Unofficial Taylor Guitar Forum - UTGF
Taylor Acoustic & Electric Guitars => Taylor Acoustic & Electric Guitars => Topic started by: lutehole on April 26, 2012, 04:04:03 PM
-
Is Taylor's satin finish thicker or its gloss finish thicker?
What's the thickness of each finish approx?
-
Is Taylor's satin finish thicker or its gloss finish thicker?
What's the thickness of each finish approx?
The gloss finish is thicker.
I think the goal is to make the finish as thin as possible to reduce its damping effect so older guitars might have a thicker finish than the newest ones. I don't know for certain.
-
With deference to Herb, I am not sure the gloss is, in fact, thicker. Someone got a spec or factory word on this? From what I figure (a reasoned guess, admittedly), the satin is identical in every respect to the gloss with the simple deletion of the the labor involved with buffing to a gloss. Simple: it's a cost cutter. Further, I have never heard nor read anywhere that it is more thinly-applied than the gloss finish.
What I do recall reading long ago, though, is that since Taylor brought in the "robo-sprayer" Bob mentioned the finish got thinner (arguably better for tone since there is less "stuff" to hamper the soundboard's movement), was more evenly applied, and resulted in far less airborn loss/waste. I can't recall when robo-sprayer came in but my failing memory says somewhere around 2000(?).
Frankly, I wouldn't waste a moment's thought on which is better in terms of thickness/durability ...for taylor's guitars, that is. It's a simple preference, really. While gloss represents a more "finished" guitar to the marketplace, there are those who say they like the satin. As for which will "hold up" better, I'd say it's irrelevant for all practical purposes of normal use/wear.
Edward
-
Buffing a finish will reduce the thickness ever so slightly. So it could be that a gloss finish is applied slightly thicker to allow for the loss during buffing.
But I do not know the final thickness of either finish.
-
I first started selling Taylors in September of 2001. I stopped selling them in February of 2012.
In those ten years and five months, I never needed to know the thickness of finishes. I'd be willing to bet that very few people know the actual thicknesses and, quite honestly, I don't think it matters an iota.
Essentially, it isn't a question which is likely going to be answered on an internet forum. A call to Taylor would be the way to go...
-
Is Taylor's satin finish thicker or its gloss finish thicker?
What's the thickness of each finish approx?
short of calling Taylor's customer service, it'd be impossible to know for certain, imho
http://www.taylorguitars.com/guitars/acoustic/features/finish (http://www.taylorguitars.com/guitars/acoustic/features/finish)
the difference between the gloss & satin finish is the 2nd coat -
electrostatically applied UV cured polyester, rubbed out & robotically buffed to gloss vs
a hand-sprayed 2 part (resin & hardener) polyurethane finish that is left alone (satin)
i would venture to guess that in the end, the gloss finish could be thinner, as
both coats of polyester are electrostatically applied & then rubbed out & buffed -
in terms of durability, i've seen more satin guitars than gloss showing
signs of finish lifting, if they were subjected to bumps, nicks or scrapes
ultimately, the thinnest finish could very well be varnish, if applied to open-pore wood
-
With deference to Herb, I am not sure the gloss is, in fact, thicker.
I said it was thicker on the basis of a conversation I had with Bob Taylor about finishes in 2004. The Taylors that are made wth using varnish have the thinest finish.
Edited to correct typographic mistake
-
Is Taylor's satin finish thicker or its gloss finish thicker?
What's the thickness of each finish approx?
short of calling Taylor's customer service, it'd be impossible to know for certain, imho
http://www.taylorguitars.com/guitars/acoustic/features/finish (http://www.taylorguitars.com/guitars/acoustic/features/finish)
the difference between the gloss & satin finish is the 2nd coat -
electrostatically applied UV cured polyester, rubbed out & robotically buffed to gloss vs
a hand-sprayed 2 part (resin & hardener) polyurethane finish that is left alone (satin)
i would venture to guess that in the end, the gloss finish could be thinner, as
both coats of polyester are electrostatically applied & then rubbed out & buffed -
in terms of durability, i've seen more satin guitars than gloss showing
signs of finish lifting, if they were subjected to bumps, nicks or scrapes
ultimately, the thinnest finish could very well be varnish, if applied to open-pore wood
Thanks to all who replied my messages.
I also looked at the Taylor website and it says the satin finish has a different 2nd coat; it is a resin and hardener whereas the gloss uses another coat of uv cured polyester; I've no idea what a resin is but it seems as though the satin finish could be stronger were the gloss finish the same thickness as it.
