How important is Hide Glue?

[RGWelch]

Originally Posted by DenverSteve

I find it interesting that anyone other than a glue manufacturer would care enough about glue to discuss it ... arduously. TO ME... the finest sounding guitars I've ever played were all built with hot hide glue. That doesn't mean that the other guitars I have are slouches by any means but they aren't as expensive as most small shop builds using hide glue. Maybe because HHG is more finicky to work with, builder's use it on their best wood and most important builds. Maybe not.

I'm sure some builder's use HHG because of tradition while other's feel that it imparts less dampening and therefore more sonic transfer. There are also many top-tier builder's choosing to not use it for many reasons. I think that if there were a consensus, then 90+ % of the best builders would be using HHG.
I don't know that we have that kind of sampling.

I also think that if you have no guitars with hide glue, and you think your guitars are as good as anyone else's then you are likely to be swayed to the "it doesn't matter" camp. Conversely, if you have spent thousands on a guitar, or guitars, with hide glue, you are going to listen for that difference to help justify the extra expense. I never buy guitars because of how what they're built from, but because of how they are built and sound. In the end buy what you like and play what you buy.

An article by Dana - https://bourgeoisguitars.net/wp-cont...G_Mar_Guru.pdf

Your experience of only hide glue guitars being the best you've ever played begs the question, why? Is it because of the glue? Or is it because when a luthier builds a guitar, the one they build to the best of their ability they will most often use hide glue, therefore the best guitars get built with hide glue (generally speaking)? And this then begs the question, why?

It goes back to the question of tradition and marketing. It is similar to the question of laminate vs. solid. If all the best sounding guitars you've played were all solid wood, then you'd assume that solid is always superior to laminate back. That is something we all tend to accept, yet there are many laminate back/side guitars that sound better than some all solid wood guitars? So it is the wood, or the technique of the luthier in building the guitar? What really makes one guitar sound better than the other?

I think the common denominator in all of the best sounding guitars isn't the components, but the craftsmanship. I'm a photographer, and we have a saying in the business, a good photographer with a bad camera can take a better photo than a bad photographer with a good camera. I think it translates to guitars as well.

[phcorrigan]

Originally Posted by beatcomber

Here's a detailed scientific analysis of using HHG and other adhesives in luthiery:
http://www.mcknightguitars.com/hot-h...ct-or-fiction/

Interesting that the glue that tested best, LMI White, is no longer available.

[CMEkneurauter]

It's all in the ear of the beholder - We have a lot of "vintage" Montana J-45's made with mostly tite bond, and some we custom order with ALL hide glue construction - the rest of the specs being identical. They typically are about a half lb lighter, and sound much better.

If you're asking me - yes, definitely.

[BrunoBlack]

Originally Posted by CMEkneurauter

It's all in the ear of the beholder - We have a lot of "vintage" Montana J-45's made with mostly tite bond, and some we custom order with ALL hide glue construction - the rest of the specs being identical. They typically are about a half lb lighter, and sound much better.

If you're asking me - yes, definitely.

For clarification— are you saying the hide glue used on these guitars weighs 8 ounces less than the tightbond glue used on an identical guitar?

[RGWelch]

Originally Posted by CMEkneurauter

It's all in the ear of the beholder - We have a lot of "vintage" Montana J-45's made with mostly tite bond, and some we custom order with ALL hide glue construction - the rest of the specs being identical. They typically are about a half lb lighter, and sound much better.

If you're asking me - yes, definitely.

Interestingly, in the test done by McKnight (which obviously isn't everything), Titebond was ranked the lowest in the sustain testing, while HHG was middle of the pack, compared to a non-joined test piece in decay/second analysis. Looking at the comparative numbers, one wonders if some of the glues that rated higher than HHG (some by a factor far greater than the difference between HHG & Titebond) might produce much better results even. If that's the case, it might be argued that the "tradition" of using HHG could be holding back the quality of guitar making these days. Sometimes, it's not always the best way to do something just because it's the way it's always been done.

