Is Hide Glue usually worth the upcharge?

[martingitdave]

I've owned five or six protein or hide glue guitars. I've owned plenty of titebond guitars. I would say that I hear a difference in the guitars with hide glue. However, they were also the most expensive guitars I've owned. I believe there are a few luthiers who've conducted studies. IIRC, the studies I read had opposite conclusions. Obviously, there is some marketing benefit. But, my experience has been very positive with hot hide glue from Martin and protein glue from Taylor. And, conversely, the D28 Marquis I owned, which might still be my favorite, was titebond.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Bruce Sexauer]

Originally Posted by Haasome

You've made an observation that seems convincing. Do you have a theory about why?

When I've conductted controlled internal bond tests, shear tests, tension tests and bending tests using both adhesives there has been no statistical difference in stiffness or strength. As the test proceeds, the curves are similar implying the samples are responding similarly as they travel to conclusion. And the failed specimens typically exhibit similar levels of wood failure, indicating the test results reflect the properties of wood, not the glue. The glubond did not impact the results when compared to solid test control samples.. This suggests that both adhesives transfer stress (energy) at least at similar magnitudes. I understand acoustical energy could be different, but I'm still curious if there is a theory why sound would be affected. The "why" should be a testable hypothesis. Any thoughts?

EDIT: It is also worth noting that there are many different formulations of both hide glue and Titebond-type wood glues on the market that have different physical properties.

I am not a scientist, at least not a trained educated scientist, but I am a highly experienced thinking person who has spent a great deal of time alone at the bench considering the function of the guitar. Also, I have heard other people I respect talk about this stuff, so I am a proponent of the luthier culture.

When I cut Dry HHG with a sharp tool, it shatters in front of the edge. It is very brittle when dry. I do not recall ever seeing aliphatic glue harden to this degree, it is always possible to shave it with a sharp chisel as it remain slightly plastic. Maybe it gets harder than that, but I haven't observed it. LMI white glue, the old stuff which is no longer available, was the closest I have seen to this level of hardness.

Because the glue is between every piece of a guitar and any other piece of the guitar, it undeniably plays a part it the function of the whole. Intuitively, I think the energy transfer from one piece (the top to the ribs/bridge/braces/etc) is more than just proximal, it is actually transferred physically between them, and there is a potential for the glue to act as a barrier to this transfer.

I have been told that the damping qualities of HHG are in the same ballpark as the wood itself, and I believe that. It is very hard for me to picture dried aliphatic glue as a resonant material. I do view the whole guitar as a "living" entity, and the degree to which the individual parts are able to "communicate" with each other (tranfer energy) seems crucial to the function of the whole. I like this vision, and see no harm in working as though it were a true, especially because I think it is pretty close to what actually happens.

It may be that in the same way that lay people hear what they expect to from tone wood variations, I hear what I expect to from glue variations. But is the end I do hear it, and so I have little choice but to continue to build with the glue that I believe to be the best there is. That is what I do.

[BrunoBlack]

Originally Posted by Bruce Sexauer

I am not a scientist, at least not a trained educated scientist, but I am a highly experienced thinking person who has spent a great deal of time alone at the bench considering the function of the guitar. Also, I have heard other people I respect talk about this stuff, so I am a proponent of the luthier culture.

When I cut Dry HHG with a sharp tool, it shatters in front of the edge. It is very brittle when dry. I do not recall ever seeing aliphatic glue harden to this degree, it is always possible to shave it with a sharp chisel as it remain slightly plastic. Maybe it gets harder than that, but I haven't observed it. LMI white glue, the old stuff which is no longer available, was the closest I have seen to this level of hardness.

Because the glue is between every piece of a guitar and any other piece of the guitar, it undeniably plays a part it the function of the whole. Intuitively, I think the energy transfer from one piece (the top to the ribs/bridge/braces/etc) is more than just proximal, it is actually transferred physically between them, and there is a potential for the glue to act as a barrier to this transfer.

