I am in the process of refinishing a small mahogany dropleaf table that has
been in my wife's family since before the Civil War. My father-in-law had it
refinished in 1929 and it has seen some very heavy duty since then.

My question concerns the mortise and tenon joints. The legs came off of the
skirts relatively easily. I was able to remove the old hide glue from the
tenons with a little judicious use of several scrapers.

The inside of the mortises are a different story. I have scraped the walls as
well as I could within the limitations of the small size of the holes.

What would be the best glue to use to reassemble the legs and the skirts. I do
not want to use hide. :-)

Pinning is also not really a good option.

I usually assemble with Titebond II but was wondering if something like Gorilla
would be better in that it would expand and fill any voids left from the
scraping and maybe it would adhere better to the insides of the mortises.

Thanks for any light shed on my query.

"Bill Waller" wrote in message
...
I am in the process of refinishing a small mahogany dropleaf table that has
been in my wife's family since before the Civil War. My father-in-law had
it
refinished in 1929 and it has seen some very heavy duty since then.

My question concerns the mortise and tenon joints. The legs came off of
the
skirts relatively easily. I was able to remove the old hide glue from the
tenons with a little judicious use of several scrapers.

The inside of the mortises are a different story. I have scraped the walls
as
well as I could within the limitations of the small size of the holes.

What would be the best glue to use to reassemble the legs and the skirts.
I do
not want to use hide. :-)

Pinning is also not really a good option.

I usually assemble with Titebond II but was wondering if something like
Gorilla
would be better in that it would expand and fill any voids left from the
scraping and maybe it would adhere better to the insides of the mortises.

Thanks for any light shed on my query.

IMO, it would be a mistake not to use hide glue. You never want to do
something to an antique that is not reversible.

Titebond and Gorilla Glue are both poor choices for this application.

"Bill Waller" wrote in message

I am in the process of refinishing a small mahogany dropleaf table that
has
been in my wife's family since before the Civil War. My father-in-law had
it
refinished in 1929 and it has seen some very heavy duty since then.

.... and the reason why you are able to "refinish" at this point can be
directly attritubted to the glue that was used heretofore.

My question concerns the mortise and tenon joints. The legs came off of
the
skirts relatively easily. I was able to remove the old hide glue from the
tenons with a little judicious use of several scrapers.

The inside of the mortises are a different story. I have scraped the walls
as
well as I could within the limitations of the small size of the holes.

What would be the best glue to use to reassemble the legs and the skirts.
I do
not want to use hide. :-)

It's a shame, because that is exactly what you should use if you value the
piece. "Titebond" has a liquid hide glue that would not be my first choice
for a hide glue, but much better than anything you've mentioned.

Give it (hide glue), some serious reconsideration ... sounds as if the piece
deserves it.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 1/06/07

Bill Waller wrote:

What would be the best glue to use to reassemble the legs and the
skirts. I do
not want to use hide. :-)

Pinning is also not really a good option.

I usually assemble with Titebond II but was wondering if something
like Gorilla
would be better in that it would expand and fill any voids left
from the
scraping and maybe it would adhere better to the insides of the
mortises.

If you want an adhesive that fills gaps, then it's epoxy and
micro-balloons, period, end of report.

Forget garbage glue, AKA: Gorilla glue.

Having said that, don't think I would use epoxy or even TiteBond for
this piece of furniture.

I suspect you want to stay with hide glue if you want to maintain the
value of the piece.

I'd check with an antique restorer before I did anything.

Lew

On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 19:03:30 -0500, Bill Waller wrote:

I am in the process of refinishing a small mahogany dropleaf table that
has been in my wife's family since before the Civil War. My
father-in-law had it refinished in 1929 and it has seen some very heavy
duty since then.

My question concerns the mortise and tenon joints. The legs came off of
the skirts relatively easily. I was able to remove the old hide glue
from the tenons with a little judicious use of several scrapers.

The inside of the mortises are a different story. I have scraped the
walls as well as I could within the limitations of the small size of the
holes.

What would be the best glue to use to reassemble the legs and the
skirts. I do not want to use hide. :-)

Pinning is also not really a good option.

I usually assemble with Titebond II but was wondering if something like
Gorilla would be better in that it would expand and fill any voids left
from the scraping and maybe it would adhere better to the insides of the
mortises.

Thanks for any light shed on my query.


As a matter of preserving the value use hide.

