Wildwood VOS vs Murphy Lab

[CAGinLA]

Here are my MLs...

 

[CatManDoo88]

Here are my MLs...


View attachment 20245

That R8 looks gorgeous! I wish Gibson offered R9s and R0s with plainer top without having to do M2M. Many of the most famous and iconic Bursts are plainer and/or have mismatched tops. The super flamey perfectly book matched tops that dominate the Historics only really cater to the collector grade look. (Which is great if that is up someone's alley).

Personally, I want a Beano, JPP Number 1, or Beast type look with the slimmer 59 neck carve and medium jumbo frets. To me, the visual quirks of those look much more vintage than the perfect super flametops. I think when I was chatting with Tom Bartlett one time, he mentioned that he also thinks the plaintops often sound better, that is just anecdotal of course (and of course "better" is highly personal).

 

[MrNubs]

if you dare, search all 60 plus pages

you will find in the "Hey it's Mat from the Gibson Product Development" posts

that the Vos finish is NOT the same as the Gloss finish AND will over time ...

Thin
Harden
CRACK

 

[CAGinLA]

That R8 looks gorgeous! I wish Gibson offered R9s and R0s with plainer top without having to do M2M. Many of the most famous and iconic Bursts are plainer and/or have mismatched tops. The super flamey perfectly book matched tops that dominate the Historics only really cater to the collector grade look. (Which is great if that is up someone's alley).

Personally, I want a Beano, JPP Number 1, or Beast type look with the slimmer 59 neck carve and medium jumbo frets. To me, the visual quirks of those look much more vintage than the perfect super flametops. I think when I was chatting with Tom Bartlett one time, he mentioned that he also thinks the plaintops often sound better, that is just anecdotal of course (and of course "better" is highly personal).

Thanks! It looks even better in person - my iPhone camera skills are not good enough to do it justice.

I prefer a plain top, myself, as long as it's not too plain.

 

[Wizard1183]

Plasticizer is not "plastic".

It is the technical name for thinner.

So all this web shit you hear about 'plasticizer' is ignorant of the language.

The more you want a fast thin spray you use a thinner that "flashes" as in evaporates very fast and (generally) more of it.

Since thinner is the plasticizer (the thing which makes the finishes prime ingredients more "moldable" (or in this case sprayable)) you would use more of it.

Think of it this way: When water is added to portland cement, sand and gravel it becomes concrete.

Concrete is "a plastic substance" in that it can be molded or shaped or poured in forms.

The WATER is the plasticizer.

Water is not plastic.

Now: if you want to say a Mumfry finish is harder and thinner than a standard Gibson you may be right.

And the statement a standard Gibson may "feel more plasticky" is not technically incorrect as a subjective observation.

So kids, go out in the wilds of the internets and remember to spread the word:

YOU CAYANT SPRAY NO LAQUER WITHOUT PLASTICIZERS YA KNUCKLEHEADS!

NEVER COULD.

NOT IN THE 50's, 60's ETC ETC ETC ETC.

Thank you. A word overused by ppl who dont know crap about paint or lacquer