I have been told that the damping qualities of HHG are in the same ballpark as the wood itself, and I believe that. It is very hard for me to picture dried aliphatic glue as a resonant material. I do view the whole guitar as a "living" entity, and the degree to which the individual parts are able to "communicate" with each other (tranfer energy) seems crucial to the function of the whole. I like this vision, and see no harm in working as though it were a true, especially because I think it is pretty close to what actually happens.

It may be that in the same way that lay people hear what they expect to from tone wood variations, I hear what I expect to from glue variations. But is the end I do hear it, and so I have little choice but to continue to build with the glue that I believe to be the best there is. That is what I do.

That's as good an answer as any, and probably better than most. The wood failure I've seen it testing joints of these glues ranges from as low as ~50% to over 80% depending on wood species and formulations of the specific adhesives used. This suggests there is a pretty wide range of performance outcomes. Again I have no insight on acoustic outcomes. The bottom line for me actually is this: if I asked Michael Millard to build a guitar for me I would expect he'd use the glue he thinks works best and if I ever have the chance to have you build a guitar for me, I would expect you would use the glue that you think works best. It's an interesting blend of art and science -- which is beyond my talents. Thanks for responding Bruce.

[terken]

Originally Posted by redir

Exactly!!! That's why it's so funny to hear there is an up charge. Really? An up charge to use a glue that is so much easier to use.

I didn't mean to imply that it was easier to use than Tightbond, it is not by a long shot and not really applicable to assembly line techniques in most cases but it's not rocket science either once you get the hang of it. Count me as a big fan. I have used it for over 10 years now.

Bruce, Howard K posted on a now defunct forum about Tightbond Extend being harder and more brittle than Original Tightbond.
I have found that to be true and it seems to dry much like the old LMI White.

Have you messed around with Extend?

[zhunter]

Years ago I read a study indicating Titebond hardness was a function of its thickness. A key difference between hide glue and Titebond is the ability to deal with gaps. As discussed, hide glue has low to no tolerance for gaps. Parts must be brought into close contact for the join to succeed. Titebond can handle gaps and still bond. Parts need not be brought into close contact. The kicker is the hardness of tightbond is influenced by its thickness with hardness going down as glue thickness increases. My recollection is in close contact joints, Titebond dries as hard as or harder than hide glue.

I expect everyone can see where this leads? Titebond is viewed as allowing more lax build tolerances and in many/most cases, it is pretty safe to say that is how its use gets implemented. I have seen some pretty horrendous gaps closed with Titebond so I know there are situations where its gap bridging ability is tested.

I said earlier, the difference is down in the noise for me but, given that some do hear a difference, maybe the difference in build tolerances and maybe or maybe not the possibility of less than optimum hardness of the Titebond is an influence.

It is good to see someone offering actual analytical performance data. So I am left with two questions. Can anyone substantiate my memory re Titebond thickness/hardness? And has anyone compared two guitars assembled with close contact joins using both products to see if the close contact is a big factor?

hunter

[redir]

Originally Posted by terken

I didn't mean to imply that it was easier to use than Tightbond, it is not by a long shot and not really applicable to assembly line techniques in most cases but it's not rocket science either once you get the hang of it. Count me as a big fan. I have used it for over 10 years now.

Bruce, Howard K posted on a now defunct forum about Tightbond Extend being harder and more brittle than Original Tightbond.
I have found that to be true and it seems to dry much like the old LMI White.

Have you messed around with Extend?

I was just being snarky. I don't use HHG but I do use fish glue which is high tack. It's amazing how much easier it is to clamp up things like bridges with it. I have not used extend. I guess I always thought that extend was regular Titebond with a little more water added to it. I used to love the old LMI white. I just tried a bottle of the new stuff and I'm not sure I like it. I glued up a rosewood head plate with a very minor crack in it, nothing that would ever have gone noticed with Titebond but this new glue filled in the crack leaving a white line. I think Titebond and the old LMI white would have absorbed some of the color of the rosewood and it would have been hidden, seen that many many times before. But this stuff is designed to be seen with that whole black light business. I find that completely unnecessary and I think it's a detriment in fact.

