Vintage Gibson SG vs. modern SG?

The thing with 60's and early 70's guitars is that they were finished in Nitrocellulose lacquer. Modern guitars in the same price bracket as the SG was in 69 are now finished in Polyurethane. The major difference between the two is that nitro "breathes", so it allows the wood to age and mature, much like the solid top of an acoustic. Poly finished guitars will still age and mature (there are unfinished edges, which will allow the aging process to continue) but very much more slowly.

A personal opinion is that some of newer Gibson's made after 1995 just don't seem to have the quality and TLC that was used before then. You made a great choice, have fun playing it.

Joe

I don't think he bought it...

60s SGs with P-90s and bigsbies... can't argue.

Unfortunately I didn't buy one, I played one my friends dads, sorry if i wasn't very clear about that. So overall their just made better and have aged very nicely because of their lacquer that breathes and allows the wood to age more. Why'd the companies switch to Polyurethane if the Nitrocellulose alows it to breath more? I'm guessing its cheaper, but why don't most companies (if any even do) at least give you an option for Nitrocellulose for a little extra money?

The other weakness of Nitro is that it is also very sensitive. Too much sweat, etc will start to remove the nitro lacquer - which explains, to a certain extent, why many "favourite" guitars (EC's Blackie, SRV's Strat, Rory Gallagher's Strat, etc.) all ended up without the finish.
It also requires many more coats to be applied and that costs a lot of time and money, so you'll only find nitro on the more expensive models in a range.

Although it allows the wood to "breathe" (sounds like collectorspeak to me, but oh well...), nitro also lets things in you don't necessarily want, such as water (and/or sweat, as greybeard said), which means you end up with a bit of warping/foul-smelling/foul-looking wood. I suppose it increases sustain by about a microsecond, but in this day and age sustain is a bit of a dead issue.

Why is that a dead issue?

Well, not completely dead, I suppose, but the fact is these days the only people who are worried about sustain from a solidbody electric are the people who constantly try to get their playing faster and neater, thus making sustain a greatly exaggerated problem.

Why is that a dead issue?

Name me one player who needed a note to ring for 20 seconds, without being able to afford a compressor...

Me

I doubt very much that finish changes are responsible for the major differences in old and new SGs. There are other, well known changes to the SG that are far more likely to account for tonal and playing differences. Key among these is the variation in the mahoganies used by Gibby over the years -- this difference also extends to the LP line. Other changes include pups and the neck shape and construction. The latter has been changed several times over the life of the SG design to address issues such as lack of stiffness, weak neck-body joint due to the route for the neck pup and the infamous snap-away headstock design.

Gotta agree with Tucker on this: P90s and Bigsby are great on the SG.

-Greg

Gibson has never used polyurethane or polyester on their guitars. That's one of their selling points, is that they've always used nitro.

Nitro does cure more quickly, allowing the sound to mature more quickly, and is therefore preferred sonically. The advantage of other types of finish is that they hold a clearer finish for longer and are slightly easier to apply.

gnease is right to say a lot of other things made a more significant difference: Better mahogany and genuine brazilian rosewood, hand wound pickups, different hardware, different pots, different wiring configuration, etc etc etc.

You should check out the SG Supreme range...Man I'd give my left testicle for one of those