The Steel Guitar Forum

Well, hopefully I haven't been totally blackballed just yet. This is spawning from another current thread about new psg's. If you play a mica covered steel, or prefer one, why? Just a little friendly discussion. I'd like some input from any pro's, too. Obviously, cost is an issue for some, but not all. There are alot of pro's who choose to almost exclusively play mica covered guitars, Paul Franklin, quickly comes to mind. Almost all builders today put mica on some of their guitars, with lacquer finishes being more expensive. Some only offer lacquer, but very few. If money is no object, would you choose a guitar covered in mica over a lacquer finish, and why???

My opinion, I don't like them, aesthetically speaking. It cheapens the appearance of what is otherwise, usually a beautiful example of American craftsmanship at it's best. Maybe if enough people answer, and say the only reason they just bought a brand x, mica covered guitar, was because they couldn't afford to go another $1000 deep for that beautiful lacquer finish, some builders will pay attention to this and stop covering these beautiful music making machines in a cheap looking, unattractive laminate, and figure out a way to put a real finish on their guitars, and not charge an extra grand for it. Your thoughts ....

Use a lacquer finish for about ten years and you will figure it out.

I'm split 50/50

With all respect, Roual, that's kind of a thoughtless response. I play a '73 Professional. An almost 40 year old guitar. It's been played over those years,for sure, and still being played out. It has it's dings and checks, but I think that could be expected of an instrument that old. If you scroll down this section, you'll see my post on rebuilding the bottom of it. No need to refinish the top. Doesn't need it. There's alot of talk about this durability issue, with mica. Bar dings and such, cigarette burns, whatever. Well, mica chips, and cracks, too. Have you ever left a cigarette hanging on the edge of the counter, it burns!

I have two mica,and two lacquer.The only one I bought new(a Mullen RP)is mica.I went with that because of the price point,but if I had my financial druthers,it'd be lacquer.OK,lacquer is more expensive and you have to be careful with the finish,but wood grain nicely done can sure be pretty.

All that said,the optimum place for a steel IMO is on a hot stage crooning to a full house.A fun environment,but not the most gentle on anything delicate,so there's a good deal to be said for an industrial-strength finish that can take a little punishment.

How's THAT for coming down firmly on both sides of the fence?

I have 2 identical Rains steels and one is mica and the other lacquer. It seems like the mica one has a more solid midrange and is a bit more even up and down the neck. The lacquer one has a beautiful tone also. I prefer the mica steel by just a little as far as tone goes for most of my uses. The wood one is a real beauty. Mark Giles built the body and the inlaid ebony necks.

The best sounding steel I own is a lacquer Clinesmith D10 console non pedal.

I don't worry about the finish getting dinged up at all.

As pointed out in the other thread todays "lacquer" finishes today are most always thick durable auto polyurethane. Highly ding and fade resistent. Much superior durability wise to the old lacquer. I wouldn't give you a nickel for the cheapo formica guitars today. Very ugly and they hide inferior wood. They also don't hold their value to a lacquer body steel.

I believe the main reason for mica covered guitars is due to the quality of wood and the cost of high quality wood.
Go look at a mica finished guitar and you will find such things as plywood, die board etc. if you are lucky enough to find solid wood under a mica you can almost bet you will find such things as miniscule cracking,knots or other blemishes.

I must admit, a black mica Fessy D-10 was probably the best playing, best sounding, and had the most sustain out of all the steels I've been through. But, I kinda attribute that to changer design, aluminum necks, BL 710's, which I'd never played before, etc, etc,. Not necessarily the body being covered in laminate.

So Dave, you are one, who if had a choice, would choose lacquer. Money not an issue, at least 3, if not all 4 of the psg's you own would be lacquer.

Bob, your comparison of your 2 Rains guitar's is very valid! And taken into account, indeed. But, is it really the laminate covered body that makes the difference your hearing? If I remember correctly, your lacquer Rains has wood necks with nice inlayed fretboards? Is that right? The mica would have aluminum necks. There's your difference in tone, right there. BTW, I've seen your Clinesmith in person, drop dead gorgeous!

Here's one of my favorite players. Listen to him everyday, and I literally mean, pretty much everyday. Vast amounts of Conway on my ipod.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlhYYsKY ... plpp_video

Tons of videos of him playing mica covered Push/Pull's with WOOD necks! Apparently he favored them for a little while. Love the tone , and the playing. I'm just saying, they're ugly!

I have 2 lacquer guitars - a Sho~Bud and a Mullen. I have 4 Mica guitars. They all look beautiful to me but in different ways.

Here are 2 classic steels from my collection, and I think they both look beautiful.

