Murphy Lab brittle finish (2022 ML R9)

[AA00475Bassman]

For simplicity: Let's call pre-ML finish 'VOS Nitro' even though it was also used for Gloss Reissues with more polishing, OK?

'VOS Nitro' has more plasticizers than old school 'Vintage Nitro' and certainly possesses a different formulation than the new 'ML Nitro' [verified per Gibson; both Tom Murphy and Mat Koehler have stated as much]. As such, VOS is more resistant to weather checking; it was formulated to be more stable and durable by design as it ages.

Although temperature extremes have worked on VOS in the past, the check patterns don't always comport with some folks' perception of what an authentic aged appearance should look like e.g. different crack patterns and orientations might result, etc. [Win some, Lose some.]

The more prolific method of relic'ing VOS was using a razor, as Tom Murphy did extensively until switching to his new formula / process.

Other relic'ing makeover shops typically stripped the VOS Nitro and re-finished the entire guitar with a more traditional old school Nitro finish, then worked out how to do their own version of temperature variations to yield controlled weather relic'ing. That's why there's criticism of Gibson's ML Freeze: the ML formula and scale of the freezer process doesn't necessarily yield results akin to what more adept makeover shops have been able to produce prior to ML.

Thank you I have no doubt about your post - Even if your a lefty !

 

[jb_abides]

Thank you I have no doubt about your post - Even if your a lefty !

I am by definition sinister.

 

[AA00475Bassman]

 

[Blind Lemon Chicken]

Maybe the wood had ' contaminant " before spraying resulting in non adhesion. greasy hands for example.it doesn't take much. Not all ML guitars have this lifting problem.

 

[Bruce R]

I don't mean to sound flippant, but perhaps start saving to send it to Historic Makeovers, or any of the excellent craftsmen out there doing the vintage finishes. Your guitar is beautiful and if you like it as it is now it will be even better. I have a friend (TM-1) that has had HM do many of his guitars, and their work is amazing.

 

[Wizard1183]

For simplicity: Let's call pre-ML finish 'VOS Nitro' even though it was also used for Gloss Reissues with more polishing, OK?

'VOS Nitro' has more plasticizers than old school 'Vintage Nitro' and certainly possesses a different formulation than the new 'ML Nitro' [verified per Gibson; both Tom Murphy and Mat Koehler have stated as much]. As such, VOS is more resistant to weather checking; it was formulated to be more stable and durable by design as it ages.

Although temperature extremes have worked on VOS in the past, the check patterns don't always comport with some folks' perception of what an authentic aged appearance should look like e.g. different crack patterns and orientations might result, etc. [Win some, Lose some.]

The more prolific method of relic'ing VOS was using a razor, as Tom Murphy did extensively until switching to his new formula / process.

Other relic'ing makeover shops typically stripped the VOS Nitro and re-finished the entire guitar with a more traditional old school Nitro finish, then worked out how to do their own version of temperature variations to yield controlled weather relic'ing. That's why there's criticism of Gibson's ML Freeze: the ML formula and scale of the freezer process doesn't necessarily yield results akin to what more adept makeover shops have been able to produce prior to ML.

I’m gonna say 2015 the nitro was changed. True Historics had a thinner harder nitro though I’m willing to bet 2013+ all have checking characteristics. It didn’t begin with ML but it’s now modified probably to check easier? Idk? I do know it likes to flake off lol

 

[Blind Lemon Chicken]

I'm also wondering why ML doesn't offer a NOS option using this nitro. Anyone seen one ? Prototype maybe.. Hmmm.

 

[60thR0]

There’s a lot to get right if you want to get authentic checking. It’s not just the orientation and pattern but also the color and “texture” for want of a better word. The cool looking ones to my eye are where the lines are basically black- presumably from accumulated dirt. But some aging attempts look more like internal cracks in a pane of glass. Then there’s the texture- with ML you can feel the checking- it’s basically a raised edge. I don’t know if that’s authentic or not as I haven’t played any vintage guitars. But from photos it seems to me that the vintage guitars are the opposite- the finish shrinks away from the checking, not overlap it. So if anything you should feel a valley, not a ridge? Would be interested to know more about this as I haven’t seen it discussed.

One thing I have seen however on the back of MLs that I personally am not a fan of is where there is a white bubbling of the finish along the checking lines. Again I don’t know if it’s authentic or not. But not my cup of tea.

 

[LPR6]

No white bubbling or flaking here on this ‘23 R8.

 

[renderit]

.

 

[jb_abides]

No.

I think you meant to say "It has different ingredients."

