FRETS.NET

Hi all, I'm a newcomer round here, though I've been lurking around for a while.

I recently bought some Titebond Liquid Hide from eBay. However, when I unpacked it I noticed the expiry date was 2013. I got a refund, but am wondering if there's anything I can do with it? Would you fellas trust it for any jobs? Seems a shame to bin it.

-- Keith

Views: 1362

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Actually I am familiar with that thread and there are several others in a similar vein in on the M Cafe as well.  I post on that forum a lot -- may be too much!

If you did re-read that thread I think you probably noticed that some luthiers also reported issues with HHG and others had problems with LHG.  Some described there successes with both glues actually. 

In fact there were several on there talking about using epoxy for necks as I recall on that thread or maybe it was another one?

Also please note that no where have I recommended that anyone should (or should not) use LHG on instruments.  I merely pointed out that in a scientifically conducted test LHG tested as strong (or stronger) than HHG. The data is there to see.

Furthermore, I do not know of a single scientific study showing that a bond formed with LHG is more prone to failure due to humidity that one formed with HHG.  Do you?   I have heard some suggest that is the case but not all agree with that.  Suggestions and opinions are just that --  they don't prove anything.

In addition, I mentioned that I had used LHG with success for several applications including gluing down a mandolin back.  That repair is approaching 50 years of success now and has probably lasted at least as long as the original glue job (HHG?) done in 1916 at the Kalamazoo factory so the suggestion that Franklin LHG cannot be successfully be used is incorrect.

Since that time back in the last century I have build several mandolins, worked on several guitars, and also converted a number of vintage arch top guitars into mandocellos and for all of those projects I have used fish glue.  I can attest to the fact that FG  works very well and none other than Roger Siminoff himself vouches for efficacy of that product.

So there are a range of opinions (and rumors) out there in luthiery -- many of which might be formed by a bad experience leading to a conclusions  that may or may not be a "valid' ones. 

So you feel free to lead your own horse where ever you want and I will do the same!  Meanwhile I know what works for me.   (<: 

Hi Bernie hope you don't mind if I start quoting you to help me respond where I wish to more efficiently.

"If you did re-read that thread I think you probably noticed that some luthiers also reported issues with HHG and others had problems with LHG.  Some described there successes with both glues actually."

What's the point about mentioning the HHG failures - HHG failures can easily be traced to user errors often and with millions of millions of instruments crafted from HHG for over a century now surely you are not casting doubt on how well HHG works?

"In fact there were several on there talking about using epoxy for necks as I recall on that thread or maybe it was another one?"

Right - it was that thread and I have built dozens of guitars that had the fret boards glued with West Systems epoxy.  Initially I was keen to get the moisture out of that joint as well.  More recently though I am rethinking this again and have concerns over how dampening epoxy can be.

"Also please note that no where have I recommended that anyone should (or should not) use LHG on instruments.  I merely pointed out that in a scientifically conducted test LHG tested as strong (or stronger) than HHG. The data is there to see."

And I am pointing out what others pointed out in the link that I provided that the study is flawed in respect to Lutherie, how the joints were made, how they were clamped and the idea that we do some things in Lutherie that are not done or recommended with woodworking.  You say the data is there I say the data is flawed for OUR requirements.

"Furthermore, I do not know of a single scientific study showing that a bond formed with LHG is more prone to failure due to humidity that one formed with HHG.  Do you?   I have heard some suggest that is the case but not all agree with that.  Suggestions and opinions are just that --  they don't prove anything."

This is were you and I may be very different people, Bernie.  I'm more concerned with the value that a method or glue provides to my clients and regardless of what studies that are not directly relevant to what we do, how we do it, where we do it and why we do it mean far less to me.  Different strokes....  

"In addition, I mentioned that I had used LHG with success for several applications including gluing down a mandolin back.  That repair is approaching 50 years of success now and has probably lasted at least as long as the original glue job (HHG?) done in 1916 at the Kalamazoo factory so the suggestion that Franklin LHG cannot be successfully be used is incorrect."

Madonna glued Sean Penn's testical to his leg when he was sleeping, a well known story and the ER was able to get Sean his testical back but this story does not in an of itself make the use of CA glue always dangerous for males.....  Your success with liquid hide glue for one or even several applications does not seem very scientific for someone touting science over direct and considerable experience now does it?

By the way I could not use CA for some years after hearing about Penn.... funny how that works... ;)

"Since that time back in the last century I have build several mandolins, worked on several guitars, and also converted a number of vintage arch top guitars into mandocellos and for all of those projects I have used fish glue.  I can attest to the fact that FG  works very well and none other than Roger Siminoff himself vouches for efficacy of that product."

