Why Would I Want a Varnish Finish?

[BlueMountain]

Excuse me if this question seems silly or if it's been done to death. I've done a search, but I haven't found a useful answer.

A varnish finish seems to be a selling point with certain upscale mandolins. Why?

1. Can you hear the difference between a varnished mandolin and an otherwise pretty much identical one with a nitrocellulose finish? If so, how would you characterize that difference? Is it as noticeable as, say, putting on a ToneGard or a cast bronze tailpiece?

2. Is it trickier to put on a varnish finish? More time consuming? Any other reason why it might cost more?

3. Can you tell a varnish finish just by looking at it?

4. Any other reasons why I should prefer one?
Thanks.

[sunburst]

A varnish finish seems to be a selling point with certain upscale mandolins. Why?

Because the Loars were varnished.

1. Can you hear the difference between a varnished mandolin and an otherwise pretty much identical one with a nitrocellulose finish? If so, how would you characterize that difference? Is it as noticeable as, say, putting on a ToneGard or a cast bronze tailpiece?

Some say yes, some say no. There may be a slight sound
difference between well applied varnish and
well applied lacquer.


2. Is it trickier to put on a varnish finish? More time consuming? Any other reason why it might cost more?

Yes, yes, and, it's in demand.

3. Can you tell a varnish finish just by looking at it?

No.

4. Any other reasons why I should prefer one?

Durability. Lacquer is much tougher, scratches less,
wears less, and is easier to care for.
These are my personal opinions, others certainly will disagree.

[Eric F.]

Because varnish smells better!

[mikeyes]

There have been several threads on this matter, the concensus being that we agree to disagree.

For me (with my n=1) varnish is the way to go. I have a newish Gibson Fern V that is the best new instrument that I have ever played. Others have changed their instruments from laquer to varnish and say that it was worth the expense.

On the other hand you will find a range of opinions from "it's all hype" to "prove it" to "maybe" and will not be satisfied, frankly. The best way to decide is to play a few instruments and when you find an instrument you like, buy it and not worry about the finish. What goes on the wood is only one component of the total and while it has an effect on the sound (and I believe it is a profound one) it is only one component.

Buy the one that calls out to you.

[GBG]

My limited experience the varnish mandolin has a warmer, sweeter, more open tone than the laquer, which may or may not be desirable.

[Nolan]

Some say varnish gives you more mid-range in addition to the highs and lows that lacquer seems to bring out.

Varnish isn't toxic like lacquer.

[Dale Ludewig]

What varnish are you referring to as far as being toxic or not?

As far as what "range" a particular finish brings out, to me, is very difficult to judge scientifically. The top and back graduations, tone bar configuration, and so many factors go into what a mandolin sounds like that I would find, from my experience, that what a particular finish does to the overall tone of an instrument would be highly debatable. And believe me, if you do a search here, you'll find the debate! And it would seem the consensus is that there is no agreement. As to whether a particular individual's experience has led to the opinion that one is better (whatever that means), I think is due greatly to the particular instruments one has played. I've done both. Behind a screen, I doubt you'd be able to say which is which. But all this is just my opinion. I also think that, as John said, that a lot of it has to do with tradition and hence, market prices. If lacquer sucked, Gibson, Benedetto, and such wouldn't be using it. IMHO. Not trying to raise any hackles. For what it's worth, I'm working with a new finish that is not lacquer and mostly not an oil-based varnish and I've been delighted with the results. Then you got your water based.............

[fredfrank]

I have a preference to a varnish finish, but an accomplished player who is a friend of mine says he can't buy a varnish finish mandolin because if he spilled alcohol on it, he's afraid it would damage the finish.

[Chris Burt]

I prefer applying varnish instead of lacquer for many reasons, not the least of which is the relative toxicities of their solvents. Check out the Safety (MSDS) data on them sometime. Spraying lacquer pumps large amounts of toxic material into the air that a luthier and his or her neighbors breath. #Applying varnish using a french polish technique adds only small amounts of grain alcohol into the air. Also, I enjoy french polishing.

[Stephen Perry]

What does "varnish" really mean? Solution varnishes and cooked polymerizing varnishes come in an astounding array of formulations. Really one needs to look at various finish processes. Back in the bad old days (e.g., Cremona ca 1700) one would have a system consisting of wood treatment, sealer, ground, paint (medium with suspended particulates - we'd generally call this a varnish), and sometimes a clear or at least non-pigmented "varnish" layer. One can change material, application technique, post-application treatment, amount, etc for any of these layers.

