Mahogany neck with no pore filler. I wish it was smoother.

[terzinator]

I know that on glossy mahogany, I believe the finisher will use a pore filler to make a smooth surface before the gloss finish is applied. But on a matte mahogany finish -- like on a Weber gallatin or Martin 15-series guitar -- there's no pore filler, so the finish isn't perfectly smooth.

On my new Weber Gallatin OM, the ONLY beef I have with the instrument is that the pores in the mahogany neck are fairly prominent. The neck on my 000-15S has been made shiny by playing it for 10 years, and is very smooth.

I'm sure the gallatin neck will become shinier/smoother, but just curious if there is a way to speed that up. There's no real "finish" to remove, as in making a speed neck, but are there other options?

[sunburst]

On Martin's 15 series, and any other Martins with less-than-high-gloss finishes, the pores are filled. The neck finish, and other places where the player contacts the instrument and causes finish wear, will generally "gloss up" from the contact.
An open pore finish is different, and will not wear smooth. I'm not familiar with the finish on a Weber Gallatin, but if it is an open pore finish, it is different from the Martin 15 finish, and will not wear the smooth in the same way.

[terzinator]

Interesting, thanks John.

I have two 18-series Martins, too (000-18GE/D-18VS), and they have satin neck finishes (even though the body is gloss finish). But on those, the neck is now perfectly glossy from use..

The neck of my 15 is much smoother from playing it, but I swear I can still feel the pores. (which I can't on the 18s)

I'll take a closeup of the necks when I get home.

[j. condino]

2 or 3 fifteen minute sessions with a bit of shellac, a simple cotton pad, and a French polish technique will fill those mahogany pores. I never use a commercial filler on mahogany necks, just that method and it works great. Your mileage and results may vary..

j.
www.condino.com

[terzinator]

2 or 3 fifteen minute sessions with a bit of shellac, a simple cotton pad, and a French polish technique will fill those mahogany pores. I never use a commercial filler on mahogany necks, just that method and it works great. Your mileage and results may vary..

j.
www.condino.com

Interesting. I don't know that I trust myself to just go out and do this, but I'll do a little research on it. Do you have any photos of before/after?

[terzinator]

just for the record, here's the neck of the Gallatin:



And here's the 000-15S



You can ever-so-slightly see tiny indentations on the Martin neck. But it's plenty smooth, really.

The necks on my two 18-series martins, well, they're perfectly smooth. No indentations at all.

[Michael Lewis]

You can easily see the difference between filling the pores and not filling them. You can still fill them, but you risk causing "collateral damage" if you are not familiar with finishing processes and materials. It involves cleaning, coating, drying, sanding, coating, drying, sanding, coating, drying, etc.

That neck is colored, so be careful not to sand through the color in the process. And keep in mind that it is very easy to make things worse than they are right now.

[terzinator]

And keep in mind that it is very easy to make things worse than they are right now.

Oh, believe me, I'm not going to muck with it in any drastic fashion.

Once you play for a bit, you don't really notice it. But I noticed it a lot at first.

[multidon]

There used to be a line of acoustic guitars that were a house brand of Guitar Center years ago. They were actually made in Korea by Cort. I wish I could remember the brand name but they came and went. I played one and thought it sounded great, so I considered buying one. One of the characteristics was the mahogany back sides and neck had what as advertised as an open pore finish. No pore filler so it had those dimples everywhere. It was touted as "allowing the wood to breathe".What nonsense. Not using pore filler on mahogany is skipping a tedious and time consuming step to keep costs down, nothing more.

I would imagine that as time goes on you will get more and more used to that neck while your hand polishes it smoother. It will never get perfectly smooth though.

[MikeEdgerton]

2 or 3 fifteen minute sessions with a bit of shellac, a simple cotton pad, and a French polish technique will fill those mahogany pores. I never use a commercial filler on mahogany necks, just that method and it works great. Your mileage and results may vary..

j.
www.condino.com

It's worked in the furniture business for years as well.

[Tobin]

There used to be a line of acoustic guitars that were a house brand of Guitar Center years ago. They were actually made in Korea by Cort. I wish I could remember the brand name but they came and went. I played one and thought it sounded great, so I considered buying one. One of the characteristics was the mahogany back sides and neck had what as advertised as an open pore finish. No pore filler so it had those dimples everywhere. It was touted as "allowing the wood to breathe".What nonsense. Not using pore filler on mahogany is skipping a tedious and time consuming step to keep costs down, nothing more.

6 months ago I would have thought that a neck with open pores would be a terrible idea. But I bought an Ome custom banjo with a walnut neck and rim. It has the same open pore finish with no filler. It's a matte finish all around and probably has more dimples than the photos in this thread. Ome is one of the better respected makers, and this was a custom banjo they built specifically for taking to trade shows to show off, so I am positive that it was not a cost-cutting measure.

At any rate, I have come to really love the feel of that neck over a smooth neck. There's just enough texture there to provide a nice tactile sensation, especially when sliding up or down the neck. It is not grippy at all, and plays just as easily as a speed neck on a mandolin. The open pores are not a detriment to the feel of the neck at all, and in fact I really like it. I'm not sure how to explain why I like it so much, except to say that the dimples provide enough texture to feel, but not enough to cause any drag or friction.

I guess not everyone will like that feel on a neck. But just because a maker does a neck that way without pore fillers doesn't automatically make it a shortcut or cost-cutting measure.

[sunburst]

...a matte finish all around and probably has more dimples than the photos in this thread. Ome is one of the better respected makers, and this was a custom banjo they built specifically for taking to trade shows to show off, so I am positive that it was not a cost-cutting measure.

