Official Luthiers Forum!

We go to all this trouble of letting the wax settle in waxed shellac and using the wax-free shellac on the top surface, but I am wondering if this is what the old-timers did. As I have mentioned, the finish on Martin and Washburn guitars from the teens and twentys looks fantastic. I find it hard to believe that these companies took the time to let the wax settle in shellac before using. Maybe the wax is an important component for the durability and toughness of a shellac film. If you are only using shellac as a sealer and coating with a dis-similar topcoat, I can see where wax would not be a good thing for intercoat adhesion.
Maybe we shellac finishers are doing ourselves a disservice by dewaxing our shellac?

_________________
Stay with the happy people.
--Reynolds Large

The seperated the wax from the shellac by the same method we use today

Michael, how do you know this?
I find it a bit of a stretch that manufacturers waited a week or two for shellac to settle and then threw away the remaining 25-33% of waxy shellac remaining in the bottle.
I remember some reference Mike Longworth made to seeing lots of murky bottles of orange shellac at the old Martin factory.

_________________
Stay with the happy people.
--Reynolds Large

I was not referring to how a specific manufacture mix their finish but more as to how "OLD timers" separated wax from the shellac.

Now as far as your comment about Mike seeing murky bottles of orange shellac at the old martin plant. i did not read that post and have no idea as to how old the cut was when mike saw the post. when shellac goes bad it will often cloud up so what he saw may not have been waxy shellac but old moisture contaminated shellac.

That said in reference to wax being a problem and how the old timers dewaxed. yes it has always bee an issue for future over coats and the method of separating the wax out was back then as is now a mater of dissolving the shellac and wax and allowing their natural viscosity to separate the two

Why do think it was a stretch that manufactures waited a week for the shellac to separate from the wax. I would assume making the batches was an ongoing process Just like making up blanks or any other part of a guitar it is don on a schedule the shellac they used one day was mad-up in advance. Just logical manufacturing processes

One more thing the never or should never have thrown out the waxy part of the shellac I was commonly used to seal end grain of billets and blanks to prevent checking.

by the way I have seen 16th,17th and 18th century French and English furniture makers finish recipes that included mixing and separating shellac to be used as finish. So viscosity separation has been used for a long time.

No may pieces of furniture, and instruments have been finished with non de-waxed shellac. As well as many weather exposed pieces of wood. Heck when you by common caned shellac it is not usually wax free. and it is a great weather protectant. But it is not as translucent and does not accept adhesion of other finish near as well.

One more thing! they never or should never have thrown out the waxy part of the shellac It was commonly used to seal end grain of billets and blanks to prevent checking.

By the way I have seen 16th,17th and 18th century French and English furniture makers finish recipes that included mixing and separating shellac to be used as finish. So viscosity separation has been used for a long time.

Now may pieces of furniture, and instruments have been finished with non de-waxed shellac. As well as many weather exposed pieces of wood. Heck when you by common caned shellac it is not usually wax free. and it is a great weather protectant. But it is not as translucent and does not accept adhesion of other finish near as well.

We can go on and on conjecturing whether Martin, Lyon & Healy, etc, let their shellac separate and used the dewaxed part of it. Unless we find an old time finisher at one of these manufacturers that's all it will remain, just conjecture. Not to fan the flames, but I still find it more reasonable that these production shops of the early 20th century would simply dissolve heat-processed shellac in denatured alcohol and go to it.
My initial point is what I am interested in exploring on the Forum, whether wax in shellac is necessarily a bad thing for an entirely shellac-finished guitar. I brought up the old-timers because I think there is a missing link in the way we shellac finish guitars these days.
I am wondering if "wax in shellac is bad" is one of those lutherie myths that got written or spoken once somewhere and subsequently got writ in stone.

_________________
Stay with the happy people.
--Reynolds Large

Why don't you do some experiments and report back to us? I am sure the results would be interesting.

_________________
"Building guitars looks hard, but it's actually much harder than it looks." Tom Buck

The dewaxed shellac "myth" is not limited to lutherie. If you search  the more standard woodworking type sites, the finishing experts recommend dewaxing.

If you move beyond the "adhesion" issue...and maybe more into what might be bad about wax

1. The wax reduces the clarity of the finish (hopefully not a whole lot of debate there?). Generally, I think most would agree that, although cosmetic, clarity is an important factor.


