Varnish vs Lacquer

[Em Tee]

I know the common concensus is that varnish sounds better than lacquer on a mandolin. But my question is, arguably, which protects a mandolin better? Which stands up best to daily player use and the test of time?

[JEStanek]

I think they can both stand up over time fine if you treat them well. The Varnish will be softer (that's why it performs better). Thick lacquer will withstand more abuse but dampen the tone. It's like asking what is better armor, plate mail or leather armor and whick protects better and which allows you to move better!

Jamie

PS Sorry I got all Dungeons and Dragons there...

[Willie Poole]

I can`t answer your question but I will add this, I have one mandolin that was refinished with varnish and it seems that it was put on too thick and the mandolin lost a lot of it`s volume and tone....I have been trying to remove some of the varnish with light steel wool and then polish it up but I don`t get much improvement with each session, I don`t want to just strip it all off and start over though...I understand there are different kinds of varnish so I guess it would take a lot of experience to know which one is best and longer lasting....Some older mandolins with lacquer finish`s do have a lot of checkering, don`t know if varnish does that or not...

Willie

[Folkmusician.com]

PS Sorry I got all Dungeons and Dragons there...

So you are going to need some dice in your case....

As a general rule, Lacquer will be more durable. Poly will be just about industructable.

[Jim Hilburn]

We know Loars were varnished. I once had the opportunity to play 3 Loars and one 25 Fern which was lacquer. To my ear the Fern was the strongest and best sounding of the bunch.
We know Gibson smothered their 50's and 60's instruments in thick lacquer and mandolins from that era usually aren't that great although there were many factors other than finish to consider.
We know that some individual builders went to varnish either trying to get a better sound or to be more traditional. But guys like Mike K. or Steve G. were also building light responsive instruments of the highest order and there's no direct comparison of what those instruments would have sounded like had they been lacquer. However many of Mikes earliest were lacquer including Tim O'Briens.
So I don't know where the consensus comes from that "varnish makes mandolins sound better" comes from.

[Peter Barnett]

Probably more than you ever wanted to know.......

http://www.theguitarmagazine.com/features/all-about-nitrocellulose/

http://www.lmii.com/nitrocellulose-lacquer-solvent-based

[sblock]

All-too often, folks writing about this topic confuse and conflate issues that relate to the thickness of the finish with issues that relate to the type of the finish (varnish, lacquer, or poly, with multiple formulations of each existing). And, since finish thickness and finish type are sometimes correlated, that only makes things worse.

I believe that the general consensus among most luthiers (not all) is that a very thin finish is the most desirable, and that thicker finishes tend to detract from the tone. And if the finish is sufficiently thin, it matters much less -- and possibly not at all! -- what the finish type might be. Varnishes, due to both their nature and the way they get applied (for example, by French polish), tend to be thin in the first place. But nitrocellulose lacquer finishes can also be applied in thin coats. I, for one, am unconvinced that a lacquer coat cannot sound just a good as varnish, provided that it gets no thicker than a typical varnish coat. And arguably, it might protect a bit better.

As for the type of the finish, and how that affects sound, this gets pretty complicated. Varnish finishes tend to go on fairly soft, and only harden rather slowly over time, particularly the oil-based varnishes, as opposed to spirit-based ones. But they all take significant time. Sometimes, the hardening time can run into months and even years. And the sound can be affected on this time scale. Nitro lacquer finishes tend to harden significantly faster, over time scales of days to weeks. And they can protect better. But they can eventually become brittle with age, and develop cracks. And lacking the same flexibility, they don't suffer temperature shocks as well.

Anyway, I don't actually believe that there is a consensus among the experts that "varnish makes mandolins sound better." Better than thinly-applied lacquer, that is. But varnish, which usually requires considerably more hand work, was used historically on some of the best-sounding mandolins (like Lloyd Loar-signed Gibsons), not to mention all the great violins. Face it: most musicians are traditionalists, creating a conservative consumer market, and most luthiers are copiests, serving that very same market, so there is real pressure, especially with high-end custom instruments, to re-create the features of the best-reputed instruments. And since they had varnish, then folks request varnish. These tastes change slowly.

Sometimes, market forces do not necessarily converge on the best solution, but only on the popular solution.

