Official Luthiers Forum!
http://w-ww.luthiersforum.com/forum/

What is and is not "lacquer"?
http://w-ww.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10101&t=15380		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  erikbojerik [ Tue Jan 15, 2008 12:01 am ]
Post subject: 
Maybe this is just a nitpick, maybe not....



From
talking to various finishing guys, I get the impression that the list
of finishes that can be accurately described as "lacquer" is a very
small one....namely, only nitrocellulose or other cellulose derivatives.



The
guys I consult with tell me that in order to be called a "lacquer", the
material must be nitro (or similar cellulose derivative) and have the
property that successive coats chemically melt into each other, to a
degree that prohibits the formation of "witness lines" that result when
consecutive coats do not melt into each other. They tell me this has to
do not only with the solvent, but also the fact that cured nitro can
still be dissolved (attacked) by the solvents in the next succeeding
coats.



Does this sound kosher to all y'all? If this definition
of "lacquer" is correct, then I don't know of ANY catalyzed finishes
that would qualify as a lacquer....as far as I know they all require
some scuff sanding between coats. Is there really such a thing as catalyzed
nitro?
Author:  Dean [ Tue Jan 15, 2008 1:03 am ]
Post subject: 
Acrylic lacquer has been used in the automotive industry for more than 50 years and is much tougher than nitro. It is obtainable through automotive paint suppliers in all colors and in clear. It has the atvantage of having a lot of plastisizer mixed in and uv inhibitors. Buffs out beautifully but is very toxic.

Dean
Author:  Michael Dale Payne [ Tue Jan 15, 2008 1:31 am ]
Post subject: 
lacquer, solution of film-forming materials, natural or synthetic, usually applied as an ornamental or protective coating. The lacquer formula may be varied to impart durability, hardness, gloss, or imperviousness to water. Nitrocellulose (pyroxylin) lacquers are the most widely employed. Slower-drying natural lacquers contain oleoresins obtained from the juice of trees, especially of Rhus vernicifera, a sumac of SE Asia. Lacquer work was one of the earliest industrial arts of Asia. It was highly developed in India; the Chinese inlaid lacquer work with ivory, jade, coral, or abalone and were unrivaled in making articles carved from it. The art spread to Korea, then to Japan, where it took new forms, notably gold lacquer work. Fine Asian ware may have more than 40 coats, each being dried and smoothed with a whetstone before application of the next. The ware may be decorated in color, gold, or silver and enhanced by modeled reliefs, engraving, or carving. Buddhist monasteries encouraged the art and now preserve some of the oldest pieces extant; in the temple of Horyu-ji, near Nara, Japan, is a Chinese-made sword scabbard of the 8th cent. Notable lacquer artists include Ogata Korin (17th cent.) and Shibata Yeshin (19th cent.). In the 17th cent., Western European imitations were popularized as japanning and carried to great perfection in France in the vernis Martin developed by the Martin brothers under Louis XV. Commercial production of lacquer work in the 19th cent. resulted in a decline in quality.
Author:  Michael Dale Payne [ Tue Jan 15, 2008 2:03 am ]
Post subject: 
My point being that lacquers have been around for centuries long before modern celluloid derivatives and are made up of a variety of media, both natural and synthetic.


So in theory to quailifi as a lacquer if must be: A solution of film-forming materials, natural or synthetic, applied as an ornamental or protective coating.
Author:  Dave White [ Tue Jan 15, 2008 2:27 am ]
Post subject: 
Erik,

In the "nitpick" sense, as Michael's reply indicates, "lacquer" in it's true sense is made from either the sap of the lacquer tree, or from the secretions of the lac beetle. The word "lacquer" as used now was I suspect "borrowed" from from this and applied to the name nitrocellulose lacquer and other "lacquers" that have followed.
Author:  Barry Daniels [ Tue Jan 15, 2008 2:27 am ]
Post subject: 
That definition would also fit latex paint!

I think in practice, lacquer should mainly refer to nitrocellulose or acrylic lacquers.
Author:  Michael Dale Payne [ Tue Jan 15, 2008 2:41 am ]
Post subject: 
So 17th century Chinese lacquer work is not lacquer by your definition.

Author:  Michael Dale Payne [ Tue Jan 15, 2008 2:51 am ]
Post subject: 
I think the clearest definition is: A solution of resin solids in a flashing solvent. This should cover all historical and modern lacquers
Author:  Rick Turner [ Tue Jan 15, 2008 3:07 am ]
Post subject: 
What is and isn't "varnish"?   It's whatever the chemical companies say it is, and they're likely to change the formula at the drop of a hat or the change of a government regulation.   It's up to us to figure out whether what they call lacquer or varnish or enamel is appropriate or not for what we need it for, and we can't trust many of the companies to keep the formula the same. That's why I like buying McFadden products.   They are what they say they are. You want nitro lacquer, that's what you get.   You want polyester, that's what you get.

Don't trust hardware-store finishing products for guitars unless you want to get surprised some day.
Author:  Barry Daniels [ Tue Jan 15, 2008 3:30 am ]
Post subject: 
[QUOTE=MichaelP] So 17th century Chinese lacquer work is not lacquer by your definition.