2. Dewaxed shellac is has less moisture resistance.

On the downside, I understand that dewaxed shellac has a shorter shelf life once mixed (I don't know I pretty much use mine up, and always mix fresh...finishing is NOT the time to cut a corner for a few $)

Joe

 

[QUOTE=JHerrick]

1. The wax reduces the clarity of the finish (hopefully not a whole lot of debate there?). Generally, I think most would agree that, although cosmetic, clarity is an important factor.


2. Dewaxed shellac is has less moisture resistance.

[/QUOTE]
Thanks for the response. Chemical analysis of waxy shellac has wax content at about 5-7% by weight of dry resin. The final film of French polish should be under .004", or 4 mils. I doubt whether 7% of 2 to 4 mils is enough to significantly affect clarity.
The second statement is presented as fact. I would be interested in the source of this statement. It does seem counter-intuitive that inclusion of wax would make it less water resistant.
This snippet is from shellac.net's website:
"Our prices on dewaxed shellac are so good, there's no reason to use waxy shellac, unless you have a specific application (restoration, instrument- building or canoe-building) which requires a waxy shellac."
Guys and gals, I do not intend this to be a combative post. I do not have a position I am trying to defend. I am hoping this discussion on the Forum might be useful to those of us who are committed to shellac finishes.

_________________
Stay with the happy people.
--Reynolds Large

I am with Joe here, The reasons we dewax boil off or viscosity separate is to produce a clearer top coat and better undercoat. and yes it has been done as long as shellac has been used as a finish.

Trien,
I hope I am miss reading you in your post but is seemed to me anyway that you seem upset that I posted counter to your hypotheses. I hope you did not think that I was in anyway discounting your beliefs. That was not my intent. I just answered the first part of you question on how many old times seperated the wax from the shellac.

As far as old timers are concerned I can only go back to my great grandfather and grandfather who were both cabinet makers and the later taught me to French polish and his father taught him so I can only trace back some 120 years or so.

In any case I go back to my previous statements. Yes some things (including but not just instruments) have been finished with waxy shellac and that is just fine. however those that cared about the clarity and the ability to over coat have been dewaxing shellac for centuries some by heating and most by viscosity separation. To me how you get there is not important.

If you are looking for me to say dewaxing is not important? That will not happen because both of the two main issue that waxy shellac present are important to me.

If you want me to say that it is perfectly ok to use waxy shellac if you want. Then i would say sure but be aware of the problems associated with waxy shellac.

[QUOTE=TRein]   I do not intend this to be a combative post. I do not have a position I am trying to defend. I am hoping this discussion on the Forum might be useful to those of us who are committed to shellac finishes.
[/QUOTE]

With all due respect I do believe you. But must say the reasons some my self included feel that you are take a specific stand is the fact that you have aggressively challenged each of us to present you with proof.

I, in part understand your line of questioning and there is nothing wrong with asking. It is hard to read personality into written word but I must in honesty say that your replies do take on a disapproving and doubting aire the posters knowledge. Thats ok! I can answer any question you may have about where or how my knowledge was obtained.

Michael, you are right. It is difficult to convey tone of voice in postings such as this. That's why I clarified that I do not want this to be a combative post.
Believe me, I am not aggresively challenging anyone for proof of statements nor am I upset if someone chimes in with an idea that differs from my initial question. We are having a discussion here and you know as well as I that right and wrong information gets spread equally.

I just re-read Joe's post and realized I probably misread it due to the typo. I assume is was to have read: "Dewaxed shellac has less moisture resistance". Maybe this is not what Joe meant as it was under the subject of "what might be bad about wax" in shellac.

_________________
Stay with the happy people.
--Reynolds Large

I would think that factory was not waiting for the wax to sink to the bottom in a jar. Most likely they had a giant vat of shellac and when it settled it was probably drained off. Once done they had a large quanity to last them maybe weeks. I don't think they were making a fresh vat daily then waiting 2 weeks. But i believe on some of these factory made instruments of low quality they didn't even bother to remove the wax. They just finished them as is and shipped them out.

_________________
Guitars, guitars and more guitars.

As far as I'm concerned, the main reason for dewaxing shellac is that the wax makes the pad tend to stick when you're French polishing. If you apply shellac with a brush the wax is not a problem in that way. Also, from the times I have brushed shellac, I'd say it didn't effect adhesion either: it's a solvent release finish, and burns in. There may be other issues with wax in shellac, but mostly I dewax to make life easier when FPing.   