Another factor though, in this observation, is what is going on at the factor that is also different between the Titebond J-45 guitars and the HHG guitars? Sure, the specs are the same, but that doesn't mean the build quality is. We know HHG requires more skill than the other glues to use. Which goes back to my original post on this thread, it's probably more about the skill of the builder. I suspect the custom order HHG made J-45s are quite a bit more $ than the standard Titebound models. That's likely because of the extra labor and skill needed to build the custom models, and that translates to a better guitar, all other things being equal. So in this case, the glue and the labor are the two differences. The weight difference probably isn't just the glue, but might be that with the additional labor and skill the makers were able to more carefully scallop and fabricate the guitar with less material, while the Titebond models were left with more material for greater strength needed to assure integrity. The point is, there are so many factors here, it's not easy to say it's as simple as using HHG makes a guitar that much better. It's also the process involved which is a contributing factor when the decision is made to use HHG over an easier to use glue.

[jrb715]

Just an anecdotal note. I have two Huss & Dalton guitars, though different shapes they have identical woods: one is made with animal glue the other with Titebond.

They are both wonderful guitars: but the one made with Titebond is for me a better guitar.

[gmel555]

Originally Posted by ManyMartinMan

No. Hot hid glue is made from animal skins. Fish glue is made from ....... fish.

I think there's a general agreement among luthiers who use it that "hide glue", "fish", etc. are all organic protein glues with very similar properties, enough to lump them all under the heading "Protein Glues", virtually interchangeable as it relates to guitar building. If any luthiers on the AGF disagree with this, I will respectfully stand corrected.

[Steel and wood]

Originally Posted by RGWelch

I asked my guitar tech, who is a luthier and makes some really fine custom guitars, about the hide glue question. His comment was telling. He said he's discussed it with other luthiers over the years, and he said the consensus he felt came down to this. If luthiers of the past had access to modern glues, they probably would never have bothered with hide glue. It's used more today because it's traditional, but it's hard to justify it's use for any reason other than marketing today. At least that was his opinion, and he's far more qualified than myself and probably most people on this forum I'd imagine.

Yep, this would be my view also.

[phcorrigan]

Originally Posted by RGWelch

The weight difference probably isn't just the glue, but might be that with the additional labor and skill the makers were able to more carefully scallop and fabricate the guitar with less material, while the Titebond models were left with more material for greater strength needed to assure integrity.

Exactly. I can't imagine a half pound more glue on one guitar vs. Another.

[JSDenvir]

A couple of thoughts. Hide/animal protein glues are thought to dry to a more brittle state than aliphatic glues. Does this help with the transmission of sound?

Some people say it makes a difference, but it's basically impossible to tell.

But no one suggests that they are in any way inferior to aliphatic glues in transmitting sound, and they do make repair easier.

So with no downside, I made the decision to use hide/fish glue on all sonically significant joints.

I don't charge more. I just think it's one of a number of best practices that can contribute to a better sounding guitar. Just like stiffening the sides and applying the thinnest finish possible.

Steve

[Murphy Slaw]

Originally Posted by The Bard Rocks

Yes, yes. Now to your question: "How important is hide glue?" It's of critical importance to the cow.

Pow...….

[Alan Carruth]

Hide glue has two big advantages over 'modern' glues; it doesn't creep in shear, and it's easier to repair.

Elmer's-type white glue is the worst, being more or less the equivalent of bubble gum: it doesn't hold things in place but you can't get it loose either. Very few guitar makers use much of it for that reason. I've seen it more on low-end fiddles, where it basically makes them impossible to repair. I've seen some guitars, though, and even from 'good' manufacturers, that developed problems due to the use of similar glues. Bridges can simply slide toward the nut without actually coming unglued. I've also seen this happen when the top cracks on either side of the fretboard: the neck shifts in, but when you open it up the UTB is still glued to the top. The problem is worse if the glue line is thick, either because they didn't clamp it well of the surfaces were rough.

Titebond, and it's ilk, do this much less than the white glues I've seen, but they still do it. Some years ago I noticed that the guitars I was making were more prone to top bellying over time than others, some far older, where hide glue had been used for the bracing. I switched and the issue went away.

Modern glues also tend to react more with some finishes. They can swell up, making a raised glue line in, say, a laminated neck. It's obviously a function of the solvents used in the glue and finish.

As to the repair angle; Titebond is not soluble in water to any useful extent, so new glue won't stick as well to an existing glue line. With hide glue you can work some new glue in and clamp it down, knowing that it will dissolve the glue that's there and stick properly. With modern glues you have to remove all of the old glue from the surface, and it's impossible to do that without removing wood. This changes the fit of the joints, at least. On something like a loose brace it's impossible. Why would you expect the re-glued brace to stay down when the glue joint was not strong enough to begin with, and the new joint will be weaker?

