Hide glue for the whole construction for '59 replica or other glues

bosnialove

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2011
Messages
3,203
Reaction score
2,468
Small update regarding the '59 replica. I've found an other former Yugoslavian person to do the replica for me. Since I live in the Netherlands and the previous builder lives in Bosnia, it is impossible to keep an eye on the project because it is impossible for me to travel every month to Bosnia just for that. So I've found someone else, who is from Yugoslavia too, but lives pretty close to me.

The 'new' builder (even if he has some experience with guitarbuilding than the previous one) has told me that he will use whatever and how I want for the project.

I have some questions about hide glue. The builder has told me that hide glue is an old way to use for a guitar build and that there are more modern and much better alternatives availible these days. He has also said something about hide glue partially being based on water and that this could cause the wood to start warping.

Even though the modern glues are probably much better, I want him to use hide glue on this guitar.

The question:
Is it okay to use hide glue to glue the top to the body, to use it for the set neck and to glue the fretboard to the neck -

If yes -> what would be a better choice to use for a guitar build, and why:

1. Hide glue for top to body, for set neck and for fretboard to neck;
or
2. Phenol - (or urea) formaldehyde for top to body, for set neck hide glue and hide glue (or what did they use) for fretboard and neck.
 

RAG7890

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2010
Messages
17,515
Reaction score
31,758
I would go with Option 2. That would work well & be almost Historically correct. :thumb:

There is some argument re Phenol Formaldehyde vs. Urea Formaldehyde Glues for the Maple Top to Mahogany Body but it is a moot point. They both work (as does Titebond for that matter & Hide Glue). I have samples of the run out (Top to Bottom joint) from a '50's GT that I have to get analyzed but this is more for Historical curiosity sake.

I have been told by someone who does know that Urea F. works great & is safer to use re Toxic Fumes etc.

Hide Glue for the rest is fine & from memory they used Fish Glue for the Frets but I would not get that fussy.

At the end of the day you want a great Musical Instrument in the guise of a Replica not a Burst................nothing is a Burst but a Burst IMHO.

My 2c FWIW.

Good luck.

:cheers2:
 

ajory72

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2010
Messages
1,281
Reaction score
686
I might be taking liberties here - personally I would be a little concerned if someone building a replica for me to my specs etc started second guessing the materials I wanted used.
I'm sure the builder is being helpful and conversations don't translate we'll into forums so only you know the know the context of the glue statement.

If you want an exact replica then yes you may want the glues , woods and hardware to be as close as possible to the originals... But I don't see how it's going to be cheaper then buying a standard if all you want is close to a 59?

I built a replica 54 gold top, but I reason that because I can't afford 50's era one or even a reproduction from Gibson. But I wanted the look of a 54, so I didn't care about routes, glues, woods. Just the look.

At the end of the day you won't fool yourself into believing its a burst and you won't be able to sell it as one. Food for thought hopefully. I'm not trying to be argumentative just trying to communicate my thoughts on what your trying to accomplish.
Good luck
 

ARandall

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2012
Messages
17,456
Reaction score
15,767
By 'much better', modern glues just have longer open time and ease of use. In terms of the strength I can't see them being better, and certainly in terms of cleanup there is no difference.
So its better for him as the builder to use the 'modern' glues. I think Hide Glue would make for a slightly better joint from a rigidity point of view.....but this would only be in the last percentile type increment. Hide glue also doesn't creep, so your bits don't move during clamping.

As to the wood warping......you would have to have a lot of water, and the top is in the process of being glued to a thicker bit anyhow. The joint would be dry and bonded long before any warping could take place..........the only candidate for warp is the headstock veneer - easily solved by spreading the glue onto the neck/headstock surface. I feel this is another 'faux argument' to try and sway you away from what you want.

For something that has better setup time and a similar bond, try fish glue. Its a traditional glue in that the frets were seated using this stuff. But I've been using it on a LOT of joints as it seems to have all/most of the advantages Hide Glue possesses plus you don't have to heat it or get the joint done so quickly.
 

RAG7890

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2010
Messages
17,515
Reaction score
31,758
Guys the main point here is that he is having a Replica built, warts & all.

If you are building a Replica you try to stick to the Glues & Finishes that were used in the day, regardless of whether they are good, bad or indifferent.

If he wasn't getting a Replica built then go your hardest & use the most appropriate alternatives.