No problem. Like I said for me the wax is an issue when French polishing and when I use as a sealer but if you nor worried about over coating or real picky on the clarity it is a good finish wax or no wax

In the 15th through the early 19th centuries there were not many other finishes other natural oils and some varnishes available so worry with over coating was not a big issue. but in the 19th and forward most furniture makers, cabinet makers and for that mater instrument maker gave more consideration to possibility or there work being over coated later down the road.

personally I would not call the De-wax syndrome a myth but rather a reality check. A reality check that the finish that is now on the piece will likely be added to down the road. Much more prevalent in the furniture and cabinet industry than in the factory built instrument industry. And the clarity issue was also a guiding influence to the rise of dewaxed shellac being the preferred state.

1. Today we don't set our instrument intentionly out in the rain so we don't need that much moisture protection.

2. We want our finish to represent the the top of our ability and that is often represented by the clarity of our finish.

3. We also want to use shellac a a sealer for other types of finishes so adhesion by other finishes is another attribute we strive for.

These three thing have lead us to dewaxed shellac as the prime state of shellac in the finishing industry or craft.

None of this discounts the ability of waxy shellac in of its self from providing a viable instrument finish.

There is one more minor thing. Common logic tells me that wax weighs more that its equal volume of shellac so a dewaxed shellac is a lighter finish with less dampening that waxy shellac.

Trein, If FP finishes from the twenties are notably more durable and tough than modern then I think you've raised an interesting question.   I would like to see the finish on a Martin from the twenties first hand so I could see what you mean. Could you describe what you're seeing in the older finish that is different from modern FP guitar? Is it just that it is well preserved or does it have some other character?

Off hand, without giving it much thought, I can't see why waxed would make the finish more durable since the wax is insoluable in the alchohol solvent and it doesn't seem to have a chemical component since it easily separates by density. But maybe there's a complicated way the wax interacts.

I’ve finished some furniture pieces with waxed shellac before, according to shellac.net dewaxed has superior clarity, but honestly I can’t tell the difference on the furniture pieces I’ve done. I've never used waxed on a guitar and I don’t think you'll find many people who have that could lend their experience but you might drop and email to Martin's '1833 Shop & Guitarmaker's Connection' email address.    They seem very proud of their history and may have an accurate preservation of the historical facts that went into their early guitars finishes.

Marc i to have used it on wood working projects with the wax still in there and i have never had a problem with look and clarity. I guess in the world of HD everyone wants to see crystal clear high gloss mirror images in there finish when they stare at it.

_________________
Guitars, guitars and more guitars.

I've got a shellac finished 1919 Martin 00-18 that is of the era when they knocked down the gloss and made them a satin finish. From the early 1900s on into the 1920s they were experimenting with faster ways to finish than padded on French polish. As I understand it, they went from French polish to brushed on shellac done satin to varnish over shellac, and then finally to nitrocellulose over shellac and stuck with that until relatively recently when they went to vinyl sealer under the nitro.

The 00 finish is very thin, and somewhat duller than intended, I believe.   

[QUOTE=Marc] Trein,    I would like to see the finish on a Martin from the twenties first hand so I could see what you mean. Could you describe what you're seeing in the older finish that is different from modern FP guitar? Is it just that it is well preserved or does it have some other character?
[/QUOTE]
Good question. The finish on New York Martins and Lyon & Healy circa 1900 guitars appears to be the same. It is decidedly orange, very thin, and not very glossy. I have seen guitars of this era that have had the heck played out of them and the finish still looks great. There is no checking and even at points of contact like the upper bout on the bass side back and the waist on the treble side there is no dulling or imprinting. Lots of the classical guitars by Bouchet, Simplicio, etc. still have their original French polish on them and they still look wonderful.

_________________
Stay with the happy people.
--Reynolds Large

I believe your challenges not to be combative as well.

I knew the absence of wax decreasing water resistance would be counter intuitive because we all wax things to keep water OFF of them.... The typo didn't help

To answer as to my source, one is a quote below from Homstead Finishing site:

"The wax in the shellac reduces the clarity of the finish and also reduces the molecular weight of the shellac resin, making it less resistant to water"

Homestead Finishing is run by Jeff Jewitt who is highly considered in the finishing industry.

Michael's statement above ("logic tells me that wax weighs more that its equal volume of shellac so a dewaxed shellac is a lighter finish with less dampening that waxy shellac") is what I would consider a corollary to the above molecular weight statement.

Although we typically don't leave guitars out in the rain, I would suggest that human sweat is very common on an instrument. Although it has other "stuff" that makes it tough on a finish, it's main transport mechanism would be water...so again, any edge I can get to keep water out is a good thing.