Todd, I share your view of the aesthetics of lacquer over mica, and I'm waiting on a Sho-Bud to go with my lacquer (mark Giles0 Fessy. But I can definitely see the allure of mica for players who are gigging a lot. I play out just enough that I can baby my Fessy through gigs. But I also have my eye out for a mica single neck grab-n-go guitar, one for which I don't have to sweat it if it gets banged up on a crowded stage where I'm just playing a quick set and have to carry it off into a crowded club to break down.

Maybe I'm just brain washed from this forum (check that, I am most certainly brain washed from this forum!), but a black mica steel looks pretty nice to me.

Here's one of those tight stage situations. Poor Bessy has had a number of near misses over the years with that black double bass!



Dan

True story. A friend and mentor who is not on this forum had a 12 string Mica MSA classic, and wanted a lacquer one. Another player who occasionally posts here had a lacquer one and wanted a mica one. I arranged a swap.

Each guy said he got the better guitar.

Eventually the guy who got the mica one decided to go back to a D-10, and I ended up with the mica guitar. There's a picture of it on the Show us your MSA thread.

The green lacquer guitar shown my avatar had a deeper sound, and the mica one was brighter. Both guitars were great. I switched back and forth between them all the time, taking one to one gig and the other to the next. To compare them would be like comparing oranges and tangerines.

But there was no question that the mica guitar was the better looking one. The milk white front apron with its black trim was visually stunning. It was the black trim set against the white mica that made it so attractive.

Kevin Hatton wrote:As pointed out in the other thread todays "lacquer" finishes today are most always thick durable auto polyurethane. Highly ding and fade resistent. Much superior durability wise to the old lacquer. I wouldn't give you a nickel for the cheapo formica guitars today. Very ugly and they hide inferior wood. They also don't hold their value to a lacquer body steel.

I was unaware that a Zum doesn't hold its value. Or a Franklin (they actually seem to appreciate, with the worth staying slightly ahead of the price of new, apparently putting a premium on not having to wait for one)

The aesthetics are wasted on me when sitting behind the steel. My personal priorities are:

1. How does it sound?

2. How does it play?

3. Repeat 1. & 2.

4. How much does it weigh?

h

While I can pretty much agree with Howard Parker I will also say that I love the look of a lacquer guitar. This, to me at least, raises the question of what makes a piece of wood the best choice in terms of tone? Everyone loves highly figured maple but, to be the devil's advocate, is a piece of maple with tight consistent grain and the right density going to produce a guitar with the best tone? If so (and I am not a builder) then I would suspect that it would be easier and less expensive to produce good sounding guitars using mica and not have to worry about the aesthetic quality of the wood. Not that pretty wood can't produce good tone of course.

I play a 28 year old mica guitar. It is very presentable on stage and sounds great.

When I play in public I want people to focus on my playing, not on the appearance of my guitar.

If I ever buy another new steel, which is highly unlikely, it will definitely be mica.

In the distant past I purchased several new lacquer steels. They all ended up with a significant amount of bar dings and other miscellaneous chips and wounds. I'm too rough on a steel to ever buy another lacquer guitar.

It's an old cliché, but it's still true: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Mike Perlowin wrote:It's an old cliché, but it's still true: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Amen to that. I don't doubt that a highly figured maple cabinet can motivate some people to play better. I'm just not one of those folks.

You can't listen to an artist and say "yep, a solid wood guitar, that". I figure an audience doesn't care either.

\Cheers

hp

Howard Parker wrote:You can't listen to an artist and say "yep, a solid wood guitar, that". I figure an audience doesn't care either.

For that matter, I don't think they care about a few bar dings either!

Beauty is, indeed, in the eye of the beholder, and to each his own.

Though I'm one who prefers lacquer, I do agree that a glossy solid black finish is elegant. I like the looks of my black lacquer Super Pro a lot.

This is far too subjective for any conclusion to be reached. Sure, old ZBs, Sho-Buds and new Show-Pros sport some very attractive woods, but there's nothing that looks better than a gleaming black Emmons.



See? Even my presence can't dim the beauty of the guitar!

Mica works fine for me - just as well as do those Fender Custom Colours that also disguise the wood that lies beneath.

I have one pet peeve, though - mica that tries to look like woodgrain - YUK!!! Mind you, I happen to have one of those, too, and - while it's a great-sounding guitar, it's the ugliest instrument in my considerable collection!

For me it's LUST .... I have 2 Mica covered Zum D10's but I lust after a burgundy flame maple Zum D10 Hybrid !!!
I already know it will sound incredible

Paddy Long wrote:For me it's LUST ....

Well...Lust can very good!

Near as I can tell, playing a fake wood mica guitar didn't hurt Buddy Emmons' career. Maybe there are more important things than mica vs. lacquer.