Roger is very well respected and I am glad to know that Fish works well for him.  We had very high hopes for fish and loved the very thin glue line and the HHG like qualities in terms of drying very hard and crystalline as well.  In my earlier posts I indicated that the fish failures that we experienced were bridges, a glue joint in sheer and under constant and considerable tension from the strings.  Mando and mando bridges do not have to deal with this and instead the tail piece takes the load.  Or, in other words a mando does not have a comparable glue joint to a traditionally built acoustic guitar bridge joint.  Perhaps this may have something to do with why fish works for Roger, perhaps not, speculation and reasoning on my part admittedly. 

What can be a bit different or very different though is the real world that many musical instruments live in.  It's likely that you care for your creations and as such it's highly unlikely that you are leaving them in the trunk of a black car parked in the long term at LAX in 100F weather.  Unfortunately many of the folks who have say guitars are not so kind.  Some of the instruments that I have built belong to gigging, touring musicians and as such face the ravages of airline baggage handlers, roadies, storage, shipping, etc.  As such even the remotest possibility that a glue may not hold in certain circumstances is enough for me to want something better.  For those of us who have or do build instruments that will be the property of others I think it's prudent to subscribe to the highest standards available for materials, workmanship and of course glues.  No one wants to be the reason the show stopped....

Regarding the range of opinions and rumors sure, could bot agree more.  But for me this is not an academic concern or something to be viewed from the shelter of an ivory tower of sorts.  It's also not a hobby.  It's my profession, how I make my living these days, and as such as important as a heart attack to me.  The value that I provide to my clients has to be there and it has to be exceptional as well.  Any possibility that a method, glue, etc. is not the best available and for me it's out of consideration, period.

It's also not a matter of who subscribes to what position in these discussions - it has to be a matter of what I know from direct, personal, and considerable experience will work for my clients

My hope is that your horse is never thirsty my friend and I will close by invoking the subject of man made climate change.  You have debated me with science when I relate direct personal experience.

98% of the world's climate scientists have no doubt that man made climate change is real and not just a con to make Jeff Immelt, my former boss, and Al Gore even more wealthy.  2% think its BS....

Although you most certainly do not have to answer this question I am interested in where you land on the subject.  It could be that this subject may represent a bit of a roll reversal of sorts and wouldn't that be interesting as well.....  I tend to support the science and as such am considering making instruments with built-in floatation.... :)

More specifically I am wondering if you always support an issue from the perspective of science over all other considerations including direct, personal, and considerable experience.  Again answering is completely optional, I'm just personally interested in how and what you think.

Peace bro!

You seem prone to believing information you agree with a priori and dismissive of information that you disagree with.You will not move forward that way I am afraid. 

Your example of CA has nothing to do with anything about wood glues or luthiery although it is a testament to the questionable intelligence of both individuals involved -- if anyone were to do something ridiculous as that ( I guess you have call it assault with intent to injure) it would be those two.

All of those opinions that you have are just that -- opinions.  Fine for you enjoy and act accordingly.  But it is not objective thinking -- as a life long scientist I am drawn to facts not opinions.

You should have stopped on glue.  You are obviously seriously mis-informed on climate change.  The statement that 98% of scientists (BTW the number was 97%) believe in anthropogenic causes for climate change has been thoroughly debunked -- years ago.  That statement was the dishonest creation one person made in circa 2007 -- apparently by way of his ability to read minds! LOL  He has refused for years to show his supporting "data' because frankly he has none.  No one knowledgeable on the topic of climate -- on either side of the debate -- uses that bogus statistic anymore because it is not remotely true.  Actual surveys of scientists in the field of climate research show that the split is about 50-50.  This has all been published  Even the UN's International Panel on Climate Change has admitted (a year ago March) that their climate models are not longer making accurate predictions.  I do know a lot about climate change research and the models and I will not debate them on this forum (particularly if the debate is on Al Gore level!) 

This is a luthiery forum isn't it?   Enjoy your afternoon but I have said all I wanted to on the topic of HHG and LHG and FG.  I'll continue the research the topic and pay special attention to actual data and results.  Cheers.

Bernie you seem to think that you are entitled... to personally insult people at will.  Calling my beliefs and current conclusions "opinion" while lecturing me on how I might or might not move forward is also both insulting and an overstep on your part.

As adverse as I am to pee in the collective canteen here so-to-speak and engage a know-it-all hobbyist in debate over a subject matter that is my trade I'm going to keep this short.

The climate change example was yet an example of science vs. other things that folks choose to believe.  You are a climate change denier as I suspected.

The irony here is of course your entire approach to me has been prove this, prove that, etc. falling back on the ivory tower of the unreal world.. to debate a professional Luthier.  When faced with another issue in which even the UN, I beg to disagree, is issuing reports as recently as last month both verifying the existence of man-made climate change you choose a position that now discounts the science.

How convenient or perhaps should I say inconvenient...

My reply is called a "response...." Bernie and regardless of your ability to talk down to folks and believe that matters are closed when you say they are I beg to differ here too.

You are entitled to respond to me as well and I would never attempt to take anyone's choices from them as you seem to do with me, Bernie.

