Satin or gloss finish?

[billyrum2]

I have both. I like the gloss as long as it's nitro. Martin satin 15s are classy, and the 16 gloss tops, satin boxes are fine too. I guess I'm just fine with both. All that matters is how they sound.

[saxonblue]

Originally Posted by Wade Hampton

Yes, but be aware that that shining up doesn't occur with ALL satin finishes. Some are tougher than others. The UV-cured polyester satin finish on my 1998 Larrivee OM-03W still looks brand new and hasn't gotten glossy anywhere, despite almost twenty years of heavy use in performance.

So while many satin finishes will get semi-glossy in spots where the player touches the guitar a lot, it isn't a given and isn't automatically true.

Hope that makes sense.


Wade Hampton Miller

Point taken, I should probably have made the point this was "in my (limited) experience" a little more clearly. I have noticed & participated in other threads where this was brought up by others, noticeably by owners of guitars also finished in satin nitro including Martins, but not suggesting either this occurs across the board.

I have no experience owning instruments with UV cured poly finishes which includes among others Taylors & newer Matons & it may well be a more resilient surface in terms of resisting the buffing I referred to.

Cheers

[Wade Hampton]

For me and the way I play, satin nitrocellulose lacquer finishes are too fragile for regular, boisterous use. I have three or four lower end Blue Lion mountain dulcimers that I use mainly for teaching that have satin nitro finishes, and they're okay, but all of the dulcimers I gig with have high gloss nitrocellulose finishes. With nitrocellulose lacquer, high gloss finishes are simply more durable.

But UV cured polyester is completely different, and considerably tougher stuff. As I mentioned earlier, the nearly twenty year old poly UV satin finish on my Larrivee OM-03W still looks new.

The fact that that guitar has had a John Pearse armrest on it from the day I brought it home from Canada might be a contributing factor - my arm never rubs the top. But it doesn't seem to have gotten worn anyplace else, either.


why

[stringjunky]

A rubbed nitrocellulose finish, like Lowden do them, is how I like it. For the neck I like a satinised neck that's gone glossy after lots of playing. I'm not really keen on the finishes that are satin from the start.

[stormin1155]

I really don't mind satin finishes, but gloss looks more elegant I think. Also, as satin wears, it gets shiny in spots where it gets a lot of contact which is ok if you want your guitar to look like it's been well used, but not so good if you don't want your guitar to look well used. My Martin OMCPA4 is half shiny where it gets handled and half satin where it doesn't. I don't mind it.. it's my work horse, and that's what I got it for. If I was getting a high-end guitar I'd want it gloss.

[Pitar]

http://www.woodworkingshop.com/produ...FVU9gQodAnIOnw

The gloss finishes must be built up to about 10 thin coats to get a thickness sufficient to machine buff to a high luster. First 4 coats are sanded flat after thoroughly drying. Then another 4 coats are applied and also sanded after drying. Two more coats are applied and then the finish is allow to cure (out-gas) for about a week. I left mine for 2 weeks.

Finishes anywhere from slightly satin to complete matte (dull) are created with an additive mixed in with the regular gloss finish per the flattening agent instructions correlated to the degree of satin appearance sought.

This translates to a thinner finish because 10 coats, like the gloss requirement, are not needed. The flattening agent itself dries to a microfilm uniformly dispersed over the entire finish.

Flattening agent is a silicon powder of a certain micro-mesh, or screen size, treated with a paraffin to buoy it to the surface of the finish after spraying. There it becomes locked into the surface when the finish dries. Under a microscope, the silicon powder appears as millions of tiny flat crystals that are locked into the finish at angles to each other because they're crowded together and cannot lay flat to form a uniform, unidirectional light reflection like a gloss finish does. Instead, they reflect light omni-directionally and prevent 100% of the light from a source from reaching the eye. Much of it is reflected away from the eye.

