Official Luthiers Forum!

OK, this ought to be fun, maybe ugly...

There are a lot of factories out there that apply finish and buff to the point of ridicule. Many hand builders do the same. Some, including myself, believe more in thin finishes that shrink into the grain, and look more "old time".

I came from mandolin building as most of you know, and the finishes were varnish on my instruments; most spirit over oil. They consisted of a sprayed coat of spirit to seal the sunburst, then a couple of coats of oil to build, sanding and final coats of spirit varnish to final sand and buff. Most times I would buff the day after the last coat was applied. Mandolins were sanded to 4000 grit and lightly buffed. Day after that the instrument was strung and played. The instruments were still full of fine scratches, but wasn't a concern. Why? Because spirit varnish has the ability to shrink for a very long time, and the scratches would disappear.

Now, right off, I could say that (until Collings), varnish mandolins were all pretty much very thin finished with spirit or shellac, just like the old ones. Varnished mandolins are not using soft varnishes anymore and some kind of spar varnishes are more common, some to the point of quick build up so that it basically is one thick coat of varnish, to avoid witness lines that usually accompany oil varnishes when sanded and buffed.

When I went back into guitar making again, I built a few varnished guitars using my trusted recipe. That quickly became disastrous for me as the finish was too soft, and shrank way too much for guitars. So, I went back to the old recipe of nitrocellulose lacquer for guitars. As I was building traditional instruments, I wanted a traditional looking finish, so I did the standard dye, fill, build coats, sand, build coats, sand more, and finally top coats. After that, the instruments sat a month, then I final sanded to 4000 and buffed through the 4 standard sticks of Menzerna. After a day of rest, I would assemble the guitar and string right away to play and it let the finish start to settle in. Again, I never saw any reason to go past the 4 sticks for the Mirror glaze or whatever others used to buff to a perfect, scratchless shine. After a month of playing, the faint scratches would disappear.

So, on to my questions. Is it really necessary to buff to oblivion with these new catalized or waterbased finishes that dry in a week? Is it that they dry so hard that they never shrink after? Would not a finish that hard really change the tone of the instrument?
I know that lacquered mandolins sound quite different than varnished ones and my mandolins sound quite different from the usual varnished mandolins because I use a soft violin varnish. I would assume the same holds true for guitars.

Anyone care to make comments?

I'm not making any comments (save this one), just gonna watch and learn. Thanks Haans for asking a good question.

Very thoughtful question Haans and I appreciate your take on the subject. Here's my thoughts on the matter:

I think Taylor guitars and their polyester finish raised the standards of what most players expect out of their guitars. While it was before my time, I imagine that there have always been players that "baby'd" their instruments and wanted them looking pristine. From what I also understand, the players of violins and other stringed instruments are less concerned with cosmetic perfection and perhaps, appreciate a certain handmade mojo, aesthetically speaking. I completely understand that mentality but I also know that the current marketplace expects finishes that are very durable and that look as shiny and perfect as a Taylor. Moreover, they expect better "quality" than a Taylor when they are in an even higher monetary bracket.

I outsource my finish work to Joe White who sprays a very uniform and thin polyester finish on the soundboard -- always less than 0.003" and usually coming in at around 0.002". I would never mess with this stuff personally and it is dangerous. The advantage of the polyester is that it doesn't sink into the purfling or any of the glue joints -- which all the other finishes do. The finish does sink into the wood and develop a texture but it is homogenous and clean looking. A year later, it still looks the same aside from the subtle texture that develops. IMO, with a shiny gloss finish which highlights everything, I think anything that doesn't look as close to perfect as possible just looks bad (unfilled pores, etc.). The exception is a category that I call "mojo" -- the super old instruments that are cracked and crazed and I think that is an attractive look but only for vintage style instruments. Again, this is all just personal taste. So when it comes to a gloss finish, then I do want something that is absolutely perfect. An alternative that I also think looks very good is more of a satin or low gloss finish. These lower sheens look perfectly good with less cosmetic attention to the quality of the finish because the light doesn't capture and magnify any flaws in the surface quality. Unfortunately, darker woods like Indian Rosewood and many others look really bad (my opinion) with a satin finish. Woods like Mahogany, Maple, and Walnut look beautiful with a low sheen finish.

