Posted on

Waterborne Solutions

Waterborne Solutions

by Mike Doolin and John Greven

from their 2001 GAL Convention demonstration

Originally published in American Lutherie #73, 2003



Doolin: Waterborne finishes and methods of working with them are constantly evolving. New products come out every year and old formulas are continually being updated. This workshop is like a snapshot of what John and I were doing at the time, and our techniques have continued to evolve. We trade techniques back and forth and share our results with new products as they become available. We never seem to be using exactly the same products or techniques; this just goes to show that there is no perfect finish product or technique yet. However, John and I agree that the products which have become available in the last few years are finally up to the task of producing a finish worthy of a fine handmade guitar.

Before we get into the nitty-gritty, I want to talk about what waterborne finish is. First, think of lacquer and shellac. Both lacquer and shellac are resins dissolved in solvent. Spray it on, the solvents evaporate out, and that’s it. There’s no structural cross-linking reaction going on. Anytime after the finish is dry, you can use lacquer thinner to wipe the lacquer off the guitar. The same is true for pure shellac, which is always soluble in alcohol. That’s useful for a finish which will be rubbed out, particularly if you’re going to be touching up at a later time. You can melt that coat in. Otherwise, if the subsequent coat has to stick by a mechanical bond, you get a witness line if you sand through the top coat. One of the advantages of the new waterborne finishes is that they seem to do that — to burn into their previous coats. That’s one of the things we’re looking for.

Become A Member to Continue Reading This Article

This article is part of the Articles Online featured on our website for Guild members. To view this and other web articles, join the Guild of American Luthiers. Members also receive 3 annual issues of American Lutherie and get discounts on products. For details, visit the membership page.

MEMBERS: login for access or contact us to setup your account.

Posted on

Questions: Gibson Firebird Plan

Questions: Gibson Firebird Plan

by Mike Doolin

Originally published in American Lutherie #75, 2003

 

See also,
Questions: Gibson Firebird Plan by David Riggs

 

Marc Vermeiren from cyberspace asks:

I’m searching for a plan of a Gibson Firebird.


Mike Doolin of Portland, OR
responds:

I’ve never heard of a published plan for a Firebird. It’s a Gibson solidbody that came out briefly in the ’60s and has occasionally been reproduced since then. It wasn’t terribly popular. The pickups were different than normal Gibsons, but I think Seymour Duncan makes a Firebird replacement pickup. I’d say your best bet would be to find a Firebird and trace the body shape. ◆

Posted on

Letter: Catalyzed Polyester Finish

Letter: Catalyzed Polyester Finish

by Mike Doolin

Originally published in American Lutherie #85, 2006

 

I’ve switched from waterborne finish to catalyzed polyester. Why? Hardness and speed. Poly provides the durability to which most steel-string players are accustomed. It’s basically 100% solids and cures by catalysis instead of evaporation, so it doesn’t shrink over time. I can rub out a finish after five days cure, and a year later it will look just as good.

But those qualities come at the price of toxicity and flammability. I now have a commercial spray booth with an explosion-proof room around it, and a supplied-air full-face respirator. With solvents like acetone and MEK and with MEKP as the catalyst, this stuff is not to be trifled with. Besides, it stinks to high heaven until it’s cured. I still recommend waterborne finishes, particularly KTM-9, to small-production and hobbyist luthiers and anyone unwilling or unable to make this kind of investment in finishing equipment. ◆

Posted on

It Worked for Me

It Worked for Me by Spiros Mamais, Steven Kennel, and Mike Doolin Originally published in American Lutherie #151, 2024   ■ Here is a double press for joining soundboard halves. It’s a real time saver because it allows you to glue two soundboards at the same time, quickly and easily. I used hollow profile tubes of […]

Posted on

Side Soundports

There’s a Hole in the Bucket

by Cyndy Burton

A Discussion of Sideports, with Contributions from Kenny Hill, Alan Carruth, Roger Thurman, John Monteleone, Mike Doolin, and Robert Ruck

previously published in American Lutherie #91, 2007

See also,
Sidewaysby John Monteleone
“Herr Helmholtz’ Tube” by Mike Doolin
“Three Holes are Better than One” Robert Ruck



Just in case we become too self-satisfied with our “discovery” of ports, Alain Bieber, in his article on lyra guitars (AL#88, p. 16), points us to the Neapolitan Gennaro Fabricatore’s ported lyras from the early 1800s. (Alain ported his own contemporary lyra guitar, too.) So we know prominent makers were putting holes in the sides of their instruments in the late 1700s, early 1800s. Many of us are also aware of Carleen Hutchins’ groundwork in the early 1980s. Her “Le Greyère” violin, with sixty-five sideports, has provided a wealth of data about violin resonances since it was made in 1982. She donated the violin to the National Music Museum in 2002. See some great photos of Le Greyère and a list of publications reporting on that research at collections.nmmusd.org/Archives/NewViolinFamily/Hutchinscheeseviolin.html.

People are sensitive about putting holes in things. Many guitarists — perhaps more classical guitarists than others — find the ports some sort of denigration, a violation of the sanctity of the guitar’s perfect form. In all fairness, we’ve met with very strong feelings on both sides of the port issue. Luckily, our customer was very open to the idea. He’s not a concertizing musician, but he’s a serious player, and occasionally he plays publicly for special events. We wanted to try ports for him because he has a hearing loss, and we thought ports would be a great way for him to hear himself better. At that time, Robert Ruck had made about a hundred ported guitars, so we figured he had worked out the kinks. He kindly advised us on size, location, and so on. We followed his lead. The result is a wonderful instrument that the owner truly appreciates. We love the feedback — the monitor effect for the player — and when we tested it in a small auditorium with an overflowing audience, we could not discern any loss of projection or quality of sound. But was it louder? Our evidence was very meager and inconclusive. Many makers are adamant that it’s louder with the ports open for both the player and the audience.

Become A Member to Continue Reading This Article

This article is part of our premium web content offered to Guild members. To view this and other web articles, join the Guild of American Luthiers. Members also receive 4 annual issues of American Lutherie and get discounts on products. For details, visit the membership page.

If you are already a member, login for access or contact us to setup your account.