I was not aware of that. I could see that on a nitro cellulose finish, but is it the same for a poly finish, I thought they cured faster and took fewer coats?

For some reason, whenever I see or hold a satin-finished guitar, it just looks "cheap" to me... partially finished, if you will... and I know all the ins and outs of each and still, I far prefer a great gloss finish.

Whether lacquer on my Mark Angus guitars and my Gibson electrics, or urethane on my Goodall, I am a gloss finish guy!

Just one player’s experience, but my Huss & Dalton RD-R with gloss top, and satin back, sides and neck has kicked several high-end all-gloss lacquer-finished guitars out of the house. It has proven to be way louder and more resonant than anything I have ever owned.

According to Mark Dalton, the Road Series guitars get several coats less finish, thus reducing finishing time and cost. The thinner finish is a bonus.

It would be a deal consideration. Why does the guitar have a satin finish if it's a high-end guitar? I'd do some research, that doesn't sound like a high-end guitar finish to me.

Gloss finishes are more time intensive but are not "better" finishes. They do reveal the wood grain more and are typically found on more expensive guitars. Nevertheless, there are quite a few high-end guitars that have satin finishes - Lowden is one such brand that comes to mind and they build beautiful instruments.

Most modern finishes (urethane, polyester) are catalyzed finishes and they cure very quickly. UV catalyzed finishes cure immediately when exposed to UV lamps.

Nitrocellulose lacquer is a bit more time consuming to apply but easier to level and buff than most modern finishes. You apply several coats of finish on per day for several days and then let the finish cure for a few weeks before you can level and buff it to a high gloss.

Satin finishes save the finisher having to deal with the time consuming process of leveling and buffing the finish but the overall finish is pretty much the same. With satin, you can usually go a bit thinner because gloss finishes need to be sanded level and buffed which both remove some of the finish. So gloss finishes need to be a fraction thicker to compensate for that process. There is absolutely nothing wrong or inferior with a satin finish. Personally, I prefer the aesthetics of high gloss and that's what I do for my guitars but a satin Lowden looks very nice too.

After I mentioned how much more time it takes to apply high gloss finishes, antvas wrote:

It is faster, much faster to cure, but poly UV is a physically tougher finish than nitrocellulose lacquer and takes longer to polish to a high sheen. I’m sure that overall it’s a bit faster to produce a high gloss finish with polyester finish materials, but it’s still very skilled work.

Having watched finishes applied at the Gibson, Larrivee, Tacoma and Yamaha guitar factories, and at several small shop operations and repair shops, I can tell you that there’s a great deal involved in the process, regardless of the finish material being used.


whm

A good point! It’s worth remembering that not all satin finishes are created equal. Unlike the cheaper satin finish of, e.g. Martin, where a flattening-agent is added to the lacquer used to spray the guitar, Lowden, Avalon, and McIlroy instruments are sprayed with gloss nitro, which is then hand-rubbed to ‘knock-back’ the gloss to satin. It’s a more expensive process, but the result looks and feels luxurious, and superior to the satin finishes achieved by putting a flattening agent in the lacquer.

Lowden, Avalon, and McIlroy don’t build high-end guitars? I recommend you do that research - you may get a very pleasant surprise!!

The usual disclaimers apply......IMHO, YMMV etc.

I refuse to upset owners of satin finish guitars by telling them they look cheap and unfinished.
I just won't do it.

This for me as well. I own both and totally agree.

If anyone hasn't seen it, there's a great YouTube video on a custom build in the Goodall shop (link below). The level of detail involved AFTER the application of finish -- scraping/sanding/polishing -- is astounding. It really emphasizes what Wade mentions regarding the proportion of cost that is involved in the finish process as a whole. Great video on the overall build process at a small boutique builder.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gS78naDiB4k

One down side to satin finishes is you can't buff out scratches. In some cases you can overspray them with a "flatted" finish to help cover them but finding the right level of flattening can be tricky.

I generally MUCH prefer satin or semi-satin to gloss, both for feel and for looks. Preferably with little to no gain/pore filler so I can feel the wood texture.

I adore the finish on my GS Mini , which is just a simple thin satin varnish over the very open-pore Koa.

Marks are also more upsetting on a gloss finish to me.

I like shiny

Haha! Yeah...me too.

I had the opportunity to visit a shop yesterday that had a couple of the new Grand Pacific Taylors...a 517 & 717. I'm not a huge Taylor fan, but I'll admit they are amazingly easy to play...so I was curious. The fact that the guitars were so "neck heavy" bugged me a little, but the number one deal breaker for me was the satin finish. I know the "Silent Satin" is being spun as a huge deal by Andy Powers, but it just downplays the beauty of the guitars in my personal opinion. I think both models would look absolutely amazing if they were presented with a gloss finish.

I know there are said to be distinct advantages tonally with satin finishes over gloss...but like S-10Ken said..."I like shiny".

I used to have several Epiphone Masterbilts. They were always satin. I really liked 'em! My tastes, however, have evolved. Now I much prefer shiny, glass-like gloss, and since I've tended toward higher-end guitars, why not get what I prefer? So yeah, satin is a deal breaker for me at this point.

I also much prefer an ebony fretboard, but AFAIK, this is also a matter of "looks." I think the rosewood board on my Songwriter performs just as well as the ebony on my JF30-12.