

Cheers.

Taylor supposedly uses modern plastic finishes on everything, including some instruments priced well north of $4000.

Doesn't Fender send the guitars over to Mexico for the Nitro and then bring them back and finish the build?

Lax Environmental laws south of the border.

My understanding for the switch was cost, timing and durability.

Some people say it doesn't affect tone. I had a super thick poly coat on my 98 MIA. I stripped it completely, put three coats of vintage stain on it, and to thin coats of satin poly. The tone is very different to me now. Much more "open" and warmer, and bit clearer tone. Of course, I played it before the remodeling for thousands of hours so I was VERY familiar with the guitar, and yes, the finish change did make a difference.

So I would think the nitro would make a difference, though not to the average person that's just looking at two brand new, unfamiliar guitars with opposing finished.

I do like the nitro better. I'm not a fan of a 20yr old guitar that looks like its never been played. I have no interest in collecting things and keeping them new. I'm a player, 2000%. I do not abuse my gutars, but I also like them to look like they're actually played hundreds of gigs with me, and not lived in a climate controlled, dust free room.

Hi strat56brownie.

No.

Check out what Nikininja said earlier on this thread. And here's the photographic evidence. Fender's air filtering system for their spray facility at the American Corona plant, which allows them to shoot nitro there:

http://picasaweb.google.com/meridianmus ... 7214251026

Well worth viewing the other photos in that album, too. Very useful pix of the Mexican and American factories.

Cheers - C

I`m a believer in the Nitro making a difference in the tone.I have refinished 3 of my guitars.Two with auto lacquer and sealed with clear Nitro top coats.
one has a flame maple top over mahogany and I just shot clear Nitro to finish it.All three of them sound different than they did before.Seems the Nitro may be harder? They seem to have better attack and sustain. If I had not had them to play before could I have been able to tell probably not but because I did have that reference point with these guitars I was able to tell I liked them with the Nitro finish more. One was a HM Strat I bought new in the late 80`s so I think I have a pretty good feel for the tone of that one.

I had to hear the difference on my own guitars to believe it!
To each there own.
Here`s a shot of the clear one.