Solarez "I can't believe it's not lacquer" - not a fan

beltjones

Junior Member
Messages
64
I just read a thread in the general discussion about someone who used this product and is now swearing off building guitars. I also had a very bad experience with this stuff, and wanted to get a discussion going, while also countering some of the bizarrely glowing praise I've seen online.

The main benefit of lacquer, as I see it, is that you can apply it very thinly and build it up in layers that melt into each other to create a mirror-like finish that is thin and allows the wood to resonate. I'm not one of those people who thinks any of these finishes "breathe" or whatever, but there is certainly a benefit to avoiding a super thick, plasticky finish.

"I can't believe it's not lacquer" will not build up in layers that melt into each other. If you want to apply more than one layer, you need to make each layer absolutely flat and perfectly polished before applying the next layer, otherwise you can see shiny spots and flat spots within the finish. In other words, you have to do a full "final" sand and polish with each layer of finish, which is exhausting and time consuming.

Of course, with the first couple of layers, if you're applying thinly, the risk of sand-through is huge if you have to perfectly level and polish the finish. Otherwise the only option is to really gloop on the finish for the first layer (or maybe the only layer?) to avoid sanding through. Going for a very thick first layer is also an option to avoid the shiny and flat spots in the finish that remain between layers, but the final result is a guitar with a very thick, plasticky finish.

You have to grain-fill open pored woods with this stuff, even if you want kind of a "raw" wood look. I don't ususally grain fill even woods like mahogany or ash, because I like the look of the raw wood. I prefer to instead build up many layers of lacquer or oil, which smooths out a lot of the grain, and then it shrinks into the grain as it ages, which I think looks amazing. However, even if you want that look, you should not use this product on an open-pore wood. Why? This stuff cures in sunlight, and the product that seeps into the pores will never cure, because it will never be exposed to sunlight. I used this stuff on mahogany and left it in the sunlight for about 10 minutes, rotating a few times to make sure I hit it from every conceivable angle. Afterward, when I saw how bad the finish looked (the aforementioned flat spots and shiny spots visible between layers), I sanded it all off and set the guitar down while I worked on another project for a few weeks.

When I came back to it, there were little wet spots all over the mahogany, and the end grain was pretty much soaking wet. It took me some time to figure out what was going on, but I realized the un-cured product was seeping out. I recured the guitar again in the sunlight, but when I sanded again, the same wet spots showed up again. I did this about five times, and each time the little wet spots showed up. Now, if you cure the top coat I'm sure you won't see wet spots and you won't have the product seeping out, but what you will have is wood grain that is basically perpetually wet in the pores of the wood. How will that instrument resonate, wet wood fibers and all?

Let's see, what else? The instructions are pretty lacking online at this point, and of course the instructions on the bottle are only marginally helpful.

Oh, one more thing. This stuff gives off a lot of heat as it cures - if you put some on your hand and put your hand in the sun it will burn like crazy. I don't know if it gets hot enough to compromise glue joints, but it definitely gets hot enough to make me wary about putting it on wood that I want to keep at a semi-constant temperature for stability reasons.

The main promise of this stuff is that it's similar to lacquer (it's not, at all), and it saves time because it cures in the sun in a matter of minutes. I would argue that it is WAY more effort to use due to the insane amount of sanding and polishing between coats, not to mention the issue of the product not curing when it seeps into the wood, and the thick, plasticky finish you end up with if you do it all with one coat.
 
Beltjones sez:
The main benefit of lacquer, as I see it, is that you can apply it very thinly and build it up in layers that melt into each other to create a mirror-like finish that is thin and allows the wood to resonate.

The benefit of lacquer is that it is relatively easy to apply, easy to make corrections in, and provides a reasonably durable finish with minimal expense in materials and labor.  Lacquer, if you know how it works, is a forgiving finish in that you can sand out runs, and polish them to match the surrounding finish.  Since all the original solid bodies (and most semi hollow and hollow body and acoustic guitars were finished in lacquer, its considered the "defacto" finish, but on solid bodies, it makes a very small difference when decent wood is used.  Fender used a polyethylene finish on some guitars made in the far East, where the wood was so bad, the finish was actually a structural component of the guitar.  With Alder and Ash and Mahogany, we don't see that, and the neck... is the biggest tone shaping wooden component.
"I can't believe it's not lacquer" will not build up in layers that melt into each other. If you want to apply more than one layer, you need to make each layer absolutely flat and perfectly polished before applying the next layer, otherwise you can see shiny spots and flat spots within the finish.