[Augfive]

Originally Posted by Guest316

Great post Charles. Some of my misconceptions about hide v. titebond are now blown to smitherines lol . . .

Same here!
Great info!

[RalphH]

I've skim-read though, but it's 6 pages worth, so apologies if I missed this point being made, but is hide-glue not easier to get apart when neck-reset day comes? I know titebond can be got apart, but I thought the procedure to get a titebond neck off was more invasive than for a HHG one.

[stephenT]

So, We've spent our $$s on "Woods, tuners, aesthetic choices",.. what then? Is hide glue now worth the up charge?

If I were to spend big bucks on a custom build and had a choice I would go for the neck and bridge installed w/ hide glue. Since I've reglued several bridges that were originally done w/ titebond and can tell the difference after reglued w/ hide glue, I know. Anyone who's worked w/ both glues knows how differently they dry.

Am I the only poster who's uncomfortable w/ a AGF Moderator offering a definitive NO that is based on hearsay and not experience?

Originally Posted by TomB'sox

No, IMO, given the choices, spend it elsewhere for sure!

Originally Posted by TomB'sox

I should have clarified my answer further as it is really not just IMO, it is based on conversations with builders, builder reps, as well as individual luthiers I have worked with....Woods, tuners, aesthetic choices to make it more your guitar, all more important to me.

[RalphH]

I mod is a volunteer, not a paid position. I don't really see that you give up your right to an opinion because you volunteered your time to keep people being polite and make AFG a better place. Except when arbitrating fights, I don't see that their opinion carries any more 'weight' than anyone elses. I don't see as inappropriate like a sponsor giving an 'opinion' on a competing product/service/shop.

[JC.]

Glue definitely affects tone. When I built a guitar, I used a pritt stick and it sounded pants.

[RalphH]

(though you are going to have the Americans wondering how a guitar sounded like a pair of trousers)

[redir]

Since this zombie thread from 3 years ago has cropped up I started using HHG becasue I wanted to experiment with it and see if it made a diff. I've made 8 guitars with it and I cannot tell any difference at all. On one of those guitars I decided I didn't like the bridge so I took it off. It came right off! real easy with heat and a spatula. So I like it for it's physical properties but I'd wager anyone a hundred bucks that they would not be able to tell a tonal difference in a true blind test. None the less I will continue using it for certain functions, especially in vintage repair.

[SoCalSurf]

Originally Posted by stephenT

Am I the only poster who's uncomfortable w/ a AGF Moderator offering a definitive NO that is based on hearsay and not experience?

So any member of this forum can post their perspectives but a moderator cannot? A moderator's role is to keep the forum within the civil guidelines that provides a community an opportunity to share their love, knowledge, and questions to others with a same interest. Beyond that, why should they be disallowed to express their opinions, especially after all of the time they volunteer to keep this place pleasant?

That aside, that particular moderator has extensive experience with custom builds. I for one would want to hear the perspective from such a person.

[Taylor814]

I ran across an article by Dana Bourgeois in Acoustic Guitar Magazine a few years ago that addresses this point (partial quote below)

"I attempted to test this theory for several years by making a pair of identical guitars, one constructed entirely with hot rabbit-hide glue and one using only Titebond poly-vinyl aliphatic resin glue. The two OMs were built simultaneously and with adjacent-cut tops, backs, sides, necks, and braces; tops and backs were voiced as closely as possible. The pair of newly finished guitars was informally blind tested by quite a few players of all levels of ability, many of whom reported hearing subtle or distinct differences. The funny thing is, player preference was nearly evenly divided between the two instruments."

The last sentence suggests that HHG preference might be like many things guitar (such as tone): if you sample it enough, everything becomes random.