Now, these crystals can be pulled loose from the surface by normal contact with clothing and over a period of time repeated contact in a location will remove enough of the crystals to reveal the glossy finish beneath.This condition cannot be restored. The entire surface must be refinished to make it uniformly satin again.

Nitrocellulose finishes do not place as tenacious a grip onto the crystals as cross-linked finish systems like the resins (poly, etc) do.

But, yes, the satin finishes are generally applied with fewer coats because it isn't necessary to completely fill the texture of the wood to give it the completely mirror flat sheen of a glossy finish, which also means the thicker glossy finish provides better protection of the wood. Satin renders that unnecessary so fewer coats are needed to give a uniform appearance.

[chiefgolf]

Still no sign of Martin offering Vintage Gloss as a finish option in their Custom Shop? Anything similar that they do offer?

[mercy]

I hate satin but just dislike gloss. If you have a satin finish polish it and it looks great. Or just get a varnish or french polish. Same great look.

[Tico]

To me:
Gloss looks and feels better.
Satin feels and looks cheap.

I have no idea if true, but I'd guess gloss does a better job of protecting the wood from sweat and other sources of moisture.

[Steel and wood]

Originally Posted by SFCRetired

For pretty I like gloss. For sound I like satin. I also like the looks of satin on some guitars like my DM because it makes it look like it came straight from 1934.

I will never be convinced that gloss finishes don't distract from the sound. Probably not that much but knowing wood like I do I just don't believe it doesn't affect it.

Pretty much everything this, even down to the Martin DM Mahogany Dreadnought which I too own and which happens to have a satin finish.

[Orfeas]

I focus on tone. Never cared for finish

[Jeff Scott]

Originally Posted by vindibona1

To me.... Satin on an acoustic body always looks cheap. Just does. Sorry.

Agreed. A good gloss makes the grain and figuring in wood pop and look fantastic (assuming really nice looking wood, here).

Originally Posted by vindibona1

Years ago I was doing a lot of professional photo print finishing. The ones for competition were ALWAYS glossy because it brought out the depth, but took tons of time and effort and skill to get right.

I did professional custom printing for demanding clients the world over for 22 years when I ran Labwork - The Black & White Lab, from 1991 through 2012. When using Ilford MGIV RC paper I loved the satin finish Ilford offered. But most of my, and the clients work, was made on MGIV glossy paper, both RC coated and MG Fiberbase papers. I treated every print I made as if they were my own work and created the best possible print every time (I am a highly accomplished photographer, myself). It was all hand printed and processed, no machines other than the enlarger and the ilford 2240 R/T processor for the RC paper; everything else was fiberbase I processed in trays up through 20x24. We eve made contact prints of a clients Cirkut® camera negatives, and we were heavily involved in HABS/HAER documentation for clients, too. We handled negative sizes from 110 up through 20x24 in film and glass plates.

Originally Posted by musicman1951

It makes no difference to me. It doesn't seem to influence my purchase decisions at all.

The satin finish on a custom Martin did help keep my wallet put away. At the first Experience Martin Show I went to they had a really nice madi rose OM for us to check out and buy if desired. The guitar was quite lovely but the satin finish on it worked its charm in letting me keep my money in my wallet that night, Bad for Martin/Sam Ash, good for me.

[TBman]

The only problem I have with a satin finish is that when recording you almost have to be frozen in place and play like a robot to avoid any movement noise getting picked up by the mics.

[AndrewG]

I like both, but I can't stand a mix of gloss top with satin back and sides. I just don't see the point, and those guitars look to me unfinished, in the same way that uncovered humbuckers do.

[rmgjsps]

I have one of each. La Patrie is glossy, Lakewood is satin. Wasn't sure about the satin when I bought the (used) Lakewood, but it has grown on me. I still prefer gloss -- what could be better than a nice shiny guitar? I "prefer" gloss finish, but, so long as the box plays nicely and sounds good, I'm becoming agnostic on the subject.