DEEP vintage Fender lacquer "feel" ?'s for Dano, Novak, etc.

[øøøøøøø]

This is something I'd like to start a conversation about, and I hope it's interesting enough to attract the attention of some of our industry's foremost restorer/refinishers, a few of whom frequent this forum.

The lacquer on old Fender instruments, particularly the NECKS, is different (particularly in terms of FEEL) than anything I've encountered on re-creations, relics, etc. It just is. I was wondering if anyone has been able to get close to the bottom of the reasons why.

Let's start with what we know-- many modern nitrocellulose formulations are unlike those of yore... many plasticizers, UV inhibitors, etc., though some seem to be less adulterated in this way than others (Watco, for instance, yellows and checks more readily, a bit more like old lacquer, than, say Deft). We also know that, in general, lacquer changes (continues to harden and offgas) throughout its life, in addition to wear and tear. I get that.

However, there seems to be more to the story than just that. I've got guitars that were painted in nitro in the 70s (like my Tokai ST-80 from 1978). That guitar is nearing 40 years old, and yet the nitro lacquer (though heavily yellowed by this point) does NOT have the same feel in the hand as 60s Fenders did in the 1990s, when I first encountered them (I hope that makes sense).

For me, the feel of the finish on the neck of an old Fender is more important even than the carve of the neck itself. A refinished Fender neck (like my 12/58 Stratocaster) just does not have the same feel as one that still has the finish it was born with... even though this 12/58 strat had its nitro lacquer neck overspray/respray (wouldn't swear which) done in the '70s.

I have this hunch, and I wonder if anyone has experimented with it.

Silicone and other contaminants cause fisheyes, any refinisher knows that. But if you add a LOT of silicone, and contaminate the whole batch, it makes the lacquer flow out very smoothly and can actually prevent fisheyes... anyone who has sprayed lacquer has probably heard of 3M "Smoothie" and similar products that do this. They also probably know that once you contaminate your gun or work area with this stuff, you very likely have to keep using it forever, or else the contamination can cause fisheyes, potentially. Or so they say.

That stuff has been around a LONG time. One of the side-effects is that if you use too much, it can dull the sheen of the lacquer a bit, and make it a little bit less water-clear. Which is exactly what I feel like I've perceived about the old lacquer used on Fender necks in the 1950s and 1960s. So it got me wondering if anyone has experimented with using a LOT of this stuff on a neck to see how it can affect the 'in-hand feel' of the lacquer on the finished neck.

I've also noticed that the lacquer sprayed on those old necks is REALLY thin as a rule. I wonder if it was thinned drastically to spray really 'light' in order to help it flow in such a way that helped production in some way?

There are a lot of variables. I wonder if there's anyone alive who worked in the spray booths in the 1950s and 1960s that might have some insight into how things are done?

I'd love to get the neck on this '58 feeling like it's supposed to. I don't give a shit about the look of the refinned body... it actually looks pretty cool. But if I could get this neck "feeling" more like it's supposed to, that's something I'd be willing to pay for.

[maximee]

I can't anything of value here, but very interested in reading more about it!

[zhivago]

I too cannot add much to the discussion, but from experience what I will say is this:

On a vintage Fender neck, with the original worn finish, I get a feel that in a sense, the finish has been worn into the wood itself...it all feels as one.

It is hard to explain, but it is such an important factor for me when evaluating a guitar...

On new guitars especially, the finish feels ontop of the wood...which of course it is...but on a vintage guitar, it has all merged into one wonderful entity.


I am a bit of a simpleton...but there you have it

[øøøøøøø]

I too cannot add much to the discussion, but from experience what I will say is this:

On a vintage Fender neck, with the original worn finish, I get a feel that in a sense, the finish has been worn into the wood itself...it all feels as one.

It is hard to explain, but it is such an important factor for me when evaluating a guitar...

On new guitars especially, the finish feels ontop of the wood...which of course it is...but on a vintage guitar, it has all merged into one wonderful entity.


I am a bit of a simpleton...but there you have it

This is a great way to describe it-- it's clear you're describing exactly the same phenomenon I am, as well. It's like the "lacquery-ness" of it has sort of melted away. It's not that it's "dull," or even that it's "thin." Not that it's "smooth" or "rough," per se... it's just a certain type of feel.

