Official Luthiers Forum!

I'm not particularly interested in experimentation either, but I can follow (Laurent's) directions, which in the case of the Epiphanes, I did and got the specified results.
Whether this will become my preferred finish over FP remains to be seen but by following the recipe closely I know I've at least given it a fair trial and that it is a viable and readily obtainable alternative.

I haven't posted much lately but wanted to post a brief follow up to this thread. I had some Epifanes varnish that I had previously tried without accelerators and thinners mixed in the recommended 1:1:1 formula but I wanted to give it good test so I purchased their accelerator and spray thinner (had the brush thinner already) and mixed 1:1:1 with the varnish.

I used it on a couple tops because I ran out of the Sutherland Welles product. I used a foam brush and the mix was very easy to apply as you can imagine being thinned down and it went on really nicely. Leveled very well and dried (Slowly) to a very high gloss. I think 48 hours is what it really needs to get hard enough to sand. After 48 hours it sanded out very well but was still quite soft to the fingernail. I put on 3 or 4 coats as it builds quite fast, level sanded, then polished.

The finish came out really beautiful but, and to me it's a really big but, it's still quite soft. Easily dented with a finger nail and it's been at least 3 weeks maybe more. It might eventually get harder but for now it is not acceptable for my uses. I want a very hard finish, especially for the tops and the Epifanes, which is specifically designed for marine and UV usage is also designed to remain flexible in those harsh environments.

So for me it's back to the Sutherland Welles Uralkyd 500. I used it as a wipe on for the tops and put the thinnest coat i could for the first coat to get little to no penetration, to keep the top as pristine as possible, then wipe on top of that. This stuff gets so hard it's hard to describe. Can't mark it with a finger nail.

Not selling or advocating a product and more than anything would LOVE to hear others' experieinces and I have written this to simply share mine.

Are other using Epifanes? Is it getting hard enough? Any the Sutherland Welles users?

_________________
Thank You and Best To All

How long did you wait between coats? This can significantly affect cure time with natural varnishes, IME.

I'm also looking for a new alternate varnish, now that the old Rockhard is no more.

Average 48 hours. I even have a test panel that's 2 months old and it's still the same hardness. Easily dents with finger nail.

_________________
Thank You and Best To All

That's disappointing.

I've been thinking of trying Epiphanes, but I'm not that thrilled about having to mix it up with their proprietary thinner and 'accelerator' to get something useable. I notice that most people are using a bit of japan dryer to speed things up.

Has anyone tried McCloskeys man o war or other easily available spar varnish? U500 is not available in California, AFAIK, though there are other likely similar urethane/alkyd floor finishes.

I'm in CA and can buy it from a paint supply house down the street. And my post is not meant to sway future users because you will find other who are very happy with the Epifanes and there are many other choices.

I'm still very curious as to how everyone came out who tried the Epifanes? The U500?

_________________
Thank You and Best To All

I have nothing to report yet as I had to put the guitar I plan to finish with Epifanes on the back burner for a while. When I get to the finishing on it, I will let you all know about my results.

_________________
Todd Rose
Ithaca, NY

https://www.dreamingrosesecobnb.com/todds-art-music

https://www.facebook.com/ToddRoseGuitars/

You should test your finish on a pretty hard wood. Something like Rosewood. It's all too easy to get a false impression if the underlying wood is on the soft side. A lot of the time it's the wood that is taking the nail scratch rather than the finish. Even a wood like Cherry can confuse matters. Test on a hard hardwood and use another finish on the same wood for comparison. In the end it only gives you an indication of hardness. It will never tell you how it wears, takes the knocks or resists sweat over a long period of time. Quite often hard finishes tend to be brittle, which is why you see many instruments with hairline cracks in the finish.

Good advice. I tested on both spruce and mahogany and it's not the underlying wood that's denting, really not that hard to tell the difference.

Would love to hear from other users of Epifanes or Sutherland Welles.

_________________
Thank You and Best To All

You're seeking the wrong qualities in a varnish. The main argument for using varnish is because it is softer and more 'giving' than the harder finishes, which many argue leads to better tone.

I have many mandolins finished with the Epiphanes(which one are you using, BTW?) and all are holding up just fine. One lives semi-locally and I get to see it often and it still looks new, despite being played daily for about 3-4 years now. Will it dent if the owner pushes his fingernail into it? Most likely! Will I care? No! No musician in their right mind purposely pushes their fingernail into their instrument's finish. Even polyester dents readily under a fingernail... :/

And yes, it will continue to harden; I wait a 6-8 weeks before buffing them and buff again before handing it over to their owner a couple weeks after that. And I use japan drier, also. Patience...

