| Official Luthiers Forum! http://www.luthiersforum.com/forum/ |
|
| Natural look - finish with no pore - filling? http://www.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10101&t=33960 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | Corky Long [ Thu Oct 20, 2011 10:32 am ] |
| Post subject: | Natural look - finish with no pore - filling? |
I've gotten pretty tired of filling pores with z - poxy. As I build guitars, I'm looking more and more into how I can spend more time on those things I like, and less on those I don't (pore-filling). Anyone built any guitars with a nice finish without the pores filled on mahogany or rosewood? Any reactions? Rustic look, or just plain strange? Is there any reason, other than aesthetics to fill the pores? Thanks. |
|
| Author: | Bart [ Thu Oct 20, 2011 10:49 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Natural look - finish with no pore - filling? |
English guitar maker Kevin Aram does not fill the pores, and uses a "varnish oil" finish - Liberon finishing oil, I believe, which he burnishes to a satin finish. I don't know if there's a prohibition for posting links to commercial web sites on this forum, but you can see some pictures of Aram's guitars by searching for "Kent Guitar Classics" and click on the sold items link. Perhaps it's an acquired taste, but after looking at the pictures for a while I found that that look grew on me - almost to the point of making the shiny film finish seem less desirable. |
|
| Author: | Steve Saville [ Thu Oct 20, 2011 11:47 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Natural look - finish with no pore - filling? |
I like the more natural look of no pore fill and a satin finish. There is no reason I can think of to do it other than aesthetics. Not pore filling because of the work required is not a good reason to stop. Maybe your technique/materials needs to be looked at. |
|
| Author: | woody b [ Thu Oct 20, 2011 11:49 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Natural look - finish with no pore - filling? |
I built an all Mahogany guitar for a client who insisted he didn't want the pores filled. It looked like crap. He decided to have my re finish it with filled pores. Pore filling isn't really hard. |
|
| Author: | truckjohn [ Thu Oct 20, 2011 11:55 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Natural look - finish with no pore - filling? |
I wrestle with this a whole lot... because I have never "Pore filled"... I just keep brushing varnish and sanding till they are gone.... It's a lot of work. You can do it.... It looks fine most of the time.... It's a bit distracting on certain woods that are *VERY* porous.... like Oak..... The reason you pore fill is to speed up the finishing process.... If you don't pore fill - expect to spend 2-10x as much time on your finishing - painting, level sanding, drop filling, and re-painting your finish to fill up all those holes.... If you don't do that - you get shiny (pores) and dull spots (level) when levelling and 10,000 places where crud catches when you buff it out... The finish you choose also plays a big part in this.... Varnish builds thick coats ... Lacquer and shellac much thinner coats... Say you got pores 0.010" deep... Say you get 0.002" per coat of Varnish - means you gotta do 5 coats just to fill up the holes before you can build finish... Lacquer at 0.0003" per coat.... well - now we are talking 30+ coats to get those dips filled in... unless you drop fill.... which is tedious when you are talking porous wood.... Thanks |
|
| Author: | Michael.N. [ Thu Oct 20, 2011 12:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Natural look - finish with no pore - filling? |
It looks perfectly acceptable to my eyes as a matte finish. I actually prefer it to the usual pore filled super gloss. It reflects less light, you see more of the wood and it has a warmer feel. Gloss but not pore filled looks rather odd IMO. Perhaps it's just what one is accustomed to. |
|
| Author: | Mike Collins [ Thu Oct 20, 2011 12:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Natural look - finish with no pore - filling? |
Hundreds of guitars -I hate pore filling! I do NOT want my guitars to look like they were dipped plastic! Pores are natural-plastic looking is NOT! I restored a 1850's Martin-sighned by C.F himself! NO Pore filling at all-great guitar! Looked real ! ![[:Y:]](./images/smilies/smiley20.gif "Thumbs Up") Mc |
|
| Author: | bluescreek [ Thu Oct 20, 2011 1:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Natural look - finish with no pore - filling? |
On satin finishes you can get away without filling but on Gloss you need to fill . Most seem to over complicate the process . Z poxy does a good job and isn't that hard , I use pore o paq and once I learned how to get it in to the pores it doesn't take that long . While you personally may think people will accept the open pore finish , if there is one thing I hear a lot at guitar shows is the people remarking on finish . Customers want the pretty. Eye Appeal is Buy Appeal . Here is a good cause for using a good finisher if you can't get it right . The money spent on a good finish will far excel the money lost on a bad finish . |
|
| Author: | Alan Carruth [ Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Natural look - finish with no pore - filling? |