[mandroid]

Lacquer holds up better when player is sweaty and they hold the back against that soggy T shirt,
than Varnish.

[Marty Jacobson]

Technically, lacquer IS a varnish. This is like saying, "Which is better, a Ford or a car? I've heard Fords are better for fuel economy, whereas cars are more fun to drive. Which is right for me?"
Any comment, anecdotal pro or con, or observation about varnish can have the words "something shiny" replaced for "varnish" and mean exactly the same thing.

You know what to do, kids, go home today and ask your Mom and Dad to order you a new guitar. Accept only the best- make sure it's finished with something shiny if you want pure acoustic tone which will only get better over time.

For example, from this thread:

"Lacquer holds up better when player is sweaty and they hold the back against that soggy T shirt,
than something shiny."

"I can`t answer your question but I will add this, I have one mandolin that was refinished with something shiny and it seems that it was put on too thick and the mandolin lost a lot of it`s volume and tone...."

"Something shiny will be softer (that's why it performs better). Thick lacquer will withstand more abuse but dampen the tone. "

[Jim Hilburn]

Lacquer is a bit more specific than varnish. Varnish is a bit like saying paint. Paint is generally considered a pigmented coating and Varnish a clear coating.

[Marty Jacobson]

Lacquer is a bit more specific than varnish. Varnish is a bit like saying paint. Paint is generally considered a pigmented coating and Varnish a clear coating.

Right-o. So by saying "lacquer vs. varnish" you may very well mean:

Nitrocellulose Lacquer vs. CAB (also called "lacquer")
Nitrocellulose Lacquer vs. PMMA (acrylic)
Nitrocellulose lacquer vs. plasticized polyurethane which is the consistency of jell-o
Nitrocellulose lacquer vs. Capital-V Varnish (which presumably means some kind of long oil, alkyd resin coating).

etc.

[Jim Hilburn]

In instrument building the use of the term lacquer has at least in the old days meant nitro. Kind of assumed.

[Em Tee]

If varnish is not specific enough of a term why do mandolin builders make the distinction between lacquer and varnish? "Varnish" is used as a description by every brand from collings to eastman. What does it mean when they use it? What could it mean when a smaller builder uses it?

[sblock]

Despite all the pedantry, a distinction between "lacquer" and "varnish" -- even if these are technically somewhat imprecise terms -- is perfectly well understood among mandolin makers and players alike.

In this context, "varnish" refers to any one of the many finishes based on shellac, a biological resin made from the secretions of the female lac bug (an insect of India and Southeast Asia), as the polymer agent, contained in a solvent. There are many types of shellac-based varnishes, including those that have oil- or spirit-type solvents. And yes, these finishes are also called "true lacquers" because they come from natural 'lac resin.' This form of varnish was used to make lacquerware in Asia, and to finish instruments like violins, long before the advent of modern plastics in the late 19th and early 20th century.

In this context, a "lacquer" finish refers to any one of the many finishes based on synthetic nitrocellulose (cellulose nitrate), an early plastic made from plant cellulose and nitric acid, contained in any of a number of volatile solvents. Despite the use of the term "nitrocelluose lacquer", or more generically, just "lacquer," no resin from actual lac bugs is present. Nitrocellulose was synthesized in 1862 and was used in instrument lacquer by the 1920s, and also as aircraft dope and as a paint for automobiles (and thousands of other uses). These days, so-called 'nitrocellulose' lacquers (or just 'lacquers') tend to have acrylic or other plastic resins in them, too, and not only nitrocellulose. And all manner of solvents and retarders, too.

So yes, a varnish can technically be a 'lacquer' (it's the original lacquer, in fact!) and conversely, nitrocellulose lacquer is technically a form of 'varnish! It does not help to point this out, in my opinion, but just adds fire to the flames of to confusion.

For mandolins:

When we say 'varnish', we mean a shellac-based spirit- or oil-based finish. The polymer that forms a protective coat on the wood is from a natural lac resin.

When we say 'lacquer', we mean a nitrocellulose-based finish. The polymer that forms a protective coat on the wood is from a synthetic plastic, usually nitrocellulose (but also acrylic and other stuff).

