Guitar finishes?

A.K. Kibben

I would be interested in hearing opinions regarding finishes. I am ordering a new guitar and haven't decided on the finish yet. Lacquer or French Polish?
Pros and cons? I know that sound, durability, and looks are an all around discussion I have had with different Luther's in the past. I have bought four GJ Guitars and own two at the moment, all lacquer finished.


I will also be selling one of my Dell' Arte's to help fund my new purchase.
I haven't decided which one yet.
I will probably make that determination following delivery of my new guitar.
Early Jimmy Rosenberg, the ninth one built. Plus ****'s personal Anouman that he agreed to sell me after a year of persuasion on my part.
Stay tuned...No pun intended...

A.K.

Ken Bloom

Hi A.K,

Lacquer has become the standard guitar finish because of its durability, good looks and decent sound. French polish is a hand-applied shellac finish. It is very light weight and, when well-done, has a transparency that you can't get anywhere else. It is a delicate finish. Since it is alchohol based, it will dissolve in the same. Spilling a beer on a French polish finish will definitely leave its mark. On the other side is the fact that it is easier to repair a French polish finish than a lacquer finish. I know many makers offer the compromise of lacquer on the back and sides and French polish for the top.
I guess it comes down to:

Lacquer: tough, looks good, sounds good. Heavier.

French polish: looks spectacular, sounds great, delicate.

Being who I am, I have lacquer finishes on my guitars. I'm just too rough on them for French polish. Most of the bowed instruments I make are French polished. I'm sure others will have their own opinions.

Ken Bloom

A.K. Kibben

Hello Ken,
Thanks, I know two luthers that swear by Fench and most others Lacquer.
I just want to hear a thread of opinions on the subject...

BTW have you heard of Bonnie Krimmel? Her husband Max Krimmel built me a guitar in '77...

Best,

A.K.

Ken Bloom

Hi A.K.

I've known Bonnie for years. I never met Max. Bonnie is a wonderful luthier. I've only seen one of Max'x guitars and that was decades ago. Let us know what you end up deciding.

Ken

Bob Holo

Also, keep in mind that lacquer doesn't necessarily need to be heavy.

Some of the best sounding guitars I've ever played were very lightly finished with lacquer.

I wouldn't shy away from lacquer. If applied with equal care in equal thickness to the shellac, you won't hear a difference. Just ask the luthier to go thin on the lacquer on the soundboard. Spruce isn't porous and so there will be no need for a filler coat or for building much of a film - a thin coat of sealer and a few coats nitro lacquer rubbed to a satin finish should suffice. The reason for the satin rubbed finish is that if the luthier is not building a big glossy lake of finish it will be difficult to get a mirror finish that looks good. A satin finish soundboard will look good, will not glare in stage lights, and will allow the luthier to be sparing in finish on the soundboard. The only downside is that your soundboard will be more fragile (more prone to scratches/dents) with a thin finish. It sounds like you're an experienced player and understand this tradeoff. There is no reason to shy away from a decent lacquer finish on the back/side/neck of your instrument. Good builders don't put it on as thick as most factories anyway - just thick enough to protect the wood.

Josh Hegg

The thing that will change your tone more then the final finish is the filling of the grain with a post finish grain filling product. To allow the wood to move the way it should a very light finish on the top plate and a light finish on the back and sides with out having the grain filler step post finish will give the wood breathing room.

This topic is a highly debated one. Almost as bad as the thickness of the top plate debate.

Cheers,
J