The amount of thinner (the plasticizer (with the ingredients in it)) will dictate how freely it flows and how much nitrocellulose fibers added to it will be distributed.

The ingredients are generally chemical solvents to slow down (or lack of to speed up) the cure time.

As most guitars are shot "in shop" where you are generally in very well controlled conditions they probably use a "standard" mix.

Proprietary for sure, but so is it when I shoot and don't tell you what I used.

I doubt (as in I don't think but I don't KNOW) the "nitro" is any different than what you or I could buy (if we knew which one) as in: I very much doubt they are getting it "made special".

Why? Millions of dollars for a tank car of it.

Thinners, retarders etc. bought in bulk and mixed on site. Again I doubt special made.

But how much butter was in that delicious croissant I had this morning?

That's about as mysterious as this is.

As to other guitars being stripped and it comes off in sheets- most of that I have seen is with stripper being applied. So it is basically bullshit because the stripper in itself will liquify the finish and cause that, it has nothing to do with the finish they are stripping. I could take my actual 59 and use a stripper that would look exactly the same coming off. I.e. it changed the chemical properties of what it hits.

Every time I respond to these I say "this will be the last time I do this". So here you go.

When you make concrete: You add water to the powder/rock mix.

WATER IS THE PLASTICIZER IN THIS CASE.

If you shoot it out of a paint gun nitro HAS TO HAVE PLASTICIZER IN IT AND ALWAYS DID, now and forever, back then and in the future.

(Unless you wish to shoot powder.) Good luck with that.

OK, I believe you are arguing a point I did not make, or at least did not mean to (semantics), also I may be guilty of being too... casual.

My labelling 2 different formulations 'VOS Nitro' vs 'ML Nitro' does not imply [or did not mean to imply] any difference in the nitrocellulose within those 2 lacquer finish formulations; it was a shorthand, convenient label [as I prefaced, 'simple'] to differentiate the resultant lacquer finish composition of nitrocellulose + "ingredients" employed [to include shooting plasticizers and adjunct ingredients within] = 'VOS Nitro' vs 'ML Nitro' as I originally stated: 'different formulations'. Perhaps, I should have more properly have labelled as 'VOS Finish' vs 'ML Finish' or 'VOS Lacquer' vs 'ML Lacquer'...

As an aside: someone also pointed out, so I'll clarify: I used VOS to really mean "the finish formulation recently used on Historic Reissues distinct from the newer, special Murphy Lab finish" because (1) they offer VOS more than Gloss as the default, (2) who wants to write all that, and (3) 'Regular Non-ML' did't really flow trippingly. I don't mean to capture the evolutionary history of the VOS finish thru time... Mea Culpa.

RE Proprietary, meaning Gibson's resultant lacquer finish formulation to include those 'Adjunct Ingredients', not just the nitrocellulose per se. Also Proprietary because, yes, we don't know how Gibson varies per each formulation; however, we do know they do vary between ML and the VOS/'Regular' non-ML, because they've stated so, explicitly, but they won't tell us what the composition is.

RE 'sheets' it's not the coming off in sheets during stripping process, it's how pliable, bendable versus brittle, cracking those sheets are once off. I've seen Reissue sheets bend like the sole of a shoe while more traditional nitro finishes crack or snap under equal pressure.

RE shooting 'plasticizers', Gibson most likely varies the type/amount/process not to just spray the nitrocellulose [which one might may also vary based on evaporative cure to accommodate a build process], but because those 'Adjunct Ingredients' embedded in the composition itself differs between VOS and ML finish formulations thus require a different solvent solution overall. Of course, there's no mention of what solvent(s) they use for either.

Regular 'VOS Finish' by nature, observation, and Gibson's own admission is more stable and durable, thus includes substances within the resultant lacquer finish formulation - those 'Adjunct Ingredients' - which require more or less, or different... over-under-sideways-down, etc. plasticizers for its specific composition versus 'ML Finish' [or for vintage, classic, traditional, etc. nitrocellulose lacquer formulations, for that matter] ... Not because of the nitrocellulose per se, but because those 'Adjunct Ingredients' vary ... that's my contention.

As for the regular 'VOS Finish' stability and durability and those 'Adjunct Ingredients' that keep the final finish from becoming too brittle or hardening too soon over the long-term lifespan: I've heard them referred to as retardants, 'long-tail' solvents, and even slow-evaporation or residual plasticizers as their behavior improves plasticity [by definition] of the final finish over time. As distinct from any formulation purely needed to shoot in the booth which then cures prior to assembly. I understand folk's definitions can be at odds with this so YMMV.