Otherwise I'd try G2 epoxy--it should stick to just about anything, is gap
filling, and has enough flexibility that it shouldn't cause further
loosening of the joint due to repeated expansion cycles. Note though that
if you use epoxy you are _not_ going to get that piece apart again
without breaking something, so be _very_ sure you want to use it.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

J. Clarke wrote:

Note though that
if you use epoxy you are _not_ going to get that piece apart again
without breaking something, so be _very_ sure you want to use it.

Epoxy with a microballoon filler is regarded as acceptably reversible
in museum conservation circles. It's obviously not as easily reversed
as hide, but as far as a strong gap filler goes, it's as good as you're
going to get.

This situation should almost certainly use hide. If there are gaps,
then shim the tenons and still use hide.

I see a lot of people posting about how Gorilla Glue will "expand to fill
gaps".

It sure does, but the expanded glue has almost no strength. It isn't a gap
filling glue.

Sorry Bill, you were the one who posted the comment when I felt a bit testy.

Old Guy


"Bill Waller" wrote in message
...
I am in the process of refinishing a small mahogany dropleaf table that has
been in my wife's family since before the Civil War. My father-in-law had
it
refinished in 1929 and it has seen some very heavy duty since then.

My question concerns the mortise and tenon joints. The legs came off of
the
skirts relatively easily. I was able to remove the old hide glue from the
tenons with a little judicious use of several scrapers.

The inside of the mortises are a different story. I have scraped the walls
as
well as I could within the limitations of the small size of the holes.

What would be the best glue to use to reassemble the legs and the skirts.
I do
not want to use hide. :-)

Pinning is also not really a good option.

I usually assemble with Titebond II but was wondering if something like
Gorilla
would be better in that it would expand and fill any voids left from the
scraping and maybe it would adhere better to the insides of the mortises.

Thanks for any light shed on my query.

Andy Dingley wrote:

Epoxy with a microballoon filler is regarded as acceptably reversible
in museum conservation circles.

Just curious, "how they do dat"?

Lew

Use hide and veneer to reface inside of mortise. Then assemble using
hide.


Bill Waller wrote:
I am in the process of refinishing a small mahogany dropleaf table that has
been in my wife's family since before the Civil War. My father-in-law had it
refinished in 1929 and it has seen some very heavy duty since then.

My question concerns the mortise and tenon joints. The legs came off of the
skirts relatively easily. I was able to remove the old hide glue from the
tenons with a little judicious use of several scrapers.

The inside of the mortises are a different story. I have scraped the walls as
well as I could within the limitations of the small size of the holes.

What would be the best glue to use to reassemble the legs and the skirts. I do
not want to use hide. :-)

Pinning is also not really a good option.

I usually assemble with Titebond II but was wondering if something like Gorilla
would be better in that it would expand and fill any voids left from the
scraping and maybe it would adhere better to the insides of the mortises.

Thanks for any light shed on my query.

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
news
Having said that, don't think I would use epoxy or even TiteBond for this
piece of furniture.

I suspect you want to stay with hide glue if you want to maintain the
value of the piece.

I'd check with an antique restorer before I did anything.

If he's refinishing a refinished piece, he's not concerned about value as an
antique, but as a piece of furniture. If that's what the restorer/dealer
has to say, all options apply. Me for veneer shims and soluble glue for the
tenons, though it's hard to believe that they were not pinned in the past.
If so, bore out the pins, fill the holes in the tenons with wood and glue,
and draw bore the reconstruction to help things along.

Lew Hodgett wrote:

Andy Dingley wrote:

Epoxy with a microballoon filler is regarded as acceptably reversible
in museum conservation circles.

Just curious, "how they do dat"?

http://aic.stanford.edu/jaic/article...-003_indx.html

Some conservators reckon that the filled epoxy is suficiently
non-adhesive on its own, others apply a barrier coat of Acryloid B-72
first.

I'm sorry about the rest of the day you've now lost to reading
back-issues of JAIC 8-)
I wish they had up to date ones on that site too.

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 04:10:11 -0800, Andy Dingley
wrote:

Lew Hodgett wrote:

Andy Dingley wrote:

Epoxy with a microballoon filler is regarded as acceptably reversible
in museum conservation circles.

Just curious, "how they do dat"?

http://aic.stanford.edu/jaic/article...-003_indx.html

Some conservators reckon that the filled epoxy is suficiently
non-adhesive on its own, others apply a barrier coat of Acryloid B-72
first.

