Colin North wrote:
That's a Wow finish Charlie, even if it's not yours.
I agree, Colin. It makes me drool.
Joe - that KTM-9 finish looks VERY nice!
| Official Luthiers Forum! http://www.luthiersforum.com/forum/ |
|
| Crystalac vs other waterbornes http://www.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10101&t=36418 |
Page 1 of 3 |
| Author: | Beth Mayer [ Tue May 08, 2012 10:36 am ] |
| Post subject: | Crystalac vs other waterbornes |
I was thinking of trying to spray Crystalac on my next build. The McFeely's catalog lists the Super Premium as the best choice for instrument finishing, and says they do not recommend a sanding sealer. First, have any of you sprayed this, and liked it? Any complaints? Which waterborne do you prefer and why? Thanks, Beth |
|
| Author: | Tai Fu [ Tue May 08, 2012 11:06 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Crystalac vs other waterbornes |
Beth Mayer wrote: I was thinking of trying to spray Crystalac on my next build. The McFeely's catalog lists the Super Premium as the best choice for instrument finishing, and says they do not recommend a sanding sealer. First, have any of you sprayed this, and liked it? Any complaints? Which waterborne do you prefer and why? Thanks, Beth None of them... I think someone said that the biggest ingredient in waterborne finish is wishful thinking. There has been promises of better and better waterborne finish but when it all comes down to it, they all have the same problem: Not as water resistant as solvent based finishes (a puddle of water will turn the finish white for a long time), the finish looks like crap (blue cast, making the wood look unfinished, etc.), and the final product isn't as durable as solvent based product. If waterborne finish is so good, then the auto industry would have used it a long time ago. Instead they still use conversion varnish or 2 part catalyzed urethane. |
|
| Author: | Beth Mayer [ Tue May 08, 2012 11:38 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Crystalac vs other waterbornes |
Well Tai Fu, I don't know about the "looks like crap" thing. I've seen some pretty spectacular finishes from people here on the OLF which are waterborne. So, I'll rephrase the question; for those of you who use waterborne, do you have an opinion on Crystalac or any other particular product? |
|
| Author: | Joe Beaver [ Tue May 08, 2012 11:56 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Crystalac vs other waterbornes |
Hi Beth, I have been using KTM for about 15 years now. First KTM 4 and now KTM 9. I love it. Reasons: Dries hard and clear Doesn't yellow or check with age like nitro (you can add amber if you want a vintage look) Easy and safe to spray Sands and buffs well Self cross links very well leaving no witness lines Easy to repair I just spray outside with no need of a booth I spray it over epoxy filler which gives it a hard base improving the finish and sealing the wood quite well against moisture. (usually I don't use epoxy on the top) |
|
| Author: | CharlieT [ Tue May 08, 2012 12:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Crystalac vs other waterbornes |
This EM6000 finish is some mighty fine looking "crap" in my opinion. I have been very pleased with EM6000 (Target Coatings). Attachment: IMG_2765.jpg Edit: the guitar in the photo is not mine. I believe it was built by Tim Metcalf, if I remember correctly. |
|
| Author: | Colin North [ Tue May 08, 2012 12:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Crystalac vs other waterbornes |
That's a Wow finish Charlie, even if it's not yours. |
|
| Author: | Joe Beaver [ Tue May 08, 2012 12:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Crystalac vs other waterbornes |
KTM 9 I'm not the best photographer but.... |
|
| Author: | CharlieT [ Tue May 08, 2012 12:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Crystalac vs other waterbornes |
Colin North wrote: That's a Wow finish Charlie, even if it's not yours. I agree, Colin. It makes me drool. Joe - that KTM-9 finish looks VERY nice! |
|
| Author: | Colin North [ Tue May 08, 2012 12:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Crystalac vs other waterbornes |
And that is also a beautiful finish Joe. Absolutely gorgeous top too! And inlay. Give up, just the whole guitar. LOL |
|
| Author: | Joe Beaver [ Tue May 08, 2012 12:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Crystalac vs other waterbornes |
Thank you Colin. It was a commision otherwise I won't use the top, although it is quite pretty. Actually it did sound excellent also now that I think about it. |
