A diifference between Titebond II and Ti tebond III

[Bernie Daniel]

This might seem like a "random" post because maybe it is. I just stumbled across this quote while thinking about making some new bluebird nestboxes from some redwood boards I've had for years -- anyway. Here is a quote from a Mr.Hugh D. Evans (who at the time he made it was a Franklin "Technical Specialist") it was found here. Consider it just FYI. But it confirms why we use Titebond I on instruments?

"I stumbled across this page while searching for good published examples of Titebond II’s long term durability when used in exterior applications and couldn’t resist chiming in… I’m a Technical Specialist with Franklin International.

"Titebond III was designed to pass the ANSI/HPVA Type I water resistance specification, which doesn’t entail great water resistance so much as high temperature water resistance. This makes it uniquely well suited to applications where steam or boiling water may be encountered, the best example being cutting boards. Despite the fact that no one recommends it, when your cutting board finally runs through a dishwasher it won’t delaminate if you used Titebond III.

Under typical environmental conditions Titebond II and Titebond III are equally resistant to water. However, Titebond III exhibits greater thermal plasticity, which is a technical way of expressing that it loses more strength as temperature increases. Since all PVA adhesives form a plastic film when dried this plastic will effectively melt once a sufficiently high temperature is reached. Titebond Original and Titebond II lose about 50% of their strength at 150 [degrees]"

[sunburst]

Here's an anecdote, since Titebond and cutting boards have both showed up in a post:
The only time I tried using Titebond II was when I was making a cutting board from maple (banjo scraps). I concluded that "waterproof" would be a good attribute for the adhesive in my cutting board, and that was the reason for the choice. The wood was well seasoned, all joints were of good fit and were well assembled and clamped. The cutting board later de-laminated in use (not in the dish washer).
I've made subsequent cutting boards using similar wood and similar techniques, but have used Titebond I. All are holding up fine under regular use.

[Bernie Daniel]

Here's an anecdote, since Titebond and cutting boards have both showed up in a post:
The only time I tried using Titebond II was when I was making a cutting board from maple (banjo scraps). I concluded that "waterproof" would be a good attribute for the adhesive in my cutting board, and that was the reason for the choice. The wood was well seasoned, all joints were of good fit and were well assembled and clamped. The cutting board later de-laminated in use (not in the dish washer).
I've made subsequent cutting boards using similar wood and similar techniques, but have used Titebond I. All are holding up fine under regular use.

Kind of makes you wonder about the manufacturers claims of these products? I used Titebond III two or three summers ago to do some gate repairs on a 25 year on red ceder board fence we have around the swimming pool. So far those repairs still seem solid after several yearly season cycles.

[rcc56]

All I know is I use Titebond Original and hot hide glue because they were both well proven by the time I started to work on instruments.

I continue to use them because I know that they work.

I get nervous about trying new glues, because I don't like returns, and because some repairs can't be re-done without taking an instrument apart. And it's difficult to take them apart.

I would rather take the top or back off an instrument that was glued with hide glue than one that was glued with Titebond.

I also try and bear in mind that someone might have to work on an instrument that I have previously repaired. Maybe that someone will be me, maybe it will be somebody else. I would rather not have a future repairman cursing at me, even if I am gone by then. And if I end up cursing at myself, it's my own d*** fault.

The only glue that I use that is unproven in lutherie is Wilsonart Lokweld melamine glue. I use it only to re-glue loose bindings. I use it because it is non-invasive to finishes. If instruments that I have repaired with this glue start coming back [and they might], scraping the old glue out and re-doing that particular repair is easy, and it is something that I can live with. In the case of loose bindings, I currently prefer the risk of a do-over to the risk of finish damage. So far, there have been no failures. But if I start to get returns, I will abandon that glue.

But other than that, I prefer to avoid fish glue, Titebond 2, 3, 4, or "Quick and Thick", or whatever the latest and greatest is this year or next year.

