the need to pore fill...

[Ryan Mazzocco]

I bring this up because in nearly every book, website, discussion, or any other documented tutorial I have seen on finishing includes pore filling as one of the first steps. Is it really that necessary? The reason I ask this is because of feedback I've received on my guitars. I've focused so much on the wood working and design aspects that I have, admittedly, let some things slide on the finishing phases. This includes skipping the pore filling step altogether. So, my guitars have open pores with a lacquer finish. The thing is, not only do people not seem to mind, but many actually prefer it. When they see my guitars hanging on my wall with a bunch of other factory guitars with perfectly level finishes they say that my guitars actually look like real wood while the others really don't. So, I ask, is there a reason we 'have' to pore fill? or is it just the accepted way? I can see it possibly being an issue of comfort on the neck, but as for the rest of it, is it absolutely necessary?
I'm not trying to change anything. My preconceived notion was that everyone would notice the unfilled pores and think it was sloppy and unfinished. I was not expecting such positive reviews on the look and texture of an unleveled finish. What do you all think? Why do you pore fill? does anyone else not fill pores?

[Judd Holt]

As always, there's no accounting for taste. I have been doing finishes for almost forty years and would categorize finishes in two categories, though lines can blur. There are formal and informal finishes. Since finishes provide a protective layer (utilitarian) and create wood enhancement (aesthetic), we attempt a consideration based on the rest of our decisions we integrate into the whole of our instrument. People who have stunning pieces of furniture want formal finishes, i.e., filled and polished. They feel this will 'show-off' the piece in the most desirable way. Most of us endeavoring to make instruments desire stunning woods and seek to show them in the most desirable way (judgement call). I feel my instruments to be very formal in appearance and want a very formal finish; the pinnacle of finishes, if you will. Filling of pores represents another aspect of control in the finishing process (time and effort). Therefore, as represented in the final product, many of us want to indicate a masterful technique of all phases from beginning to end. Aesthetically, I feel that the appearance of pores creates a surface discontinuity. I do not want any optic interruptions! Pores are not created equally, but, as a utilitarian consideration, spooge can invade those pores and cause finish issues....just my feelings.

[Dave Gibbon]

Hi Ryan, I was sent a copy of an article from "Woodworker" magazine called "Well oiled with Adamson" by a British tonewood supplier. The author Stewart Adamson who has won awards in the UK for his finishes, advocates Tru-oil after surface preparation up to 12000 grade Micromesh and he finds pore filling to be unneccessary. The article is well worth reading if you can find it. For myself, as a very inexperienced guitar maker, I found the article to be a great encouragement, and have used Tru-oil on all 7 guitars I have made so far with very acceptable results. In fact, to my eyes at least, after going through the grits to 12000 grade, the wood has an almost "finished" appearance even before the application of the oil. As Judd rightly said, this is a highly subjective judgement call, but I have no qualms at all about leaving out the pore filling with an oil finish.

[Trevor Gore]

In do both filled and unfilled. Unfilled is less expensive, maybe sounds marginally better, but very hard to test. Some woods look fine unfilled, others less so. However, most people (>90%) choose filled, but there is no necessity, as such, to fill. Just do what the customer wants.

[Eric Baack]

I just love the look of a nice glassy finish.. but it's really about taste

[Brad Heinzen]

The only ones that bother me are the almost filled ones. If I'm doing a finish without pore filling, I try to take care to keep the finish thin enough that it's clearly meant to be unfilled.

[Bryan Bear]

I agree with Brad. There is nothing worse than partially filled pores IMHO. I used to think I like unfilled pores better or at least as much. Over the last several years I have changed my mind. Probably I am just caving to tradition (or perhaps before I was just excusing my own desire to not fill); I still like a nonfilled wood surface (not partially filled) but I no longer like it on instruments. I wish I didn't have to do it though! Like many aspects of the process, finishing is a place where I need to improve my skills but if I cut out every operation I didn't do well, I would have to go back to making kazoos with wax paper and combs. . .

[Patrick Hanna]

Let's stop for a minute and remember that different woods have different sized open pores (or no open pores). I think it depends on the wood species, in addition to one's personal taste. I love red and white oak, for example, but never cared to see an oak table top with open pores looking like cut-off soda straws. Not to mention the same effect on a guitar--I'd hate that! On the other hand, a very finely pored wood under a beautiful finish might be very appealing. I'd just have to see it to decide whether it suited my taste. I think most guitar owners (not all, but most) expect to see a level finish. So, if you're building for the bulk of the buying market, I think the short answer is probably "yes...you need to do it." If you're building for yourself, then you get to build it any way you wish. And that's great! Just my take on things.

[Chuck Morrison]

If I'm looking at a guitar, or any other instrument, I want to see a smooth, glossy finish. It's what I expect. When I look at unfilled pores I see laziness or cost cutting on the part of the builder. For the money I'd have to pay for a nice hand made guitar, I expect no less as a consumer (How I hate that word). Of course that's just me, but I suspect it's a majority opinion among instrument buyers in the $1000 & up range.

