I play a G&L ASAT Classic that has been a very good guitar. However, as a sufferer from G.A.S., I'm always looking for something better. I'm interested on your thoughts on poly finishes. If I ask on the Tele page, everyone touts nitro and bashes poly. If I post on the G&L page, everyone votes for poly; more durable and no sonic difference if applied lightly. Here, I figure I'd get some feedback from folks who are not in one camp or the other.

I've owned three G&L's over the years- Legacy and Legacy Specials, I think they were- and were among the best bang for the buck guitars I've ever had. I have no idea what the finish was, but they were well made and sounded great.

I've had a Fender Strat, G&L S500(?) and a G&L Asat. I loved the G&Ls, especially the Asat, well made and great tone. Sorry, no idea about the finnishes either.

If given a choice between Nitro and Poly I would choose Nitro. Poly may be more durable but that hard outer shell does effect tone IMO.

I'm personally unconvinced that a thin coat of poly on the body, properly applied, sounds different to nitro at any kind of meaningful level.

I'm also pretty positive that the tonal change from one bit of swamp ash to another, or between pickups, or between bridges and/or bridge saddles, makes a good deal MORE difference.

Of course, if you want the look and exact feel of a worn vintage guitar, only nitro will age as nitro does. Nothing against that. My Gibson semi wouldn't be as pretty today if poly had been available in 1960. But I'm sure that no-one on this forum is going to parrot any nonsense about 'nitro lets the wood breathe better!', or suchlike.

I think the topic has more relevance when it comes to necks. A friend of mine – a vintage store owner and busy session player who goes through multiple pre-CBS Fenders – has just abandoned his '62 Strat and his '65 double-bound black Tele in favour of a '68 Thinline Tele with poly all over (okay, except for the front of the headstock). His view: nitro on necks gets claggy and slow when the going gets hot, whereas poly just gets slicker. What's more, when the nitro wears off, you're left with a bare maple sweat-sponge that will eventually make the neck unuseable (see Rory Gallagher). I agree. I had a worn '63 Fender which was no fun to play with moist palms. My Music Man just plays like the devil, whatever the conditions.

Incidentally, ever get the feeling that many (obligatory caveat: not all) of the people who trumpet the wonders of nitro-finished solidbody guitars on the internet are low-volume Clapton-aping Celestion-sniffers whose yearly guitar budget is more than some pros can afford to go through in their lifetimes?

Thanks for the comments. Peghead, I think what you say is true for most people who argue on the internet. My local high end guitar store even admits that they sell mostly to doctors and lawyers because the working musicians can't generally afford their stuff.

I fall somewhere between those two camps. I think everyone is looking for the ultimate guitar without realizing that those special instruments that we read about, SRV's #1, Blackie, etc., probably became those special guitars because the guitarists who played them only had that guitar since they were teenagers and grew to know them inside out.

From another slant, when I am at work and am supposed to be working, arguing over varnish and nitro and poly is a lot more interesting than what I am supposed to be doing.

I also think it comes down to marketing. If people simply bought great cars, we would all be driving Camry's instead of the occasional '57 Chevy. There is something fun about playing a guitar that you grew up wanting.

My experience is that nitro bodies resonate more than those finished in poly and allow more overtones. You don't need to spend a fortune for a nitro finish either. Fender has the thin-skin series which are American production guitars for approx $1500. It may not matter if you play metal but, for blues and jazz, a nitro body sounds better to my ears.

I don't claim to hear a difference between nitro and poly, but I love look of the nitro on my '56 Strat. It seems that a nitro finish is thinner than others (don't know about varnish). I had a Gibson L6S from the '80s that seemed like it was dipped in poly. I'm sure they've gotten better since then but I do prefer nitro. Collings is a combo of a poly base coat and a nitro top finish. Can anyone tell me if that was the case in 1994? I've wondered if my C-10 is 100% nitro or the current combo they're putting on.

quote:

It may not matter if you play metal but, for blues and jazz, a nitro body sounds better to my ears.

I trust your ears, but I'd also trust the ears of Jimi Hendrix, Lowell George and George Benson.

In terms of vibe, though, I can’t deny the appeal of nitro. When I first saw a PRS around 1986, I took one look and thought, if it wasn’t for the poly, this would have been a real LP-level future classic. But they blew it.

I wonder if Collings’ poly/nitro combo will limit their ultimate reputation...

There is no question that a poly guitar can sound incredible (I have one that is fantastic). I read the original post as asking if there is any noticeable difference. Out of the guitars I own, the nitro ones just tend to resonate more. Since they are all similar woods and shapes, I attribute the diffence to the finish (at least that what my tech explained it was). My $0.02. It would certainly be interesting to see which finish those guys (Hendrix, et al) would choose today if they had the option of a new guitar with nitro vs. poly. In their hands it probably doesn't make a lick of difference though as a Squire strat would probably sound unreal.

Re Collings, I was told by a dealer that Collins was using just nitro. Is that not accurate?

I could dig through and find the thread, but it was confirmed by Collings (can't remember who) that they use a poly undercoat and a nitro top coat. I'm sure if you want more details you could speak (or send an email) to Alex at Collings and he can confirm this fact.