Official Luthiers Forum!

Exactly

_________________
Ken Cierp

http://www.kennethmichaelguitars.com/

I am thinking that only those about 120 years old would know the gloss level of the old Martin finish when it left the factory.

But there is no question that modern finish coatings can be processed to simulate any look one might want -- gloss level, texture etc. ----- however, it seems the trend now and what sells, both major and boutique markets are the high gloss finishes. What I like best or think is appropriate is meaningless in that context. Further, liking and producing these glossy objects is perfectly honorable and in some regard takes our craft to the next level.

_________________
Ken Cierp

http://www.kennethmichaelguitars.com/

Do we have to talk about shrinkage.......

That aside lucky us - we are living in the times that nitro will be 100 years old and what a number of folks in the know are saying, Rick Turner included, is that this is about when nitro will basically break down futher and likely start flaking off. Should be interesting to see.

Here's my experience even though this is not exactly what Hans is asking about.

Have used nitro, FPed shellac, cat poly, and cat urethane.

By far the best sounding..... finish with nary a trace of tonal infulence on the instrument is FPed shellac. I built a ten top mule (TTM) L-OO that was built to test ten different tops that I made back around guitar number 6 or so. This instrument was never intended to leave home and was again a test mule for testing out different bracing patterns back when I was trying to find my own path. It's by far my favorite guitar to play these days, weighs 2.9 pounds.... and what I hear is wood, not finish, not plastic pick-guards, but wood and what a joy it is to hear too.

Also used nitro and I woud rate nitro when done thinnly as the second most acoustically transparent finish that I have experience with. Nitro is easy to do and well understood once you get past the explosion proof fan and lighting requirements. Our shop has a spray booth with explosion proof everything except me of course....

Cat urethane was also used here and I liked it a lot, it's softer IMO than nitro and as such likely in need of a bit more thickness. My one issue with cat urethane is it does not appear to amber over time. I like instruments that amber over time.

Cat poly is likely the toughest finish of them all IME. Excellent for the gigging musician when tonal purety is not the primary objective. I do feel that cat poly is the most restrictive finish ever used on my stuff and I'm not alone in this belief either. It is beautiful, tough, uber resistant to dings, sweat, etc. and can look just beautiful when done nice and thin.

After my starting with nitro, trying FPS, out sourcing cat poly and cat urethane I returned to nitro for my last couple dozen guitars and again found nitro to be easy to use but again not ideal in all respects.

I've always wanted to do a gutiar with cat poly sides and back and a FPed shellac top thinking that this is about as good as it gets for some protection for the instrument, belt buckles, etc. while still keeping the top unadulterated and sounding much as it would in the white. Just never got around to it.

Lastly the Waterloo that I did the contest on the forum about a couple of weeks ago has unfilled pores, very thin nitro finish and not glossy, and sounded fantastic.... Very much like the Kalamazoos that it was recreating.

Finish can be heard... unfortunately and this can very much impact the tone of the instrument for better or worse with almost always worse being the result. It's one of the reasons why inexpensive imports with that thick, dipped in snot look sound thin, tight, clicky.... and generally not very good.

For newer builders please know that many of us will struggle with finishing until we find our way - you will too... I like to remind folks of the film the Godfather when Michael says "Just when I thought that I was out" only with the meaning being now that when you finish building that guitar this is when the finishing fun starts.... and it never ends either....

...when you finish building that guitar this is when the finishing fun starts.... and it never ends either....

Ain't that the truth

By the way good thread, I love reading all the opinions from some of our very experienced builders. I am still searching having made my way through Tru Oil, EM6000, Polywhey, Nitro (my current go-to) and now experimenting with Royal Lac. I have a tendency to fall into Hans' camp and strive for a thinner finish without worrying about the ultra-gloss look.

_________________
Steve Smith
"Music is what feelings sound like"

I've been keeping my eye on Royal Lac. It could be the first one to entice me back into doing my own finishing again. Unfortunately the commercial market seems to love glossy pore free finishes.