It's generally very uniform across the whole playing surface of the neck, too. Sometimes the back of the headstock will be a bit glossier, or something, but it's not about the lacquer "wearing away," or at least it doesn't seem to be... because I generally don't observe it in any sort of "wear pattern," but more as a general, across-the-board satiny-ness across the whole back of the neck (and front, on a maple board, though often the maple fretboards will show real wear spots in addition, obviously).

I haven't seen anyone duplicate that feeling very well. I have not tried Danocaster's stuff... he's certainly one of the people whose thoughts I would like to get on the subject. Paging Danocaster?

[zhivago]

I too cannot add much to the discussion, but from experience what I will say is this:

On a vintage Fender neck, with the original worn finish, I get a feel that in a sense, the finish has been worn into the wood itself...it all feels as one.

It is hard to explain, but it is such an important factor for me when evaluating a guitar...

On new guitars especially, the finish feels ontop of the wood...which of course it is...but on a vintage guitar, it has all merged into one wonderful entity.


I am a bit of a simpleton...but there you have it

This is a great way to describe it-- it's clear you're describing exactly the same phenomenon I am, as well. It's like the "lacquery-ness" of it has sort of melted away. It's not that it's "dull," or even that it's "thin." Not that it's "smooth" or "rough," per se... it's just a certain type of feel.

It's generally very uniform across the whole playing surface of the neck, too. Sometimes the back of the headstock will be a bit glossier, or something, but it's not about the lacquer "wearing away," or at least it doesn't seem to be... because I generally don't observe it in any sort of "wear pattern," but more as a general, across-the-board satiny-ness across the whole back of the neck (and front, on a maple board, though often the maple fretboards will show real wear spots in addition, obviously).

I haven't seen anyone duplicate that feeling very well. I have not tried Danocaster's stuff... he's certainly one of the people whose thoughts I would like to get on the subject. Paging Danocaster?

Exactly my thoughts Brad, and the slight difference behind the headstock is a great observation.

This is a great thread

[zhivago]

And let me add some porn...this is my '61...when I got it, it had half the wear...I doubled it by playing it exclusively in a band for three years





Super massive versions for reference:

http://www.againstperfection.net/image_ ... 17b803.jpg

http://www.againstperfection.net/image_ ... 281b25.jpg

[Fenderguy]

I wonder if there's anyone alive who worked in the spray booths in the 1950s and 1960s that might have some insight into how things are done?

I tried researching this myself a couple of years ago, especially trying to get info about those old Blackguard necks. I think the general rule back then was to do it quick and easy, as Leo was a practical man who didn`t want to waste nor time or lacquer. So I don`t think they used more than 1 wet coat on the necks, no tinting or anything. One guy`s father had a finishing shop back in the `50s, and he remembered DuPont lacquer in the late 50's being amber in color. When looking down into a 5 gallon pail looked a lot like honey, it wasn't water clear.

And the lacquer used back then was completely different from what`s being used today.

Have you got the Blackguard book? There`s some really good pictures there of those old necks.

But about the feel, I know exactly what you mean. I`ve never understood why the CS relics just have the finished sanded off from the back of the necks, it doesn`t feel like an old neck at all. On those old ones the lacquer has slowly been "buffed" off by playing it, so it feels smooth in a completely different way. You can`t beat an old worn Fender neck

[øøøøøøø]

here's my '62 JM and '68 Tele side-by-side

Poor camera phone photos, but perhaps enough to get an idea.... though again, the LOOK of this isn't that elusive to duplicate... it's the feel-in-hand that I've never seen nailed.






...and the '68 from the front...

[øøøøøøø]

I wonder if there's anyone alive who worked in the spray booths in the 1950s and 1960s that might have some insight into how things are done?

I tried researching this myself a couple of years ago, especially trying to get info about those old Blackguard necks. I think the general rule back then was to do it quick and easy, as Leo was a practical man who didn`t want to waste nor time or lacquer. So I don`t think they used more than 1 wet coat on the necks, no tinting or anything. One guy`s father had a finishing shop back in the `50s, and he remembered DuPont lacquer in the late 50's being amber in color. When looking down into a 5 gallon pail looked a lot like honey, it wasn't water clear.

And the lacquer used back then was completely different from what`s being used today.

Have you got the Blackguard book? There`s some really good pictures there of those old necks.

But about the feel, I know exactly what you mean. I`ve never understood why the CS relics just have the finished sanded off from the back of the necks, it doesn`t feel like an old neck at all. On those old ones the lacquer has slowly been "buffed" off by playing it, so it feels smooth in a completely different way. You can`t beat an old worn Fender neck

The thing is, I feel like the "wear" is only a small part of the equation.