I personally like the high gloss finish because I am OCD/perfectionist with my work and I want the miter joints and the details magnified - also, the modern aesthetic tends to require a high gloss. I am also able to achieve an extremely thin and durable finish with the polyester and so it is something that works well for me in regards to tone. Aside from polyester, all the other finishes have significant cosmetic issues at high gloss and a year later, they just don't look all that good to me (even urethane). If it weren't for the polyester and Joe White, I would probably try going for a medium gloss finish and using French Polish.

Last comment -- the truth is that all finishes have issues. The ideal would be something that has low toxicity and is as easy to apply and repair as shellac, as flexible as urethane or varnish, and as protective/stable/inert as polyester. I honestly don't think we will ever get all those qualities in a finish.

Not an experienced builder by any means but personally I do not like the high gloss, glassy buffed finish. I use a couple of coats of shellac based sanding sealer then tru oil. Do not want the expense and danger of setting up for spraying dangerous volatile substances for what is for me a hobby builder. I do not want to replicate factory finishes which were mainly chosen for speed and durability rathar than any tonal reasons.

Cheers, Bob

Good question Hans. I am also a mandolin maker and when I started I was using shellac French polished on my mandolins. Later I switched to an oil varnish finish and French polished over the top of it. The oil varnish is more resistant to sweat damage than shellac. That is what I currently do, and the varnish is water based Target Coatings EM2000 which is an alkyd resin based varnish in a water emulsion. I brush it on the mandolins and there is no blue haze with this stuff even on Ebony. I also don't particularly like high gloss glassy buffed finishes. When I started making guitars I used nitro, and suffered the stink and complaints about the stink from the other half. Nitro is quite a lot harder than EM2000 and that is what I thought guitar players wanted. However, I ran out of nitro and the supplier was out of stock just before a festival so I thought I would give the EM2000 a go on a guitar. I thought it turned out quite nice, but all I can see are flaws, not as glossy as nitro and quite a bit softer, but the big surprise was the reaction I got from customers and some of the other guitar makers. So many comments "I love your finish", and that was coming from other guitar makers with mirror glassy glossy finishes. I was admiring their finishes, ha! So, no more nitro, no more stink, no more buffed glossy finish, and so far no complaints. I'm a happy camper, except Target products are a PITA to get international.

As for sound, I have never liked any mandolin with a nitro or polyester finish so have never used them. My best sounding guitars are undoubtedly the varnish finished ones, but that might be because I just got better at guitar making. However, my ears tell me that there is a subtle difference. The varnished guitars seem to be "looser" and slightly warmer sounding when new when compared to nitro. I could be kidding myself, but I do think there is a difference, but not huge.

So Toonces, if I read what you are saying right, it's Taylor that started the insane (my term) shine finishes, poly (self leveling) and fast "cure" with no shrink back. Since I have always gone for the vintage look (makes no sense to me to have done my instruments in super gloss perfection), are there "modern finishes" that shrink back after being buffed, or is that a thing of the past?

I have never minded finish that shrinks into the purfling after it's been buffed and played, nor binding that shrinks back and associated cracking of the finish. On my mandolins, I went to the length to put spirit over oil varnish so that I could achieve the Gibson varnish checking. Guitars have a high enough gloss when new, but as with old Martins, the top grain "washboards" and after a few years, the pores in the back and side begin to show a tad. I guess that is what is expected of my style of instrument, and a high permanent gloss would look, well, silly.

Peter, I'm pretty much with what you are saying, but tried a waterbase finish once and it was blue and bubbled away from neck joints and fingerboards extending over the tops. It also dried or cured fast and never shrank after being buffed. I guess there are only nitro or shellac/spirit varnishes that shrink over time, yes?