_________________
It's not what you don't know that hurts you, it's what you do know that's wrong.

Preface to following comments: I am a hack hobbyist builder. I have no intention of ever trying to support myself from building guitars. I might, someday, offer some of my guitars for sale, but not until I get better at it (a few more guitars to go before that happens). Right now, I build what I want the way I want to build it. I don't have a market to which I must respond.

So, what finish do I use? French polish with either normal flake shellac or, most recently, with Royal Lac (worked out pretty well, too). Easiest decision I make. French polish sounds great, looks great, is pretty repairable, has a long history of having been used on musical instruments, doesn't require any spray equipment or booth installation, won't ruin my lungs or blow up my house during application. Like I said, easy decision.

For those of you who do rely on building guitars for income, you have my respect for traveling a hard road with really hard choices. Do you choose to compete head to head with Taylor and Martin and try to do what they do only better, or do you zig where they zag and fill a niche not covered by the factories, hoping that the alternative market is large enough to provide enough customers? I know which of those I would choose (door #2), but I'm not trying to feed a family based on that decision.

I will say this, though: When it comes to finishes, I think it is really hard for a small shop builder to out-Taylor Taylor and make any money at it. See what I mean? The factories (the good ones, like Taylor and Martin) have this stuff down cold. They have economies of scale, sophisticated equipment, you name it. We can build a better guitar, but can we finish that guitar better than they can, using the modern finishes, and make money doing it? That sounds like a tall order to me. I hope those of you who go down this road have figured out how to do it well and within your budget.

I'm going to give the Royal Lac a try too. Once I started FP there was no going back for me. For some reason satin finishes, like the zero fret, are indicative of a cheap guitar and I remember years ago when I worked at the local shop one of the guy's referred to the cheap Washburns and Oscar Schmidt type guitars with perfect mirror high gloss finishes as 'polished turds.' So in my mind I actually started to reverse the trend and when ever I see a perfect shrink wrapped high gloss guitar it just looks awful to me. Also fingerprints... all over the place!

But alas, the public knows all too well that you cannot make a fine guitar out of anything like walnut and cherry or heaven forbid oak just like if you don't polish it up well enough to where it could be used to refract millions of years old light from space through the Hubble telescope then it's cheap.

So far with my test panels Royal Lac can produce a very shiny finish if that is what is desired. Whether or not it is shiny enough for those trying to compete with the factory finishes, I don't know. I also build for myself so I can build what I want. If people want to pay for what I build that is fine, if not - that's fine too.

_________________
Steve Smith
"Music is what feelings sound like"

On the Royal Lac:

I finished my most recent one with it, and I liked it a lot. The one hitch was that I started out trying to apply with with a brush like Robbie O'Brien, but that did not go so well for me. I just didn't like how it looked. But then I switched to the same basic technique I use when I French polish, and voila! it worked great. It is a bit thicker and stickier than regular shellac of the same pound cut, if that makes sense, but it is otherwise just like regular shellac. Great stuff. I might not use it all the time (I really like traditional shellac), but it might be my alternative for when the guitar needs to be able to stand up to more abuse.

Amen brother,

Yes, I feel shrinkage is an important part of the "look" of an instrument. I realize I'm probably more than in the minority as most probably are "consumed" with the achievement of the ultimate flawless finish. My finishes are probably not what most are thinking that think flawless; my finishes more than hold their own with the superfinish mania crowd. They just are not finished off with that swirl remover, so they don't have that "superbuff" look.



I got an email last week from someone concerned about a ding he had put in his mandolin and wanted to know how much I would charge to refinish the top (the mandolin was finished in 2003). I just trashed the email because 1) I don't do finishes anymore, and 2) It's nutz to refinish a top when all it has is a ding. It would have to be broken in all over again not to mention redoing the sunburst. That's how nutz this world has become.

I chose the violin varnish route on mandolins. Much richer than even FP shellac. Sure, scratches easily, but those that want an indestructo poor sounding mandolin can get a Pac-Rim dipped POS. Mandolin players (that are concerned about tone) are kind of like violinists. They don't care much what it looks like as long as it sounds great. That would be because of Bill Monroe. Who wouldn't want to own this? Would anyone even think to refinish it?



