| Author |
Topic: Mica Covered Steels-why do you play/prefer one??? |
Todd Brown
From:
W. Columbia , South Carolina
|
Posted 7 Feb 2012 7:54 pm |
|
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  .... |
|
|
 |
Roual Ranes
From:
Atlanta, Texas, USA
|
Posted 7 Feb 2012 8:01 pm
|
|
Use a lacquer finish for about ten years and you will figure it out.  |
|
|
|
Bill Lowe
From:
Connecticut
|
Posted 7 Feb 2012 8:09 pm
|
|
I'm split 50/50 
_________________
JCH D10, 71 D10 P/p fat back, Telonics TCA 500C--12-,Fender JBL Twin, Josh Swift signature. |
|
|
|
Todd Brown
From:
W. Columbia , South Carolina
|
Posted 7 Feb 2012 8:13 pm
|
|
| 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! |
|
|
|
Dave Hopping
From:
Aurora, Colorado
|
Posted 7 Feb 2012 8:30 pm
|
|
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?  |
|
|
|
Bob Hoffnar
From:
Austin, Tx
|
Posted 7 Feb 2012 9:09 pm
|
|
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.
_________________
Bob |
|
|
|
Kevin Hatton
From:
Buffalo, N.Y.
|
Posted 7 Feb 2012 9:38 pm
|
|
| 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. |
|
|
|
David Beckner
From:
Kentucky, USA
|
Posted 7 Feb 2012 9:58 pm
|
|
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.
_________________
WILCOX SD10 (love the white mica)
WALKER SEAT
NASHVILLE 400
BEHRINGER RACK TUNER
CUSH CASE RACK
PEAVEY DELTA FEX
PARTS CASTER.Gospel and Classic Country Music
http://www.dbupholstery.yolasite.com |
|
|
|
Todd Brown
From:
W. Columbia , South Carolina
|
Posted 7 Feb 2012 10:06 pm
|
|
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!  |
|
|
|
Todd Brown
From:
W. Columbia , South Carolina
|
|
|
|
Ken Byng
From:
Southampton, England
|
Posted 7 Feb 2012 11:28 pm
|
|
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.
_________________
Show Pro D10 - amber (8+6), MSA D10 Legend XL Signature - redburst (9+6), Sho-Bud Pro 111 Custom (8+6), Emmons black Push-Pull D10 (8+5), Zum D10 (8x8), Hudson pedal resonator. Telonics TCA-500, Webb 614-E, |
|
|
|
Dan Beller-McKenna
From:
Durham, New Hampshire, USA
|
Posted 8 Feb 2012 3:08 am
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
Mike Perlowin
From:
Los Angeles CA
|
Posted 8 Feb 2012 4:50 am
|
|
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.
_________________
Please visit my web site and Soundcloud page and listen to the music posted there.
http://www.mikeperlowin.com http://soundcloud.com/mike-perlowin |
|
|
|
Lane Gray
From:
Topeka, KS
|
Posted 8 Feb 2012 5:08 am
|
|
| 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) 
_________________
2 pedal steels, a lapStrat, and an 8-string Dobro (and 3 ukes)
More amps than guitars, and not many effects |
|
|
|
Howard Parker
From:
Maryland
|
Posted 8 Feb 2012 7:02 am
|
|
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
_________________
Howard Parker
03\' Carter D-10
70\'s Dekley D-10
52\' Fender Custom
Many guitars by Paul Beard
Listowner Resoguit-L |
|
|
|
Gary Cosden
From:
Florida, USA
|
Posted 8 Feb 2012 9:48 am
|
|
| 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. |
|
|
|
Paul Sutherland
From:
Placerville, California
|
Posted 8 Feb 2012 11:44 am
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
Mike Perlowin
From:
Los Angeles CA
|
|
|
|
Howard Parker
From:
Maryland
|
Posted 8 Feb 2012 12:55 pm
|
|
| 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
Last edited by Howard Parker on 8 Feb 2012 2:09 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
Brint Hannay
From:
Maryland, USA
|
Posted 8 Feb 2012 1:25 pm
|
|
| 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. |
|
|
|
Georg Sørtun
From:
Mandal, Agder, Norway
|
Posted 8 Feb 2012 2:05 pm
|
|
| Howard Parker wrote: |
1. How does it sound?
2. How does it play? |
...which is also my main reasons for choosing plain-looking mica covered PSGs, and the best-sounding and best-working I own or have tested had no "real wood" in them. Cost has never been much of an issue for me when choosing PSGs, but I certainly do not mind that the PSGs that have come closest to my preferences all have been priced reasonably low - more left for other important things.
Hate to say it, but ... very few lacquered-wood PSGs I have seen looked particularly good to me - even when new. May be a "cultural thing" ... wood on such small "units" looks cheap, and the more decorated it is the cheaper it looks, to me. May also be the engineer in me that feels, rightly or wrongly, that looks/decoration tend to get in the way of tone and functionality for no good reason.
Now, I have never seen mica as the ideal "cover-layer" on PSGs, but given the fact that we for the most part only have a choice between mica and lacquered wood, I choose mica. If someone comes up with something better for the entire PSG body - all the way through, including how it looks, I'm all ears |
|
|
|
Roger Rettig
From:
Naples, FL
|
Posted 8 Feb 2012 2:22 pm
|
|
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!
_________________
Roger Rettig: Emmons D10, B-bender Teles and Martins - and, at last, a Gibson Super 400!
---------------------------------- |
|
|
|
Paddy Long
From:
Christchurch, New Zealand
|
Posted 8 Feb 2012 2:26 pm
|
|
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
_________________
14'Zumsteel Hybrid D10 9+9
08'Zumsteel Hybrid D10 9+9
94' Franklin Stereo D10 9+8
Telonics, Peterson, Steelers Choice, Benado, Lexicon, Red Dirt Cases. |
|
|
|
Howard Parker
From:
Maryland
|
Posted 8 Feb 2012 2:31 pm
|
|
| Paddy Long wrote: |
| For me it's LUST .... |
Well...Lust can very good! |
|
|
|
Paul Sutherland
From:
Placerville, California
|
Posted 8 Feb 2012 3:49 pm
|
|
| 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. |
|
|
|