OK? :redface:

At the risk of adding to the confusion, there are also "wiping varnishes" like boiled linseed oil and tung oil (both natural oils that polymerize into resins), which are also types of finishes. But some products that are advertised as "Tung Oil Finish" contain no tung oil whatsoever (or just a very little) and really use a synthetic, aliphatic resin as the polymer -- outrageous! The chemical industries that manufacture paints and finishes have resisted Truth-in-Labeling laws for years, and have successfully lobbied to withhold their actual recipes. Often, we have no idea of what's really in a finish, nor in what proportions. And when the formulas get changed, we often have no idea of when, how or why. This is a scandal, in my opinion. These companies could use patents to protect their compounds, like other industries, but instead use trade secrets. But sometimes one can gain a little clarity from federally-mandated MSDSs (materials safety data sheets), which require companies to divulge certain toxic compounds for safety reasons.

There are also catalyzed polymer instrument finishes (which are none of the above), and UV-cured polymer finishes, too. Some of those finishes contain epoxies or different plastics. It's complicated...

[Em Tee]

That was very helpful, sblock. Thank you!

[Hudmister]

Yes, that was very helpful, sblock. I was wondering if there is a way to tell, or verify, if an instrument in fact has a varnish finish or a lacquer finish? I have a Kentucky KM900 which I purchased as a varnish instrument. Is there a non destructive test that might be done to discern the difference, or is it possible to tell just by looking?

[bruce.b]

Interesting. So, which one is best?

[Tom Haywood]

My own simple short cut to understanding the difference, while not completely accurate across the board, is that lacquer is some kind of plastic and varnish can be a whole range of things that aren't plastic. Varnish is the more imprecise term by far and some of it includes materials that are much like plastics, while lacquer is more precisely about plastic. When we put a finish on an instrument, we basically paint on a shrink-wrap coating for protection and try to get the most appealing look we can from that material. Plastic has many advantages for quick protection and sheen. I used to think plastic is a harder protection when it cures, but I'm finding that after a long cure time shellac seems to be harder. Plastic does have a different sound than non-plastic coatings, but it is not an inferior sound. Many people prefer the sound just like many, if not most, prefer the look. The reason for continuing to use traditional materials is not to be a copiest, but rather that the traditional materials have many advantages themselves (such as the "traditional" look and sound and long-term hardening characteristics), and some people prefer those advantages.

[Jim Hilburn]

Plastic is a more diverse term than paint or varnish but I wouldn't qualify nitro lacquer as plastic.
Some varnishes I've used seem much more like plastic than lacquer.

[sblock]

Plastic is a more diverse term than paint or varnish but I wouldn't qualify nitro lacquer as plastic.
Some varnishes I've used seem much more like plastic than lacquer.

Well, like it or not, nitrocellulose is indeed a type of plastic (sorry). In fact, it was the very first man-made plastic! See here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrocellulose).

There are two rather different ways in which the word "plastic" tends to be used. The first way is with reference to synthetic organic materials made up of long-chain (or possibly also branched) polymers. There are many, many kinds of plastics available. And many kinds of finishes are based on plastics, including latex paint, polyurethane, and more. In fact, most finishes used on musical instruments today are based on some type of plastic! They are synthetic. Common types of plastic used in finishes include nitrocellulose, polyurethane, polyvinyl, acrylic, phenolic, and epoxy. The rare exceptions include those finishes based on natural resins based on things like shellac ("varnish") or polymerizable oils (tung or linseed). Or synthetic oils that can also polymerize, like alkyd or aliphatic resins.

The second way we use the word "plastic" -- and which is the original meaning of the term! -- is to describe anything that is deformable. In this sense, modeling clay is plastic, and so is the earth's crust (on a very long time scale, that is). All good musical instrument finishes need to be plastic (in the original sense), but they don't have to be made from a modern "plastic."

Some finishes that contain plastic materials wind up being fairly hard/brittle, once the solvent is gone through evaporation (some solvent may be retained for years, or even for decades). Some finishes remain fairly soft; others harden quite significantly. Older formulations of nitrocellulose lacquer got too brittle, and had a greater tendency to develop cracks after a time. But most of the newer formulations have far less tendency to crack. This is partly due to the use of retarders in the solvent fraction, which slow the loss of solvent from the film coating, and partly due to the use of additional types of plastic, for example acrylics, alongside the nitrocellulose base.