I'm sorry about the rest of the day you've now lost to reading
back-issues of JAIC 8-)
I wish they had up to date ones on that site too.

Hmm--reading that they say that they're going for shrinkage of the wood
resulting in failure of the filler, not the wood. For what they do that
may be desirable, but Hoadley suggests, based on his own tests, that
for maximum longevity what one really should be going for is a filler with
enough elasticity to accomodate shrinkage of the wood without either
failing. Hoadley used RTV in his tests--that stuff in my exeperience isn't
all that strong and I do wonder if using the same test as they used it
could also be separated without damaging the wood (beyond leaving it
coated with cured silicone, which in itself is a problem).

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

J. Clarke wrote:

Hmm--reading that they say that they're going for shrinkage of the wood
resulting in failure of the filler, not the wood.

Remember that they're museum conservators, not furniture restorers.
They're trying to make an exhibit fit for visual display, not make a
chair fit to sit on again. They care about reversibility as #1 and
looks as #2, but mechanical strength is far behind.

OTOH, I use phenolic microballoons in West System epoxy a lot as my
standard filler for "Nakashima like" work. Maybe not chairs, but I've
got tabletops that are held together by nothing else and I haven't had
any problems.

"George" wrote in message
news

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
news
Having said that, don't think I would use epoxy or even TiteBond for this
piece of furniture.

I suspect you want to stay with hide glue if you want to maintain the
value of the piece.

I'd check with an antique restorer before I did anything.

If he's refinishing a refinished piece, he's not concerned about value as
an antique, but as a piece of furniture. If that's what the
restorer/dealer has to say, all options apply. Me for veneer shims and
soluble glue for the tenons, though it's hard to believe that they were
not pinned in the past. If so, bore out the pins, fill the holes in the
tenons with wood and glue, and draw bore the reconstruction to help things
along.

I agree, twice-refininshed and the collector-value is likely in the toilet.

Hide glue was used back in the day largely because it's what they had.
Modern adhesives are in may cases superior.

If this were a chair, because of the frequence of chair joinery failure and
the fact that you (often) have to disassenble the entire thing to fix a
single joint, I could see using hide glue. Reversability is important in
that case.

By contrast, a leg/apron M&T joint is not likely to ever fail using a modern
glue. In fact, it is likely that the original joint failed *because* it was
hide glue.

-Steve




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Stephen M" wrote in message

I agree, twice-refininshed and the collector-value is likely in the
toilet.

Maybe not in 100 years.

Hide glue was used back in the day largely because it's what they had.

LOL ... not exactly profound, but hard to argue with.

Modern adhesives are in may cases superior.

We'll only know for sure in a few hundred years.

If this were a chair, because of the frequence of chair joinery failure
and
the fact that you (often) have to disassenble the entire thing to fix a
single joint, I could see using hide glue. Reversability is important in
that case.

Good point.

By contrast, a leg/apron M&T joint is not likely to ever fail using a
modern
glue.

That's one "ever" that likely can't ever be proved.

In fact, it is likely that the original joint failed *because* it was
hide glue.

It could just as easily have been caused by sloppy joinery, improper
application of the original glue, bad batch/mix/temp of glue, or a
combination of the above.

There are a number of 300+ year old furniture pieces, and musical
instruments, still going strong on hide glue.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 1/06/07

Modern adhesives are in may cases superior.

We'll only know for sure in a few hundred years.

Snip.

There are a number of 300+ year old furniture pieces, and musical
instruments, still going strong on hide glue.

Or was it the expertly rendered joinery which held together in spite of
failing glue?

In any case it's a really good question to which I have yet to get a
definitive answer.

Please don't make me cite, because I can't, but....

Aliphatic resin glue has been around for over 50 years. I believe that hide
glue has been shown to degrade within that time frame.

It is theoretically possible to simulate age with temperature and humidity
cycling and exposure to additional oxygen. Have the Franklin (Titebond) or
Elmers guys done this in the lab? My guess is that they have, but gaining
access to that data might be tough.

I'll e-mail the Franklin guys and just for grins. I'll probably get nothing
but it's easy to try.

-Steve



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

George wrote:

If he's refinishing a refinished piece, he's not concerned about value as an
antique, but as a piece of furniture.

Why? A good restoration with traditional materials and a moderate
amount of care doesn't depreciate the value of the piece other than
once losing the "original" cachet. If you do it right you can repeat
this process as often as you like.