 

[Blind Lemon Chicken]

In the video Tom Murphy states there is no point offering a " new " version as they will inevitably check same goes for light aged.. but it would interesting to see one check on their own without being forced.. in you're environment.. thing is they are what they are and I think one shouldn't be surprised about the finish. I wish there was more discussion about the actual guitars as such.. Wood Selection etc.

 

[jb_abides]

I wish there was more discussion about the actual guitars as such.. Wood Selection etc.

There hasn't been a discussion because none is warranted. 'Murphy Lab' only applies to the finish and aging processes, full stop. There is zero difference in wood selection, electronics, hardware and so on between Murphy Labs and other regular Historic Reissues.

Only Gibson exclusives, dealer runs, special inspired by or replicas of Artist models, and Made-to-Measure, etc. vary in this regard.

 

[Blind Lemon Chicken]

There hasn't been a discussion because non is warranted. 'Murphy Lab' only applies to the finish and aging processes, full stop. There is zero difference in wood selection, electronics, hardware and so on between Murphy Labs and other regular Historic Reissues.

Only Gibson exclusives, dealer runs, special inspired by or replicas of Artist models, and Made-to-Measure, etc. vary in this regard.

I beg to differ on that as I know that the ML's that replaced my VOS guitars have better wood selection especially body tops and fretboard. others may have zero difference but I'm sticking to my experience.. They also feel and sound more expressive.. I know , it's all my mind. it's not real..'13 VOS'20 ML Obviously no difference in top selection.

 

[jb_abides]

I beg to differ on that as I know that the ML's that replaced my VOS guitars have better wood selection especially body tops and fretboard. others may have zero difference but I'm sticking to my experience.. They also feel and sound more expressive.. I know , it's all my mind. it's not real..View attachment 28175'13 VOSView attachment 28176'20 ML Obviously no difference in top selection.

This may be your experience, but that doesn't mean anything in terms of Gibson's actual process. Again, it has been well stated by Mat Koehler (and others) from Gibson that Murphy Lab guitars are specified exactly the same as all Historic Reissues, apart from special exceptions I've outlined above.

So, It can be true Gibson's recent wood selection has improved for all Reissues, AND you found 'nicer' MLs to replace whatever you had prior.

 

[Blind Lemon Chicken]

High altitude ultra light mahogany ! dealer run?

 

[CS Murphy 'R9]

Maybe the wood had ' contaminant " before spraying resulting in non adhesion. greasy hands for example.it doesn't take much. Not all ML guitars have this lifting problem.

This leads me to ask? How does one care for this ML finish? Normally with a new Guitar(poly or nitro) i use Virtuoso polish but on this
I am worried about any liquid/moisture getting into the checking cracks and to be honest on this one I do not want a high gloss look.
I like that hazy look the old originals have. Should I just use a soft dry micro fiber cloth to clean the R9?

 

[CS Murphy 'R9]

I beg to differ on that as I know that the ML's that replaced my VOS guitars have better wood selection especially body tops and fretboard. others may have zero difference but I'm sticking to my experience.. They also feel and sound more expressive.. I know , it's all my mind. it's not real..View attachment 28175'13 VOSView attachment 28176'20 ML Obviously no difference in top selection.

After 5 VOS Historics(a 2014, two 2016's ,a 2018 and a 2020 this has been my experience as well. My late 2023 ML definitely is different(IMHO better overall) from all of those VOS guitars.
Visually is leaves those others in the dust!

 

[CS Murphy 'R9]

This may be your experience, but that doesn't mean anything in terms of Gibson's actual process. Again, it has been well stated by Mat Koehler (and others) from Gibson that Murphy Lab guitars are specified exactly the same as all Historic Reissues, apart from special exceptions I've outlined above.

So, It can be true Gibson's recent wood selection has improved for all Reissues, AND you found 'nicer' MLs to replace whatever you had prior.

Personally I think in my case it is that my ML is the latest more recent Historic that i have owned. the VOS ones were all earlier so I think that Gibson is just making them better now than they did
from 2016 till 2020 and it may be that they are using better wood now than they did before? Construction wise nothing has changed recently that I know of.

 

[Any Name You Wish]

This leads me to ask? How does one care for this ML finish? Normally with a new Guitar(poly or nitro) i use Virtuoso polish but on this
I am worried about any liquid/moisture getting into the checking cracks and to be honest on this one I do not want a high gloss look.
I like that hazy look the old originals have. Should I just use a soft dry micro fiber cloth to clean the R9?

Who knows, maybe those with the flaking ML guitars put too much liquid cleaner on there. I think you are correct to use anything sparingly. Even with my gloss finish I always wet the cloth with cleaner, not the guitar.