I just got a phone call a couple of days ago from a guy that flew in from California 6-7 years ago and bought my personal F5C distressed that I had for 5 years (not at all like Bill's). He had heard that I quit building, and just wanted to tell me that the mandolin sounds better than ever. He said that he is not afraid to hand it to anyone to try because it's distressed. BTW, Gibson started lacquering their mandolins in 1925 or 6 and there is a huge difference between the Loar varnished F5 and the lacquered,



Thanks for adding your own thoughts. I'm sure that the sanding papers and buffing compounds haven't changed a bit from then till now. That 4000 grit sharkskin is just getting hard to find...

Finally, I would quote myself to once again try to get an answer on this one...

"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 (through the wood).
Don't smell anything? You may have "nitro nose". Probably can't smell the dryer sheets when walking down the sidewalk. Probably can't smell the dryer sheet smell of your clothes.
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 to the inside of the instrument.
Not saying a 50 year old Martin is still shrinking. I guess I would have a little more sense than that...."

Funny, when I stick my nose up to the F hole of the mandolin, I still smell the finish after a month. Yes, folks, the outside is not off-gassing anymore. It doesn't smell at all...it's the trapped solvent that slowly evaporates through the wood into the instrument.

Don, I like your post. No, I never have tried to compete with companies. The whole business is set up to make the little guy fail if he tries to compete with companies. You don't give away instruments and don't have the advertising bucks. I mostly went my own direction. Mom and Pop is an outmoded model in this big box world.

I guess if I were able to start building and finishing again, I would use the Royal lac on guitars and learn to spray it. I would still use violin varnish on mandolins...done here.

The reason a lot of guitarists buy a guitar of mine is because it is not a Taylor or perfectly high gloss, finished instrument. Mine look handmade, or perhaps 1959 factory made. Before there was finer grit sandpaper than 400.( If you want it any shinier, go get an old sheet of 400). I have two styles of finish, after saying that. One is more high gloss and factory perfect. Some want it, but most don't. I use nitro. Pore fill with Oil based Pore-O-pac, and seal with a coat of shellac or sanding sealer. There is plenty of room for finding your own path. By listening to the players I have developed my style.

I would have a tendency though to antique an instrument. I like the variation of stylized aging. I like the Monroe mando! I would do a finish like that but perhaps stylize it so it is not so grotesque. A little more shiny etc... But you gotta admit it is interesting.

_________________
Ken

That just looks terrible Haans. How could you hve even let that one out your shop door

Seems that C F Martin indeed did have the standard of Mirror Gloss finish on its highest level models 42 and 45's Seeing that polishing compounds where available that could make the hardest stones, and metals glisten, its no surprise that Martin and Steinway and the likes might have had the skills materials to create a mirror finish be it varnish, shellac or nitro. Many only sand "the wood" to 220 g anyway.

So even way back when --- high gloss was considered a premium feature.

https://www.martinguitar.com/guitars/fe ... inish.html

_________________
Ken Cierp

http://www.kennethmichaelguitars.com/

Spirit varnish is a whole different animal from sprayed finishes like lacquer or modern polymers so comparisons there are not fair. The same goes for French polish.

As far as smelling nitro in the soundhole of my guitars months after finish....No. Of course I unlike most do not load up my sprayable with unneeded extra solvents. With the amounts of thinner I see some folks putting into their lacquers I can see them taking longer to outgas. Drying environment has a lot to do with it as well. There are many things that will delay the drying process.

Classical guitars aside because those players prefer tradition the fact is that most of the guitar buying public wants a nice shiney instrument. Especially if you are in the premium price category. You can do something else and try and spin it as whatever but the fact remains this is what the market wants and has for a long time. Honestly Haans your guitar pictured looks better finished than a new Gibson....so I don't really get the beef with a gloss finish......

_________________
Brian

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

https://www.howardguitarsdelaware.com/

Don't pick on Classical Guitarists, they like a shiny finish too or at least most of them do.
Now there's nothing wrong with a glossy finish. Look closely at the picture of Haans Guitar. I think I can see someone taking a photo, is that a window?, perhaps a ceiling as well. I can see a sheet of light. Maybe Pluto too. I can see 2 sq. inches of wood grain and a few craters on the moon. Glossy finishes are remarkable things!
Just joking Haans.