Many of these aspects likely apply to nitro finishes, too.

And what about mixed finishes? Spirit varnish with a nitro layer for toughness?

I suspect that this type of discussion will always be blurry because of the lack of consistency in finishing from maker to maker and over time. Many folks using a finish really have no idea what's in it; they didn't make the finish themselves.

[Jim Hilburn]

Steve, while there are many varieties of finishes called varnish, with a varience in thickness and hardness, wouldn't you say that they all have more in common with each other than with modern nitro lacquer? I've never come across another medium thats as hard and brittle as lacquer.

[Mastersound]

I think it was Bob Taylor of Taylor guitars who said words to the effect of: "Someone somewhere discovered that if you spray and sand a guitar, and keep spraying and sanding it, then polish it, it'll be nice and shiny. We need to find that person and shoot them."

[picksnbits]

Do most people agree that the thinner and more flexible the finish, the better the sound will be?

[sunburst]

Do most people agree that the thinner and more flexible the finish, the better the sound will be?
No.
Thinner is generally considered better, but there are those I've talked to, archtop guitar builders mostly, that believe a lacquer finish, with it's hardness and stiffness, improves their sound, and continues to improve it as the film ages and shrinks.

I've read that lacquer wasn't readily available commercially until about 1925. Gibson, of coarse, quickly jumped on the new technology.
The Loar era mandolins were made before Gibson had nitro, and the archtop guitar heyday was after Gibson had started using lacquer.
Hmmm...I wonder of that has anything to do with the different opinions and traditions between mandolin and guitar builders?

[Frank Ford]

I believe you are absolutely correct about the timing and reason for change, and the resulting demand for varnish on mandolins, John.

My own experience is that I can't even come close to telling the difference in tone, mostly because I never have the opportunity for a direct A-B comparison with both finishes on the same instrument. If we had a hundred of each, identically made, and did a big shoot-out we might come up with something in a double blind experiment, but without something like that, I don't see how we can call the opinions anything but that-opinions based on anecdotal evidence.

Years ago we had three Loar F-5s in the shop at one time, and, for what it's worth, there was a general agreement that the fully original one was decidedly inferior in tone and volume to both the completely refinished (lacquer) one and the oversprayed one. Individual variation between different examples made from different pieces of wood, you say? Me. too.

I know I'm taking a hard line here, but anytime there’s $$$ at stake, I start to question anybody's ability to be objective. If you're in line to receive the money, you'll want to justify the reason in your own mind, and if you've just paid the money, you'll want to feel good about the expense. Tricky stuff, that.

As to the durability, I disagree with those who say varnish is more durable. Varnish is a much more variable material, encompassing a large variety of finishing compounds, solvents, resins, etc. As a result, all the working characteristics are bound to be variable, too.

At Gryphon we sold a new Master Model F-5, only to have it returned the next morning with a good deal of the finish worn off the neck by simply handling and playing the evening before. After adding a layer of shellac by French polishing, the finish on the neck was much more durable. Same thing for checking, particularly in the areas where the finish is subjected to body heat, the back, and top where the playing arm comes in contact.

[PaulD]

I think lacquer was picked up by the furniture and woodworking industries because it can be layed on fast (short dry time between coats), thick (minimal # of coats to build up thickness), and it's durable. If you're running a production shop this is very important, and even if you're looking at the finish guy's hourly wage as a part of the cost of your product it makes a difference. There are toxicity issues with traditional nitrocellulose lacquer's solvents, but as far as I know it is pretty innocuous once the finish has fully cured.

I only see this mentioned antecdotally, but it seems the ability to lay on a thick finish quickly with lacquer may give it a bad reputation. This would be especially true if the "cheapo" instruments have lacquer sprayed heavily by the ex-cabinet shop finish guy; lacquer would get associated with cheap instruments and everybody knows the Cremona violins were varnished! That doesn't mean you can't lay on a thin finish with lacquer. I'm not even going to weigh in on which results in a "better" sound... there are those that are much more qualified than me that have already weighed in!