How hard or soft a finish is, either at first or eventually, depends in a complex way on the overall thickness of the application, the types of solvent and retarder used in the formulation, the age of the finish since application, the exposure to the environment (air, UV, temperature), and finally, to the type of polymer (plastic) used to form the protective film. Nitro lacquer can be soft, and it can also be hard. And the same thing goes for most other finishes.

Too hard is not desirable, because a brittle finish can crack or flake off, and it loses its many of its protective properties. A good finish needs a certain amount of give. But too soft is not desirable, either, because an overly pliable finish can lead to the damping of sound, or scratch too easily, or feel sticky under the hand.

[Jim Hilburn]

Plastic! O No!

[Em Tee]

sblock, so what are the characteristics/things to look for in a good finish, whether it's nitro lacqeur or a varnish? You mention soft finish, but what does that mean exactly in terms of look or feel to the hands? For reference, my only experience with mandolins has been eastmans, kentuckys, and big muddy

[MontanaMatt]

Only you can prevent forest fires! Your movements and decisions are the main factors affecting wear rate of a finish.

[stevedenver]

I know the common concensus is that varnish sounds better than lacquer on a mandolin. But my question is, arguably, which protects a mandolin better? Which stands up best to daily player use and the test of time?

I have mandolins with both, as well as one with poly.

Imho, there is NO question that laquer, ie nitrocellulose is MUCH better, in terms of protection. It can be cleaned with a variety of products, can be polished to remove hazing, scatches, and, simply, becaise it is a plastic, its touigher, even if very old and brittle. BUT, in modern times, with EPA etc., nitro can have varing amounts of plasiticizer, and can take a very long time, sometimes, in some batches, to get really hard. Ie to "gas out". This gassing out can also react with stuff, like case linings, poly fabrics, straps, and , even after, can, gawd forbid, melt if exposed to bug repellent and sunscreen. Dirty hands and acidic body chemsitry too, to name a few.

Varnish, dont get it damp, near alcohol or salts or mineral based product, (for the most part), and you can screw it up inadvertantly if you use an incompatible polish.

Poly. Bullet proof, like heavy duty nitro . My rigel has poly im fairly certain. It looks...thick.....and, for my purpose with that mando, its perfect, as its my "combat" mando, ithe one i take to crappy places or environments. Its a great mando, btw, just the one im most likely to risk. Poly is tougher, less likely to get severe buckle rash, etc.

Dont get me wrong on my bluntess. They are all great, and my favorite mando is varnish. I treat it with much greater care, wipe it after every playing session. It has a unique look to it. With lots or playing, and im pretty neutral skin now, the neck can become every so slightly gummy. I need special polish to polish it. It is really nice, but, its more delicate, imho, overall.

As noted above thinness is the real issue. My gibby fern had a wonderfully thick nitro. Wtf you quip. Wonderful because when a friend gouged it, i was able to polish well into it and remove the gouge.

Charlie derrington wrote that he clearly heard a difference, but that it was very subtle and took a trained ear. I cant say i am able to hear a defininte difference, per se.

As i have enough things to manage and worry about, there is a joy for me, in nitro. It gives the wood a greater depth, and has a shine, versus varnish luster. I love my fern.

And, as varnish is much more time consuming to apply and to get right in the process, it is a pricey upgrade. Yeah, it is probably worht it on the right instrument, but im thinking, those over $12k.

[stevedenver]

sblock, so what are the characteristics/things to look for in a good finish, whether it's nitro lacqeur or a varnish? You mention soft finish, but what does that mean exactly in terms of look or feel to the hands? For reference, my only experience with mandolins has been eastmans, kentuckys, and big muddy


Obviously not mr block, but you get what you pay for......

Those will be either poly or nitro finishes. Poly is preferered in high volume production as it can be cured almost instantly, is tough against scratches, and has less chemical risks to workers, if that is a consideratoin to the country of origin. Most non cusmtom shop fenders are poly. Gibsons are exlcusively nitro, if this helps. Poly looka like a bar top, shiny plastic like. Short of straight from being painted, nitro, which when new and dry and unmolested, can look wet. Add only a touch of handling and wiping, and it dulls down to a shine, barely short of glass. It will llikely look less thick than most poly sprays.

Poly and nitro feel glassy smooth. I think nitro, when fully cured, may have slightly less grab to it than a poly.