One problem with finish as a filler: they all shrink back, and some shrink a lot. It usually takes a while, too: the 'Rockhard' varnish I use shrinks for at least three months. If you don't use any filler, that means you have to wait three months before leveling out the final coat, if you want a 'smooth' finish. If you don't wait long enough you can find that your nice level shiny finish becomes a shiny finish with shiny pores. Personally I, too, prefer the 'wood' look that shows some pores. The customers, however, have learned that's 'wrong' and a 'sign of poor quality', so it's hard to sell. This is, of course, an example of how we hand makers have been overborn by a 'factory' esthetic. Ovation can spray on 2mm of epoxy in one coat and buff it out before epoxying on the bridge: it's shiny and level, and who cares what it does to the sound when you've got a pickup? Getting that same sort of finish with an acoustically reasonable .004" of build with a more flexible finish is a bit more work. I often wonder if the customers have any idea how much they're paying for that 'Mercedes look'? |
|
| Author: | Trevor Gore [ Thu Oct 20, 2011 5:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Natural look - finish with no pore - filling? |
Shellac (French polishing) without a pore-fill can look fine. It has the texture of the bare wood with a medium gloss finish, and I don't have any problem with the look or feel of bare wood. Tell the customer it's a sensitively applied low-mass finish (which it surely is) and they don't have a problem with it. The finishes which, to my eye, look really bad are the neither fish nor foul finishes - semi-gloss (semi-matt) with half filled pores. They just look like a badly done job. Not a proper pore-fill and not a "sensitively applied finish", just something to get the job out of the shop. The Liberon oil finishes I've seen fall into that category. I tested a stack of 60's and 70's guitars by Spanish master builders a while back. None of them had filled pores; or if they had at one stage it had shrunk back so much that it was now invisible. They looked fine. A Liberon finished one which I had alongside looked dreadful in comparison. I don't have a problem doing ultra-high gloss finishes either. They don't have to look "plastic dipped". |
|
| Author: | truckjohn [ Thu Oct 20, 2011 6:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Natural look - finish with no pore - filling? |
I hate pore filling and the extra finishing it takes.... but I don't like a neck with pores.... They feel better to my hands smooth... That was a decision I made after making that Oak guitar in the "Red Oak" post with an Oak neck... Even when carefully sanded smooth - the neck just felt way too rough and bumpy from the pores without slathering on enough finish to fill up the pores on the neck and smooth it out.... Backs and sides and head plates and such.... I just don't care about pores there.... and to me - if the person who has my guitar in his hands doesn't care - then I don't either.... Thanks |
|
| Author: | Darryl Young [ Thu Oct 20, 2011 7:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Natural look - finish with no pore - filling? |
What is a good finish for a satin look with no pore fill? Mike, do you know what was used for the finish on that old Martin, |
|
| Author: | Mark Groza [ Thu Oct 20, 2011 7:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Natural look - finish with no pore - filling? |
That's where Black Cherry and Curly Maple really shine as they don't require pore-filling. So much easier 
|
|
| Author: | Jim_H [ Thu Oct 20, 2011 7:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Natural look - finish with no pore - filling? |
John Arnold mentioned something about pore filling with Elmers Wood Filler and Latex Paint? I'm curious to hear more about this. How difficult is it to work? What is drying time? Any issues with shrinkage later? Talk to us John. =) |
|
| Author: | DannyV [ Thu Oct 20, 2011 8:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Natural look - finish with no pore - filling? |
Mike Collins wrote: Hundreds of guitars -I hate pore filling! I do NOT want my guitars to look like they were dipped plastic! Pores are natural-plastic looking is NOT! I restored a 1850's Martin-sighned by C.F himself! NO Pore filling at all-great guitar! Looked real ! Mc Thank You Mike! I could never quite understand the lengths we go to to make instruments look like plastic laminate. I (sadly)recently sold my first decent guitar. It was a Morgan made of sapele. No pore filling at all. I bought it before I started building my own and the open pores had zero influence on me buying the guitar. It looked great. I made a Padauk OM for one of my kids and the pores are starting to show. I think it looks better now than when freshly finished. Thanks for bringing this up Corky. I think I'm going to back off a bit on the filling. Cheers, Danny |
|
| Author: | alan stassforth [ Thu Oct 20, 2011 8:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Natural look - finish with no pore - filling? |
I think one problem is that the "buyers" want shiny plastic looking finishes. I usually use maple, so no pore filling. I did pore fill a mahogany back and side git, with Jasco mud filler. Turned out great! Varnish finish. 1 pore fill session. About an hour or 2. Varnish brings out the chatoyancy of the wood, and as long as you got the "mud" sanded off the rest of the wood, with only pores filled, looks great! I prefer a hand polished finish, not buffed. Not too shiny. |