|
| Author: | Burton LeGeyt [ Tue May 08, 2012 1:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Crystalac vs other waterbornes |
I was talking about this with Craig Sullivan just the other day. Tai seems to be doing a lot of repeating but the basic premise is unfortunately correct although not nearly as dire as stated. All of the waterbase finishes have drawbacks but as I see it in certain cases they are certainly acceptable and the drawbacks of the solvent based finishes (basically toxic solvents) are pretty bad as well and should be avoided completely if you don't have a good understanding of the specific solvents and their safe use. The waterbase finishes while being "safer" to clean up are not non-toxic and safety measures should still be taken when using them, it is not a completely safe and non-safe issue. I have been using the Target 6000 and have been more or less satisfied with it. The finish is not as beautiful as some of the solvent finishes (nitro and some of the varnishes in particular, at least to my eye) as it looks a little plasticy like in the photo of Tim Metcalf's guitar. It is still nice though and buffs out well. As with all finishes, your specific schedule will affect greatly the level of perfection you are capable of acheiving, mine improve every time and still shows room within the capabilities of the finish to get better. I originally attributed my less than great results to the finish but it was small things I was doing (or not doing) that were the real issue. The 6000 is not super hard but not close to as soft as shellac. It does repair very easily which I love and which is the major drawback for me for some of the varnish finishes, even the waterbase ones. Some of the waterbase finishes do show the blue cast (EM7000 should be completely avoided as far as I am concerned, StewMac should absolutely NOT be selling it) but I have not seen it with the 6000. I have never used Crystalac or any KTM product. I have heard complaints about people's skin chemistry reacting with KTM9 and I have seen on my own guitars some reaction with the 6000 although not as severe as some of what I have heard with the KTM9. As answers to your questions, I use the 6000 because at this point I am comfortable with it and it is what I chose to start experimenting with. Party of that reason was because many others also seemed to be trying it and I figured they would all have results I could compare to. In a perfect world I would be set up to shoot nitro (or maybe polyester) safely, but for where my shop is now that is not an option. I do encourage customers of mine to consider paying a bit extra and have the guitar sent out for those finishes and some people do. Many people do a wonderful job but none of them are cheap. My apologies if much of this is redundant. |
|
| Author: | meddlingfool [ Tue May 08, 2012 1:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Crystalac vs other waterbornes |
I also had a lot of trouble with KTM-9 and skin chemistry. I had to drop it after customer complaints, as the risk wasn't worth it. However, the KTM-SV is working well for me, at least in that regard. I'm still having application issues, but I attribute that to me and not the product. I think it's worth a try. Apparently repairs are an issue as it is an actual varnish. As for crystalac, it's been a while, but I seem to recall the typical blue water borne haze (which the SV does not have).... .02.... |
|
| Author: | Robert Renick [ Tue May 08, 2012 2:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Crystalac vs other waterbornes |
I have used many gallons of Crystalac, not on guitars though, on picture frames. It is an excellent product. I have not used the others to compare it to though. I use their sanding sealer as it imparts the amber tone of nitro, almost, and is a great product. I do use a touch of their flow enhancer in the top coat. On the frames, I would do 2 coats sealer, sand 320, recoat with sealer, very light sand, top coat done. I have no issue spraying this finish and putting a frame in the box an hour later. I am out, and will buy some more shortly and have no hesitation to use it on a guitar. Rob |
|
| Author: | Joe Beaver [ Tue May 08, 2012 2:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Crystalac vs other waterbornes |
Meddling fool...... I just read LMI's write up by Rolfe Gerhardt on KTM SV. I have to admot I am interested. Sounds like a good finish to try. Have you tried it over epoxy filler? |
|
| Author: | Beth Mayer [ Tue May 08, 2012 3:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Crystalac vs other waterbornes |