Additionally, if I can get a clearer result, no matter how small, by the rather simple expedient of letting the wax settle, then I'm for it. I don't need a centrifuge or any other special equipment to achieve the separation. We're not talking a lot of work here. For what it's worth, I found one site where the manufacturer SELLS the shellac wax to be used as...you guessed it...a wax (additive).

Before everyone assumes that wax in *IS* a good thing, the supposition is that old timers just went at it without dewaxing...that isn't known any more than if they DID dewax?

Joe

Bill Gates says the spelling is better this time...

[QUOTE=TRein] [QUOTE=Marc] Trein,    I would like to see the finish on a Martin from the twenties first hand so I could see what you mean. Could you describe what you're seeing in the older finish that is different from modern FP guitar? Is it just that it is well preserved or does it have some other character?
[/QUOTE]
Good question. The finish on New York Martins and Lyon & Healy circa 1900 guitars appears to be the same. It is decidedly orange, very thin, and not very glossy. I have seen guitars of this era that have had the heck played out of them and the finish still looks great. There is no checking and even at points of contact like the upper bout on the bass side back and the waist on the treble side there is no dulling or imprinting. Lots of the classical guitars by Bouchet, Simplicio, etc. still have their original French polish on them and they still look wonderful.

[/QUOTE]

Orange, that's interesting, do you think the orange color is due to the color of the shellac that was used, or somthing in the aging? I wonder if the pigment in shellac makes it a little tougher. I've used some orange shellac on furniture but only clear blonde on guitars.

FP on my classicals will definitly dull where you say at the, upper bout bass side where the sternum contacts in about 6 to 8 months if care isn't taken, also, thin-out over a period of several years.

What can you see in glancing light on these older finishes, any expression of pores?

Again, just conjecture here. Aging is definitely at work, but I also believe orange shellac was used. I am not sure when bleached shellac came into general circulation, but early bleached shellac had the reputation of going bad while still in the flake and required special care in storing it. One text mentions storing it under damp sawdust! Plus, orange shellac was cheaper and factories were as conscious of costs back then as they are today.
It has been a while since I have seen one of these guitars so I can't comment conclusively about pore filling. They were definitely filled, but with what I don't know. Most likely a silex based, pigmented oil filler that was the industry standard at that time. The appearance of these old guitars would be nothing to be ashamed of if a modern luthier could duplicate it. I don't think that the orange pigment by itself is a toughening agent. It is more of a case of the extra processing the bleached variety has to go through, possibly at a detriment to durability. Brune certainly feels this is the case.

I touched on the heat processing of shellac in a previous post, which I believe increases the toughness and durability of FP. Just search my posts and the one on button lac explains what I am referring to.

Joe, thanks for the clarification. I am a fan of Homestead Finishing's shellacs. Jeff is one of the few suppliers that is stocking many different varieties of shellac. He has a good reputation in the coatings industry, no doubt. However, this is a quote from "The Chemistry of Paints, Pigments and Varnishes" by J. Gauld Bearn, copyright 1924:
"As a rule Button Lac is somewhat harder than ordinary orange shellac, owing to the small percentage of shellac wax that it contains"

I am not going to immediately finish my next guitar with waxy shellac. I am not convinced that it is the "magic bullet". I do feel it is one of those "writ in stone" suppositions that need to be re-examined and discussed, however.

--Tom

_________________
Stay with the happy people.
--Reynolds Large

Shellac gets tougher and more water and solvent resistant with age. After about 75 years it's hard to dissolve it in anything. This has been a problem in the violin world, where there are old repairs that need redoing but the touch-up varnish, based on shellac, cannot be removed with damaging original wood. I stripped the paint off the interior woodwork in an old house once, but the stripper stopped when it reached the prime coat of shellac and white lead. Nothing would touch it, and rather than sand it off I just painted over it. The lead was sealed in, and wasn't going anywhere anyway.

The color of the shellac is in the resin, not the wax, which is white or clear. I'm told they use shellac wax as a gloss coating on foods. The lac resin as collected from the trees is very dark, but they beat it to a coarse powder and wash out a lot of the color, which is valuable in itself as a red dye (see Kremer's catalog). This yeilds 'seedlac' for finishing. The seedlac can then be proccessed in a number of ways to remove more color, but usually at the cost of some durability in the final film. I don't think it's the color that toughens it, but rather the collateral damage from removing the color makes it less tough.

The problem with sweat is often that it's alkaline: shellac is soluble not only in alcohol, but in alkaline water solutions. That's why some people are worse on shellac finishes than others; different body chemistry. It's also why you don't want to use soap to wash off your shellaced guitar.