In the past 40 years I have built tons of cabinets using either Titebond I or II. The joints are indeed stronger than the wood grain. Probably my least favorite aspect of its use is the careful cleanup required. LOTS of time spent with a chisel or card scraper or the toothbrush to remove all vestiges of sqeezeout before finishing. If your doing a natural finish or dyeing the wood, it takes extra care. HHG, wipe it with a damp cloth, done!
I think part of the "nonreversible" complaint about AR glue stems from the fact once it gets in the pores, that's it. Cleaning up a disassembled Titebond joint well enough to reglue it with Titebond is no quick task and the resulting joint isn't likely to be as strong as the original. Not really what you want to be attempting inside an assembled instrument. I've also experienced joint creep a couple of times with Titebond, it didn't show up until after the finish was on. This makes me hesitant to use it on the body of an instrument that's going to be under string tension.
I think the infatuation with using "animal based" glue on high end instruments probably stems from the fact that that's what the highly treasured vintage instruments were all put together with (along with nitrocellulose lacquer), therefore the assumption that it will sound better. I do find that the structure of hide glue that allows it dry rock hard does not allow joint creep, and may transfer high frequencies marginally better than AR glue (just like nitro lacquer vs various poly's) No scientific proof, just my gut. Of course, the number one factor determining joint integrity is a good, clean, tight fitting joint. In which case either glue is going to work fine.
For building mandolins, I use HHG for everything in the soundbox and the neck joint. I'm still using Titebond for gluing down the fretboard. I like the open working time, I'm able to get a good thin glue line, and I know the joint will handle the torque of pulling the neck with some give.
Bookmarks