what are your options?
what are your options?
Thin Skin or CS?
Why do you want one? Just askin'.
A friend in need is a good reason to screen your calls.
been spoiled by nitro finishes, I guess. Which would be cheaper of the CS or thin skin?
I dunno. Probably the thin Skin.
'52 has nitro too, but it has a thick sealer under it. I've heard the thin skins don't.
A friend in need is a good reason to screen your calls.
A 52ri Thin skin costs $105 more than a regular 52ri.
Id say for someone who is worried about all nitro thats easily worth it.
I have 2 thin skin strats and can tell you that it is an official Thin Nitro with no under coat. I am camparing this to my '51 Nocaster, 1960 NOS Strat, and my Eric Johnson Strat. I also have a reagular '62 reissue Strat and it has the under coat and is MUCH MUCH thicker.
If I were you and I would go with the '52 Ri Thin Skin all day. Great Value.
Fender introduced the same 'cheaper' thin skin finish on the Knopfler SE Strat, and it doesn't hold up very well compared to the CS thin skin. It may be even thinner, but it is as fragile as hell with any hard use. Nitro finishes are far more resilient than people give them credit for, but they need the full preparation treatment to get there, and I predict in six months time there will be some unhappy bunnies making complaints with these novelty thin skin finishes. It follows along the lines of 'you don't get owt fer nowt' (you don't get something for nothing), and the current second string thin skin finishes do not get the hand finishing required of a proper tough finish.
Peak District, Derbyshire, England
Camoradi, I suspect that many people looking to buy nitro are atttracted to the idea that it will relic itself up to mojo status more quickly.
"Dude, is that one of those relics?"
"Hell, no, bro, it looks this way natcher-ly! From hard playin'!"
Then you can have your relic and eat it, too. And when you think of how many guitar builders knocked themselves out learning to make a finish that would last the player's lifetime...
I think Jim nails it for the majority, although I'm sure Camoradi has a point too. There will be a group of people that bought them for the 'tone' the thin skin offers and may be pissed at the accelerated relicing.
A friend in need is a good reason to screen your calls.
What's the official name of these thin skin guitars? I've been looking for information about them on the Fender website but I haven't found anything yet.
FSR Fender Special Run Dealers have Fender make them special they are limited edition models and not a regular production model thats why nothing shows up.
I will have to dissagree here. I have other guitars than my Nitro Thin Skin. I have:
'62 Thin Skin
'57 Thin Skin
'62 AV Nitro 10% maybe THICK poly under coat
'51 Nocaster NOS Nitro
'60 NOS Strat Nitro
Eric Johnson Nitro
I have compaired them a lot and if you don't any nitro guitars I don't see how you can say they aren't the same if you don't have one. I can do a direct comparison and the Thin Skins are the same finish as the Custom Shops. The "finishing" you are referring to is basically that a Custom shop guy isn't doing the painting but I can assure you that who ever is doing them knows what they are doing. Most of what the custom shop does that is speacial has nothing to do with paint it is all about tone woods and building a perfect instrument with a perfect fit.
As far as the Thin Skins relicing faster because they aren't as good is nonsense. The finish is at first pretty brittle. It takes years for a nitro finish to cure. My EJ came right out of the box and right on stage and got 2 dings within the first month however my others have cured faster. My NOS strat is pretty tough but my Nocaster seems pretty brittle. Anyway don't assume something is the way it is just because you read something unless you yourself have both for comparison. My opinion is that the Thin Skins are a freaking steal for the extra $100 or so dollars over the AV series. You get a lot more than $100 more of an instrument.
I don't think anybody was saying that the guitars aren't good guitars, StratTone.
But there is no doubt that nitro finishes scuff up and weather much faster than poly finishes, and I was simply saying that, with the current cultural attitude that "beat up = authentic" (and I'm not just talking guitars, either, but jeans, printed t's, shoes, the whole nine), lots of players would be attracted to the Thin Skins because they will get mojo'ed up quicker than, say, an American Deluxe, and because the nitro will get that milky haze of hard-won roadhouse raggedness that a poly finish never gets. Others will be attracted to the unlikely possibility that a thin finish on an solid-body guitar will make it sound better (again, no insult... I finished my chambered Strat in Danish oil and beeswax, just in case this might be true... and because it was real easy to do, mostly).