You don't say whether you're looking at this from a builder's or a buyer's perspective. That may make a difference, since there may be a significant difference in price due to the time involved for a minimal difference in performance. If you're an amateur building your own it may be a good time to bond with the mando while building up coats of shellac or varnish. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Paul Doubek

[BlueMountain]

Thanks very much for this lively exchange of opinions. I've decided on the basis of these experts to never willingly pay an extra penny for a varnish finish. But I AM still willing to pay extra for the most beautiful woods and inlays, even though they don't improve the sound, either.

[amowry]

I'll be the first to admit that my varnish finish doesn't look like lacquer. It has minute texture from French polishing, and when it shrinks into the wood you can see grain lines in the wood and occasional maker's marks. I like it that way, but the non-toxicity of my spirit varnish is another big reason why I use it. I could probably drink it, if I had some straight Everclear to wash it down {shudder}. I also like the fact that shellac gets tougher over time, whereas nitro degrades over time (or so I've been told). Paul's point about the buyer's vs. builder's perspective is a good one, though, and as he said toxicity isn't an issue after everything has cured, and nitro won't degrade much over a normal lifespan.

[PaulD]

I could probably drink it, if I had some straight Everclear to wash it down
I keep Everclear in the shop... it's what I cut my shellac flakes with! Supposedly the coating on M&Ms is shellac based, so maybe you could make a drinkable finish by dissolving M&Ms in Everclear??? Or is that just the Everclear talking? http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

pd

[Cary Fagan]

I certainly can appreciate builders wanting to use non-toxic substances. But I was at a bluegrass camp a year ago where a fellow had a varnished Gibson, two or three years old, and showed me how badly it was wearing. The Varnish seemed to be bubbling up. Roland White, at the camp, had his new Gibson there which he'd asked to be laquered. (I don't have any opinion of sound difference, since I've no experience.)

[Jim Hilburn]

I went into this at length in an earlier thread, but it appears to me the new waterbased instrument finishes have a lot more in common with varnish than with lacquer and also appears that it may be even more durable than lacquer and much the same to apply. It definitely won't chip like brittle lacquer.
I guess that when lacquer became available in the teens, traditionalists must have turned up their noses at it, but like Paul mentioned, the time-saving and durability issues convinced the big companies to make the switch. Science may be offering us an ideal new option that's worth exploring.
However, I had a 20's F-4 in the shop, and thats the finish to die for. They knew something about varnish in those days that I think very few are getting right these days, because those instruments have held up very well through the years and it has such a subtle glow to it.

[Nolan]

Mr Ludwig, my post was just something Charlie Derington had said on Commando, he thought Varnish brings out the mids. #It's a good read if you haven't looked at it. #He also said some guys like the lacquer sound and some like the varnish sound but it's all personal preference.
The part about varnish not being toxic... that was from commando too, the Gilchrist interview. #He said he liked varnish because if times got tough he could eat it! #

I'm no builder and don't have an opinion, I just thought I'd share what I heard from a couple of builders we all respect!

Although... to me there seems to be just to many variables in building to atribute a tone change on a particular mandolin to the finish. #Even if you finish a mandolin in lacquer and then strip it and refinish it in varnish it seems like it would be tough to "Remember" exactly what it sounded like before. #You'd probably think the varnish was better if you paid for it....

Thanks!

[peter.coombe]

Well I guess the lacquer vs varnish argument is likely to go on forever. Personally I like the latest Target Coatings products, but I also like seedlac. My experience from playing around with various finishes is that I think I can hear consistent differences, but the differences are fairly subtle, but nevertheless worthwhile if you like the sound.

[Dale Ludewig]

Nolan- I agree with you completely (at least as far as I know). Yes, I've read the comando discussions, and those on here, and participated. And I agree, it's the never ending discussion. Plus it is never truly defined. What's varnish? Nitro is pretty clear (no pun intended, well sort of). But what varnish formulation, what lacquer? It's all such a big question. I hope you didn't take anything I said as a sign of disrespect for your question. It certainly wasn't meant as such.

This discussion will go on forever. One problem is that nobody seems to agree (nobodies?) as to what varnish or a varnish finish is. Plus as time goes on, formulations for lacquer and all the various commercially available varnishes changes, not to mention the untold personal formulas people come up with. It's like trying to say "whose's dress looks best?" on some very lovely woman. Well, which material? Which lovely woman? (or which lovely guy?!) And all such.