Varnish, imho, feels a touch, ha ha, more satin like. Varnish new is glassy, but gains a patina fairly quickly. On my varnish mandos, both have speed necks from the builders. But the finish still feels great. Fwiw, virtually all of my guitars and banjos have nitro or poly, and ill bet yours do too.

How about this......varnish , with eyes closed, is a bit more like a satin finished guitar neck as compared to a high gloss one.

For me, and i might be, no I AM ODD, i seem to just play the damn instrument and dont have strong preferences.

If youre worried, and imho you shouldnt be, ANY finish can be "softened" by the uise of super fine sandpaper, ie micro mesh. These can give you just enough satin to change the slide feel, but, will barely affect the look, if you so choose.

My mando-girl-friend, with whom i play with weekly, so liked my nekked speed necks she had her weber gallatin f stripped to a speed neck. It was nitro. I liked it the way it was, but its as nice now that its stripped. If you strip, btw, the exposed maple needs to be sealed with an appropriate violin rub on varnish to protect the maple from dirt, mositure etc.

I hope this helps your thoughts and concerns about finish and feel.

[foldedpath]

FWIW, all my instruments are nitro, and the only varnish instruments in the house are my S.O.'s fiddles.

To me, and as others have said above. the only thing that matters is that the finish is thin enough. If I tilt the soundboards of my mandolin, OM, and two remaining acoustic guitars against a background light source, I can see ridges of wood grain, not a smooth surface. That's a thin finish. The last thick finish instrument I owned was a 1970's Guild D25M (since sold), with a nitro finish so thick it looked like glass when tilted against the light. It still sounded okay for what it was, but that's not a characteristic you want to see in a more high-end acoustic instrument.

Concerning wear, some of these nitro finishes are tough. I actually wish my Lebeda showed a little more personalized wear, after 10+ years of playing it almost every day. It's a thin finish but tough as nails. The only wear it shows (ignoring the neck I stripped) is a light haze from my pinky fingernail scratching the top below the strings. The rest of the instrument looks almost new, unless you look real close.

[Steve Ostrander]

I've owned one mandolin that was varnish. I have no doubt that nitro is more durable. Which one sounds better is a whole 'nother debate that has been discussed many times here, and I have no desire to dredge up again.

[sblock]

sblock, so what are the characteristics/things to look for in a good finish, whether it's nitro lacqeur or a varnish? You mention soft finish, but what does that mean exactly in terms of look or feel to the hands? For reference, my only experience with mandolins has been eastmans, kentuckys, and big muddy

You already have several pretty good answers from others. If I were to generalize (and that's always dangerous, because there can be notable exceptions), I would say the following:

1) The most important characteristic of any finish on a great mandolin is that it needs to be thin, regardless of the type of finish. Thick finishes tend to affect tone adversely.

2) For the equivalent thickness, nitro lacquer or poly finishes tend to protect better than spirit- or oil-based varnishes.

3) Varnish finishes are certainly found on some of the better instruments, and many folks therefore associate them with better sound. But it is not clear whether these instruments sound so great because of their varnish finishes or because they are better built in the first place (i.e., better woods, carving, thicknesses, joinery, construction, etc.) The debate goes on...

4) Nitro finishes are easier to repair (by drop fill) than almost any other. And poly finishes are among the hardest to repair.

5) Varnish finishes (esp. oil ones) can sometimes take years or more to dry out.

6) Nitro finishes can sometimes get pretty sticky under the hand. However, opting for a speed neck (with no varnish and no nitro: just bare wood, or perhaps treated with a bit of oil or a 'wiping varnish' like tung oil) does away with any such stickiness issues. Violins are almost all done this way. Why not mandolins?

But what are the things YOU care about most in a finish? The level of protection against dings/sweat/other? Durability over time? Lack of yellowing? Lack of cracking? Glossy or matte finish? Ability to hold pigmentation? Lack of effect on the sound (or possible improvement in the sound)? Ability to make invisible repairs? Feel under the hand? Ease of application/method of application? Possible toxicity of ingredients (at the shop, or in the case)? How long it takes to dry during application? How long it takes to settle in after completion of the instrument?

