Murphy Lab brittle finish (2022 ML R9)

[southernsouthbound]

There is not a single gibson guitar from the 50's I have ever seen where the finish fell off in square pieces? No that is NOT normal wear tear at all it is a faulty finish formula!
The finish did not adhere to the wood like it should have. Like a jigsaw puzzle the pieces just fall off!

Thank you, that's what I'm saying to them!! If it checked a little more or wore down easier, that's fine. I expect that. But like you said, there are SQUARE pieces of finish that have fallen off. That's all bad production, and they should own it before posts like this blow up in their face.

 

[CS Murphy 'R9]

Thank you, that's what I'm saying to them!! If it checked a little more or wore down easier, that's fine. I expect that. But like you said, there are SQUARE pieces of finish that have fallen off. That's all bad production, and they should own it before posts like this blow up in their face.

Yes they(Gibson) are 100% in the WRONG here! That defect is not normal wear and tear by any definition.
What kills me is this is nothing to them on a financial level! They could take care of these issues for buyers.

 

[Any Name You Wish]

I have owned guitars with a nitro finish and normal age/weather checking and none of them ever flaked off in large pieces. That's just my experience, and perhaps other's mileage differs. Perhaps it is more difficult to get real checking with the normal formula without resorting to razor blade work. Perhaps this new relic-friendly formula was not tested for long term adhesion. Perhaps something during the finish process, such as a proper wipe down before applying nitro, was not done well on some of the ML guitars, so some flake and some don't. Gibson probably doesn't even know what exactly is causing this problem. Hopefully it is just a handful that will flake like this.

 

[CS Murphy 'R9]

I have owned guitars with a nitro finish and normal age/weather checking and none of them ever flaked off in large pieces. That's just my experience, and perhaps other's mileage differs. Perhaps it is more difficult to get real checking with the normal formula without resorting to razor blade work. Perhaps this new relic-friendly formula was not tested for long term adhesion. Perhaps something during the finish process, such as a proper wipe down before applying nitro, was not done well on some of the ML guitars, so some flake and some don't. Gibson probably doesn't even know what exactly is causing this problem. Hopefully it is just a handful that will flake like this.

Of the whole only a small percentage of ML's have had this flaking issue. It seems to me that Murphy's Nitro was not formulated or mixed properly on specific batches of guitars.
I was concerned enough about my own ML R9 from 2023 that I purposely tried to pry a small piece off with a small tool and found the nitro is adhered to the wood really well.
It would take some force for me to make a piece come off whereas on these other examples it just Fell off and that to me is definitely a issue and should be to Gibson as well?

 

[charliechitlins]

OK...
These guitars are meant to look worn the day you buy them.
So they look 25 years old when they're new.
Then, they're supposed to age in an accelerated way...maybe putting on another 25 years in a year or 2.
It's a totally artificial situation that is basically impossible to control.
We want the thing to look old and beat up in 2 or 3 years, but just the right amount and flavor of old and beat up.
It's just not possible.
I'm sure the people working on how to make a finish age 25 years in one year are trying their best, but it's often just not going to work just right.
It's like a 15 year old kid trying to look 21 to get into a bar.
Some might be able to pull it off, but most are just going to look silly.

 

[CS Murphy 'R9]

OK...
These guitars are meant to look worn the day you buy them.
So they look 25 years old when they're new.
Then, they're supposed to age in an accelerated way...maybe putting on another 25 years in a year or 2.
It's a totally artificial situation that is basically impossible to control.
We want the thing to look old and beat up in 2 or 3 years, but just the right amount and flavor of old and beat up.
It's just not possible.
I'm sure the people working on how to make a finish age 25 years in one year are trying their best, but it's often just not going to work just right.
It's like a 15 year old kid trying to look 21 to get into a bar.
Some might be able to pull it off, but most are just going to look silly.

All I know is Historic makeovers and other aftermarket shops that do this type of thing have done it hundreds of times and they look extremely organic and the finish does not flake off like on some of these ML's.

 

[Any Name You Wish]

Of the whole only a small percentage of ML's have had this flaking issue. It seems to me that Murphy's Nitro was not formulated or mixed properly on specific batches of guitars.
I was concerned enough about my own ML R9 from 2023 that I purposely tried to pry a small piece off with a small tool and found the nitro is adhered to the wood really well.
It would take some force for me to make a piece come off whereas on these other examples it just Fell off and that to me is definitely a issue and should be to Gibson as well?

If this is the case then Gibson should be able to isolate the bad nitro mix problem to a group of serial numbers/build dates and then take care of the customers experiencing the problem. If you get to the right person at Gibson (Matt Kholer?) then it would probably get taken care of.

