There are compromises and compromises.
On the one hand, as has been pointed out, the whole design of the guitar is a matter of compromises, or as I prefer it, balance. Do you make the top strong enough to hold up forever under all sorts of punishment, or light enough to be responsive? Do you give up some treble response to get better bass? How about volume vs sustain? You may or may not think of any of these as compromises, but they are all things that people want, and you do have to give up some to get others (usually). The best policy here is, I think, to set out the options and let the customer, if there is one, decide.
Thus, for your example of finsh durabilty vs tone: the two finishes I use are French polish and Behlen's 'Rockhard' varnish. FP is probably tonally a better choice, but it is less durable, if only because there's less of it, and it has less chmical resistance. The varnish is also a little prettier, IMO. The lead time for FP is less than that for varnish, although both take about the same number of hours to do.
Most of the time classical guitarists would prefer the FP, at least on the top, simply because the margins for tone are so slim on a classical. You really have to keep the weight and damping down on a clssaicl top to get the best tone, and there's no lighter finish than FP, nr any with much lower damping. In this chioce they accept the fact that the top will not put up with much abuse.
In most cases I'll tend to steer steel string customers toward varnish. The added durability is useful in instruments that are often not as pampered as classicals. Also, the cost in sound is less.
The more difficult type of compromise to justify is when you do something that is less than the best you can do. The fact is that, in spite of all protestations, we can't always be at our best. Stuff happens. You run out of what you consider the 'best' sort of liner stock just when you don't have time to make or order more, so you use what you have on hand. Maybe the router adjustment wasn't as tight as it should have been, and the binding channel ends up being wider than you wanted it to be. Do you toss the box? That would be the 'no comprmise' solution, but how many of us can afford to do that? In these cases you have to ask yourself how serious the compromise is. Maybe you prefer reverse kerf cedar liners just because you find it easier to do the inlets neatly, but, in reality, you can't pint to any other problem they would cause. That's not the sort of 'compromise' I'd lose any sleep over. Using a screw on plastic Gibson bridge with the heavy metal height adjuster, because I had it handy, of to avoid bothering to get the neck set right, is not an acceptible compromise, IMO.
I can say with some confidence that if I only allowed the 'perfect' guitars out of my shop you'd never see on with my name on it. No matter how good I get, I know there's always something I can do better. In that sense, then, every instrument I sell compromises my reputation in some way.
The one thing you can't compromise on is the effort to get at least a little better every time. Part of that is learning what 'better' is: you don't know what you don't know, and can't be blamed for doing something you didn't know was a problem. All you can do is the best you know how, and always try to do better. Then, IMO, you're not 'compromising' anything.
|
, or do I chalk it up to a learning experience and find a way to repair it" - ![[headinwall]](./images/smilies/headbangwalluf8.gif "Mad")
and have had to start over in some cases, in others, did the best I could with the lemons (and my own inexperience). 