Lightest possible finish

[charles Tauber]

Originally Posted by Jackknifegypsy

What kind wax?

The Beall system includes two abrasive compounds and its own wax blend. Each has its own buffing wheel, each of a different composition suited to the stage for which it is used. There is a "course" and a "fine" compound followed by the wax. The system consists of the three compounds and the three buffing wheels.

I haven't tried it on instruments, but you could probably use either a hardware-store variety paste wax, such as Johnson, or one similar to these:

http://www.leevalley.com/en/Wood/pag...190,42950&ap=1

http://www.leevalley.com/en/Wood/pag...190,42950&ap=1

I, personally, would be reluctant to finish an instrument just with wax, but it might well meet the requirements and expectations you have. My suggestion is to take a piece of unfinished mahogany and do a test of the finish you want to use to ensure that is what you want prior to committing to it on your guitar.

I don't know if it enters into the picture, but changing the finish from its original will, generally, reduce the value of the instrument.

[Quickstep192]

Originally Posted by Jackknifegypsy

What kind wax?

I use a mix of regular paste wax thinned with naphtha with steel wool, then finish with Renaissance micro-crystalline polish wax. The Renaissance wax is expensive, but you only need a small bit.

[Ned Milburn]

Originally Posted by charles Tauber

Perhaps Ned can suggest what he uses.

The link for the water based finish I use is below. Jeff at Wood Essence is great. I think there are US based distributors as well.

http://www.woodessence.com/Coatings-C22.aspx

Both the 6000 and 7000 are fine. The 7000 is said to have more solids in it and builds quicker, but I find the 6000 produces a nicer lustre. It is a chore to brush this on, and I highly recommend NOT to use a foam brush as is often recommended due to the fact that it produces bubbles which are a nuisance (understatement!) to contend with. I use a high quality synthetic fine bristle flat brush that I purchased at an art store. I also HIGHLY recommend using the retarder in order to slow drying time to allow greater self levelling and avoid brush strokes which must be sanded out.

If you are using a spray gun, this may be a good finish to use, since I believe flammability is not an issue, unlike nitro, which AFAIK without proper ventilation.... BOOM!! Also, clean up with water-based is a great deal easier.

The first time I used this Target water based poly finish, I did not use the retarder and spent at least as much time sanding as I spent applying the coating. Even with the retarder, there is a degree of necessary sanding, and this is yet another reason I prefer French polish. I am reminded of a time when I went mountain hiking with my cousin, an amateur mountaineer. It was time for lunch on our way up, and I said "Oh there was a nice clearing to have a lunch about 5 minutes back down the path", to which he replied, "When I'm going up, I like to continue moving up until I've reached the peak." This is how I feel about brush on water based finishes, but at the same time, I'm not prepared to set up for spraying so when appropriate, I offer the brushed on finish.

Charles makes a great point about gap filling with glossy finishes versus a non-gap filled matte finish. Good luck on your choice.

[charles Tauber]

Originally Posted by HCG Canada

I'm not prepared to set up for spraying so when appropriate, I offer the brushed on finish.

Sounds like an HVLP with water-based finish is in your future.

For under $1k, a window and a fan, you're ready to go.

Thanks for the link: didn't realize you were using Target - more or less the same as the Stewmac water-based.

[Ned Milburn]

Originally Posted by charles Tauber

Sounds like an HVLP with water-based finish is in your future.

For under $1k, a window and a fan, you're ready to go.

LOL - I'm already 2/3rds the way there! I have the window and fan, now I just need a spare 1k... ;-)

[Jackknifegypsy]

The May belle is very old, but the finish that was on it when I bought it was 'crinkled'. At first I thought it was just the finish but it turned out that the grain had expanded and shrunk quite a bit leaving a finely corrugated base. I took it all off to get to a flat surface and I think in the process made it more valuable, though after playing it 'naked' for the last two months, I would not likely ever sell it. It was dirt cheap and has one of the best tones I have in my growing collection of old, inexpensive guitars.

I really don't care what it looks like now, as long as I can preserve the tone and stop staining the bare wood with perspiration and oil from my fingers and hands. It might hold tune better too if I can put a surface finish on it that ameliorates the moisture in and out in our climate in the changing seasons.

If you think Johnson's will accomplish that, then I'll do it.

[Fretting Again]

That True Oil finish is truly impressive. From reading through some stuff at LMI I got the impression that True Oil was fine but kind of a third or fourth best option. Does it look as good as FP (it does in the pics) are there any disadvantages? It really looks like it could deliver a professional result (prep and workmanship being first rate).