You asked a great question. It's been discussed many times before and it will be many times to come. And you're right- if you stripped the same instrument that had been finished in one material and refinished in another, you couldn't remember what the first try sounded like. And if you could, your tastes might have changed in between. Still always an intriguing question. Unanswerable. "What's you're favorite color?" "How fast do the swallows fly between ? and ?"...

[Rick Schmidlin]

I really agree with Frank Fords post.AS for me I have a Collings MF5 and could have held out or even trade up for very little(under two grand) for a MF5 V.As for me I love my MF5 and and V while also a great mandolin is not two grand plus better. But the MF5 will also be also two better minus.

That's me!

[Jim Hilburn]

I used to be a strong lacquer advocate and still believe you can make a fine instrument with it, but in the last few years I've done finishes with shellac, oil and
waterbased acrylic as well as lacquer. I've also had samples of the films from each.
Lacquer still stands apart from any of the others in the fact that it's much more hard and brittle. When Charlie says "varnish brings out the mids", I would agree, but possibly state it in another manor. Varnish dampens or impedes the shrill highs that can be produced by a harder surface thus putting more of an emphasis on the midrange. The low end is a product of some pretty dramatic movement of the plates and I suspect not as influenced by the finish. You would have to do some pretty thick lacquer like they had a tendency to do in the 50's and 60's to impede the plate motion.

[Darryl Wolfe]

Nicely stated Jim. I think that's the best I've seen the subject addressed while including some mental images of the dynamics of the differences

[Charlie Derrington]

Agreed.

I do think that the difference (IMHO) is much more subtle than most can hear. It's as I've always said about the difference in price from a modern high-end (expensive) mando and a Loar. One is paying a lot of money for a tiny bit of improvement. But to me (and the varnish vs. lacquer debate is included) that difference is worth the extra money. To someone else, it may not be....and also, one may actually prefer the lacquer tone. I don't. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't offer the presumed customer what they desire.

BTW I certainly wouldn't drink my oil varnish formulation, but my French Polish might go good with cheese and foie gras. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Charlie

[Yonkle]

My first 2 mandolins I lacquered, later I stripped them re=stained and varished. They sound better! ALSO: Big difference in the way the neck feels, my hand would stick to the lacquer, the varnish it slides smooth as silk.
Lacquer is more durable, yet harder to repair.
Shellac is softer and will show blemish a bit more easy, but repair on scratch's is very easy.
Shellac is harder to apply (depending on how you are applying it)
AND YES.... Lacquer stinks (wife complains.."whats that smell???" "It's making me sick" "How long will the garage smell icky?? "It's seeping into the kitchen" "How many more coats of that #### to you have to use?"

Shellac: Smells kinda like honey. (Almost makes you hungry) Wife... http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Michael Lewis]

As far as finish effecting tone, a thin finish has less mass and less stiffness to overcome to allow movement of the plates. A thicker finish adds mass (weight) and if it is lacquer it also adds stiffness. Several years ago I met a fellow with a new Hutto mandolin that sounded great. It had no finish on it and was dirty from lots of playing, so I asked the fellow wiat the deal was. He told me that he was playing it in as per John Hutto's instructions, and was to send it back to be finished. I saw the fellow the next year and asked him how his mandolin turned out, so he opened his case and showed me the new finish. It looked nice and shiny and thick. The fellow was rather disappointed in the tone the mandolin produced. It was not at all like it had been before being finished. Now I haven't seen the instrument since and that was maybe 8 or 10 years ago, and maybe by now it sounds much better, but the point is that with no finish the mandolin sounded great and with a thick lacquer finish it didn't sound nearly as good. In this case we can assume the finish made the difference, but in most other cases we will never know due to the "road not treveled". (That means you can not know what lies down the road not traveled).

I think that generally a thin finish is the best for sound, so that is the perspective I work from.

[Stephen Perry]

Steve, while there are many varieties of finishes called varnish, with a varience in thickness and hardness, wouldn't you say that they all have more in common with each other than with modern nitro lacquer? I've never come across another medium thats as hard and brittle as lacquer.
No. Even within solution varnish. I can make a brittle resin varnish that is very hard and chippy. Cheap, too. And a solution varnish that is very soft, supple, softly gleaming. And anything in between.

Oil varnishes in general (the commercial ones anyway) appear a bit softer than the nitro I've worked with.

A shame all these "varnish" finishes got stuck under one term.