First off I would like to point out that non oil finishes do not penetrate into the wood beyond what the tooth left by the prep sanding will allow. They all cling to the surface unlike oils which can actually penetrate the wood fibers. Strip enough wood to refinish and you will see this yourself. This is why surface prep is so important and why "poly" finishes can sometimes have a bad reputation for delaminations or pops. We also need to perhaps separate these coatings a bit. All modern "poly" type coatings are by definition polyesters. But that is not to say they are the same as a 100% pure polyester which is applied without any solvent vehicle. The films they form are similar but different in composition so I think of the two as being completely different types of coatings.

As far as shiny and buffed, that goes back a long ways....at least as far back as the intro of nitro in the 20's and possibly much farther as the premier finish of choice prior to that was a french polish. Taylor was far from the first to start using a hard shiny polymer finish either. Rickenbacker Started using conversion varnish sometime in the late 50's. Fenders base coat of "fullerplast" was 100% polyester, they then sprayed a final finish of lacquer over that. Ibanez and others have been using 100% polyester since at least the late 80's on virtually all their instruments. So these coating have been in use on instruments for quite a while.

Haan's, as you noted lacquer can often affect the sound of an instrument but this has more to do with application than the actual coating. Because lacquers like nitro have the ability to form ridiculously thick films most do not worry about how much they are putting down. But a study done by Roger Siminoff some years back demonstrated that lacquer films beyond 7 mils had a detrimental effect on plate vibrations. This same study also showed that film builds of around 5 mils seemed to provide the best in added stiffness to the plates and thereby enhance sound.Most just put the stuff on to thick! I target all my nitro to be in the 5-7 mil window after buffing.

Is it necessary to buff these new coatings? Absolutely not, no more than it is necessary to buff a lacquer. They also come in low sheen formulations that are designed to be off the gun finishes. Dry times and shrink back will depend on the chemistry but a good commercial poly finish will be cured in 72 hours. One thing of note is that oils from tropical woods can interfere with the chemistry by altering the PH of the coating as it dries and put it into a cold cure mode which can take weeks to dry just like a lacquer. To me the main benefit of these coatings is how thin they are. Most have a mil barrier of 5 mils which you cannot exceed without the film failing down the road. I have switched to conversion varnish for all my instruments unless the client specifically wants something else. Most of my coatings are in the 3 mil or under range when done. This is in the thickness range of a french polish and I notice a bit better sound. Not quite as open as a french polish but very close.

I also do not use water borne finishes not just because of the clarity issues but also because of the stiffness or lack thereof these coatings have. It is in the way the resins are suspended in an aqueos solution that causes this. They are the same basic resins but the process that is used to get them suspended in a vehicle is vastly different. It requires a heating step that solvent based systems do not and this alters the resins by cooking them. Until someone developes a new resin or a better way to suspend them this will remain the case. In most other woodworking these things do not matter that much so i don't expect to see any changes in WB coatings.

_________________
Brian

You never know what you are capable of until you actually try.

https://www.howardguitarsdelaware.com/

When it comes to finishing I try to use what is the least toxic to me, the finisher. For me, that is shellac under EM 2000 waterborne. The shellac is vey hard and the EM 2000 is easy to buff out. I have been able to get a good shine on the waterborne when the final buff is done with 3m brand perfect-it 2 rubbing compound. The surprising thing is how thin the waterborne is after it cures. One more nice thing about the EM 2000 is that it is very forgiving and repairs easily. As far as I can tell, on my mandolins the effect of finish on tone is minimal. I like to build in batches of 4 and early on I did some comparisons using two different finishes and I could not tell the difference between shellac alone and shellac under waterborne. These tests were unscientific. I had my brother play random mandolins and I listened for what I thought sounded best. It turned out I could not tell them apart. That is one good thing about building multiple instruments as alike as possible, it makes it easy to compare them to each other. I think as long as a finish is not too thick the tone is only slightly effected by the finish and is probably one of the least important variables to tone. When it comes to finishing it is always a trade off between durability, sound and ease of application.

_________________
http://www.cushmanguitars.com/.

A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way.
Mark Twain

What is wrong with a buffed shiny guitar if the finish is thin?