If you use it right, and take it's foibles into account, Titebond is good stuff, and I still use it a lot. But it's not the only glue I use. You could say the say about hide glue, of course.

[gmel555]

Originally Posted by Alan Carruth

Hide glue has two big advantages over 'modern' glues; it doesn't creep in shear, and it's easier to repair.

Elmer's-type white glue is the worst, being more or less the equivalent of bubble gum: it doesn't hold things in place but you can't get it loose either. Very few guitar makers use much of it for that reason. I've seen it more on low-end fiddles, where it basically makes them impossible to repair. I've seen some guitars, though, and even from 'good' manufacturers, that developed problems due to the use of similar glues. Bridges can simply slide toward the nut without actually coming unglued. I've also seen this happen when the top cracks on either side of the fretboard: the neck shifts in, but when you open it up the UTB is still glued to the top. The problem is worse if the glue line is thick, either because they didn't clamp it well of the surfaces were rough.

Titebond, and it's ilk, do this much less than the white glues I've seen, but they still do it. Some years ago I noticed that the guitars I was making were more prone to top bellying over time than others, some far older, where hide glue had been used for the bracing. I switched and the issue went away.

Modern glues also tend to react more with some finishes. They can swell up, making a raised glue line in, say, a laminated neck. It's obviously a function of the solvents used in the glue and finish.

As to the repair angle; Titebond is not soluble in water to any useful extent, so new glue won't stick as well to an existing glue line. With hide glue you can work some new glue in and clamp it down, knowing that it will dissolve the glue that's there and stick properly. With modern glues you have to remove all of the old glue from the surface, and it's impossible to do that without removing wood. This changes the fit of the joints, at least. On something like a loose brace it's impossible. Why would you expect the re-glued brace to stay down when the glue joint was not strong enough to begin with, and the new joint will be weaker?

If you use it right, and take it's foibles into account, Titebond is good stuff, and I still use it a lot. But it's not the only glue I use. You could say the say about hide glue, of course.

I take lessons from a lifelong guitarist/"known" artist who is also a professional carpenter (not a luthier, but someone who has a lifetime of experience in woodworking). Alan, he's told me almost exactly the same things that you say above. If we forget the tone argument, there seems to be a fair amount of evidence about other benefits of protein glues. Yes, it does come with a heftier price tag though and apparently requires additional skills to use it in building. For these reasons IMHO I don't believe it's a given that luthiers 75-100 years ago would have all use synthetics if they'd been available; there would probably have been a mix and repair techs today would still be saying, I'd rather repair an older guitar with protein glue than synthetic.

[Dustinfurlow]

I don’t think the stance that it’s for marketing only is valid, because Michael Greenfield and Michael Bashkin use HHG and they are some of the first who come to mind when speaking of high-end modern luthiers. Seems like it’s a complex process that would only be worth it if they thought there was a real benefit.

That being said, two of my other favorite builders Marc Beneteau and Goodall use Titebond and I have no qualms with the way either of them sound, they’re fantastically responsive to light and heavy dynamics!

[phcorrigan]

Originally Posted by Alan Carruth

Hide glue has two big advantages over 'modern' glues; it doesn't creep in shear, and it's easier to repair.

As a former auto mechanic, I know how important repairability is. The fact hide glue doesn't creep and dries very hard are also major advantages.

I had an "interesting" issue with a low-cost Fender acoustic ($120 with strap and paper-thin gig bag) that I bought when I was restoring a house in Central New York. The guitar was quite playable and it actually got me back into playing after a long hiatus.

The guitar lived in the house where temperature varied from 60 degrees (f) and up and the humidity variation was pretty great. When I sold the house I was going to give the guitar to my son, so I decided to restring it. As I was tightening the strings, the bridge pulled up off the top. It didn't just pull up cleanly, however. The adhesive was a gooey mess.

If I had been home I would have repaired it properly, but I was 2,500 miles away without proper tools. The lowest repair estimate was $150, or $30 more than I paid for the guitar! I had a drill and some wrenches with me, so I drilled a couple of holes through the bridge and top and just bolted that sucker down. It's now a playable guitar again.

I'm sure the problem was related to humidity changes, but I've never seen a wood adhesive turn into a gooey mess the way this did. Does anyone have a clue as to what kind of glue this was?