I would suggest, and it's only a suggestion, Bernie, that you contact me off the forum at a2guitarsllc@gmail.com to continue our discussion.  I would like that and then we can be completely honest and not bother anyone here at the same time as well as be more respectful of our host and fellow guests.

By the way is "LOL" a scientific expression and if you believe so please provide documentation of same.

In closing.... for now... you seem to be pretty sure of yourself that climate change is a 50:50 thing when I find this completely unsupported by any source that I can currently find.  Perhaps you should stick to your own field my friend because some remedial education seems to be in order as well.

Cheers back at ya doc.

PS:  The Madonna thing was something that is called humor.  Please make a note of it...

Not sure if you will consider the journal Scientific American to be a "LOL" matter or not nor do I care.  However there are some inaccuracies in your statement regarding climate change, some rather large ones... including where the 98 - 97% number came from.  

I thought that I might post a link so that you may further educate yourself, Bernie.

Scientific American

You were never insulted Hesh.  Sorry if you feel that way.  Please note it was YOU who asked ME to reply -- when I do you complain?  What sense does that make?. 

I think you did give opinions and that is fine -- so did I except for the Fine Woodworking article which was factually recorded data. You were the one who expanded the discussion not me.  I merely pointed out the article in my first post.

For the record that citation you gave is not a "Scientific American" article at all!  Rather it is a reprint of a Climatewire blog piece.  In addition Hesh, Scientific American is not a science journal -- it is a journal about science.  Finally, did you read the story you cited?  If you do you will see it reveals the fanciful nature John Cook's bogus claim of "97% of scientists believe" and kind of ridicules it actually.

Besides this topic does not belong here!  (<: 

I have a mandocello to work on -- no more time for bantering!

PS send me a link to some of your builds I will read what you have written.

The First bridge I ever glued on was with whats called "plastic resin glue" today. Back then it was called powdered glue that you could steal from wood shop class. That was 55 years ago and its still holding up. I never hear anyone mention this glue. I don't ever use it, but seems someone should at least tell me not to. It is still around, but I never see it in stores. It's called Dap Weldwood.    

I think that I remember that stuff it was a casin-based glue wasn't it?   The stuff I am thinking about was brown and slimy when you mixed it with water?  Its pretty messy stuff and does not tack up very fast does it?

I think thats the same stuff.

I knew a guy that glued the back onto an old harmony flat top using the contact cement that my Dad used for "formica" laminate tops. It stayed together the several years I was around it. I can't say much for the sound since it wasn't much of a guitar... and he wasn't much of a player. 

 The point is that I think it's possible to find an example of any type of glue doing the job "just fine". Franklin wouldn't bother continuing to manufacture their LHG if it always failed when used. I'm sure it works fine for lots of things. 

What I've found is that gluing cabinets and furniture IS different because so many of the joints in instruments have very small glue surface areas. What appears to be a small difference in holding power or lasting ability, can make a pretty big difference when there aren't a lot of non-critical glue joints.  I don't care nearly as much, from a strength point of view, what type of glue I used for a dovetail neck joint since it's not only a dovetail, designed and adjusted to fit tight, it's also one of the larger surface area joints we make. I think maybe the most important criteria is that I use an "expected" type of glue so that a future repair person can get it apart again if it's needed. I stick to HHG or titebound because it just easier to use what I have.

The bridge, on the other hand is a flat surface, usually made of an "oily" wood that has no strengthening joint built in for support and thus is totally dependant upon the glue bond between dissimilar woods to hold under a high amount of pressure imparted by an overall instrument design that almost couldn't be better designed to tear the "joint" apart.  Oh, yeah, it's also supposed to be "removeable" should that be required in the future. In my opinion, this sort of glue joint almost doesn't exist in cabinetry or furniture. I understand that they both have joints subject to stress but I haven't seen a lot of chairs that glue a few square inches of oily hard wood to a soft wood with the expectation that it will support very high tension, unrelenting shear forces for decades.

I know that HHG will handle this. I'm fairly certain that Titebond will as long as it doesn't get too warm, though I've personally seen some bridges that appear to have moved a hair after using this glue.

I've been interested in trying Old Brown Glue for a while and I probably will someday but I don't think I be gluing on any bridges with it unless I have a good reason to believe it will work as well as Hot HG. I probably would use it on a neck joint at some point just to see how it does and possibly a edge repairs and such but, in my opinion there are just some joints that are too critical to not be absolutely sure of the adhesive.

I disagree vehemently with any use of the name "Rodger Siminoff" in any discussion of science.

Jeff there is no "d" in Roger.  Mr Roger Siminoff was not mentioned in the contest of science in this discussion.  But Roger is highly respected luthier and was a big factor in the return to quality for Gibson mandolins by being the moving and technical force behind the introduction of the  Gibson F-5L in 1978.  The story is well documented.

RSS

© 2021   Created by Frank Ford.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service