Thanks grumpy, always appreciate your opinion.

I'm using the Epifanes (not sure where the ph comes from but my can is spelled with an 'f' Epifanes) clear high gloss varnish. Like THIS http://www.westmarine.com/webapp/wcs/st ... ucTtrTTnmE

With THIS accelerator http://www.jamestowndistributors.com/us ... nd+Varnish

and THIS thinner http://www.jamestowndistributors.com/us ... obot_crawl I have 2 one for brushing and one for spraying.

My feeling, and it really is just that as I have no hard data to back it up, is that a harder finish (and less of it) would tend to dampen the sound of the woods less than a softer more flexible material. Am I reading you are saying the opposite? That "many argue" the softer finishes "lead to better tone"?

I guess this quickly gets into HHG sounds better than Tite Bond territory and if indeed softer finishes sound better (trust me I know you're not saying this so simplistically) then you're right I'm looking for the wrong qualities.

And of course no one would purposely stick their fingernail into the finish of a fine guitar but I do, because I am working on finish techniques and materials and my guitars are not fine guitars. I don't do it because I'm not in my right mind. I do it to test for hardness because I think it's important to keep the woods from damping under a softer finish.

If that theory is wrong I am all ears (eyes) and would love to learn what the theory is on soft versus hard finishes and tone quality.

I have no dog in this hunt and really want the best finish for my guitars and for some reason hard = good and soft = bad to my way of thinking - but I can always change my way of thinking.

Thanks again for the input.

EDIT: I also have some of the Sutherland Welles Tung Oil and when applied to a piece of redwood top material I could sense the damping from the oil saturating the top wood versus the harder surface finish of their U500. Granted I was only tapping the wood but myself and a friend could tell the difference. Maybe that was a good thing? The finish was softer and more forgiving and damped the sound but I was/am still stuck on harder is better. Still searching.

_________________
Thank You and Best To All

This all seems a little odd, at least to my knowledge and experience of the way varnish works. I've tried a huge number of them but mainly natural resin varnishes. Generally (always?) the higher the resin content, the harder and more chippy they become.
The solids content of Epifanes is given at around 55%. Does anyone know if the solids content is the resin content or the resin/oil content combined?
Adding the Epifanes accelerator (assuming it is resin) should shift the Epifanes to that of an even harder surface. The stuff should end up harder than P&L 38.
I can get the Epifanes (I haven't tried it) but not the P&L 38 here in the UK. The latest that I've tested is a pure Alkyd Spar varnish, with a solids content of 52%. It should be very similar to the Epifanes (without accelerator). It's only been a few days drying so it's a bit too early to make any definitive judgements on the stuff. I suspect it is going to get hard enough for my needs.
Of course the other factor is just how thick or how many coats are applied. Too thick and it could be a year or longer before it reaches full hardness. Shellac isn't much different in that respect.

Larry, can you peel/chip off a piece of your test finish and measure it precisely? I'm curious as to your final thickness, since I don't use Epifanes(thanks for correcting my spelling ) reducers and accelerators. I think(can't be sure without going into the shop to check the can) that we're using the same product. I thin with turpentine(love the smell) and add a wee splash of japan drier.

The arguments for varnish VS harder finishes is debated among mandolin players and builders more so than among guitarists and builders, and it may in fact be a placebo effect, but perception is reality, so sometimes we must bow to the clients' desires(as long as it isn't a definite step backwards). I've done mandolins in the past 9 years in both polyester and varnish and I can't say there's a difference.

And finally, back to hardness, I think what's more important to long term durability is how the finish wears, and both the P&L #38 and Epifanes have a good and long track record going for them. I won't reveal names but there are small(and not so small!) shops/factories that offer a varnish finish as an option at crazy upcharges, and they're using one or the other of the above. Methinks we can be pretty confident that these guys have done a thorough and complete research before settling on these products.

Thanks to everyone for your ongoing input on this thread.

Just one small observation, for the record: I just took an instrument of mine that was finished in polyester by Joe White and attempted to make a mark with my fingernail in an inconspicuous place on the back of the headstock, and I couldn't do it, no matter how hard I pushed. I did not try this on the top, where the finish is probably thinner and the wood (spruce) obviously softer, because I wouldn't want a mark there if I happened to succeed in making one.