[WaddyT]

It's not, probably, as hard as Nitro or 20 year old shellac, but is acceptable to me, and easy to apply. It may not be quite as "shiny" as a French Polish finish, but it gets pretty close. It also repairs very well with no witness lines in my experience. I had to fix some places where I had not prepped well enough - it brings out flaws like crazy - and the repaired invisibly. I may have some pictures where I put Tru-Oil over a FP finish as a comparison. I'll see if I can find that. With Tru-Oil, the time is in the leveling and rubbing out after waiting a couple of weeks for it to cross link. You can do some of it early, but it's best to wait. The application only takes a few minutes for each coat. 2 hour dry time, scuff level re-apply. Up to 4 coats a day. 10 to 12 coats minimum for good finish, but they are very thin. It will even fill pores, but that takes lots more applications.

[redir]

If you are talking about light as in weight which somewhat correlates to the thickness then French Polish can't be beat. I can hardly measure the thickness of a finished FP guitar. Of course most thick lacquer finished guitars could use far less coats with good results and a good finisher is capable of doing it.

If however you mean a finish with the least amount of color to it (which you seem to allude to) then the water base ones that I have used from LMI and Stew Mac are the clearest finishes I have ever seen. They will tend to keep the mahogany look closets to it's unfinished state where as FP and Lacquer will yellow it.

FWIW I gave up on water based finishes after ten years of struggling to get one to look good without any problems. I only French Polish now and I am going to begin testing the 'Table Top' shellac, or what ever it is being called by various dealers, that has a hardener in it to make it more durable.

[Fretting Again]

Well here is the question. I am a first time builder (going to buy a kit from LMI soon) and I want a finish that is not too fussy. I've applied spar varnish on mahogany boats with a roller and sponge brush so I do understand how difficult it is to get a nearly perfect glossy finish. I don't mind the elbow grease but I want something that will look great when I'm done. FP is appealing because it is so traditional, but I have never done it before and am looking for something rather "fool proof". (Sorry to hi-jack the thread).

[arie]

anything rub on is generally a no brainer except the fp method. "looks great" is pretty subjective though.

[gitnoob]

Originally Posted by Fretting Again

Well here is the question. I am a first time builder (going to buy a kit from LMI soon) and I want a finish that is not too fussy. I've applied spar varnish on mahogany boats with a roller and sponge brush so I do understand how difficult it is to get a nearly perfect glossy finish. I don't mind the elbow grease but I want something that will look great when I'm done. FP is appealing because it is so traditional, but I have never done it before and am looking for something rather "fool proof". (Sorry to hi-jack the thread).

FP doesn't stand for Fool Proof.

I like it because it's non-toxic (as long as you avoid denatured alcohol) and you don't need a spray booth. I like Tru-Oil for the same reason, but I've only used it on necks.

[charles Tauber]

Originally Posted by arie

"looks great" is pretty subjective though.

As Arie said, "looks great" doesn't tell anyone much.

Is "looks great", mirror gloss, rather than satin, rather than matte?

Is "looks great", perfectly smooth (i.e. if using open-grained woods, do you want the pores filled)?

Is "looks great" impart no colour/timbre to the wood? (Water-based finishes tend to look stark, rather than a yellow tinge that imparts a "warmth" to the appearance.)

Is "looks great" emphasize/enhance the wood grain/figure?


What is your preferred method of application: pad, brush or spray?

[Fretting Again]

Poor choice of words on my part. Maybe "looks professional" or better yet "doesn't look like an amateur applied it". I do understand that proper prep is much of the battle. I feel like I've wandered into a bit of religious war (though everyone is being very polite)

I can't spray, but to be honest with you I've only seen one French Polished guitar. I was impressed with the pic of the Tru Oil finish because I was under the mistaken impression that it was "dull", basically matte.

[charles Tauber]

Originally Posted by Fretting Again

Poor choice of words on my part. Maybe "looks professional" or better yet "doesn't look like an amateur applied it".

That doesn't really add anything concrete other than to eliminate brush strokes, drips and the like. A tung oil can be applied beautifully so that it looks "professional", but on a $10k guitar, it's not what I expect to see/feel. Others have different opinions/aesthetics. One needs to go with one's own sense of aesthetics or that of one's customer.

I feel like I've wandered into a bit of religious war (though everyone is being very polite)

Not at all. There are many, many, many different finishes that can be used on wood. Which one to use depends upon a bunch of factors:

1. the desired appearance - entirely subjective
2. ease of application
3. level of knowledge or skill required to apply
4. tools available/required to apply it
5. amount of "protection" the finish provides and to what - oil, alcohol, water, dirt...
6. relative "healthiness" of applying the finish
7. relative hazard of applying finish - e.g. flammable vs. not flammable
8. relative "comfort" during application - "Do I need to wear a space suit to apply this?"
9. relative ease with which it can be repaired/removed
10. relative number of things that can go wrong

I'm sure there are other factors, but those are the ones that immediately come to mind. Use whatever finish best satisfies these factors for your (or your customers') particular needs and preferences. Don't feel compelled to have to use a particular finish when many possible finishes can work.