I have Custom Built Replicas & a Single Cut and the Single Cut used Titebond for the Neck Joint & Maple to Mahogany Join. There really isn't a difference IMHO. At the end of the day the Glue is there for a bond not a gap fill. If the joins are perfect the Glue does not matter.

Many Luthiers don't like Hide Glue because it is a pain in the Ass which is why they prefer the alternatives.

The main thing here is to offer an opinion on what is the best possible option/s re '50's builds not alternatives. :)

My 2c FWIW.

:cheers2:
 

bosnialove

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2011
Messages
3,203
Reaction score
2,468
Indeed.

I do want a replica, but I am not a cork sniffer, so if there are alternatives that are much better for a guitar I would consider using that. But if there is no difference between the glues that actually matters, then I will stick to the historicly correct things.
 

valvetoneman

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2011
Messages
1,822
Reaction score
1,559
Same here Rudi.
Some of the best sounding guitars I've made and seen made were with original tightbond.
If it's not replica tightbond all the way.
Only downside is a pita getting it back off, the moral of the story is get the joint right.
 

Freddy G

V.I.P. Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2007
Messages
18,404
Reaction score
51,461
Hide glue also doesn't creep, so your bits don't move during clamping.

Actually that's not what creep means. When talking about creep it's about after the glue has long dried/cured. A plastic glue like PVA for example is elastic. And over time with a joint under pressure it will creep. Once HHG is set it is non-elastic and brittle. It does not creep under load.
 

cmjohnson

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2012
Messages
3,526
Reaction score
3,389
I'm going to give you my unvarnished opinion. The guitar you're having made for you is not an LP, it's a copy, a knockoff, a clone. And it may be, depending on how close it is to the original design, an illegal product that infringes on Gibson copyrights registered worldwide. It's pointless to try to be authentic to the vintage spec because it's not an authentic instrument. So there isn't ANY reason to use hide glue. Use modern glues that are BETTER.

To extend upon my opinion, and possibly generate some bad vibes among this community, I will say that I have seen many people making more or less faithful copies of classic LPs, some being more faithful to the original than others, and in the case of the most accurate copies, you are basically telling Gibson that you have no respect for Gibson's intellectual property rights, which I find ironic and amusing since you seem to have so much respect for the guitar design itself. You respect the guitar, but by going to great lengths to copy it in every smallest detail. you are completely disrespecting the company that made it and owns the exclusive legal rights to make it.

I consider making clones to be a waste of a luthier's skills. Be original. If you're good enough to make an accurate clone, you should be able to come up with something that hasn't been done already, maybe tens or hundreds of thousands of times.

Making one or two as skill builders seems to be pretty much a standard practice for luthiers who are learning how to do it. That's fine, I've done it myself. But it seems that there are people who try to make a career out of repetitively copying a product that they have no legal authority to be copying, and to me that is just wrong and unethical. Change SOMETHING about the guitar under construction that marks it as being identifiably different from the original. I may do fairly close body shape copies of PRS guitars, but I change around enough things that you would not mistake my guitar for PRS products. Even then, I'm trying to come up with new designs that are even farther away from the PRS shapes without getting out of my aesthetic comfort zone.
 

valvetoneman

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2011
Messages
1,822
Reaction score
1,559
Hey Freddy just out of interest do you use original tightbond or exclusively hot hide.
 

Freddy G

V.I.P. Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2007
Messages
18,404
Reaction score
51,461
Both,
Hide glue only where I feel it's properties are beneficial.
 

TheX

wo0t
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2008
Messages
44,899
Reaction score
111,885
I use hide glue if I know that I'll take it apart sometime in the future.
 

cmjohnson

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2012
Messages
3,526
Reaction score
3,389
The problem with hide glue is that EVENTUALLY, the joint will disasemble itself whether you want it to or not. When it completely dries out, it basically turns to dust.

Glues such as original Titebond I can be disassembled, but won't cause self-disassembly like hide glue does.

I reserve hide glue for instruments of the violin family.
 

bosnialove

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2011
Messages
3,203
Reaction score
2,468
Guys the main point here is that he is having a Replica built, warts & all.

If you are building a Replica you try to stick to the Glues & Finishes that were used in the day, regardless of whether they are good, bad or indifferent.

If he wasn't getting a Replica built then go your hardest & use the most appropriate alternatives.

I have Custom Built Replicas & a Single Cut and the Simgle Cut used Titebond for the Neck Joint & Maple to Mahogany Join. There really isn't a difference IMHO. At the end of the day the Glue is there for a bond not a gap fill. If the joins are perfect the Glue does not matter.