I don't have any furniture more than 200 years old but I can walk into
town and see several housefuls of pieces that are pushing 400 years.
These have repairs on repairs on repairs, all done with hide glue (A
couple are my work). Their "value" depends on their state, not on a
simple count of fixes "One's OK but two's only fit for eBay".

it's hard to believe that they were not pinned in the past.

Pinned tenons aren't common in chairs and smaller leg timbers. You find
them in tables, but a lot of casework won't have them. I'd be reluctant
to add draw-bored pins too, because in this width of timber there's a
real risk of splitting the hole out sideways.

Well that was quick, but sadly, uninformative.


Thank you for your inquiry. Our experience with Titebond Original Wood Glue
shows that a properly assembled bond will last indefinitely. As you have
seen, Titebond Original Wood Glue has been out on the market for over 50
years and we have never seen any bond failures due to the age of the dry
glue. I do not have or am aware of any long term studies regarding bonds
created with aliphatic resin glues. Creating a strong bond with Titebond
Original Wood Glue requires clean gluing surfaces and tight fitting joints.
It is also important that clamp pressure is applied along the entire glue
line while the glue is still wet and will flow easily. I hope this
information is helpful to you.

Sincerely,

Marc Bergdahl
Technical Specialist
Franklin International



"Stephen M" wrote in message
...
Modern adhesives are in may cases superior.

We'll only know for sure in a few hundred years.

Snip.

There are a number of 300+ year old furniture pieces, and musical
instruments, still going strong on hide glue.

Or was it the expertly rendered joinery which held together in spite of
failing glue?

In any case it's a really good question to which I have yet to get a
definitive answer.

Please don't make me cite, because I can't, but....

Aliphatic resin glue has been around for over 50 years. I believe that
hide glue has been shown to degrade within that time frame.

It is theoretically possible to simulate age with temperature and humidity
cycling and exposure to additional oxygen. Have the Franklin (Titebond) or
Elmers guys done this in the lab? My guess is that they have, but gaining
access to that data might be tough.

I'll e-mail the Franklin guys and just for grins. I'll probably get
nothing but it's easy to try.

-Steve


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Andy Dingley wrote:
George wrote:


If he's refinishing a refinished piece, he's not concerned about value as an
antique, but as a piece of furniture.


Why? A good restoration with traditional materials and a moderate
amount of care doesn't depreciate the value of the piece other than
once losing the "original" cachet. If you do it right you can repeat
this process as often as you like.


Haven't you ever watched the Antiques Roadshow on PBS? If you haven't,
go see it a few times. The appraisers will have you singing a different
tune. "Losing the 'original' cachet" has a MAJOR impact on an antique's
extrinsic value.

"Just Wondering" wrote in message
Andy Dingley wrote:
George wrote:

Why? A good restoration with traditional materials and a moderate
amount of care doesn't depreciate the value of the piece other than
once losing the "original" cachet. If you do it right you can repeat
this process as often as you like.


Haven't you ever watched the Antiques Roadshow on PBS? If you haven't,
go see it a few times. The appraisers will have you singing a different
tune. "Losing the 'original' cachet" has a MAJOR impact on an antique's
extrinsic value.

Where did he say that it didn't?

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 1/06/07

Swingman wrote:

"Just Wondering" wrote in message

Andy Dingley wrote:

George wrote:


Why? A good restoration with traditional materials and a moderate
amount of care doesn't depreciate the value of the piece other than
once losing the "original" cachet. If you do it right you can repeat
this process as often as you like.



Haven't you ever watched the Antiques Roadshow on PBS? If you haven't,
go see it a few times. The appraisers will have you singing a different
tune. "Losing the 'original' cachet" has a MAJOR impact on an antique's
extrinsic value.

Where did he say that it didn't?

When he implied that doing work he called "good restoration," but which
lost the "original" cachet in the process, doesn't depreciate the value
of the piece.

"Just Wondering" wrote in message
Swingman wrote:

"Just Wondering" wrote in message

Andy Dingley wrote:

George wrote:


Why? A good restoration with traditional materials and a moderate
amount of care doesn't depreciate the value of the piece other than
once losing the "original" cachet. If you do it right you can repeat
this process as often as you like.



Haven't you ever watched the Antiques Roadshow on PBS? If you haven't,
go see it a few times. The appraisers will have you singing a different
tune. "Losing the 'original' cachet" has a MAJOR impact on an antique's
extrinsic value.