 

[CS Murphy 'R9]

If this is the case then Gibson should be able to isolate the bad nitro mix problem to a group of serial numbers/build dates and then take care of the customers experiencing the problem. If you get to the right person at Gibson (Matt Kholer?) then it would probably get taken care of.

I agree but it seems that Gibson has already taken the stance of this not being any Issue with them or their nitro and just leaving the owners in the cold.

Here is what one owner posted,

This is the answer I got after they escalated the issue to the custom shop/murphy division:

"The team at the Custom Shop has evaluated the photos of your R7. It was determined that this would not be considered a finish defect. Considering the age of the guitar, this would be classified as acceptable wear and tear. The proprietary Nitro lacquer used exclusively on all Murphy Lab instruments is formulated to generate weather checking “cracks”. It is harder and more brittle than our standard finish, making it more susceptible to showing normal wear and tear. These instruments continue to wear as they are played, as the aging level is simply the starting point of the natural aging of the guitar."

It's that kind of response that will keep me from ever buying another one.

 

[Lewis Liu]

This is exactly why I went for VOS and avoided any ML.

 

[southernsouthbound]

This is exactly why I went for VOS and avoided any ML.

If I knew I'd have this kind of problem, I would've just gone with the VOS or standard historic 59 model for a little bit more. What really bites is that I bought this guitar after my dad passed away and he left me a little money. I turned around and spent the most $$$ that I've ever spent on a guitar that I wish I didn't now that it's just falling apart and the fact that they don't give a damn. Guitars don't age like this.

Now for the rest of the guitar: It is perfect. It sounds, feels and plays like nothing I've ever played in my life. The rest of the aging gives it this certain mojo that only a 50 year old gigged guitar could give. It's just sad that I spent $7,000 on a guitar to just slowly watch the back peel off of it like Slash put on every studded belt buckle he had and humped it for a week.

I am really hoping to get some sort of resolution here, but they've already decided that it was "normal" for this to happen, so my only advice to anyone in the market for one is to skip Murphy Labs all together and just go for a straight up historic or a used historic. If you really want something good, either get one Murphy did himself, or send it off to Historic Makeovers.

 

[Wizard1183]

I agree but it seems that Gibson has already taken the stance of this not being any Issue with them or their nitro and just leaving the owners in the cold.

Here is what one owner posted,

I like this part “These instruments continue to wear as they are played, as the aging level is simply the starting point of the natural aging of the guitar."

In other words in 20yrs your instrument will not have any paint or lacquer left on the guitar. It’ll look even more used then as is does now even if never played

My opinion? They shove it in the freezer entirely too long before the paint and lacquer have a chance to cure causing this crap. Brand new when the lacquer flakes off, it should still have analine dye on the wood. I’ve seen ML heavy aged and they didn’t look vintage checked to me. The checking looks like crap on them.

This is checking on my 2015 TH59

 

[MarcB]

I like this part “These instruments continue to wear as they are played, as the aging level is simply the starting point of the natural aging of the guitar."

In other words in 20yrs your instrument will not have any paint or lacquer left on the guitar. It’ll look even more used then as is does now even if never played

My opinion? They shove it in the freezer entirely too long before the paint and lacquer have a chance to cure causing this crap. Brand new when the lacquer flakes off, it should still have analine dye on the wood. I’ve seen ML heavy aged and they didn’t look vintage checked to me. The checking looks like crap on them.

This is checking on my 2015 TH59

I assume this is natural checking on the TH and not by the hand of Tom Murphy.

 

[Wizard1183]

I assume this is natural checking on the TH and not by the hand of Tom Murphy.

That is correct

 

[MarcB]

That is correct

So my (newly acquired/used) 57 TH with Tom Murphy etching all over it.. will gain more natural cracks too then.. interesting.
On that point, I was closely inspecting the relic work and was comparing it to other GT TM THs online.. and mine does seem to have more intricate sections of relic’in eg small sections on the body with lots of cracks between the larger diagonal cracks.. not sure if these are natural or not?
Looks good though.

 

[Wizard1183]

So my (newly acquired/used) 57 TH with Tom Murphy etching all over it.. will gain more natural cracks too then.. interesting.
On that point, I was closely inspecting the relic work and was comparing it to other GT TM THs online.. and mine does seem to have more intricate sections of relic’in eg small sections on the body with lots of cracks between the larger diagonal cracks.. not sure if these are natural or not?
Looks good though.
View attachment 27235

Yea looks like it’s an old guitar with that checking. It’s the fat diagonal checking that I don’t like. Ted Nugents Black byrdland has the huge diagonal checking which of course is natural but I don’t like the look.