But I am curious... aside from the nitro, in what ways are the Thin Skin guitars "more of an instrument" than the AV's?
Oh I know they will scuff and damage WAY easier. Sorry if I was misleading.
As far as them being better they come much much lighter and the White Blonde '57 is Ash and you can't get an as regular AV. Also I have sevarl guiarts to compare and will say that I believe that the thin finish most certainly makes for a more resonent instrument. That is if all else is the same. Don't get me wrong I love poly too. I love the feel and look of my finish on my SRV. It is nice and smooth.
Now getting off of finish completly I think the number of pieces of wood is more important than finish. My 2 piece SRV is more resonent than any of my 3 piece poly guitars by a long shot. That and they piece of wood its self makes a difference. There is really just to many variables to make a for certain answer but we can all speculate. :-)
Nothing beats the look and feel and the way a nitro finish ages. I must say I have played some really amazing sounding late 60'S Teles
that sounded real good and didn't look that bad with the poly finish
so good, ya didn't really care what was on it. And they didn't age so badly either.I know the early RI guitars are nitro.Can anyone tell me when or what years the poly under coat started ?
How do you know this?Originally Posted by Camoradi
I don't really care one way or the other, but the impression I get from reading about the thin skins, is that, basically, they don't have the poly under the lacquer like the regular RI's.
I find it amusing that omitting a 1/16" of poly from under the finish results in an upcharge.
"Well, I used to be disgusted, now I try to be amused..."
Elvis Costello
I think Fender used non-nitro undercoats since the beginning (or very early on) on solid colored guitars.
This always clears up alot of questions about poly and Fender read below its by Mark Kendrick.
Pardon my typos. I've lost alot of brain cells in my day. Could it be the 'Nitro'.
The first Fender lap steel was finished in black enamel. When Doc Kauffman and Leo formed K&F guitars in 1945, their original instruments, including the amplifiers, were finished in a lead based, wrinkle coat enamel. A nice shade of Battleship Grey. That was the only color available. After expermenting with different woods other than pine for guitars, they began using nitrocellulose lacquer. They used what was available to the furniture trade at the time.
The original colors were blonde, sunburst, etc... just like your Grandmas coffee table.
Custom colors were introduced in 1955. Once again they were enamel. The same material they used in the auto industry. The enamel would not adhere to the stearate based nitocellulose sanding sealer. Acrylic lacquers were then developed by Dupont to be sprayed on material other than metal. "Duco colors". In order for the paint to adhere, Fender began using a Sherwin Williams product called Homoclad. It was a penetrating, heavy solid, oil based sealer used as a barrier coat to to provide better adhesion for their guitars with custom colors. It was applied by dipping the guitar bodies directly into a 55 gallon drum, filled with the product. ALL Fender guitars produced after 1955 used this product until 1967, when Fender began experimenting with polyesters an undercoat.
By 1968, virtually all Fender guitar products used polyester as an undercoat, including necks. It's a two part product using Methyl Ethyl Ketone(MEK) as a catalyst. The reason the face of the pegheads were not sealed with polyester, is because type 'C' decals (under the finish) would not adhere to the product. While it is true a few guitars may have squeaked by with homoclad, when homoclad wasn't available, they used a Fuller O'Brian product called Ful-O-Plast. PLASTIC!!! It's obvious to me that those necks or bodies were stragglers, having to be reworked for some reason or another and not shipped after the change.
I'd like to make one thing clear... ALL FENDER GUITARS PRODUCED AFTER 1968 HAD A POLYESTER UNDERCOAT WITH A LACQUER TOPCOAT!!! There is no specific ratio. Enough poly was, and is sprayed to properly fill the grain while preventig a burn through while sanding.