Where did he say that it didn't?

When he implied that doing work he called "good restoration," but which
lost the "original" cachet in the process, doesn't depreciate the value
of the piece.

What was actually implied: As with virginity, once plucked and thereby
"losing the value of its "original" cachet", repeating the plucking process
correctly will cause no further loss of either.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 1/06/07

Always thought the word "indefinatly" must have been invented by a
politician. It is, in fact, no answer at all.

"Stephen M" wrote in message
...
Well that was quick, but sadly, uninformative.


Thank you for your inquiry. Our experience with Titebond Original Wood
Glue
shows that a properly assembled bond will last indefinitely. As you have
seen, Titebond Original Wood Glue has been out on the market for over 50
years and we have never seen any bond failures due to the age of the dry
glue. I do not have or am aware of any long term studies regarding bonds
created with aliphatic resin glues. Creating a strong bond with Titebond
Original Wood Glue requires clean gluing surfaces and tight fitting
joints.
It is also important that clamp pressure is applied along the entire glue
line while the glue is still wet and will flow easily. I hope this
information is helpful to you.

"Stephen M" wrote in message

Well that was quick, but sadly, uninformative.


Thank you for your inquiry.

I hope this
information is helpful to you.

Pretty much what I sus/expected ... marketing must office next to legal, or
these responses are vetted/canned in advance.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 1/06/07

Andy Dingley wrote:

Some conservators reckon that the filled epoxy is suficiently
non-adhesive on its own, others apply a barrier coat of Acryloid B-72
first.

Interesting.

I usually wet out the surfaces with epoxy then coat with epoxy putty
to obtain max strength.

Guess you don't want me getting close to antique furnitureG.

Lew

Lew Hodgett wrote:

I usually wet out the surfaces with epoxy then coat with epoxy putty
to obtain max strength.

Guess you don't want me getting close to antique furnitureG.

Exactly! The assumption is that filling the epoxy with microballoons
is enouigh to reduce adhesion, compared to applying pure resin.
Personally I don't trust this and I use the B-72 as a barrier.
Sometimes shellac instead, depending on what I'm working on.

Mind you, I don't follw that bizarre US conservation practice of
regarding micro wax as an adhesive.

A while ago I restored a 16th century oak cabinet, the sort with split
turnings and panels of appliqued beading all around the drawer edges.
It was the usual repair, sections of beading had been lost over the
years. My task was to mould new beading to match, colour it to match
and then attach it. As authenticity was fairly significant I'd ended up
with fixing it, known for being a router- and stain-hating hippie who'd
do it with wooden moulders and ammonia. I then attached the new
mouldings with hide glue.

US practice for the same common repair on a piece like this (Omigod
it's like _older_than_starbucks_! It's older than the Declaration of
Independence!!! WTF!!! L33T!!!) seems to be using microcrystalline wax
(Renaissance) as an adhesive. Now I know conservators use this for
_everything_ including holding their dentures in place, but I really
can't see this as an appropriate _repair_ to a piece when hide glue is
such an ideal alternative.

"CW" wrote in message
ink.net...
Always thought the word "indefinatly" must have been invented by a
politician. It is, in fact, no answer at all.


Are you advocating term limits?

"Just Wondering" wrote in message
. ..
Swingman wrote:

Haven't you ever watched the Antiques Roadshow on PBS? If you haven't,
go see it a few times. The appraisers will have you singing a different
tune. "Losing the 'original' cachet" has a MAJOR impact on an antique's
extrinsic value.

Where did he say that it didn't?

When he implied that doing work he called "good restoration," but which
lost the "original" cachet in the process, doesn't depreciate the value of
the piece.

You are correct. "Refinishing" is far beyond "restoration," though the
contrary Swingman will start an argument with the image in his mirror.

Restoration is normally a minimally invasive process, and the degree of
restoration of a museum piece to be admired behind a rope is less than one
which will carry a load.

"George" wrote in message

You are correct. "Refinishing" is far beyond "restoration," though the
contrary Swingman will start an argument with the image in his mirror.

Naahhh .. only with a holier-than-thou smartass like yourself, George, who,
once again with the above, exhibits a total inability to comprehend or
correctly follow the context of a thread.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 1/06/07

CW wrote:


"Stephen M" wrote in message
...
Well that was quick, but sadly, uninformative.