-
Is Taylor's satin finish thicker or its gloss finish thicker?
What's the thickness of each finish approx?
short of calling Taylor's customer service, it'd be impossible to know for certain, imho
http://www.taylorguitars.com/guitars/acoustic/features/finish (http://www.taylorguitars.com/guitars/acoustic/features/finish)
the difference between the gloss & satin finish is the 2nd coat -
electrostatically applied UV cured polyester, rubbed out & robotically buffed to gloss vs
a hand-sprayed 2 part (resin & hardener) polyurethane finish that is left alone (satin)
i would venture to guess that in the end, the gloss finish could be thinner, as
both coats of polyester are electrostatically applied & then rubbed out & buffed -
in terms of durability, i've seen more satin guitars than gloss showing
signs of finish lifting, if they were subjected to bumps, nicks or scrapes
ultimately, the thinnest finish could very well be varnish, if applied to open-pore wood
Thanks to all who replied my messages.
I also looked at the Taylor website and it says the satin finish has a different 2nd coat; it is a resin and hardener whereas the gloss uses another coat of uv cured polyester; I've no idea what a resin is but it seems as though the satin finish could be stronger were the gloss finish the same thickness as it.
lutehole: Could you clue us in on why you are so interested in the finish thickness?
-
lutehole: Could you clue us in on why you are so interested in the finish thickness?
I want to compare the durabilities of both models. The perception is that satin is less durable but i wanted to hear what others have to say since i've never owned a satin model. I heard that the satin finish has come off before, a rare case.
-
I feel like I read an episode of "Myth busters"
-
I've had a 314 for ten years.
The top is gloss, the back and sides are satin.
There are zero finish issues.
I've never heard of the satin finish "coming off", and I'm willing to bet that I've seen more satin Taylors than all other 630 members here combined.
It doesn't happen...
-
The perception is that satin is less durable...
Whose perception is that?
-
I've had a 314 for ten years.
The top is gloss, the back and sides are satin.
There are zero finish issues.
I've never heard of the satin finish "coming off", and I'm willing to bet that I've seen more satin Taylors than all other 630 members here combined.
It doesn't happen...
Good to know it is in perfect shape.
Taylor says that the satin finish has a resin + hardener for it's 2nd/final coat. I don't know the reactions but it must be something like that superglue which is mixed together before application.
-
Yes, I'm sure it's just like Super Glue...
-
As for Herb's personal conversation with Bob, thanks for that!
I've personally never heard of a satin fin ever coming off or lifting ...just never! Never even read this before ...internet lore, perhaps? Or just one loose screw?? ;)
In any case, much ado about nothing, IMHO. Given the sheer volume of Taylors, especially their 100-400 models, plus the BTs, BBTs, and GSm on top, were there an issue you would have heard about it. Likewise, I've never heard any claim that the gloss is any more durable ...or less so ...only that the finishes differ in feel. Get the finish you prefer, as what you want is the only real question to be answered.
BTW, to Steve or Herb, anyone recall the actual year when robo-sprayer came in? IMHO, this represents another big move for Taylor (not unlike the NT or the ES), and points to another major step in the factory's mfg process and how they differ not only from other companies, but from how they used to do things. Gotta love a company that is continually striving to offer the best product they can! ...well at least I do!
Edward
-
lutehole: Could you clue us in on why you are so interested in the finish thickness?
I want to compare the durabilities of both models. The perception is that satin is less durable but i wanted to hear what others have to say since i've never owned a satin model. I heard that the satin finish has come off before, a rare case.
the earliest i've been able to find mention of the electrostatic finish process is here (http://www.harmonycentral.com/blogs/News-TaylorGuitars/2006/03/02/taylor-guitars-eleventh-factory-fridays-video-focuses-on-the-finish-department) (spring 06)
the polyurethane satin is likely closer to an epoxy (resin & hardener) & personally i've seen more satin
guitars with finish lifting due to damage (bumps, nicks, scrapes) than i have with the gloss finish
if a varnish finish was offered, rubbed out to a 'semi-gloss'
on finer-grain woods, i'll check the box on that BTO option
ymmv
-
I want to say it went into the production line in 2005, but I honestly don't recall...
-
UV finishes became standard in 1995 http://www.musiciansworkshop.com/techtips_taylordating.html
I knew the one I bought in 1999? had it (510ce 3/4 fingerboard). The 1993? 510 was a much different sounding guitar.