So much to consider. If all these things were well satisfied by a single type of finish, then that would probably be the only one in general use. But they are not, and different finishes have different things going for and against them. And some are better suited for mass manufacture, while some are better suited to hand/custom manufacture.

But if you were to ask me what I care about most in a mandolin I would buy, it's #1, above. Unless I were buying it to take camping, or to the beach, or on a hard road trip, that is. Then, I would be inclined to trade some added durability against sound.

The answer to every question posed on the MC always seems to be "it depends..."

[ellisppi]

I know a whole lot about this subject, but I'm too lazy to write much, and heck sblock already said all the true stuff. I would push shellac-based and Alkyd drying oil based varnishes into distinct categories, though. But even that can be blended. Remember, plastic is organic, and the better mandolins have better sound and sound better.

[Em Tee]

sblock, you make the subject sound so interesting I'd read a book about it. Thank you so much for all the information!

[lflngpicker]

Em Tee, I have an old Gibson A '09, which I assume is varnish, and my newest mandolin is an Eastman MD805/V Distressed Varnish Model. I can really tell the difference in the liveliness of the tone and the wood really sounds present in the maple and spruce combination. I like the look of it, but the tone is the key. It doesn't hurt that the action is very low, yet no fret buzz up and down the board. I would get another varnished mandolin now that I have experienced it. I wouldn't hesitate to get a nitro finish in a good mandolin, as Jamie indicated. They sound great when they are made well, and let's face it, it is the industry standard in guitars and a good portion of mandolins from what I can determine.

[pheffernan]

1) The most important characteristic of any finish on a great mandolin is that it needs to be thin, regardless of the type of finish. Thick finishes tend to affect tone adversely.

Does the method of application more readily lend itself to a thin finish with varnish as opposed to lacquer or poly?

[Richard Mott]

I believe that some of the most highly regarded builders, e.g., Steve Gilchrist and Mike Kemnitzer, at some point early on in their careers switched from lacquer to varnish because of the difference they could hear. My sense is this was hardly a convenience, more the opposite in that it required developing specific varnish recipes and learning new techniques, so they must have done it for a reason. Which isn’t to say that varnish sounds better than nitro or goes on thinner, though it might, but just that varnish was closer to the sound they were aiming for.

[sblock]

I believe that some of the most highly regarded builders, e.g., Steve Gilchrist and Mike Kemnitzer, at some point early on in their careers switched from lacquer to varnish because of the difference they could hear. My sense is this was hardly a convenience, more the opposite in that it required developing specific varnish recipes and learning new techniques, so they must have done it for a reason. Which isn’t to say that varnish sounds better than nitro or goes on thinner, though it might, but just that varnish was closer to the sound they were aiming for.

It is certainly true that Steve Gilchrist and Mike Kemnitzer (Nugget) switched from nitrocellulose lacquer to varnish at some point in their early careers. However, I would not be too quick to simply assume, as you seem to have ("they must have done it for that reason") that this was because of "some difference that they could hear." I, for one, am not aware of any evidence that this was actually the case. It would be nice if Steve or Mike could weigh in on this discussion, though! That said, there are plenty of excellent reasons that a luthier aspiring to make a very high-end mandolin would choose a varnish finish, and not necessarily for reasons of better sound. Here are some of them:

1) Loars as inspiration: These luthiers were trying to re-create (or possibly surpass) the sound of 1922-1924 Gibson F5 Master Models signed by Lloyd Loar. All those instruments all carried a varnish finish. So if you're going to considerable lengths to copy a great many of their details, you would very likely opt for a varnish finish, too.

2) Consumer demand: This was custom work. Many, if not most, of their customers were spending a lot of money and specifying individual preferences for tonewoods, figure, fingerboards, and many other characteristics -- including the finish! They may have picked varnish because most of their customers were asking for varnish.

3) Small shop optimization : All their craft was being carried out painstakingly in a small shop -- not a factory floor -- with limited space and numbers of tools, and doing mostly handwork. A varnish finish can be applied by hand without any need for a special spray booth, spray-painting equipment (compressors; hoses; air brushes), HEPA filters, ventilation, and respirator masks. A nitro finish has to be sprayed and requires much more in the way of both space and equipment. Varnish may be more labor-intensive, but the labor savings associated with spray finishes becomes much more important when you're dealing with hundreds of instruments, not a mere handful per year.