[/QUOTE]

It has no bearing on current guitar finishes so it's a rather moot point isn't it?
Author:  Rick Turner [ Tue Jan 15, 2008 3:36 am ]
Post subject: 
Ahh, my point exactly. Lacquer is whatever a paint company chooses to call lacquer.   These definitions are a moving target.   Caveat emptor.
Author:  Barry Daniels [ Tue Jan 15, 2008 3:43 am ]
Post subject: 
I have also had the experience of learning to use one brand of lacquer and then the company reformulated it, making it totally worthless for guitar finishes. They did this without any notice or change of label.

Now I only use McFaddens.
Author:  Barry Daniels [ Tue Jan 15, 2008 3:46 am ]
Post subject: 
[QUOTE=MichaelP] I think the clearest definition is: A solution of resin solids in a flashing solvent. This should cover all historical and modern lacquers[/QUOTE]

That would also include all shellac and varnishes. This definition is too inclusive and would lead to confusion. Lets modernize this.
Author:  Rick Turner [ Tue Jan 15, 2008 3:52 am ]
Post subject: 
Barry, you can modernize it all you want, but if Sherwin Williams or whomever doesn't go along with your rules, it's just the Wild Wild West...which is what it already is.   You're already doing the best anyone can do...stick with a known and reliable supplier.

I can't for the life of me figure why we keep seeing these threads to the effect: "Can I use Deft?...or an Ace Hardware or Pep Boys rattle can finish?" Sure, go ahead and do it and learn how to refinish your bad work...

This is a losing battle. Lacquer is whatever they say it is, and I'm sticking with McFadden...
Author:  Michael Dale Payne [ Tue Jan 15, 2008 4:07 am ]
Post subject: 
True but the question of this topic was what is lacquer. not what is guitar lacquer. I'm not being a pain here, really am not. We use either Nitro or Acrylic lacquer for the most part in our craft. This is a true point. However the definition of lacquer is not limited to instrument building.

In all the resurch I have found most all represent "Lacquer" as resins solids carried in a flashing solvent. Almost as is the term described a formulation/application technique more than a specific class of media.

I do understand the point in reference to guitar building. But none the less there are lacquers that can be used in guitar building that are not nitro or acrylic
They can be natural resins and natural rendered then distilled solvents for instance. I agreee when we speak of lacquers in luthierie we tend to be refering either to acyrlic of nito. But like I said, I was just answering the question asked.
Author:  Michael Dale Payne [ Tue Jan 15, 2008 4:10 am ]
Post subject: 
Actually I believe shellac was the first resins used in lacquers. Once more almost all definitions of lacquer I have found seem to refer to formulation technique rather than a specific type of material.
Author:  Rick Turner [ Tue Jan 15, 2008 4:45 am ]
Post subject: 
Michael, I'm not being argumentative, I'm trying to caution those who are new to our field and rightfully tend to believe what a paint marketing flak writes in ad or label copy. Someone walks into Ace Hardware and sees a can of lacquer.   Hmmm, that's what they put on guitars, isn't it? Not necessarily...

So if this is a conversation about the etymology and best scientific definition of the word "lacquer" that's one thing.   But if it's a question of what works on guitars, it's quite another.
Author:  Michael Dale Payne [ Tue Jan 15, 2008 5:03 am ]
Post subject: 
I was actually responding to Barry but I took neither of you as being at overly argumentative. Both of your points are very relitive.

I do understand we are talking the 21 century and instrument finish here. I was just responding to the question does the solid need to be a to be a lacquer and if not what is lacquer.

I read the statement where his consultants said if it is not a cellulose derivative it is not a lacquer. Well I guess I should have answered if it is not a cellulose derivative It's not nitro, but instead I answered to the best of my ability what historically has been considered a lacquer. I will still contend that the resin used it what is likely the worlds oldest lacquer is still a more than viable instrument finish today

Author:  KenH [ Tue Jan 15, 2008 5:23 am ]
Post subject: 

Michael is correct in the definition and Rick is correct in it's application as far as stringed instruments.


I made a call to the Cabots factory a while back to discuss their lacquers. Much to my surprise, I got a return call from their head chemist and we had a lengthy discussion about the differences in lacquers. It was a HIGHLY educational discussion and I am blown away by their willingness to share their information. The bottom line is that they recomended that I not use their products as they were not suitable for stringed instruments. 


I use Behlen's stringed instrument lacquer, but at some point I may change that to McFaddens. The important thing is that you are 100% sure that the lacquer you are using is formulated for stringed instruments and the vibration and stresses associated with them. Anything else and you are asking for trouble down the road.
Author:  Rick Turner [ Tue Jan 15, 2008 6:27 am ]
Post subject: 
Ah, traditional tree sap derived lacquer for instruments...At last something more time consuming and expensive to do than French polish.   I've been searching high and low for the most difficult way to finish instruments on which I can totally lose my butt financially!   :-)
Author:  Michael Dale Payne [ Tue Jan 15, 2008 6:47 am ]
Post subject: 
I GIVE YOU ARE RIGHT I WILL TUCK MY TAIL AND RETREAT
Author:  Dave White [ Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:05 am ]
Post subject: 
[QUOTE=Rick Turner] Ah, traditional tree sap derived lacquer for instruments...At last something more time consuming and expensive to do than French polish.   I've been searching high and low for the most difficult way to finish instruments on which I can totally lose my butt financially!   :-)[/QUOTE]

Always glad to be of service
Author:  erikbojerik [ Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:07 am ]
Post subject: 
Thanks guys for a such a thorough answer to my question!



I love this place!   






Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/