In 1983, Fender began using polyuerthane as a topcoat. It cured quicker. It had better clarity. It had more depth and gloss, and didn't melt when you accidently spilled 151 on it. Fender then discontinued the use of polyester on the necks. Polyurethane is a 2 part product using a catalyst.
Fender has continued to use polyester, polyurethane, nitro, homoclad, and Ful-O-Plast.
Nitro is not a superior finish. An electric guitar doesn't 'breathe' at 120 db.
My first year at Fender I personally painted approximately 46,000 guitars. I like polyester. I like Nitro colors too. But maybe I'll let the players that use poly (ester or urethane) speak for themselves...
Billy Gibbons, Geddy Lee, Alex Lifeson, Joe Perry, Jimi Hendrix, Eric Clapton, Roccco Prestia, Jimmie Vaughn, Nils Lofgren, Vince Gill, Chet Atkins, Tom Hamilton, Lenny Kravitz, Merle Haggard, Don Rich, Darryl Jones, Mike Stern, Larry Carlton, Peter Frampton, Sting, Marty Stuart, just to name a few. More are available upon request.
Hope this helps,
Mark K.
Marcondo, thanks for the in depth summary on the process. So we can conclude that the undercoat,on the older guitars, fullerplast etc... being a of a plastic etc... nature, that it is really not much different from a modern Fender guitar having a poly base coat right ? Now what about the new thin skinned guitars and EJ Strats .Are they now done without the, for lack of a better term plastic undercoat ? Or does this mean there is a similar base coat, and a thinner application top coat of nitro ???
The thin skins & some cs guitars are all nitro with no poly used anywhere. Some CS models do have poly so its not that 100% of the Custom Shop models are all nitro.
Thats what I have been told but havent got a chance to strip one to really see.
From what I can tell The EJ Strats The Time Machine CS Series and the FSR Thin Skins are all nitro.
The EJ, Thin Skins, Time Machines are for sure all nitro. A LOT of CS guitars arn't nitro. The 100% nitro guitars are far from the same as what is produced today as far as poly goes. I personally like both......
The majority of CS guitars are indeed nitro, the minority poly finishes coming mostly in the Artist series where the original guitar was poly, like the CS Clapton Strat. Which, even then, is a 'thin skin' poly finish to EC's spec. It is a vast exaggeration to stress a 'LOT' of CS guitars are poly.
I'd go along with the idea that you can't tell tonally if the guitar is painted in poly or nitro, it makes NO difference to tone. But you can tell if you touch it, and I think this is the nice thing about nitro, it simply feels better, and looks warmer and less harsh. But the important thing about the CS Time Machine series is they don't go all out to be 'thin skin', but to recreate an average paint thickness that gives the 'feel' of a vintage body, even if technically they get there via a slightly different route. It is only 'thin skin' in the sense that it just isn't thick.
This is at odds with the marketing hype behind the 'thin skin' production guitars which implies a 'superior' tone and finish just by being thin. This is 'thin skin' for thin skins sake. And it will be a laugh on the 'anti relic' people who buy one and then proclaim 'I did my relicing by just playing the hell out of it'. When in fact all they did was buy a guitar that was designed to 'relic' easily. Simply the difference between pre-faded jeans, and shrink to fit 'designed' to fade jeans.
Peak District, Derbyshire, England
I have played some really nice vintage Strats that had arm wear etc
and you could see that the Fulllerplast etc ...under coat was thick as a brick !! And ash body Strats that were loaded up with pour filler and they sounded awesome.Custom color guitars especially C.A.R. can be super thick with finish.And those late 60'S Teles. Didn't seem to affect the fact that some of them were exceptional sounding guitars.
But then again you can't strip the finish off to find out if it would improve now can you ?? I guess one would want a thin skin or a nitro only finish as an ideal senario, but have played some vintage stuff with really thick finishes,I figured just pick up the gutar and play it ,if it sounds great no matter what type of finish, run with it, especially if is it is original.
Hmm, I've never heard anything before about the nitro finish on the Knopfler strat being "thin skin". What's your source on this? In any case, I've been gigging my Knopfler strat for nearly three years now and the finish still looks beautiful.