_________________
Todd Rose
Ithaca, NY

https://www.dreamingrosesecobnb.com/todds-art-music

https://www.facebook.com/ToddRoseGuitars/

Yeah the Sutherland products are very hard as well. Maybe that doesn't matter so much? I think it's important but could be for all the wrong reasons, and I'm not trying to be facetious, as I truly do not know.

I'm a bit surprised more folks haven't tried the U500. I'll pick up another quart this week and try and re-confirm my findings.

_________________
Thank You and Best To All

I have a quart of U500 onhand but haven't yet used it. I don't claim to be an expert but my gut says film thickness being equal, a soft finish would dampen vibration more than a harder finish. Would love to hear your thoughts if you have an opposing view.

_________________
Formerly known as Adaboy.......

Yes, I do oppose your view. Why do --you-- think a hard finish is better?

I think he thinks that "a soft finish would dampen vibration more than a harder finish." And that might make a hard finish better, but obviously that just makes a harder finish different than a softer finish.

Did a little reading and the obvious answers appeared in a few places. Hard finish = brighter tone. Softer finish = more mellow tone. Couldn't find any reference to either being better than the other.

Another question, "Why do you think a softer finish is better?" Genuinely curious.

_________________
Thank You and Best To All

I could be wrong, and I often am, but I would say that they are different more than one better than the other. How many top materials do we use ? What kind of bracing wood and patterns do we use ? Thin top with heavy bracing or thicker top with lighter bracing ? What kind of material for the bridge and bridge plate ? There is dampening in all of these, I believe. Yet, if done well, almost any combination of these things yields a good guitar. In the end, does the guitar (or instrument) sound how you want it to and is it a reasonably protective finish.

I think you are correct and it would be hard to argue your logic but I am really curious about opinions one way or the other because I have so much to learn. HHG versus Tite bond - lots of opinions and I've learned from those opinions. In the end one may not be better or worse than another but it's during the discussion and sharing of opinions that I learn most.

I want a hard finish but I don't really know why. Grumpy might prefer a softer finish and I'd love to know why. Are there tonal reasons? Do they wear better? Do they flex a bit and that's better? What finish do you use? Why? Do you have hard finish versus soft finish opinion?

_________________
Thank You and Best To All

A softer finish might cut the highs a bit, which could be a good thing for mandolins and fiddles, maybe not so much for guitars. I believe Behlens (and P&L) was a short oil alkyd varnish , which should dry harder and more brittle than the Epifanes long oil alkyd spar varnish. The spar varnish would be more elastic and less prone to checking but more difficult to rub out. As long as the finish is thin I doubt it would affect the sound much if any. Dis-here-claimer: I use lacquer on guitars and varnish on boats.

One thing Laurent said about the virtues of Epifanes is that it "buffs the best of any varnish I know". Again, he uses a mix with a lot of added "accelerator" (more resin), which makes it harder than the straight up varnish (see earlier posts in this thread for details).

_________________
Todd Rose
Ithaca, NY

https://www.dreamingrosesecobnb.com/todds-art-music

https://www.facebook.com/ToddRoseGuitars/

Resins or high resin content will give a harder, glossier looking finish. More Oil content will tend to soften both the finish and the actual appearance of it. Not a huge amount (appearance wise) but the difference is there.
I still can't understand the P&L 38, it's solids content is given as being very low.

The Pratt and Lambert may be "pre-thinned", like Mohawk lacquer, to make it easier to brush out. The solvents would leave the mix so the end product would have less oil and more resin, but the solids content in the can would be lower. Essentially you are buying less varnish and more thinner, trading finish material for ease of use. The Epifanes generally recommends thinning their varnishes up to 50% for the first coat, 25% for the second, and then using full strength (or thinned 5%) for subsequent coats (spar varnish in marine applications).

By adding resins and driers (accelerator) to the Epifanes, Laurent may be creating a more typical alkyd varnish, or something in between a spar and interior varnish.

Ah, so the solids content does not refer to the resin/oil ration but the resin+oil to thinner ratio. Which would make more sense.
I'm more accustomed to the Oil to Resin ratio (rather than solids content) given in natural resin varnishes. I prefer to be given the Oil to Resin ratio - at least that way you will have a fair idea of the properties of the varnish before purchasing it. I'm sure some manufacturers offer this information although I rarely see it on the info sheets.
If the Epifanes accelerator is resin then Laurent is forming a shorter Oil varnish - obviously cold solved but perhaps the modern resins can be incorporated into oil without heat.