Anybody using the last record preservative

Back in the early '80s I started using last record preservative now here 40 whatever years later just picked up another bottle because I noticed all my new records have a lot of noise with the exception of a few analog Productions and some Rhino records are pretty quiet but the most have a lot of surface noise long story short picked up a new bottle of last record preservative put it on one of my records and OMG the difference is amazing my system nowadays is way more resolving than it used to be noise floor has dropped into the basement and the musical and the music has jumped to the foreground


Back in the vinyl days I put all new records through the Nitty Gritty first, then treated with LAST & stored in MHS archival sleeves. And so they remain today, nothing being spun more than once a year barring intoxicated visitors. Sounds like little has changed, LAST still around -- those big wide brushes too? 

For the last (no pun intended) several years or so, I have been using "LAST RECORD PRESERVATIVE" after a thorough ultrasonic cleaning of all my vinyl albums.  As far as I've been able to discern, there have been no ill effects on audio fidelity or sound quality.  However, after reading what a few chemists had to say about LAST RECORD PRESERVATIVE, I have now abandoned its use.  For example:

“The (LAST) record preservative contains only 2 ingredients ... perfluoropolyether ... and ... a fluorinated lubricant ... originally developed by DuPont Chemical.  It is incorporated at a level of 0.055%, and the other 99.945% is a blend of perfluorohexane, perfluoroheptane, and perfluorooctane ... the majority of which is perfluorooctane.  A blend such as this perfluoroalkane in “Industrial Circles’ is frequently called a “DAG”, which is a various blend allowing the product to be about 50% to 60% lower in cost than a specific ingredient, as in this case, that would be perfluorooctane.  Another way of lowering the cost.  It is not a CFC because it contains no Chlorine.

I took the liberty to calculate the raw material costs based on current pricing of materials in what would be considered relatively small quantities, that is, 5 gallon containers versus 55 gallon drum price which would be far significantly lower in price.

The 2 oz. of LAST record preservative that sells for $64.95 contains $0.094 worth of raw materials.

The 8 oz. version that sells for $228.95 contains $0.374 worth of raw materials, and the 16 oz. “best value for your dollar” selling for $432.95 contains only $0.748 worth of raw materials.

A 5 gallon Plastic bucket and a stir stick and two scales, a funnel, and a few coffee filters and you are in business.  A semi-sophisticated (meaning non-automatic) which would require a variable mixer, and a 25 litre stainless steel mixing vessel, with more accurate scales, and a variable volumetric manual filling device with proper industrial filters, (would) cost no more than $2,000.00.

I took only the 16 oz. Record preservative as an example and contacted people that we use to purchase high quality “peel and stick” labels, and a company we purchased bottles from (colored glass in this case).  I am speaking high quality labels, better than those of The LAST factory, and they would be impervious because they would be coated and in three colour printing.  I considered employing someone at $55,000.00 annually including all benefits and insurance, including Workers Compensation Insurance, and I calculated the Total Cost to produce a 16 oz. bottle of LAST record preservative to cost only $1.936 per bottle.  The same product that you are expected to pay $432.95 (for).  That is a whopping 5,595 % Margin.

The claims, on the other hand, is another matter.  Fact, the “preservative” is a lubricant.  It provides no preservation of the actual vinyl.  And, their statement that it “bonds to the records” is an absolute impossibility.  It is a surface application only, no bonding!  Also, NO penetration takes place.  And, certainly no bonding, even remotely, can take place.  The Chemical bond between a Fluoride and another Carbon atom is one of the strongest chemical bonds to exist.  In order for bonding to take place, this chemical bond needs the be “altered”, even just slightly, and that is a TOTAL IMPOSSIBILITY!   Therefore, this claim is absolutely false." 

In my last round of record cleaning, I used "LAST POWER CLEANER FOR RECORDS" as my initial cleaning step, followed by my other cleaning steps, including ultrasonic cleaning, and avoided using "LAST RECORD PRESERVATIVE".  There was/is no discernable difference in audio fidelity or sound quality between the records treated with "LAST RECORD PRESERVATIVE" and those without.  Records are just as quiet; surface noise is just as absent, and the noise floor is just as deep, black and quiet.  I'll use up the last of my "LAST POWER CLEANER FOR RECORDS" because of what it cost me.  However, now that I know what its chemical composition is, I'll make my own power cleaner, at far lesser cost, in the future.  As for the record preservative, I've concluded this to be a waste of time and money.

Last power cleaner on new albums followed by applying Last Record Preservative since 1977.  Put the album in a static proof sleeve and then put a plastic sleeve over each album jacket. They remain in mint condition. Takes some effort but it’s worth it. Still purchasing vinyl on a regular basis.

I have a few cans of GruvGlide, which I don't use. I bought them many years ago when I thought they might be a good idea. They do smell delicious though, and if I ever get into huffing they might be useful.