[pops1]

I am like rcc56, tho I mostly use HHG. I do use Elmer's wood glue, but usually for attaching the nut to the end of the fingerboard as it says it is for not for structural use. It says bonds stronger than wood, but not for structural use, so I am guessing the bond is not that great. Nuts come off easily tho.

[rcc56]

The longer I work on instruments, the more I use hide glue, unless I'm re-doing a joint that was previously glued with something else. These days, I mostly use Titebond only on modern era instruments.

I've always had my doubts about the "stronger than wood" claim.

[Bernie Daniel]

The longer I work on instruments, the more I use hide glue, unless I'm re-doing a joint that was previously glued with something else. These days, I mostly use Titebond only on modern era instruments.

I've always had my doubts about the "stronger than wood" claim.

Clearly the "stronger than wood" part depends heavily on the size and kind of the glued surfaces? It is easy enough to show that you can glue two pieces of wood together and if there is "decent" glued surface area and neither is an end grain surface that the wood under the joint will fail (or peel off) before the glued joint separates. To me that means the glue is stronger than the wood? I suppose there could be other ways to consider it?

As to strength. I suppose that too "depends"? There are a couple of reviews I seen -- done by various wood working magazines -- where tests of glue strength were made using controlled or scientific testing procedure and Titebond and hide glues seem to have similar bonding capabilities on most woods.

I have used HHG before but from my perspective it is much less "convenient" than titebond (e.g., just remove the cap) but mainly I dislike being under pressure (time-wise) to get the joint set up and clamped before it gels.

Anyway, my original comment was about the difference in Titebond II and Titebond III? (although you might not know it from the misspelling in the title line! My problem is the type is too small to see when typing it -- then it goes to bold type when it is too late to change it!!!!!!).

I have used Titebond III for outside applications and find that true to the claim the glued wood pieces hold together (under stress) outside when exposed to sun and rain -- one of them on a cedar gate for two years now. That said the glue is not recommended for cases where the joint is continuously submerged -- e.g., boat hull.

[rcc56]

I think that if I were to use glue for an outdoor application, I would put marine epoxy at the top of the list. I might consider a moisture-resistant PVA glue for a cutting board or a non load-bearing exterior joint.

[HoGo]

The problem with outdoor gluing is that the two pieces woods will warp, shrink and swell with weather and even if the glue itself is not affected by weather the joint will open sooner or later no matter what glue you use. If the joint is under good finish that will lessen the environmental influence the chances of joint survival are much greater.
I just removed, this summer, old 20" wide board from southern side of our barn and found out it was originally lid from old chest glued from two pieces. It was hand planed and at least 100 years old so I believe HHG was used. half of the joint was open/cracked but the upper half of joint that was shielded from direct rain by roof overhang was still intact. The board spent at least 60 years on the barn out in the snow, rain and hot summer sun, lower end was even touching ground and rotten.

[Charles E.]

I have never liked Tightbond II, it did not perform as well as the original. However I do like Tightbond III and trust it for outdoor applications.

[Bernie Daniel]

I have never liked Tightbond II, it did not perform as well as the original. However I do like Tightbond III and trust it for outdoor applications.

I have the same feeling. Titebond II just seems much more "temperamental" and of the three glues (I,II & III) it is really the only one I have had trouble with. I think it is merely the case that Titebond II has a significantly shorter shelf life that the other two? In my opinion the smell and texture of Titebond II changes as the glue ages? Just an impression that I have never tried to prove.

[Bernie Daniel]

I think that if I were to use glue for an outdoor application, I would put marine epoxy at the top of the list. I might consider a moisture-resistant PVA glue for a cutting board or a non load-bearing exterior joint.

I agree. Those newer 2:1 marine epoxy cements are truly amazing -- expensive though. After my experience with the Jamestown distributors' Total boat THIXO product on the mandolin neck repair last fall I am thinking about seeing if I can seal the cracks in the floor of my basement with it. I get water under the foundation whenever we get 5" -7" or more of rain in a 24 hour period or less. If winter returns and the cracks get good'n dry I might try it on a segment of the floor.