| Official Luthiers Forum! http://w-ww.luthiersforum.com/forum/ |
|
| Pianolac http://w-ww.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10102&t=13225 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | csullivan [ Wed Aug 15, 2007 3:52 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Having read probably every post here for the last couple of years concerning various finishing materials, I don't think I've ever seen Pianolac mentioned. I haven't used it, but if you read the information at their Web site, it sounds like it might be worth a try ([URL=http://www.pianolac.com]. Has anyone out there used it and if so, what are its characteristics? What was the resulting finish like? How did it rub out, etc.? Pictures? Craig S. |
|
| Author: | David Collins [ Wed Aug 15, 2007 10:15 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I've never heard of it, but I suppose it could be a waterborne finish worth trying - I haven't beens satisfied with others, but it's been about 10 years and I'm sure the chemistry has changed since I tried last. What really caught my eye on their website was the name of their company - StarHawk Industries. Does anyone remember Star, Mohawk, and Behlen as independent companies before the gods of conglomeration wrapped them all up under Valspar's domain? I wonder if there's any possibility this could be some of their chemists who got left behind. Either that or it could be a name intended purely to mislead folks like me in to thinking things like that. |
|
| Author: | Rick Turner [ Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
My question to you is simply, "Why?" Why go away from products that have been proven to work well? Why go away from products that have been specifically formulated for guitar finishes? Why be a masochist about all this finish stuff? And if finish is really such a bugaboo, why not send your finish work out to a specialist like my pal Addam Stark who can do ultra thin nitro, polyester, satin lacquer or urethane, or whatever for probably less money than it should be worth to you to have a truly pro job done? |
|
| Author: | David Collins [ Wed Aug 15, 2007 1:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I have a recent interest in using water based or at least very low VOC finishes, because one of the six other businesses in my building is a midwifery, Center for the Childbearing Year. Even when I get my new spray room finally installed and exhausting over the roof, I would like to keep stuff like methyl ethyl ketones to a minimum. I'll still need to use nitro for most touchups, but touchups are relatively low volume. It will likely be at least another year before I get back in to building, but since I need the booth anyway for touchup I would like to be able to do finishing in my own shop. Waterborne finishes are pretty hard to beat for low VOC's, or any toxins that can't be easily filtered at the exhaust. The problem is I've never found one I liked. I working with Bryan Galloup when he had a real bad reaction to the McFadden's nitro, and we ended up working with chemists from Valspar and KTM to find a suitable replacement. KTM tried to make a number of different waterborne formulas for us, but they were all lacking in one area or another. If it was hard enough to resist denting at least as good as nitro, then it checked and crazed prematurely. If it was plasticized enough to lessen the crazing then it would dent if way too easily. Bonding, gloss level, all sorts of things that we just couldn't get to our liking. We were just too used to nitro, and that was our benchmark at the time. By the time we had given up on KTM's stuff, we had reasonably isolated the plasticizer or solvent or whatever it was (forgive my memory, but this was at least 10 years ago) that Bryan had become sensitized to and were able to go back to a different nitro formula through Valspar. I haven't tried any water based stuff since then, so I don't know how much it has changed. I would still like to give it another try for health and environmental reasons, though I would prefer to find someone else who has already found a good formula. 'Till then I'll still be using shellac and nitro. It's what I'm fluent in, and I suppose I'll just have to spray when the midwifery is closed. |
|
| Author: | Dave Rector [ Thu Aug 16, 2007 2:43 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
There was much discussion about this product over on the MIMF forum a year or two ago. I think the general concensus was it was "smoke and mirrors". I believe Mario and others tried to get samples and see if it met their claims or not. They were unwilling to provide any information about ingredients or anything. But, my memory isn't as good as it once was. Mosey on over to the MIMF and do a search for it if you want accurate details. |
|
| Author: | Howard Klepper [ Thu Aug 16, 2007 3:36 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
That's my recollection too. It has come up a couple of times on various forums, and while I don't recall the details, people either couldn't get it, or couldn't get any good reason to think it would be a good guitar finish. Every couple of years the waterborne manufacturers announce that their new product has solved all the problems with waterborne. At least until they solve them again the next time. |
|
| Author: | csullivan [ Thu Aug 16, 2007 3:42 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Thanks for everyone's comments. Rick, I understand what you're saying. Maybe I have a penchant for self- inflicted pain!! But until recently, I had always felt I should be able to finish what I started (as my Mother always told me). I am in fact seriously considering sending the finishing out. I guess I was just holding out hope there was a waterborn out there that lived up to expectations. As Alan Carruth always says, "There's no such thing as a good finish." There's only the one(s) you're willing to live with. Craig S. |
|
| Author: | Don Williams [ Thu Aug 16, 2007 7:50 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Snake Oil. A number of us tried to get the product, and they wouldn't deliver it. We tried to find out from them whether it was an acrylic, or a urethane, or some combination, and all they would say was that it was a proprietary formula, and wouldn't divulge any information about it. We tried to explain the logical reasoning behind our need to know the basics, but they simply refused to say anything. As far as anyone knows, nobody has been able to procure even a sample to try. |
|
| Author: | Mike Mahar [ Thu Aug 16, 2007 8:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Why would someone claim that they have a product and then not sell it? If they won't let you order any, how do they scam you? I can see why they wouldn't offer samples for free but it sounds like they won't even sell it. Very odd. |
|
| Author: | Michael Dale Payne [ Thu Aug 16, 2007 8:44 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Email them and ask for the MSDS sheet. By law they must provide it on demand. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|