Any product properly used will produce a very good sounding and looking guitar if all the other voicing and building practices are done well. I feel that if you must farm out the finish process even though you can do it well in house is not a problem. I feel that new builders that from day one are farming out the finish have hurt themselves as if they ever have to do it themselves they will not get the results they expect. Finishing is a skill that must be mastered like any aspect of the build and takes time and effort to master.

I personally take great pride in doing all aspects of the build, no cnc outsourcing of parts, or farmed out finishes, I now have 28 guitars completed and after probably the 3rd or 4th have results that I can be proud of. I have attended some of the major shows and feel my guitars fit in with even the pro finishers results that are seen on a large percentage of the displayed instruments and I can say with pride I did it myself.

Just my 2 cents
Fred

_________________
Fred Tellier
http://www.fetellierguitars.com
Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/pages/FE-Tellier-Guitars/163451547003866

I do FP shellac on the guitars I build, the last one was FP Royal Lac, and it (so far) is the perfect finish for me. Non toxic application, good sound qualities, and resistant to solvents/alcohol/sweat when cured.

For a glossier look, I really like what Eastman does. I have an Eastman archtop, and supposedly they FP shellac and then coat it with a very thin lacquer for durability. Looks great, and my shellac stripping sweat (patent pending) has no effect on it!
Mike

Its my belief that if you do not glop on the finish coating "of your choice" the instrument will sound nice, assuming it was built properly in the first place.

Now if the visual of open pores etc. was something the general public really wanted, it would seem the major custom shops would offer that option.

https://www.martinguitar.com/guitars/cu ... File=00012


I personally like satin (sorta like Lowden) but almost every kit builder we service aspires to achieve the quality and appearance of Fred Tellier instruments whether its a retro Parlor size#2 or Gibson J200.

_________________
Ken Cierp

http://www.kennethmichaelguitars.com/

I am terrible with a spray gun. Either my equipment isn't worth beans, or my technique. I have suffered Mohawk Instrument Laquer, KTM9, EM2000, etc.
Recently I saw the discussion on spraying Royal Lac. Turns out Vijay lives just a couple of miles from me. He asked me why I want to spray. Just FP shellac.
After once again struggling with spraying I broke down an did a French Polish. Unicorns danced, butterflies made rainbows, birdies sang Handel's Messiah. I had been taught FP decades ago in woodshop. I remember pure misery trying to polish a nightstand.
The guitar is much smaller and easier to handle. It was a breeze to polish. A joy, actually. No compressor noise, no noxious spray getting everywhere, no worries about airborne dust.
It was relatively quick as well. Not having to spay every four hours and then sand out the inevitable runs, orange peel and fish eye more that offset the extra time actually applying the shellac by hand.
Oh, and if it's been a while since you spirited off shellac, you owe it to yourself. There is something about rubbing a satin finish and realizing that your hand is slowly being reflected back at you.
The results? FP is the original high gloss finish, so the three guitars I've done so far are as shiny as any guitar I've owned or built. That might not be the highest bar to reach, but I'm impressed. As to longevity, I don't know. All three guitars are less than a year old. One gets played close to two hours a night an still surprises me how shinny the back and neck are. It replaces my previous daily practice guitar that had been finished with EM2000. After three years of playing that guitar the finish was plenty scuffed and scratched. Doesn't look like it was ever buffed to a high shine.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mirror gloss is ok. Satin always looks cheap to me, but even worse is the scritchy feel of touching it. Something inbetween is needed.

I've used shellac exclusively so far, and plan to keep it that way if possible. But shellac can be used in many ways.

Nowadays French polish seems to mean a shellac version of mirror gloss. But that takes forever to do, and then every tiny scratch sticks out like a sore thumb, which is not good with a delicate finish.

It's a lot easier, and IMO better looking to use the FP technique to create an ultra-thin medium gloss finish. More just filling the micro-structure of the wood and then stretching one tiny layer over the surface, so it looks and feels like you're touching the wood itself rather than the finish. Slightly sunken pores are a good thing, adding to the natural woody look without giving it the speckly appearance of open pores in a glossy surface. Scrape, don't sand the soundboard, so it has that nice corduroy texture instead of washboard. And because the finish isn't perfect to begin with, scratches and worn areas don't draw so much attention.

