Filling: have to or just want to?

xDave

Junior Member
Messages
32
I just got a mahogany neck. It feels beautifully smooth. The only place I can detect any pores is on the angled areas transitioning to the neck and heel. Do I need to grain fill for any protective reason or is it just for the feel. It will of course be finished, in either Tru-Oil like the body or satin nitro. I like the satin feel of a high end Fender.What little pores there are are barely noticeable and I imagine will be gone from any finish I put on.
 
As far as protection, it'd be the same whether or not you grain-fill, the finish will just settle into the pores. Birchwood-Casey recommends wet-sanding with the actual tru-oil to grain fill, that may be a decent compromise.
 
it depends

want that really smooth professional style finish?

fill

want some hack finish?

don't

it is up to you
 
If you want a smooth finish, you'll end up filling it one way or another.  Either by grain-filler, or by spraying and sanding, spraying and sanding, spraying and sanding.  Filling the grain in the first place saves you work in the end.
 
It ain't mahogany, but these photos of Marty Goats's lovely homemade small-scale Tele prove the point:  If you don't fill, you're likely to have very visible pores in the wood. 


http://www.unofficialwarmoth.com/index.php?topic=13125.msg211036#msg211036
 
If you want to use a very thin nitrocellulose finish to allow the wood the "breathe" it's customary to fill up all the pores so there's nothing to breathe through. There are two poles of thought here: if your guitar is primarily designed to be "stand candy" it should be as smooth and shiny as possible; if you're actually trying to get better by practicing more than three hours a day, this week's paradigm is to make the finish as thin as possible because the faster it falls off, the better it will sound. Still awaiting results of the double-blind studies....
 
wow, in the 45 years I've been finishing wood I've never had anything end up looking like that padauk Tele. I've never had anything with visible pores at all, and I've only ever filled when I could feel pores before applying anything. It sounds like most of you guys are telling me that it's going to be less smooth after I finish it or something. Like I said in my original post it feels beautifully smooth now. If it ain't broke, why do you say I should fix it?
 
xDave said:
wow, in the 45 years I've been finishing wood I've never had anything end up looking like that padauk Tele. I've never had anything with visible pores at all, and I've only ever filled when I could feel pores before applying anything. It sounds like most of you guys are telling me that it's going to be less smooth after I finish it or something. Like I said in my original post it feels beautifully smooth now. If it ain't broke, why do you say I should fix it?

There's always the possibility. Filling it erases that chance from the map.
 
Tipperman said:
xDave said:
wow, in the 45 years I've been finishing wood I've never had anything end up looking like that padauk Tele. I've never had anything with visible pores at all, and I've only ever filled when I could feel pores before applying anything. It sounds like most of you guys are telling me that it's going to be less smooth after I finish it or something. Like I said in my original post it feels beautifully smooth now. If it ain't broke, why do you say I should fix it?

There's always the possibility. Filling it erases that chance from the map.


What Tipperman said.  It may feel smoother than a baby's bottom, but the visual aspect may well show stuff that's not apparent in its unfinished state - or it may not, but filling eliminates that possibility.



 
I cry!

Thanks for the quote (I think).

I was going for very visible, brutish finish on this one, I think the high gloss finish and sunshine make it seem much worse than it is - it's not so apparent in real life, but the pores are there and highlighted. You lose some of the grain because of the disctraction of the finish diving into the pores (i.e. if it was an unbroken surface of finish, you would have a better appreciation for the beauty of the wood).
Can it look less smooth after you finish it? definitely - particularly if you go gloss.

My advice:

1. If you go gloss, fill, unless you want it to show.
2. If you want to show off gorgeous grain - fill and go semigloss.
3. If you want to show off candy like flame maple etc - gloss, but you won't need to fill.

For a mahogany neck I would fill lightly (once) and go semigloss or matte.

My 0.02$
 
Mahogany is pretty open-grained. If you don't fill it, it's quite obvious. Even with filling, it's a pain in the shorts to get a smooth surface. You'll almost certainly end up going 2 or 3 passes with it. Then, several coats of sealer, with sanding in between, before you ever get to color/clear coats. It's not much fun. But, the results are usually pretty nice. Mahogany is an attractive wood.
 
So I guess I'm just not understanding. Even though it's got an amazingly smooth surface now, it's going to be hard to get it to have a smooth surface? Am I missing something that's going to make it rougher somehow?
I'm just planning on tru-oiling it to the point where it's sitting on the surface then hitting with a fine scothbrite to give it  a satin surface. I was taught to judge the porosity of a piece of wood by the look then feel of that particular piece, not the general know attributes of the species.
Tru-oil directions say: 2 sand and remove dust, 3 apply and let dry, 4 buff, 5 Repeat steps 3 and 4 until grain is filled and the desired finish is obtained. Is this wrong?

 
The directions are correct. You'll have to be the judge of what's smooth enough for you. The surface of the wood will look and feel different once you start finishing it.
 
xDave said:
Tru-oil directions say: 2 sand and remove dust, 3 apply and let dry, 4 buff, 5 Repeat steps 3 and 4 until grain is filled and the desired finish is obtained. Is this wrong?

Nope.  But like I said, filling will reduce repetition of steps 3 and 4.  It's not gonna hurt anything to do it without filling, though. 
 
Ahh...thank you. Sometimes things on the bottle are misleading. I've never used this exact one before but my dad used to use blends and even make his own. I know that they usually work a lot better if you make them about 50% thinner for the initial coats and it doesn't mention that on the bottle. I'm sure if you just slap it on as is where there are any pores it will soak in faster and you'll get a funnel shaped effect like sand pouring through a little hole in a bucket
Here's how I was taught to use this kind of stuff
Make it about as thin as baby oil.
Wipe on nice and even all over and wipe off excess
Put the rag in a plastic bag because that sh*t don't grow on trees
Sit there and be quiet and watch to see if some spots start to soak in more (almost always will)
Don't add any more, just wipe the whole thing down with the rag you used
Repeat until it's soaking in evenly
Let dry a day
Steel wool it lightly and start over
Usually by day 2, depending on the wood, it will dry evenly, then you can use it uncut
Put it on in thin coats and wipe it down evenly
Repeat the drying and steel wool steps until the finish lays on top of the wood
I'm not sure if this was a finishing technique or more of a how to keep a crazy little trouble maker out of your hair technique


 
Back
Top