4) Environmental concerns: Because of the volatile, toxic solvents used and method of application, nitro lacquer poses a significantly greater health and environmental risk to the luthier and the immediate area, unless a number of protective measures are taken. These luthiers may have also been seeking to reduce their toxic exposure. Also, many formulations of nitro finishes cannot be legally shipped out of the U.S.A. due to their flammable and toxic solvents.

That said, none of this rules out the possibility that only varnish ALSO gave these luthiers a sound they were looking for. But I tend to doubt that this was the main/only reason, myself. The other drivers are simply too important to ignore. But perhaps Mike or Steve will have something of their own to say on this topic?!

[Jim Hilburn]

I was in touch with Mike K. when he first did varnish and got to play his first ever varnish mandolin. Ironically it has since been re-finished in lacquer due to some of the same problems many have with varnish. Still know where that one is too. Still sounds great and has been the owners primary instrument for nearly 40 years.
I just remember seeing it and noticing a lot of sanding scratches in it and wondering why Mike did it when he could have lacquered it. However I don't know if it was spirit or oil. I had never heard of a varnished instrument back then.
Not sure that Steve G. ever did lacquer.

[peter.coombe]

Not sure that Steve G. ever did lacquer.

He most certainly did use nitro lacquer in his early instruments. I have not asked him why he changed so can't enlighten you on that.

[Richard Mott]

Dear SBlock, I actually didn’t just assume that they moved from lacquer to varnish because of a difference they could hear. Mike has said this in interviews (e.g., “Cracking the Nugget” and Steve has as well, his website says “When I first started using spirit varnish in 1980 (mandolin #81) l noticed an immediate change ... in the quality of the sound of the mandolin ...”.

[Will Kimble]

Must... resist... lol

[sblock]

Dear SBlock, I actually didn’t just assume that they moved from lacquer to varnish because of a difference they could hear. Mike has said this in interviews (e.g., “Cracking the Nugget” and Steve has as well, his website says “When I first started using spirit varnish in 1980 (mandolin #81) l noticed an immediate change ... in the quality of the sound of the mandolin ...”.

Aaagh. You are misquoting Steve Gilchrist by selectively omitting words from his entire sentence, which was this: "When I first started using spirit varnish in 1980 (mandolin #81), I noticed an immediate change in the appearance and the quality of the sound of the mandolin compared to the instruments that were previously finished in thicker nitro-cellulose lacquer." (underline mine)

In essence, Steve G. is commenting that a thin varnish sounds better than a thick nitrocellulose. No argument there, and that's exactly what we've all been pointing out all along: a thinner finish sounds better. Steve is not saying that a lacquer finish of equivalent thickness to a varnish finish is in some way inferior in sound.

[Richard Mott]

Point, though I guess this begs the question why he switched to varnish if it was simply a matter of putting on a thinner nitro finish. Perhaps there are obstacles to putting nitro on at an equivalent level of thinness? I know that Bruce Sexauer, one of the most highly regarded California luthiers says he can get varnish thinner than nitro.

[Jim Hilburn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASIoujrxOos
So I've made mandolins with nitro, violin oil, Rockhard oil, boat varnish, water based varnish, french polish on oil and straight french polish. I learned much of what I know about applying nitro from Nugget and took a course with Steve Gilchrist on his French polish method.
So I'm presenting some totally non-scientific evidence of a comparison of french polish mandolin and a lacquer mandolin. When I built my #56 A style I used Don Musser Colorado Englemann paired with a slab sawn one piece sugar maple back and did a FP finish. If you take a minute to go to my website and find it in the gallery there are 2 recordings made at Boulder's Coup Studio of Rich Zimmerman playing it when it was so new it ended up with a tee-shirt imprint from not curing completely.
When I made #62 I used Don Musser Englemann, possibly from the same tree but probably not, but still very much like on 56. The back was another slab from the same board as was used on 56. It's lacquer. Are the instruments identical? Every one I make is different but I strive for consistency so quite similar. The link above is one of Don Grieser playing it when it's quite new.

[Jim Hilburn]

There is no doubt you can get french polished spirit varnish or something like Tru-oil will be thinner than lacquer and will have the least possible effect on the tone. My position is that lacquer can be applied without greatly effecting the sound of the instrument also. But it takes some extra effort.