It's certainly different than what the factories do, but then I ain't a factory. I've never actually seen a guitar finish that I thought of as an ideal to aim for, so I'm pretty happy to have found something I like. And practically non-toxic to boot

Satin finish

Perhaps you've not touched one that has been done correctly -- Satin should be as smooth as glass no scratches. Stopping short in the polishing process does not produce a true Satin finish. Satin is the gloss level. Satin does save a lot of finish work so the the stigma related to less expensive guitars is understandable -- However, Lowden's are not in that category by a way far margin.

As has been pointed out it takes some practice to produce a first class finish -- I think that holds true regardless of the coatings used. Even Tru-Oil application can be an intense project -- check out the reviews of Kinkeade's Tru-Oil finishing process.

_________________
Ken Cierp

http://www.kennethmichaelguitars.com/

Pretty much any finish can be made to look glass like, if that's what you want. The 'modern' way of french polishing is to use the abrasives right at the end of the process. If you really want it absolutely flat and disgustingly mirror looking, let it settle, harden, sink back for a few months, flatten it and french polish it again! Then go at it with the abrasives and polishing compounds again. I can't say that I like that look. It's far too clinical and plastic looking for my tastes. Some may argue that it's 'perfect' but if that's perfection, you can keep it.
As for the violin makers. They have a totally different aesthetic. That kind of flat glassy look will have them crying in their varnish pots. They do however focus in on ever increasing tiny detail on other aspects, colour, texture and chatoyance being far more important. They fuss over these details much more than Guitar makers fuss over their finishes. No hiding from finishing, especially not in the fiddle world.
I do gloss on my Guitars but I prefer the finish/texture obtained from the cloth, which I deliberately leave in. It's just enough to scatter the light without quite being a matte finish. You might call it a half way house, neither one or the other but it's the only gloss finish that I like.

Yeah, it's possible that it's only Taylor satin that I don't like the feel of, since that's the only brand I can specifically remember trying with it. I'll have to find a Lowden one of these days and see if it changes my opinion...

FWIW, I used no abrasives or polishing compounds on the Royal Lac. I did a traditional spiriting off with alcohol and a rubber after letting the bodying layers cure two weeks. It was not hard to achieve a high gloss and took no longer than the two weeks I leave nitro to cure before rubbing out.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I know I am in a small minority, but for most non-rosewoods I love a very thin semi-gloss finish over open pores like this:


It just feels silky smooth to the touch and you can really see and feel the texture of the wood, especially on necks. Every repair and gap is amplified though so the woodwork has to be near flawless, and it is far from durable if it gets knocked around. For darker, richer woods like ebonies and rosewoods I don't think anything looks better than a standard French polish:

In the end though if you want to sell your guitars you don't really have a choice in today's market... with very few exceptions, IME whatever actual finish you choose has to have a perfect glossy dipped-in-plastic look or nobody will buy it... it's as simple as that.

James,
I like your semi-gloss open pore finish.
What product did you use?
Dan

_________________
wah
Wah-wah-wah-wah
Wah

Those two were blonde shellac flakes dissolved in alcohol... the guitar was sprayed with the normal spray equipment I use with lacquer etc, the uke was sprayed with an airbrush. Basically I just lay down coats until I get the right sheen and it's done. 2-4 thin coats is all it takes depending on the wood. You do need to be able to lay down a nice even coat, but if you can do that a week or so later the finish has shrunk back and the inevitable little imperfections/overlaps disappear. Again, not very durable but IMO it feels and looks great and takes very little effort.

Then there's the British classical builder Kevin Aram who just does a few coats of Liberon Finishing Oil on his guitars. He sands up to a very fine grit and then puts finishing oi on it. He gave a demo at the last GAL. He also gets top dollar for his guitars.
Now if we could just get the public to love and demand Kevin's finish we'd all be better off.