Katrina got them both. :-\
Steve
-
I knew the one I bought in 1999? had it (510ce 3/4 fingerboard). The 1993? 510 was a much different sounding guitar.
Steve did you like the sound better, not so much, or are todays finishes giving a better sound?
-
The 1993 510 was perhaps the best sounding guitar I've ever heard. I sprung it on an experienced sound man at a Bluegrass festival in Spartanburg. We opened the set w/Blackberry Blossom,and afterwards he paged me over the monitors. He said,and I quote, " What kinda guitar is that?" I replied into the PA "A Taylor 510, Engleman spruce top, and Mahogany back and sides."
Later he told me that I had red lined his meter until about halfway through my first break. He couldn't believe how well it cut the mic, and that I'd never stepped into it.
Just a killer instrument. I had put an ivory nut and saddle in it earlier in the week, and hit the sweet spot dead on. I never touched the set-up again . It left in a tornado August 21, 2005.
Steve
-
the 93s were a square shoulder design (more hummingbirdesque)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7obTukQ1Iw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7obTukQ1Iw)
standard top was sitka spruce, which changed to engelmann in 96 -
there was a 97 510LTD with engelmann top, gloss ebony headstock &
light (white or ivoroid) binding, which was also the year the dreadnought
was redesigned to the current shape (more rounded D28-ish shoulders)
-
The 1993 510 was perhaps the best sounding guitar I've ever heard. I sprung it on an experienced sound man at a Bluegrass festival in Spartanburg. We opened the set w/Blackberry Blossom,and afterwards he paged me over the monitors. He said,and I quote, " What kinda guitar is that?" I replied into the PA "A Taylor 510, Engleman spruce top, and Mahogany back and sides."
Later he told me that I had red lined his meter until about halfway through my first break. He couldn't believe how well it cut the mic, and that I'd never stepped into it.
Just a killer instrument. I had put an ivory nut and saddle in it earlier in the week, and hit the sweet spot dead on. I never touched the set-up again . It left in a tornado August 21, 2005.
Steve
Personally, I'd find it hard to believe that anyone can actually detect a difference in sound between a guitar with satin finished back and sides and one with gloss finished back and sides that is actually due to the finish. I would think that any humanly detectable difference in sound would be due to construction and materials. The top is where the sound is actually generated and, as far as I know, all of the tops are gloss.....and I'm not real sure there would be any detectable difference between the sound of a gloss top and a satin finished top, if the finish were the ONLY difference. I have guitars with French Polish of shellac finishes and I'm not even certain that makes enough difference to be worth it (although it is certainly a noticeable difference in the pocketbook). The way you have to lessen the influence of any finish on the vibrations of the top is to make it thinner. The thinner the finish, the less durable. French Polish is very thin, but it has to be re-finished periodically....it's like spit-shining a boot. It gives a very thin, light, and beautiful finish, but it wears and scuffs easily....and at about $700+ a pop for a re-polish, I learned to do it myself....it's VERY labor-intensive.
As far as the durability of a finish, I can't say that I've ever seen a defect, scratch, ding, or dent in gloss finish that I could say "That wouldn't have happened if this guitar had a satin finish", or vice-versa. Taylor is going to make their finish as thin as possible while still providing adequate protection to the wood, just as Martin or any major mfg would. Once again, I think any big difference is going to be in the wood the finish is applied to. As a rule, cedar is soft and dents and scratches easier than spruce...the finish isn't going to make a difference there. I suppose you could add additional protection by making the finish so thick and hard that you would begin to affect the sound adversely, but that wouldn't be very practical. I've never seen a finish on a quality guitar "lift". That would indicate to me that there was some sort of oil or something on the wood and the finish was applied over it, not that there was anything inherently wrong with the finish.
FWIW, I'm with Steve on this....it's much ado about nothing. Choose the finish that pleases your eye.....that's where the only real difference is. JMHO.
-
It may have been Sitka. Seems I recall talking to Taylor after I'd had it a while, and was told the 510 tops were tops that for whatever reasons were not high enough quality for the 900 series. At any rate, both guitars were gloss finish, one w/nitro and one w/UV.
Steve
-
Ahhh, so perhaps 2005-06 for the robo-sprayer ...earlier than I thought. Nice to know, thanks gents!
Edward
-
FWIW, I'm with Steve on this....it's much ado about nothing. Choose the finish that pleases your eye.....that's where the only real difference is. JMHO.
DITTO!
-
I've had an all-wood 210 for over eight years and it hasn't worn any more readily than my gloss guitars. I don't know who's perception it is that satin is less durable.