That's pretty much the same with nitrocellulose lacquer.
Of course, with the first couple of layers, if you're applying thinly, the risk of sand-through is huge if you have to perfectly level and polish the finish. Otherwise the only option is to really gloop on the finish for the first layer.
The option is to go thin, get three or four layers down, then sand.  Don't expect totally flat.  Just knock down the tops and get all but the deepest grain.  Then... another three layers, and sand flat.  At that point, you're probably good for one last layer, a nice flat sanding, and polish.
You have to grain-fill open pored woods with this stuff, even if you want kind of a "raw" wood look.

Can't comment on the sunlight cure thing... but from what you say, it really doesn't sound like a melt-in finish.
Sounds like it ain't the bestest of the bestest finsih out there.  Lacquer is so easy... even I can do it!

   
 
The benefit of lacquer is that it is relatively easy to apply, easy to make corrections in, and provides a reasonably durable finish with minimal expense in materials and labor.  Lacquer, if you know how it works, is a forgiving finish in that you can sand out runs, and polish them to match the surrounding finish.

I feel like you're saying the same thing I am. The reason you can correct errors, drop fill chips, etc, is that subsequent layers "melt" into each other, unlike polyurethane and other finishes that leave witness lines. "I can't believe it's not lacquer" behaves more like polyurethane in this respect.

That's pretty much the same with nitrocellulose lacquer.

It's not even close. With "ICBINL" I tried everything, and not matter what you can see each individual layer "shimmering" through. Lacquer doesn't do that.

The option is to go thin, get three or four layers down, then sand.  Don't expect totally flat.  Just knock down the tops and get all but the deepest grain.  Then... another three layers, and sand flat.  At that point, you're probably good for one last layer, a nice flat sanding, and polish.


Are you talking about real lacquer or "ICBINL?" Try that with "ICBINL" and report back. Or, I can save you the $35 and tell you that I tried that, and you will be able to see each layer of the stuff even after level sanding and polishing.

I've used lacquer, poly, oil-based finishes, and this ICBINL stuff, and they all have their strengths and weaknesses, except the Solarez product, which I believe is 100% not suitable for making guitars.
 
Even with poly, thin is better.
When using 2k finishes even... thin is better.
The idea is to shoot for the amount of finish, not the "glossyness" of the result.  After cure, sand and buff to final finish.
I've used 2k stuff (its ok!), automototive "lacquer" (not bad either), ReRanch lacquer (for the colors they offer) and off the shelf Deft and Minwax lacquer (new Minwax is better than new Deft... just sayin).
You have to develop your technique to match the media you use.  They all require their own special care and treatment.
 
Toulouse_Tuhles said:
Even with poly, thin is better.
When using 2k finishes even... thin is better.
The idea is to shoot for the amount of finish, not the "glossyness" of the result.  After cure, sand and buff to final finish.
I've used 2k stuff (its ok!), automototive "lacquer" (not bad either), ReRanch lacquer (for the colors they offer) and off the shelf Deft and Minwax lacquer (new Minwax is better than new Deft... just sayin).
You have to develop your technique to match the media you use.  They all require their own special care and treatment.


I have nothing particularly useful to add, but wanted to chime in that rattle-can Deft is great... if you want a naturally achieved relic look as rapidly as possible.  As lacquers go, it's not the most durable, and lacquer is not renowned for its durability.  But it sure does rub out pretty!


As for the Solarez product, I have little enough faith in my ability to work with the tried-and true known-quantity stuff without looking to the latest miracle cure.  So I am grateful to beltjones for doing this learning on my behalf, and I'll give the stuff a wide berth as long as other products I know I can use successfully are on the market.
 
That's me. I'm not in any hurry to climb any learning curves when it comes to finishing. I'm thankful for Beltjones' report, as I might have been otherwise tempted.
 
I'll be the first to admit, doing finish work isn't for everybody, including me.
I love everything about the guitar, but that one thing.  To that end, I refer that work out.  The only finish work that I will perform is a tru-oil finish and that is absolutely it.

I find no shame in admitting that, I know my passions and associated skills and while that is not one of them, it is someone else's, and I'm sure the end user would rather that work go to the one who loves doing it and will therefore do it well.
 
TonyFlyingSquirrel said:
I'll be the first to admit, doing finish work isn't for everybody, including me.
I love everything about the guitar, but that one thing. 

I just tried my first couple of finish jobs (other than oil) and understand this statement big time.  It has made me appreciate how inexpensive it is to have Warmoth do it for us.  Having said that, it was a real learning experience and one that I enjoyed, in retrospect.  It was somewhat frustrating for me at first, but the second effort was better.

I am home bound due to a CNS illness and I look for things to occupy my time now that I cannot fill my days with fishing.  I will be doing more finish jobs myself.  I had seen people on YouTube singing the accolades of this "I can't believe it's not lacquer".  I was contemplating using this product and after reading this post, I won't go down that road.

I appreciate you sharing!
 
Back
Top