_________________
Jim Watts
http://jameswattsguitars.com

Haans,
Regarding my post -- No, I don't think Taylor created the "shiny finish" trend. As Brian stated, that's been around for a long time. But IMO, polyester finishes have several advantages over all the other finishes and I believe many players have become accustomed to those benefits. You will never achieve the same level of surface quality with any other finish since they all shrink back (at least, that has been my experience with lacquer, shellac, varnish, and urethane). I honestly don't think that is the main issue tho' -- I think customers are more demanding of the inert nature of polyester in that it doesn't cold check and is incredibly solvent resistant. Moreover, it is durable and phenomenally so with the film thickness used in factory instruments.

What that means is that players are going to expect more from a finish than what was previously expected. Especially if they are paying more money they will likely ask why is the finish not "better". Of course, most will remain completely oblivious to the complexity of pros and cons that go with each finish type and not realize that there is no perfect finish. There are exceptions tho'. The classical community is still very understanding of tone and realizes the delicate nature of French polish is desirable. They also will understand that the same level of perfection isn't realistic with that finish when compared to the "modern" finishes.

I think the bottom line is that a builder has to know and understand their market. The market I am appealing to is largely concerned with cosmetic perfection, aesthetic design, and tone. So I have to find something that meets those expectations and an extremely thin polyester finish is currently my best option. Additionally, the finish on the first guitar that James posted does not appeal to me personally. (James I sincerely hope that doesn't hurt your feelings, my friend). I much, much prefer his French Polish guitar which I think looks beautiful. That aligns with my standard of beauty and is what I like to see. Again, it really does come down to personal preference. Some folks will absolutely love James' first guitar much more than the second guitar. I don't think there is a right or wrong here but I will say that the majority of the high-end luthier steel string guitar market (builders and players) would likely have a similar view on the steel string finish as I do.

I guess I have probably phrased my questions wrong. I am sure there are a lot of electrified planks of wood out there that look like they have been dipped in a barrel of some kind of resin and maybe they are at the root of this super shiny market we now find yourselves in. I also suppose there are several markets and there is room for vintage looking instruments as mine never had any trouble selling. The Podium used to market mine as "Museum Quality" or some such label and I never had much trouble selling either guitars or mandolins.

As far as finish thickness, mine were in line with some of the thinnest after a couple of months. It's always been my belief that the instrument breaks in partially by the finish "shaking" itself into thinness. It's quite evident with nitro or violin varnish, but I wouldn't know about these poly-whatevers and catalytic converters. My guess is they have no change and it is all left to the various chunks of wood deciding to become an instrument instead of a tree (relieving internal stresses of construction).

I guess my question would have been better put as "Are there any finishes currently that perform like lacquer or violin varnish (shellac being the base of violin varnish)? Seems to me that you have all gone to the extremes and have left out the old Martin type finish that was shiny, but not to the extreme...

At any rate it has been interesting to read all the various methods in the posts, but I guess I'm all done with all of it anyway...

So how did you determine the thickness after a couple of months? The only ways to do so accurately on a wooden surface are to scrape down to bare wood carefully and measure the film build or use a ultrasound device to measure it with the ultrasound being the only true way as you always scrape away a bit of extra wood when physically measuring.

I would also like to take on the myth that coatings continue to shrink over an extended period of time. yes, solvent borne coatings do need to evaporate all the solvents. But all solvent based coatings have lost 95% of their solvent within a few days and 99% + within 30 days. If they were actively outgassing beyond that they would be illegal for interior use. This notion that these films somehow continue to shrink away beyond that is a myth, it simply doesn't happen otherwise all theose pre-war Martins would be bare wood by now.

_________________
Brian

You never know what you are capable of until you actually try.

https://www.howardguitarsdelaware.com/

Simple. I save tape.
Stick your nose in a nitro guitar soundhole after a couple months. Smell anything? That would be the trapped solvents offgassing from the inside out.
I am watching the spirit/oil varnish on my latest mandolin shake into thinness now. It's been a month. It will likely continue to shrink for several more months as the oil varnish is trapped and the alcohol offgasses through the wood.
Not saying a 50 year old Martin is still shrinking. I guess I would have a little more sense than that...