It is true that Ome is a respected maker of high quality instruments, but I'm not so positive that the open pore finish is not a cost cutting measure. To me, it seems more likely that they wanted to come up with a way to decrease the time and dollars spent on finishing, so they decided to try an open pore finish so they could skip the pore filling process and thus streamline the finish process. When manufacturers try things like that, one of the things they commonly do is put it in front of the public, sometimes with some sort of BS like "allowing the wood to breath", but sometimes just letting folks see it and gauging their reaction. It's "market research" of a sort. If the public accepts it, it works. If not, the go back to what they were doing, or wait out the market until the new feature becomes more accepted.
That is all beside the point, however. Whether a finish is applied over filled pores or the finish is done "open pore", that has very little to do with the quality of the finish. Either can be a high quality finish, or a low quality finish. The quality comes down to the materials used to some extent, but mostly to the procedures and skill of the finishers. In other words, if Ome (for example) tries an open pore finish, it probably is a cost saving measure, but it most likely is not a compromise on quality.

As for the two photos, the Weber finish is most definitely different from the Martin finish. The Martin has a pore filler and the Weber does not.

[Tobin]

It is true that Ome is a respected maker of high quality instruments, but I'm not so positive that the open pore finish is not a cost cutting measure. To me, it seems more likely that they wanted to come up with a way to decrease the time and dollars spent on finishing, so they decided to try an open pore finish so they could skip the pore filling process and thus streamline the finish process. When manufacturers try things like that, one of the things they commonly do is put it in front of the public, sometimes with some sort of BS like "allowing the wood to breath", but sometimes just letting folks see it and gauging their reaction. It's "market research" of a sort. If the public accepts it, it works. If not, the go back to what they were doing, or wait out the market until the new feature becomes more accepted.

Out of curiosity, I poked around a bit on the internet, looking at photos of their other walnut banjos. It appears that they have been using this open-pore method for a while on their open-back "vintage" line (which mine is, but with tone ring and hardware upgrades). I suppose I could call them and ask, but I'm thinking it's purely an aesthetic choice for them in that product line, especially since they do fill the pores on other models. The open-pore walnut goes really well with aged brass hardware for a very rustic, classic look that their "vintage" line has. And as I mentioned, I don't find any negative impact on playability. Even though mine was a demo model, the finish was apparently not any different than others of its line.

I'm sure there are makers out there who might skip filling the pores as a cost-cutting measure. My only point was that it isn't necessarily the case, and not everyone considers it an inferior finish compared to an filled-pore finish (in response to Don's statement that not filling pores was a corner-cutting method and "nothing more"). I might expect the cost-cutting reason to be true of a low-end import brand, but not an Ome or a Weber level instrument. I would think that if Weber finished the neck that way on the mandolin in question, they did it as a stylistic choice, not to save a couple hours of labor.

[multidon]

I don't know anything about OME or banjos, but I might be tempted to agree with you regarding the Weber finish, Tobin; however, the reality is that the Gallatin series is their lowest priced entry level line. If it is such a great stylistic choice why don't they do it on their upper lines as well?

When I said that it was a cost cutting measure, nothing more, what I was actually meaning to speak out about is manufacturers who try to BS us into believing that open pore is actually SUPERIOR because it lets the wood "breathe". I do not consider it inferior or superior, just a different way of doing things. There is no doubt in my mind though that it is a less expensive way for a manufacturer to go because it skips a fairly labor intensive step. Some manufacturers also tout the "more organic" look of the open pore finish. As far as the look goes, either you like it or you don't. On a neck feel comes into play and again I think it's just a matter of getting used to it.

It really makes no sense to me using mahogany that has not been pore filled for a neck. Why not use maple, which is much easier to find and requires no pore filling?

[Mandoplumb]

I agree with John I was told once that a car manufacture would rather an employ come up with a way to save a dollar than a thousand dollars because a thousand dollar saving would be noticeable and should reduce the sale price but a dollar would be unnoticed and on a hundred thousand units they made a hundred dollars. I don't know that there is any truth to the preceding story but you can see my point. If Ome can save that step even if it save them just a few dollars per unit and can sale that product for the same price the saving add up. You can see this in so many mass produced products

[darylcrisp]

Hey Chris

my daughter has a weber custom gallatin I purchased in 2008 for her. it has the mahogany neck/back/sides and is of the same texture as your photo. you can see and feel those textures. being 8 years old at the time, she played and practiced mandolin for around a 1 year period. I did notice the neck, top and bottom lower bouts of the mando body, shined up rather quickly-probably within 3 months of her using. she didn't practice all that much really-maybe 15 to 30 min some days. I just pulled that Weber out and took notice of the neck. It looks and feels like a gloss neck, does not stick like a gloss neck but has a dry feel to it. you still feel the hundreds/thousands of little dimples. I had never paid attention to all that, and I've been playing hers for the last week-to try out the 1 1/8" nut width it has. telling you all this because I think maybe that will shine over rather quickly for you.

in regards to mahogany necks vs maple necks(in banjos). there is the thought that they offer up a different tone. the maple necks giving a brighter, less sustain(less overtones) sound, the mahogany gives a warmer/sweeter tone(and some attribute a deeper bass to mahogany as well). I have experienced this, having owned a couple different open backs with different neck woods. OME uses the different woods on different models for these reasons I do believe. I've spoke with them in the past and this was the thought I came away with. using the same tone ring and pot material(lets say brass tone ring and maple pot), but one having a maple neck and one having a mahogany neck, a player can usually tell a difference(of course there will be no two banjos/guitars/mandolins that sound identical even when using the same wood from the same tree.

I think if they had used maple on your OM, it would carry a brighter tone altogether and they wanted the tone to be different on that model.

just my 2c which probably are not worth a penny
d

[terzinator]

thanks for all of the great responses.

The more I play it, the less attention I pay to how the neck feels.

Brilliant instrument in every other respect, though.