Wow, Joe....that is one beautiful guitar! Nice finish job too. |
|
| Author: | Joe Beaver [ Tue May 08, 2012 4:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Crystalac vs other waterbornes |
Thank you Beth. My granddaughter is starting to play some. I made the mistake of showing a picture of that guitar to her and now she wants me to make her one. That would be fine but I'm not convinced she is commited to learning the guitar. Oh well. |
|
| Author: | meddlingfool [ Tue May 08, 2012 4:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Crystalac vs other waterbornes |
Joe, Yes I've used it over epoxy, but with a shellac seal coat. I had trouble with the premixed Zinsser, so I have made my own dewaxed super blonde. I will be buffing out in a few weeks, so we'll see....although I must say, the more guitars I finish myself, the more the cost/benefit analysis reveals that I should just contract it out ... And now, back to Crystalac.... |
|
| Author: | Joe Beaver [ Tue May 08, 2012 4:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Crystalac vs other waterbornes |
Interesting. Thank you |
|
| Author: | James W B [ Tue May 08, 2012 6:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Crystalac vs other waterbornes |
I`ve used crystalac and 6000.For me the 6000 is a much better finish.I`ve done several guitars with it and never had any complaints or problems.it`s very user friendly.Also never the blue hue some talk about.I shoot it over shellac flakes which may have something to do with the hue .Not sure? Have also shot Nitro on a bunch ,which I really like ,but the wife can`t take the gas out . |
|
| Author: | weslewis [ Tue May 08, 2012 7:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Crystalac vs other waterbornes |
the more I use em 6000 the more i like it ! I shoot it straight over zpoxy. like anything there is a learning curve! |
|
| Author: | Steve Saville [ Tue May 08, 2012 8:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Crystalac vs other waterbornes |
I used Crystalac SP on several of my first builds with very good results. I even added some amber tint to one and loved the aged effect it gave. I had one problem with a reaction to skin and it started bubbling up under the owners forearm so I have stopped using it. I have purchased KTM-SV and have yet to try it. |
|
| Author: | SixStringer [ Wed May 09, 2012 1:33 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Crystalac vs other waterbornes |
meddlingfool wrote: Joe, Yes I've used it over epoxy, but with a shellac seal coat. I had trouble with the premixed Zinsser, so I have made my own dewaxed super blonde. I will be buffing out in a few weeks, so we'll see....although I must say, the more guitars I finish myself, the more the cost/benefit analysis reveals that I should just contract it out ... And now, back to Crystalac.... I've read on Frets that the new waxless Zinsser shellac is actually ok? Is that the stuff you had problems with, and could you be specific? Thought it was all he used on one guitar. http://www.frets.com/FretsPages/Luthier ... nsser.html |
|
| Author: | Parser [ Thu May 10, 2012 8:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Crystalac vs other waterbornes |
I used dewaxed Zinnsers successfully on a few guitars but I did eventually experience issues with it. The end result was that this last guitar I built had to be refinished 3 times. The best answer I could find was that this was due to the Zinnsers (it reportedly can result in issues if it is older than some unknown amount). If you want to play it safe...don't use shellac under a waterborne. If you must, then mix your own. If you are using EM6000, then I would suggest using EM1000 for your seal coats. This is my experience...YMMV..! Best, Trev |
|
| Author: | meddlingfool [ Thu May 10, 2012 8:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Crystalac vs other waterbornes |
Hmmm... I was under the impression that the cool thing about shellac was that it was compatible with all finishes...No? |
|
| Author: | Tai Fu [ Thu May 10, 2012 8:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Crystalac vs other waterbornes |
meddlingfool wrote: Hmmm... I was under the impression that the cool thing about shellac was that it was compatible with all finishes...No? I heard that too, but I've used shellac as an undercoat and the lacquer would not stick to the shellac, it peeled off later. This was nitrocellulose. |
|
| Page 1 of 3 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|