#16
|
|||
|
|||
Earl49 just wrote:
"In short, it would be a lot of extra work for no real benefit." There it is. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
This thread made me laugh out loud for sentimental reasons.....
When I was a kid, and to this day, my father, whenever he was/is referring to someone who suffered a loss or took a beating of some kind - financial, athletic, competitive, etc - would say something to the effect of, "That guy took a shellacking," or "That guy just got shellacked." I never knew where that term originated but I wonder if it came from this french polish that everyone is talking about in this thread. Carry on the discussion but thanks for making me laugh......
__________________
Justin ________________ Gibson J-15 Alvarez MD60BG Yamaha LL16RD Epiphone Les Paul Standard Fender Player Stratocaster |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
It would be hard to demonstrate any benefit to either tone or durability in any sort of controlled test. There is no agreement as to what benefits might accrue, or how much, but the drawback of using any sort of water resistant coating on the inside is well known: it makes repairs more difficult. There are many reasons aside from rapid drying out that can cause guitars to crack. Any time you repair a crack you will want to reinforce it on the inside. Ant sort of coating will interfere with glue adhesion. It takes time and effort to remove the coating, and the result is not likely to be as smooth a surface to glue to, so the repair will tend to be of poorer quality. Everybody I know who's done much repair tends to be of the opinion that game is not worth the candle.
|
#19
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Want a more purely reflective, less sound box digested, sound then get a guitar with a shallower box depth and a stiffer back. Probably won't like the sound of the guitar as much
__________________
Derek Coombs Youtube -> Website -> Music -> Tabs Guitars by Mark Blanchard, Albert&Mueller, Paul Woolson, Collings, Composite Acoustics, and Derek Coombs "Reality is that which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." Woods hands pick by eye and ear
Made to one with pride and love To be that we hold so dear A voice from heavens above |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
In the end it is about who you love above yourself and what you have stood for and lived for that make the difference... |
#21
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Actually, the shellac just slows down the moisture exchange, but doesn't prevent it. In cabinet work, having both sides of the wood finished is a good way to decrease warpage due to humidity changes. My guess is that since guitar tops and backs are designed to move, and there is a fair amount of bracing, the humidity\warpage problem has never been a real issue. And when you think about it, less expensive guitars have some really thick poly finishes on the outside and none on the inside - I have never seen an issue with them. My one thought about this issue is a sonic one: a finished surface would have more reflectivity of soundwaves. Again, it must be a minimal change, otherwise we'd see a lot more of this technique.
__________________
”Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet” |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
I know one custom guitar builder who chooses to put a thin coat of finish on the interior surfaces of the instruments he builds. But all of the other hand builders I know do not.
So it's not an unknown practice but it's not a particularly popular practice, either. Since doing that isn't technically necessary, large scale guitar manufacturers who build their instruments in assembly line factories skip it, because the single most costly procedure that any guitar undergoes is when the finish is applied. It's not costly because of the materials used, but in terms of employee hours because it requires skill and finesse. That's why Martin and Larrivée's least expensive guitars have satin finishes: because they don't have to be polished to a high gloss. That saves the company a significant amount of man-hours that they’d otherwise have to pay for. Obviously, a layer of finish inside the body cavity won't need to be polished to a shine, but even spraying a thin layer of matte finish would be an additional production step at a guitar factory, and would require the specialized gear like face masks and a well-ventilated workspace. THEN after those pieces were sprayed the pieces would have to go back out on the factory floor to be fully assembled into a guitar body. All that for a step of dubious value to the construction of the guitar. Short version: it's unnecessary and would cost WAY too much money in additional production costs at any high volume guitar manufacturing facility. Hope that makes sense. Wade Hampton Miller Last edited by Wade Hampton; 07-18-2019 at 11:29 PM. Reason: Corrected a typo |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
I used to own a Washburn guitar built around 1900 that had the inside sealed with Shellac. It was brw and had more sustain than any guitar I've ever owned.
__________________
"Vintage taste, reissue budget" |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
The guitar has been out on a stand in my uncontrolled living room for 2 years now and it is still fine, but if I hadn't sealed it, it may still have been fine, who knows? |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
I put a couple of coats of spray shellac on the inside of my archtops before I seal the box. I think it helps to equalize the impact of humidity change, but mostly I think it looks good, and it lets me get sawdust from subsequent building stages out more easily. It costs about a nickle, and it takes about 3 minutes, big whoop after I've spent three or four hours doing a final cleanup and sand of the inside, getting glue spread off of joints, etc. Shellac has the advantage of being very easy to glue to, and in some cases I put down coats of shellac before I glue binding on, for example.
__________________
Brian Evans Around 15 archtops, electrics, resonators, a lap steel, a uke, a mandolin, some I made, some I bought, some kinda showed up and wouldn't leave. Tatamagouche Nova Scotia. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
I believe the original Maccaferri guitars had the inside back and sides varnished, not sure about the top.
Nick |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
The only viable reason I see for doing it is that it might make cleaning the inside of the guitar easier. Dust is bad for guitars and it might cling to an unfinished surface more then one with even a very thin single coat of shellac.
As for slowing down changes in humidity? Forget about it, you would need a finish that is an 8th inch thick to effectively do that. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Mr. Everett
I did a workshop in Atlanta a few years back. Mr. Everett's wife would pain the inside of some guitars if the client wanted it. Sorry, no photo's...
__________________
Collings, Martins, Gibsons, Taylor, Fenders, PRS's, a Takamine and MORGAN amps..love them all!!! |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
'Anything sticks to shellac' may be true, but wood glue sticks to wood better than it does to shellac.
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
There is no added reflectivity or any sonic benefit to finishing the interior. If thick enough it would help dampen the vibrations as would also happen on the exterior.
__________________
Fred |