refinishing classical guitars??
Robert Carley
classical guitar refinished by a competent shop? I realize the ideal is
to maintain the original finish/patina, but what justifies having a good
quality guitar refinished?
Is it appropriate to a have a guitar that was originally lacquered,
redone in French polish? Are there any tone benefits to this, or is it
not right to modify a guitar in this way?
Thanks
Robert Carley
Barry
that was pretty beat up...but it had great sound and played well. I really
liked it and decided to have it refinished. That was a BIG mistake. The
sweet sound disappeared....even though I tried to duplicate the original
lacquer finish. Subtle changes can have dramatic impact on sound IMHO.
But..I'm not a luthier. I just know that I'd really hesitate refinishing a
guitar that I thought had great sound. If I had a guitar that was nice
except for the sound, then I'd not hesitate to change the finish and would
look at an entirely different finish for that matter.
Barry
"Robert Carley" <rca...@uoguelph.ca> wrote in message
news:3D2DA371...@uoguelph.ca...
Greg M. Silverman
>I had a guitar refinished two years ago. It was a used classical guitar
>that was pretty beat up...but it had great sound and played well. I really
>liked it and decided to have it refinished. That was a BIG mistake. The
>sweet sound disappeared....even though I tried to duplicate the original
>lacquer finish. Subtle changes can have dramatic impact on sound IMHO.
>But..I'm not a luthier. I just know that I'd really hesitate refinishing a
>guitar that I thought had great sound. If I had a guitar that was nice
>except for the sound, then I'd not hesitate to change the finish and would
>look at an entirely different finish for that matter.
>
Bummer! Reading this story however jogged loose a memory of something I
had read awhile at http://www.hoffmanguitars.com/qa.htm
Q: My guitar has some finish missing on the top?near the sound hole.
Should I get it refinished?
A: Almost certainly not. Refinishing costs a lot of money. While I have
little or no aversion to taking money from my customers, I don?t like to
do so unnecessarily (they tend not to come back), and I hate to do work
that damages an instrument. The main problem is that one of the reasons
guitars sound better as they age is the increasing hardening of the
finish over the years (due to continued "outgassing" of the solvents in
the finish). To refinish the instrument reverses this very valuable
feature. Moreover, if your instrument has (or ever will have) any
vintage or collector?s value, refinishing will destroy much of that
value. Having said all this, large patches of bare wood are also
damaging to the instrument. The answer is judicious touch up which
protects the wood, and retains the original finish and appearance as
much as possible.
Greg--
Richard Spross
I think this is one of those subjects which luthiers will argue about to no
good end. What is said about hardening of the lacquer is certainly true,
whether that contributes to the mellowing of the sound is altogether another
matter. Generally French polish is considered the finest finish used by
instrument builders and seems to be the preferred choice for collectable
guitars. It is also said to be the finish most easily restored. However it
takes a master luthier to know how to do that. In our area only one person
holds that position for me and that is Chris Berkov in Martinez, California. It
is true that Randy Angella does a superb job, but he doesn't repair, besides he
learned from Chris. The work I've seen Chris do on high end instruments in the
$20-30 thousand dollar range is unsurpassed, perhaps the only other people I
know who equal his ability are Eugene Clark, and Jeffrey Elliot. I have never
seen Cyndi Burton's work but from all reputation it is equal. Of course they
are partners so what else would one expect.
Then there is Stephen from the Blue guitar in San Diego, he has a wonderful
reputation as a builder repair person and the Romero's give him a lot of
business. Doubtless many others, probably David Schramm, has it down too! I've
never seen any of his instruments.
Any way today I was at GSP and I saw a used guitar of one of my favorite
builders. I had to play it. It wasn't bad but damn, did it need to be re
french polished. Who ever last used it abused it and played flamenco on it. I
looked ugly! But I could envision taking to Chris and knowing when I saw it
again it would be restored to it's original beauty. Unfortunately I do not have
the financial resources to save it.
I know in capable hands the sound won't be ruined if the guitar is well built
to begin with.
Just my opinions.
Richard Spross
Greg M. Silverman
Certainly better informed on the subject than I am. The thing to keep in
mind is that the above quote was made by a well respected luthier
(Harles Hoffman), however he doesn't build classical guitars, only steel
stringed thingies and electrics (which I suppose are also steel stringed
thingies), and I ain't never seen no French polished steel stringer nor
no electrics...
Greg--
Greg M. Silverman
>
>
> Harles Hoffman
Cheeze! That's CharLes Hoffman! Harles would be one bizarre name!
Suppose you could then be referred to as Harley!
Greg--
Steve
guitar my daughter trashed refinished in lacquer (which I don't do).
On the other hand, peeling the table-top "varnish" off some of the
production violins and guitars we've had through here really opened
them up nicely. Thin French polish on the guitars and nice spirit
varnish on the violins settles in very quickly. But I won't do it on
anything that was decently finished to begin with or that doesn't have
almost all the finish gone.
French polish isn't hard to do, just very difficult to well enough for
a good guitar!!!!
Steve
David Raleigh Arnold
> mind is that the above quote was made by a well respected luthier
> (Harles Hoffman), however he doesn't build classical guitars, only steel
> stringed thingies and electrics (which I suppose are also steel stringed
> thingies), and I ain't never seen no French polished steel stringer nor
> no electrics...
>
> Greg--
Sprayed-on acrylic lacquer is better than French polish. Period.
Evan Pyle
"David Raleigh Arnold" <d...@openguitar.com> wrote in message > Sprayed-on
acrylic lacquer is better than French polish. Period.
In what regard, David? Please be specific. It is certainly better in
hardness & durability & resistance to moisture...
Better in beauty?
Better in tone?
Richard Jernigan
> Sprayed-on acrylic lacquer is better than French polish. Period.
Let's see...this puts you in direct disagreement with:
Ignacio Fleta and Sons
Jose Romanillos and Son
Robert Bouchet
Daniel Friedrich
David Rubio
Hermann Hauser I, II and III
Gernot Wagner
Matthias Damann
Robert Ruck
Richard Brune
Brian Cohen
Simon Ambridge
Michael Gee
Greg Byers
Tom Humphrey
Manuel Velasquez
Paulino Bernabe
Miguel Rodriguez
Jeffrey Elliott
Olivier Fanton d'Andon
Kolya Panhuyzen (lacquer on the back and sides, French polish on the
top)
....and most other classical luthiers with world-wide recognition.
Notable exceptions to the preference for French polish are Jose
Ramirez III, his heirs, and possibly Arcangel Fernandez. Ramirez went
to "a finish based on urea", presumably catalyzed polyurethane, in the
early '60s. Fernandez makes guitars both with French polish and with
(I assume polyurethane) lacquer.
I'm looking forward to hearing whose guitars with acrylic lacquer beat
out all these amateurish duffers.
RNJ
Al Carruth
improvement in the tone. I would not go the other way. Nitro lacquer seems to
be about 1/3 harder than shellac, according to some figures published by Martin
Schleske in the Catgut Acoustical Society 'Journal', and it usually goes on
thicker. New shellac is more prone to water damage than new lacquer, but nitro
breaks down chemically with age and shellac gets better.
I _do_ French polish steel strings. It woks great.
Alan Carruth / Luthier
http://www.alcarruthluthier.com