 

[MarcB]

Yea looks like it’s an old guitar with that checking. It’s the fat diagonal checking that I don’t like. Ted Nugents Black byrdland has the huge diagonal checking which of course is natural but I don’t like the look.

Agreed.. I’m happy my relic’in kinda looks legit.. in comparison to a lot of THs I’ve view over two years.. of searching for one. Having just large lines up and down the body doesn’t constitute “aging”
My other gripe is .. if you’re gonna relic a guitar.. why wouldn’t you relic the knobs, the plastics and the fretboard (eg inlays) which the latter, the previous owner (of the 57) had done professionally but was the reason he sold it.. as he didn’t like it.. after researching shrunken inlays (on the LPF) they are very good imo..

In regards to the original post.. its a damn shame the Murphy Lab guitars are degrading so much.. as we spend hard earned money on dream guitars and surely the ML done their R&D before letting these guitars out into the wild

 

[Wizard1183]

Agreed.. I’m happy my relic’in kinda looks legit.. in comparison to a lot of THs I’ve view over two years.. of searching for one. Having just large lines up and down the body doesn’t constitute “aging”
My other gripe is .. if you’re gonna relic a guitar.. why wouldn’t you relic the knobs, the plastics and the fretboard (eg inlays) which the latter, the previous owner (of the 57) had done professionally but was the reason he sold it.. as he didn’t like it.. after researching shrunken inlays (on the LPF) they are very good imo..

In regards to the original post.. its a damn shame the Murphy Lab guitars are degrading so much.. as we spend hard earned money on dream guitars and surely the ML done their R&D before letting these guitars out into the wild

You got the first part right but ML is NOT dream guitars. Dream guitars are the original $250k+ bursts. These MLs are extremely overpriced replicas

 

[Standard Magic]

I've seen ML heavy aged and they didn’t look vintage checked to me. The checking looks like crap on them.

I've never seen a reliced guitar look realistic, I've seen some that come close and one of them was a Murphy Lab, but never as realistic as a non reliced guitar that has aged. Vintage accurate checking only took nine years on my 52AV! ML checking look all wrong on most LP'S, the checking lifts up along the edge.

To think that all those reliced and VOS LP's could have had realistic checking by now! It doesn't have to be the exact nitro formula as the 50's either.

 

[jb_abides]

So my (newly acquired/used) 57 TH with Tom Murphy etching all over it.. will gain more natural cracks too then.. interesting.

Well... yes... but NO; not in that context.

Your TH Goldtop is aged via the Tom's "razor cut" having been finished using pre-Murphy Lab Nitro finish, equivalent to the Historic Reissue (Vintage Original Spec =VOS, Gloss) finish of that era.

-- It will not continue to age at the rate of the current Murphy Lab finish guitars. Look at it -- hasn't changed significantly in 10 years, right?

-- It will age as the all the VOS Nitro does, with that era's plasticizers, which is different from either vintage Nitro, or Murphy Lab. Maybe the razor cuts help destabilize it by admitting more 'environment' but it will not be subject to the accelerated aging the current crop of Murphy Labs will continue to ... enjoy. Also, it will not be subject to excessive flaking, unless something else is wrong with it, or goes wrong due to improper storage or handling.

FWIW: When Gibson introduced ML, they also adjusted VOS to be Vintage Original Sheen, which is a name change... and IIRC a slight adjustment to the VOS formula.

But very clearly, VOS and ML are two distinct formulations.

 

[MarcB]

Well... yes... but NO; not in that context.

Your TH Goldtop is aged via the Tom's "razor cut" having been finished using pre-Murphy Lab Nitro finish, equivalent to the Historic Reissue (Vintage Original Spec =VOS, Gloss) finish of that era.

-- It will not continue to age at the rate of the current Murphy Lab finish guitars. Look at it -- hasn't changed significantly in 10 years, right?

-- It will age as the all the VOS Nitro does, with that era's plasticizers, which is different from either vintage Nitro, or Murphy Lab. Maybe the razor cuts help destabilize it by admitting more 'environment' but it will not be subject to the accelerated aging the current crop of Murphy Labs will continue to ... enjoy. Also, it will not be subject to excessive flaking, unless something else is wrong with it, or goes wrong due to improper storage or handling.

FWIW: When Gibson introduced ML, they also adjusted VOS to be Vintage Original Sheen, which is a name change... and IIRC a slight adjustment to the VOS formula.

But very clearly, VOS and ML are two distinct formulations.

Can always trust a succinct and informed response from you JB .. thanks