|
| Author: | David Newton [ Fri Oct 21, 2011 8:20 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Natural look - finish with no pore - filling? |
In heaven, guitars will be natural wood, no finish will be needed. Until then... I French Polish Shellac, and I use a silex based tinted oil filler, old school. I figure it adds about an hour to my finish schedule, and is not hard work, no sanding after filling. It will shrink back slightly, and I use the filling of the pores as a "marker" for the thickness of my finish. When the pores are leveled, I've built enough FP. |
|
| Author: | alan stassforth [ Fri Oct 21, 2011 10:58 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Natural look - finish with no pore - filling? |
Todd Stock wrote: Just slap a coat or two of drying oil on it and call it done - no rule that says your finish has to be high gloss. Don't slap a coat, it must be shlocked. |
|
| Author: | Chris Pile [ Fri Oct 21, 2011 12:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Natural look - finish with no pore - filling? |
Quote: I think one problem is that the "buyers" want shiny plastic looking finishes. Not all. Back in the 80's Seagull was offering nice guitars under a grand with flat or satin finishes. Gibson has been doing their "worn" finishes, which are basically flat. Of course - the flat black Goth thing is big for some solidbody markets. I used to do a lot of oil finishes in satin on electric basses and guitars. Personally, I prefer a subdued buffed out kind of shine - not like shrinkwrap shiny. |
|
| Author: | banjopicks [ Fri Oct 21, 2011 1:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Natural look - finish with no pore - filling? |
Call me brainwashed but I wouldn't even look at a guitar with a non-gloss finish. I've always associated it with cheap. Now I know cheap guitars have very shiny finishes also but I wouldn't look at them because, well, there cheap.  Thankfully, I'll never have to buy a guitar again.
|
|
| Author: | B. Howard [ Sat Oct 22, 2011 4:28 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Natural look - finish with no pore - filling? |
Not every part of woodworking is enjoyable, hence the work part. That does not change the fact that all these steps are necessary to create a product of value. I have had a few apprentices in the cabinet shop over the years and a common statement among these young men seems to be "I hate sanding". My reply to that has always been " You might as well leave now." Certain things need to be accepted as necessary evils and done for the overall good of the product. I agree, open pored woods like Rosewoods without pore filling look cheap and amateurish , so accept that you need to fill and develop a quick and efficient way to do it so it is less aggravating and move on. |
|
| Author: | Joe Hill [ Sat Nov 19, 2011 2:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Natural look - finish with no pore - filling? |
Thank you, I am finishing my first build and I am using a spray Lacquer. I Didn’t use a filler of any type so I am at my tenth coat and it still has pours. I thought I was doing something wrong, now I see I have about 10 more coats to go and a 3-6 week cure time. I have not heard of any of the products you are using. I hope I do not stir up a good laugh but I am using Minwax Clear spray can Lacquer, Direct from the Home Depot. I have used 4 cans @ $7.39 a can. Is it feasible to switch to a better product now or am I locked in to what I started with? I do not know what will bond to each other without making a finish that never dries or turns to crackle etc. Joe 
|
|
| Author: | runamuck [ Sat Nov 19, 2011 3:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Natural look - finish with no pore - filling? |
Darryl Young wrote: What is a good finish for a satin look with no pore fill? I like Minwax Poly Oil. I used to make a Poly / Linseed oil blend myself, but this is so much easier and just as durable. |
|
| Author: | Orion Thomas [ Sat Nov 19, 2011 6:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Natural look - finish with no pore - filling? |
Check out Ken Parkers Archtops. He uses an epoxy sealer, 1 coat, then applies 3 coats of oil based finish. Beautiful finishes and archtops. |
|
| Author: | bluescreek [ Sun Nov 20, 2011 7:48 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Natural look - finish with no pore - filling? |
While I hate that wrapped in plastic look , I think the appearance of a good finish in French Polish or Lacquer is appealing to my eye . I can only speak of my experience , but I sell my guitars I can often get $5000 for gloss the best I did in satin is $2500 . It is what the market wants and expects . If you don't like filling , there are more finish friendly woods you can try . Still this is all part of guitar building. I know in my early days I think I tried anything and everything . Even joint compound as a filler . There are many products out there that make this easy but it is all about your process. If you are not in it for a market , use the satin but if you want to sell your product , you will learn quick the laws of supply and demand . Finish is all about the prep . |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|