You mean something like a written source that says so? I can't offer that, just experience drop filling chips and dings on various Fender bodies over the years and making a mental note while doing so that 'this is thinner than....'What's your source on this?
I guess it is perfectly possible that the one I had (#5*) and the one I have worked (which was a close number to mine), were both from a dodgy batch. And there are rumours the colour changed over the first few batches, so maybe Fender were still getting it right? Maybe I'm wrong generally, but correct with regard to individual guitars, or visa versa. Either way, mine flaked paint just by looking at it (and the other wasn't much better), and it was the worst sounding Strat I have ever owned. Serves me right for buying a sight unseen 'bargain'.
Peak District, Derbyshire, England
No offense but you couldn't be more WRONG!! You can definitely tell the difference in tone of an electric by the thinkness of the paint. I have some think finish guitars and while I like there tone I can say for FACT that there is a difference in tone. My cheap Highway One tele sounds great due in part to the thin finish. If you spray a guitar thin with poly you will get the same result. A nice resonent guitar. You sound to me to be a bit of a snob pissing on people parades. Oh yeah and buying a "thin skin" as you say is NOTHING like buying faded jeans.
Yeah I agree with you I have never heard the Knopfler to have a thin skin. Just that it had nitro with a poly undercoat. More like a '62 AV strat. Which I have one of and love. :-)
Just remember than not everyone thinks that nitro necessarily feels better or looks warmer and less harsh than poly or acrylic or...etc.
Tone is in the fingers, eh? Let's hear your Vox, Marshall and Fender fingerings then...
Anybody who thinks they can tell the difference between nitro and poly at performance volumes needs professional help, IMHO.
Proper mic selection is orders of magnitude more important, as is the amp. By the time the guitar goes through the signal chain, into the amp, into the mic, effects, the power amps, and the mains, I find it very hard to believe anyone could hear a difference. YMMV, but I've been gigging for years and that is about the very last thing I worry about. I'd personally suggest you put the same amount of thought into playing well and performing. I had my Esquire repainted and guess what? It sounds exactly the same when I play it as it did before. Go figure.
"No harmonic knowledge, no sense of time, a ghastly tone, unskilled vibrato, and so on. Chuck is one of the worst guitar players I know" -Gravity Jim
You made a good point.I was trying to hint at that ,talking about the
thick finishes on the vintage guitars. Marcondo's post about the fender process over the years hits on that too, that they were not thin skin. Electric guitars are not acoustic instruments. Thinner nitro finishes have more of an affect on the sound quality of a violin, mandolin, or A guitar like a Martin.I like nitro for the smoother flat no orange peel, look. But if an electric guitar sounds good I really don't care or think about what finish is on it .I own a few early and mid sixties orig Strats and the finishes are pretty thick,with the fullerplast especially on one of those bullseye sunburts 64'S and that 64 I have is a great sounding guitar.
Well, mine is 135 or something like that, and as I say, despite gigging it a lot over the last three years it still looks great.
Maybe I'll shoot off an email to Knopfler's 2nd guitarist Richard Bennett who played them on Knopfler's world tour last year to ask if he noticed any problems, he's pretty good at replying to fans.
And I've got a few nice guitars, but my Knopfler strat is the pick of the bunch, the guitar I'd grab if the house was burning down.
And you sound like a guy who's bubble was just burst.
A friend in need is a good reason to screen your calls.