I've been through a number of filling techniques and finishes over the years. I've been going back to shellac (French polish as the technique) for health reasons and finding that I'm not having as much difficulty with it as I did way back when. Pore filling IS the big problem using shellac. It doesn't build quickly and unlike acrylic/urethane mixes or some others with high solids content, using just shellac to fill pores is not a viable option. However, the traditional approach of using pumice as both abrasive and filler works quite well. In fact I'm liking it more than commercial fillers. Much less messy and I can do it again to level any remaining pore holes in the partially finished piece if needed. It's easy enough to overcoat with lacquer or whatever if a more durable finish is required too.

[Nick Dingle]

Questions. How many guitars HAVE you built? How many have you sold? How many were ordered? How many of your orders did you ask about the finishing? How many said I don't mind an un pore-filled finish? How many even know what that is? How big a difference do you think there is between the other guy's perception of the finish would be if he was PAYING you for the guitar, and then saw a nice shiny Martin, Taylor, etc for less, and had buyer remorse.... etc, etc, etc....

As an amateur builder, I build them the way I want to, and damn the consequences. Being in the middle of my first commission, many more considerations come into play. Most significant are the customer's wishes(usually mirror bright, so far as I can see about finishes) and the way i want the guitar to present to the buyer's friends, even a year or two down the track....

For my own, I don't mind the unfilled look, but I don't think I'd want to send one out the door that way....

[Ryan Mazzocco]

Okay. that all makes sense and I think I'm buying what most of you are all saying. It's basically what I thought from the beginning since pretty much every guitar I've ever seen hanging in a store, or about anywhere else for that matter, has a filled, level, shiny finish. So, I was a bit thrown off when people said that they liked my unfilled look and thought I'd check to see if anyone else was doing this. It would seem that some do, but very, very rarely.
Thanks

[Bryan Bear]

I beleive Trevor Gore offers a non filled finish at a discounted rate due to the reduced work. You might check with him to see how many of those orders he gets compared to the regular finish.

[Ryan Mazzocco]

he did mention that earlier in this thread.

[Bryan Bear]

Lol, I knew I read that somewhere. Sorry.

[G.S. Monroe]

It has been my experience that there are two categories of Guitar.
1) The beautiful, shiny, detailed inlay, wall hanger that you show to impress your friends.
2) The "go to" Guitar that you reach for at the end of the day.

I prefer to build the second ones.... So, they don't cost as much, but they bring music and joy to the world.
Fine showroom finishes are far down the list of what makes a guitar desirable to play.

[Barry Daniels]

On the other hand, I have been fine tuning my finishing process for over 30 years and am able to achieve a flat, high gloss, defect free lacquer finish every time. The finish is often the first thing that people see and everyone who plays my guitars comment on it. By the way, my guitars do not get hung on walls. I think a good finish is a neccessity.

[Bryan Bear]

It has been my experience that there are two categories of Guitar.
1) The beautiful, shiny, detailed inlay, wall hanger that you show to impress your friends.
2) The "go to" Guitar that you reach for at the end of the day.

I prefer to build the second ones.... So, they don't cost as much, but they bring music and joy to the world.
Fine showroom finishes are far down the list of what makes a guitar desirable to play.

You forgot 3) Both.

It is not like a go to guitar and a beautiful guitar are mutually exclusive. I may not achieve excellence in either respect but that is my ultimate goal.

[Nick Dingle]

Yeah, I agree with all the foregoing. A mirror finish doesn't mean it's not a great guitar, nor the reverse....The reality is that the market has been pre-determined. MOST buyers are looking for that finish. Just what it is, and those I know who have "settled" on a satin or matte finish have done so because it's a cost-saver for them.

There is a perception that any finish other than super shiny indicates an inferior guitar. So, Ryan, if they are looking at your's and liking it, doesn't mean they would buy it....

Personally, I tend to think that type of finish detracts from the timbers underneath, and I always have a sneaky suspicion that the finish is too thick...

The kid I'm building for at the moment doesn't give a hoot. Wants it shiny. Order taken....

[Gordon Bellerose]

Yeah I have to agree with the majority here. I think that if I'm building guitars for sale, then I have to come up to industry standards.
At this time that means a shiny flat surface thin enough to not stop the top from vibrating with the strings.
I do own a guitar that has a satin finish, and it is a wonderful sounding guitar. Cherry back and sides, and a cedar top.
The two finishes are not mutually exclusive. Either way can still sound good.

I compare a guitar buyers experience to him/her looking for a girlfriend/boyfriend.
1st he/she is attracted by the looks. 2nd it has to feel good in their hands. Thirdly if it sounds as good as it look/feels, it is a match.

[Chuck Tweedy]

Sounds like a Seagull guitar. Those are great.