Thank you for your inquiry. [some snippage] Creating a strong bond with Titebond
Original Wood Glue requires clean gluing surfaces and tight fitting
joints.

On old work, you don't have clean gluing surfaces. The gluing
surface is covered with the old glue and it has soaked into the wood.
Short of recutting the mortises larger (and cutting down the tenons too)
there is no way to get the old glue off of (and out of) the old wood. I
read this as "Modern carpenter's glue like Titebond are not suitable for
regluing old joints".
I have no personal experience with hide glue. I have heard it said
that new hide glue with bond to the old hide glue on the wood surfaces,
but I don't know this for a fact.
Two part epoxy will bond to just about anything, including wood
impregnated with old glue. Epoxy bonds well without clamping and is
pretty good for gap filling. I don't know of anyway to get an epoxy
joint apart again, short of breaking it.

David Starr

Just Wondering wrote:

"Losing the 'original' cachet" has a MAJOR impact on an antique's
extrinsic value.

Of course it does. Then once you've lost it, you've lost it. A second
or third restoration shouldn't change this any more than the first did.

Swingman wrote:
"Stephen M" wrote in message

I agree, twice-refininshed and the collector-value is likely in the
toilet.

Maybe not in 100 years.

Hide glue was used back in the day largely because it's what they had.

LOL ... not exactly profound, but hard to argue with.

Modern adhesives are in may cases superior.

We'll only know for sure in a few hundred years.

If this were a chair, because of the frequence of chair joinery failure
and
the fact that you (often) have to disassenble the entire thing to fix a
single joint, I could see using hide glue. Reversability is important in
that case.

Good point.

By contrast, a leg/apron M&T joint is not likely to ever fail using a
modern
glue.

That's one "ever" that likely can't ever be proved.

In fact, it is likely that the original joint failed *because* it was
hide glue.

It could just as easily have been caused by sloppy joinery, improper
application of the original glue, bad batch/mix/temp of glue, or a
combination of the above.

There are a number of 300+ year old furniture pieces, and musical
instruments, still going strong on hide glue.

Your guitar, even today, is put together with hide glue because it
has no elasticity and hence won't creep, helping the instrument
maintain intonation. Leave it in a hot trunk for several hours,
however, and when you open the case, you'll find a pile of
very expensive spruce and rosewood veneers.

Andy Dingley wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:

"Losing the 'original' cachet" has a MAJOR impact on an antique's
extrinsic value.

Of course it does. Then once you've lost it, you've lost it. A second
or third restoration shouldn't change this any more than the first did.

Hmm, Isn't a three-hundred-year-old chair that was last refinished
two hundred years ago, and is still in good shape, worth more than
a three-hundred-year-old chair that was last refinished last week and
is also in good shape?

ISTM that each time it is refinished the 'value timer' is reset.

OTOH if that three-hundred-year-old chair was never refinished and
is now totally BTF with none of the original finish left, does
refinishing
it hurt the value at all?

--

FF

"Father Haskell" wrote in message

Your guitar, even today, is put together with hide glue because it
has no elasticity and hence won't creep, helping the instrument
maintain intonation.

_My_ current guitar is a fretless bass, the only thing glued on is the
fingerboard and the nut, with hide glue of course, and the "intonation" is
maintained more by where I place my fingers ... often good, sometimes not.


Leave it in a hot trunk for several hours,
however, and when you open the case, you'll find a pile of
very expensive spruce and rosewood veneers.

.... and often quite easily resurrected from that situation *because* of the
hide glue.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 1/06/07

wrote in message
oups.com...

Andy Dingley wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:

"Losing the 'original' cachet" has a MAJOR impact on an antique's
extrinsic value.

Of course it does. Then once you've lost it, you've lost it. A second
or third restoration shouldn't change this any more than the first did.

Hmm, Isn't a three-hundred-year-old chair that was last refinished
two hundred years ago, and is still in good shape, worth more than
a three-hundred-year-old chair that was last refinished last week and
is also in good shape?

ISTM that each time it is refinished the 'value timer' is reset.

OTOH if that three-hundred-year-old chair was never refinished and
is now totally BTF with none of the original finish left, does
refinishing
it hurt the value at all?


Antique value is in the eye of the beholder. Utility depends on whether you
can park your butt on the chair without it breaking.

It's worth whatever the fool who wants it as something beside a chair ( or
table or dresser...) is willing to pay for it.