Model Name Mark Knopfler Stratocaster®
Model Number 011-7800-(815)
Series Artist Series
Colors (815) Hot Rod Red,
(Nitrocellulose Lacquer Finish)
Body Comfort Contoured ‘57 Lightweight Ash Body
Neck Vintage Tinted ‘62 Maple Neck, “C” Shape,
(Nitrocellulose Lacquer Finish)
Fingerboard Rosewood, 7.25” Radius (184mm)
No. of Frets 21 Medium Jumbo Nickel Silver Frets
Pickups 3 Texas Special™ Single-Coil Strat® Pickups
Controls Master Volume,
Tone 1. (Neck Pickup),
Tone 2. (Middle Pickup)
Pickup Switching 5-Position Blade:
Position 1. Bridge Pickup
Position 2. Bridge and Middle Pickup
Position 3. Middle Pickup
Position 4. Middle and Neck Pickup
Position 5. Neck Pickup
Bridge American Vintage Synchronized Tremolo
Machine Heads Fender/Gotoh® Vintage Style Tuning Machines
Hardware Chrome
Pickguard 3-Ply, 11-Hole, Mint Green
Scale Length 25.5” (648 mm)
Width at Nut 1.625” (41.2mm)
Unique Features Dot Inlays,
Transitional Decal,
Mark Knopfler Signature on Ball of Headstock
Strings Fender Super 250R, (.010 to .046) Nickel Plated Steel p/n 073-0250-006
Accessories Deluxe Black Hardshell Case, Strap, Cable, Meguiar’s Mist and Wipe Kit
Case Deluxe Brown Hardshell Case,
Introduced 7/2003
Notice Product Prices, Features And Specifications Are Subject To Change Without Notice
Crap, that Knopfler has a 7.25 neck? Yyyeeeeeecchkkkk!
"No harmonic knowledge, no sense of time, a ghastly tone, unskilled vibrato, and so on. Chuck is one of the worst guitar players I know" -Gravity Jim
Hammerhead
Just do it, don't wait to be asked.Maybe I'll shoot off an email to Knopfler's 2nd guitarist Richard Bennett who played them on Knopfler's world tour last year to ask if he noticed any problems, he's pretty good at replying to fans.
hudpucker
Its just like I know somebody who doesn't like dark chocolate, thanks for reminding me. But what a fool they are.....Just remember than not everyone thinks that nitro necessarily feels better or looks warmer and less harsh than poly or acrylic or...etc.
Marcondo
(all that stuff)
You just copied that from Fenders web site!
StratTone
Well, it obviously doesn't take a genius to determine that different guitars sound, errr, different.I have some think finish guitars and while I like there tone I can say for FACT that there is a difference in tone.
If you want to parade your ideas based on being able to veer bat-like between a poly painted guitar and a nitro painted (or any 'thin skin') guitar, good luck. If you want a parade your ideas that buying a 'thin skin' guitar isn't just buying into hype, and the closely related hypocrisy to which I was referring, then go ahead. But I think it has to be the biggest first that somebody who has stuck up for the equality of 'cheap' thick skin verses 'expensive' thin skin has been labeled a 'snob' for doing so? Now I just mentioned hypocrisy relating to something else I said. But I think I'll also apply it to the person who shouts I'm "WRONG" in your post StratTone, and at the same time award you the 'Official Order of the Inverted Snob', which you richly and ironically deserve.You sound to me to be a bit of a snob pissing on people parades.
Peak District, Derbyshire, England
Yes, we must all heed your subjective opinions, tastes and choices, right?(I'm hoping you just forgot to add an 'I'm just joking' emoticon)
Tone is in the fingers, eh? Let's hear your Vox, Marshall and Fender fingerings then...
You couldn't be more right as you are wrong. There is most certainly a difference in the the reverbaration of a nicely select cut piece of wood sprayed lightly. How don't assume that I don't practice just because I have knowledge in another area. I hear that statement about playing more than learning. I don't know about you but I have enough time in a day to play guitar, teach lessons, work a 9 to 5 and have a window tinting buisness on the side. And then also learn new things. Imagine that..........
I agree with you totally. However the earlier strats had a much better select of wood whicn in my opionin is more important than finish by a long shot. Plus the guitars you speak of have aged.
lol
You just seemed to attack an idea that you really know nothing about. Obviously if you are playing in a high gain situation with a new poly guitar and a Nitro guitar there will be no difference in sound. BUT if you plug in to a nice low gain amp and you playing actually comes from your hands then you will notice. If you haven't reached the point in your playing that you can't notice no big deal. I couldn't always tell but don't diss me just because I can tell a diffenernce between better quality strats.
Posting Permissions
