toneboy said:
SCS is right on the money. I've seen old Les Pauls with dents and necks that were fixed because the lacquer could be melted/molded and replaced without refinishing the entire guitar.
Lacquer is used on higher end guitars because it doesn't inhibit the tone of the guitar's as much as say a poly based clearcoat.
Your exactly right. The MAIN reason Laquer is used on High End Fenders, and other guitars is the idea that lacquer doesn't hurt the tone as much as Urethane, b/c lacquer is very thin.
Rotti, you are right and wrong. The bigger guitar companies, like PRS, use Urethane YES b/c it is faster, but you are VERY VERY wrong when you say its b/c its cheaper. Urethane, Polyester, and Polyurethane are MUCH more expensive than Lacquer. Go to
www.stewmac.com and you will find that Lacquer is $43 Gallon, the Urethane I use is $175 a gallon, which is PPG Global D894 High solids "Glamour" clear, don't believe me call PPG and check, and $175 is body shop price, retail is $195. That is on the higher end as far as prices on clear b/c its their best. The CHEAPEST Urethane clear I know of which is TOTAL CRAP is still around $80 a gallon. The big guitar companies don't mind to spend twice as much on clear, sure, their spending more money or material, but when the drying time is DAYS faster it saves them BIG BUCKS. They can't sell guitars hanging in the paint booth waiting to dry. The longer it takes to dry the longer it takes before they can buff it and even longer before its safe to sit in a guitar store on a stand (It takes at least 1-2 weeks before a lacquered guitar can sit safely on a guitar stand for a long period of time without imprinting the clear)
So, you are wrong. Urethane is still more durable, shinier and longer lasting than lacquer. Lacquer CANNOT compete with Urethane in ANY WAY, other than it is cheaper, not More Expensive like you stated. See, the more productive a company is the more profitable it is. On alot of Lacquer clears your actually suppose to wait 24 hrs before coats......now, to get laquer built up half way decent your looking at at LEAST 7 coats, and I have heard as much as 20, so your looking at a 7 day painting process (From a drying time stand point) now, think about how many guitars you could paint if they used a more expensive clear (Urethane) that dried in 1 hr 30 mins. Not only could you paint more guitars in less time, but you could also buff them, assemble them, package them, ship them, and have them on the floor by the time the Lacquer paint is just getting dry enough to buff.
There is not ONE Urethane Clear on the market thats worth a crap that I know of that you can get for under $75 a gallon. That is TWICE the price of Lacquer, and thats for the cheap stuff, if you want to use something half way decent your going to be looking at the $125 range, and for the best stuff about $150-$255 range a gallon. So, if you think lacquer is more expensive then your not living in the real world. If you think Lacquer is High Quality you are DEFINITELY not living in the real world.
Let me put it this way, Lacquer is an EXTREMELY slow drying clear, VERY VERY LOW solids (if you put a gallon of lacquer on a car, once it is dry and and all evaporation has taken place your left with a little more than a pint, YES A PINT of clear or what we call "Solids" left on the guitar, now thats PATHETIC) It is considered a VERY Low Solids clear, which means most of the gallon is made up of solvents, binders, resins, etc and Lacquer is only comprised of about 15% solids, compared to Urethane which is VERY High solids at 50%-75%. That means 50%-75% of what makes it on the guitar will be there after its dryed, cured, and done. The low solids are what guitar companies want to use that are trying to build a Vintage or Vintage like finish. They basically feel that the thinner the paint the better tone it will have. Only one problem, they are sacrificing the durability of the paint, and the protective layer for the wood for tone. I will be 110% honest with you, I can tell absolutely ZERO difference in tone from a guitar that has Urethane to a guitar that has Lacquer.
So, the big guitar compainies who use Urethane are doing so not to SAVE money on Material costs, but rather to save Money, BIG MONEY, in turnaround time, from Finishing time, drying time, buffing time, to delivery time. And you know what else is even better? Not only does Urethane (and other catalised clears) allow them to save ALOT of time and Money in Labor costs, but they are also delivering a better product. The guitar the customer will be getting has paint that is A) Higher Solids B) More Expensive C) Higher Quality D) Far More Durable E) UV Resistant to fading F) 10 times more chip and scratch resistant and G) Shinier, smoother and slicker. It is Virtually impossible to get Lacquer on WOOD as slick as Urethane. The only thing u can get Lacquer slick as glass on is Metal, b/c then the Laquer has nothing to soak into so it just lays on the metal, wood on the other hand is a whole different story. Thats why any, ANY, Les Paul you see from 2004 back, or ANY Fender you see, ALWAYS has A) Orange Peel, B) wood grain texture in the clear and C) The body wings, or joints where they were put the guitar together, like down the middle on the back of a Les Paul, you can ALWAYS see a line down the back b/c the lacquer is simplly to thin to do ANY kind of leveling.
Guitar companies like Fender are not concerned with turnaround time. What their most concerned about is perserving all the tone they can, and keep doing what they've been doing for over 50 years, which is using Lacquer. If your not concerned about turnaround time, and if its not an issue, then they save TONS of money on materials b/c lacquer is FAR more cheaper than ANY catalised clear. Also, some say they DON'T want to use a more durable clear, they say it would not benifit them, or be in their interests. Think about it, the longer a guitar lasts, and the longer it stays looking like new, then the longer it may be before you sell the guitar, trade the guitar, or buy a new guitar. Alot of people don't like scratched up, fading, chipped up guitars, so what do they do? Buy them a nice new shiny one. So not only do they save money on material, but they make more money when the customer decides to buy a new one when the new has worn off on their other one, in this case LITERALLY.
So don't believe that just b.c your paying a high price tag on a guitar that has lacquer in ANY WAY means that lacquer is a superior product, or the "Top of the Line" when in all actuallity it is actually one of the most inexpensive clears on the market, and NO question the least durable. The custom shop Gibsons and Fenders use lacquer not b/c its the best, but b/c its the cheapest, and b/c thats whats worked for them for 50 years. Ever notice how a guitar wears to the bare wood in all the right spots on a guitar that has been painted with lacquer? Some people like that, and Fender knows that, so Lacquer is perfect for that. Thin, low build, soft, and easily worn. If they painted their guitars with Urethane your skin would NEVER EVER rub through it in 50 years. So, Fender thinks if you like a guitar that will wear, and fade, and chip easily, a "Relic" in other words then Lacquer is the Perfect clear, if you don't like that, as soon as it DOES fade, and u barley bump it and it knocks a peice a paint off the size of a quarter what will you do? You will sell it and buy another one, or just buy another one.
You are fighting an up hill battle Rotti, and a losing one at that.