Interesting that you mention DuPont... I know Fender's catalogs from that era specified that custom colors were "DuPont Duco" (I think). Perhaps DuPont was their main supplier for all of their lacquer?

[Fenderguy]

Yes, I agree, but the wear is what everyone seem to focus on when trying to replicate the feel of an old neck. I`ve got a `68 tele as well, probably my all-time favorite guitar, but the neck doesn`t quite feel like my pre-cbs necks. Fender changed their finishing formula in the cbs years, and `68 was a transition year. They used both nitro and poly that year.
I`ve got two `64 necks here, but they feel totally different. One of them is worn as hell, no finish left, but the other is pretty clean. But the clean does`t feel like a new either, even with all finish intact it still feels well-played.

[øøøøøøø]

Yes, I agree, but the wear is what everyone seem to focus on when trying to replicate the feel of an old neck. I`ve got a `68 tele as well, probably my all-time favorite guitar, but the neck doesn`t quite feel like my pre-cbs necks. Fender changed their finishing formula in the cbs years, and `68 was a transition year. They used both nitro and poly that year.
I`ve got two `64 necks here, but they feel totally different. One of them is worn as hell, no finish left, but the other is pretty clean. But the clean does`t feel like a new either, even with all finish intact it still feels well-played.

my '68 is May, I think. It's an all-lacquer neck that feels just like my '62 JM in terms of finish "texture."

[antisymmetric]

I too cannot add much to the discussion, but from experience what I will say is this:

On a vintage Fender neck, with the original worn finish, I get a feel that in a sense, the finish has been worn into the wood itself...it all feels as one.

It is hard to explain, but it is such an important factor for me when evaluating a guitar...

On new guitars especially, the finish feels ontop of the wood...which of course it is...but on a vintage guitar, it has all merged into one wonderful entity.


I am a bit of a simpleton...but there you have it

This is a great way to describe it-- it's clear you're describing exactly the same phenomenon I am, as well. It's like the "lacquery-ness" of it has sort of melted away. It's not that it's "dull," or even that it's "thin." Not that it's "smooth" or "rough," per se... it's just a certain type of feel.

It's generally very uniform across the whole playing surface of the neck, too. Sometimes the back of the headstock will be a bit glossier, or something, but it's not about the lacquer "wearing away," or at least it doesn't seem to be... because I generally don't observe it in any sort of "wear pattern," but more as a general, across-the-board satiny-ness across the whole back of the neck (and front, on a maple board, though often the maple fretboards will show real wear spots in addition, obviously).

I've wondered about this too, thought that maybe it has something to do with the oils from the players' hands over the years migrating into that particular type of lacquer, maybe being a catalyst of some sort- combined with being physically buffed into the wood for years through playing?
Absolutely no proof of this- I wonder what a NOS unplayed pre-CBS guitar would feel like...

[Telliot]

I love this thread! I've often wondered about this, too.

One thing I've noticed is vintage Fender finishes seem different from other manufacturers. In my experience, old Gibsons don't seem to have the same silky feel as their Fender counterpart, and it makes me wonder if the aforementioned lack of extra coats of paint is the right answer. In fact, I'd go so far as to say the Gibsons seem to feel more similar to a modern CS guitar.

[Stratelejazzuar]

I have a couple 66 JMs, a 62 Jag, a 67 Tele, a 66 Musicmaster II. Most have that feel you're talking about. The one JM isn't very worn and still has a fairly glossy neck; it doesn't have as much feel. The MM II has spots that feel a little newer than others. I also have a 66 Coronado neck that has seen minimal use. It doesn't seem to have as much feel.

So my observation would be that most of the feel is from use and wear as a combo, but I think part of the "secret" is human hands - the oils and the sweat, etc. I'm sure finish thickness factors into that since the thinner finishes will wear through faster, etc.

Also, I wonder if lifestyles from 50-60 years back (diet/habits/etc), would have affected the chemical makeup of sweat and natural oils, causing them to react differently with the finishes used back then. That could work both ways, I guess, depending on how you see people as healthier/unhealthier than they were back in the day.

[antisymmetric]

Also, I wonder if lifestyles from 50-60 years back (diet/habits/etc), would have affected the chemical makeup of sweat and natural oils, causing them to react differently with the finishes used back then.

Good point, this^.