Many Luthiers don't like Hide Glue because it is a pain in the Ass which is why they prefer the alternatives.

The main thing here is to offer an opinion on what is the best possible option/s re '50's builds not alternatives. :)

My 2c FWIW.

:cheers2:

Same here Rudi.
Some of the best sounding guitars I've made and seen made were with original tightbond.
If it's not replica tightbond all the way.
Only downside is a pita getting it back off, the moral of the story is get the joint right.

Yeah but it's still better than anything mass produced imo.

Actually that's not what creep means. When talking about creep it's about after the glue has long dried/cured. A plastic glue like PVA for example is elastic. And over time with a joint under pressure it will creep. Once HHG is set it is non-elastic and brittle. It does not creep under load.

Hey Freddy just out of interest do you use original tightbond or exclusively hot hide.

Both,
Hide glue only where I feel it's properties are beneficial.

he said extend :)

I use hide glue if I know that I'll take it apart sometime in the future.

Well, it seems like sticking to the historicly correct stuff is they way to go. But I'm keeping the one-piece top though!

If you can pickup the whole guitar by its neck roughly when the body and neck still aren't glued together, and it does not fall apart, then the kind of glue would not matter.
 

RAG7890

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2010
Messages
17,515
Reaction score
31,758
The problem with hide glue is that EVENTUALLY, the joint will disasemble itself whether you want it to or not. When it completely dries out, it basically turns to dust.

Glues such as original Titebond I can be disassembled, but won't cause self-disassembly like hide glue does.

I reserve hide glue for instruments of the violin family.

:hmm:...........not sure I agree with this statement, especially with a correctly made join. Hide Glue seems to still be working & holding together on instruments that Gibson made going back to 40's / 50's without anything turning to dust. So if done properly you are at least going to get 60 years + out it.

I'm 55 & my Son is 24................60 years should work just fine for our keepers, assuming we don't blow the 7uck out of this Planet in the meantime, in which case all Glues are a moot point. :)

:cheers2:
 

RAG7890

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2010
Messages
17,515
Reaction score
31,758
I'm going to give you my unvarnished opinion. The guitar you're having made for you is not an LP, it's a copy, a knockoff, a clone. And it may be, depending on how close it is to the original design, an illegal product that infringes on Gibson copyrights registered worldwide. It's pointless to try to be authentic to the vintage spec because it's not an authentic instrument. So there isn't ANY reason to use hide glue. Use modern glues that are BETTER.

To extend upon my opinion, and possibly generate some bad vibes among this community, I will say that I have seen many people making more or less faithful copies of classic LPs, some being more faithful to the original than others, and in the case of the most accurate copies, you are basically telling Gibson that you have no respect for Gibson's intellectual property rights, which I find ironic and amusing since you seem to have so much respect for the guitar design itself. You respect the guitar, but by going to great lengths to copy it in every smallest detail. you are completely disrespecting the company that made it and owns the exclusive legal rights to make it.

I consider making clones to be a waste of a luthier's skills. Be original. If you're good enough to make an accurate clone, you should be able to come up with something that hasn't been done already, maybe tens or hundreds of thousands of times.

Making one or two as skill builders seems to be pretty much a standard practice for luthiers who are learning how to do it. That's fine, I've done it myself. But it seems that there are people who try to make a career out of repetitively copying a product that they have no legal authority to be copying, and to me that is just wrong and unethical. Change SOMETHING about the guitar under construction that marks it as being identifiably different from the original. I may do fairly close body shape copies of PRS guitars, but I change around enough things that you would not mistake my guitar for PRS products. Even then, I'm trying to come up with new designs that are even farther away from the PRS shapes without getting out of my aesthetic comfort zone.

While I totally support your right to express an opinion, your comments re the rights & wrongs of Replicas are totally off topic. You're not really adding anything to help answer the questions B has asked help on. :)

I have both..............G Word & Luthier's name. I can see the point in both but I / we am not here to debate the legalese. We are here to discuss the merits of various Glue options. :)

My 2c FWIW.

:cheers2:
 

Bill Hicklin

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2014
Messages
13,704
Reaction score
28,554
and in the case of the most accurate copies, you are basically telling Gibson that you have no respect for Gibson's intellectual property rights

Sorry, but that's just not true. Other than the Gibson name and logo and the shape of the headstock, and (arguably) the truss rod cover, Gibson has no surviving IP rights in the Les Paul at all.
 

Latest Threads



Top