Different finishes

[walkerman]

I am thinking about buying a new "upscale" mandolin. One I have been looking at is the Collings MF 5. I notice that it's about a 2K upcharge for the varnish finish. It seems to me that a varnish finish would hold up less well than a gloss finish. What does it add to the sound? Is it worth 2K, and what would be the downside to this finish. I should add that I am looking at the natural finish, rather than the burst finish.

[Bill Snyder]

I have no comment on the sound, but a varnish finish can be very glossy. It is not as resistant to wear as lacquer but if you take care of your instruments that probably is not a big issue.

[Steve Ostrander]

The varnish is softer and thinner than nitro. Thinner is supposed to be better for tone. YMMV.

[Jim Hilburn]

Softer, yes, but thinner? Not nessesarily. Depends on who finished it.

[Kevin Briggs]

There are generally two opinions on varnish vs. lacquer:
1. Varnish sounds better
2. There is no difference because there are just too many variables in an instrument to decide what makes one sound better than another.

That's what I've gathered anyway. I think we can all agree that there have been great mandolins finished with both varnish and lacquer. My mandolin is finished in lacquer, and I think it has great tone, no question. I played a varnished DMM once that was superb. However, I played a varnished mandolin by an independent buider that was nothing special, and it was a well-respected independent builder.

If you find a builder you like (you mentioned Collings), that's all that matters. Do whatever the builder recommends, because that's what they like to do when they make a mandolin. Better yet, just find a mandolin you really love and buy it. Go play a bunch.

If you have a strong desire for a custom-built mandolin, somehow figure out who you want to build it and go from there. For example, I almost pulled the trigger on a Poe two-point one time (I should've!), and Andy Poe told me he preferred a two-piece, curly maple back. I was pushing for a one-piece quilted maple back, which he said he would do, but he liked the stability of a two-piece, and said curly maple is a little easier to work with. So, if I had hired him I would have used his recommendations. He knows what he makes a great mandolin with.

[Steve Ostrander]

Good point, Jim. I guess it depends on how many coats are applied.

[sunburst]

Good point, Jim. I guess it depends on how many coats are applied.
Number of coats applied actually has very little to do with the film thickness. The skill of the finisher and his/her decision on how much protection the instrument needs are what decide the finish thickness.

I, for example among others, have years of finishing experience, and can make the film thickness as thin as I want with varnish or lacquer, but there has to be enough on there to protect the instrument, so "as thin as possible" is not necessarily a good thing, though that phrase; "as thin as possible" is often touted as the "best" finish for an instrument.
Experienced builders will finish an instrument with a thickness of finish material that they deem appropriate.

It is much easier to to get a smooth, glossy finish by applying the finish heavily and thickly, so some inexperienced builders apply a thicker finish to save themselves trouble or to stay within their skill level, and some manufacturers apply a thick finish to save time in manufacture or to stay within the skill level of their employees.

It is much easier to build film thickness quickly with an oil varnish than with lacquer of spirit varnish. A finisher will sand between coats of finish, so the final film thickness can be considerably less than the amount applied. Lacquer shrinks considerably as it dries, so many more coats are needed to achieve the same film thickness as an oil varnish.

The answer to the question; "what's the difference between lacquer and varnish?" is not a simple answer, and as the skill level of the finisher rises, the differences in how their applied finishes perform become less.