Its seems classical players have come around to accept the more modern finish coatings provided the sound board is French Polished.

Brian are you set up to do the Taylor UV cure repairs?

_________________
Ken Cierp

http://www.kennethmichaelguitars.com/

In my experience, classical players don't really care what the finish is as long as the guitar looks nice, sounds great, and is loud!

_________________
Waddy

Photobucket Build Album Library

Sound Clips of most of my guitars

Not to hijack the thread seems like its done -- a few facts and some Martin documentation and lots of great opinions, OP and otherwise.

The mention of "loud' classicals caught my eye -- in my travels there is one model that has always impressed me no matter what store I was in. Its the Alvarez Yari CY116 its a pretty thing reminds me of the threads about "the tree" --- anyway each of the ones I have played had incredible volume -- nothing else on the shelves/racks came close. The sound boards are paper thin and the bracing telescopes to the surface. But anyway really loud. There's some pixs at this link

http://www.sprucetreemusic.com/usedvint_classical.html

_________________
Ken Cierp

http://www.kennethmichaelguitars.com/

Spend a couple of hours in a guitar shop and actually look at the finish. I mean really look at it. It's not nearly as good as many people think. All finishes shrink. All of them. Polyester, too. And to a degree, they all will show the swirl in the grain of the top as they shrink. I don't care who's finish you're looking at short of French Polish, you're going to see something.

As for sound, well that's an interesting debate. I'll bet that blind, most people won't be able to tell which guitars were finished with what -- they'll just pick the sound that appeals to them. Having had a bad experience with one finisher who did a criminal job on one of my guitars years ago. The guitar was finished in polyester and when it arrived, it was a train wreck-- scratches, you name it. So I sent it back. Instead of actually sanding it back properly, he merely scuffed it, sprayed and rebuffed it. When I went to rout the lacquer off it was something around .018" thick! The guitar, however, wasn't a disaster. I didn't have a choice but to put it together and see its effect. Surprisingly, the guitar sounded fine. It was missing some of the sparkle I expected, but it wasn't as dead as I expected.

There are lots of variables in guitar making and finish is only one of them. I know that while I'm consistent, I can't predict what a guitar is going to sound like, even ones built side by side and of the same model and materials. I'll bet most people couldn't figure out whether a guitar was off its mark because of natural variability or because the choice or thickness of the finish.

I love your stuff, Ken!
I'm a big fan of your finishing, wood and metal.
Dan

_________________
wah
Wah-wah-wah-wah
Wah

I couldn't agree more. You have made a good case as to why commissioning a guitar may not be the best way to buy an instrument.

_________________
It's not what you don't know that hurts you, it's what you do know that's wrong.

I've done about a dozen "electric planks" in gloss nitro.
Every flaw is magnified, and it has helped me become a more precise builder.
I hate using the stuff. I have two ready to be finished, but I dread finishing.
I have used truoil on a couple, but I don't have the skill to apply a consistent sheen.
I'm still looking for a less toxic finish that can give good results without a big learning curve.

_________________
wah
Wah-wah-wah-wah
Wah

No I am not. I have not been with Taylor long enough to apply for certification on this.

_________________
Brian

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

https://www.howardguitarsdelaware.com/

Whether or not you choose to implement it, IMO doing a proper gloss finish is a skill that should be mastered by anyone calling themselves a luthier. Yes, it is difficult, but obviously not impossible.

For my own guitars I generally prefer the less flashy look of french polish. Even if it starts off looking perfectly glossy, soon enough it will lose some sheen with normal handling. I actually agree with Haans that perfection can sort of kill guitars aesthetically sometimes, and to me his supposedly imperfect finish looks just right.

SO true. I don't care who built it, they shine, shine, shine, but when you look closely, there are almost always some flaws. Especially pores where the finish has shrunk. I have seen some Taylor's that did not look good at all. And after a few years, the hard-to-find flaws are much more apparent. One brand I have seen the most consistency in is Collings, but they have such thin finish on them, there is always some pore shrinkage.

None of this bothers me in the least. When I finish, I make it look at good as I can but don't kid myself that it's ever going to be perfect.