cost of glue

[Andy]

A few recent threads have got me thinking about the cost of glues I use in furniture-making. Several things I've read (here and elsewhere) have mentioned that one of the "drawbacks" of Titebond III (or maybe the only drawback) is price. Someone even mentioned that they only use TB II or III when it's too cold for the cheaper stuff. So I started comparing - I liberally estimated that I might have used

2 oz of glue on my most recent project (a printer stand: small freestanding cabinet, mortise+tenon frame with ply paneled sides, pix to come soon). Anyway, I checked woodcraft.com for glue prices, which probably isn't the cheapest or most expensive source for these. Price of TB is US$ per 16 oz container. Titebond I: $4.99, $0.62 per 2 oz Titebond II: $6.50, $0.81 per 2 oz Titebond III: $7.99, $1.00 per 2 oz (Now moving to the "really expensive" stuff...) System 3 epoxy: $26.99 per 24oz kit, $2.25 per 2 oz Gorilla Glue: $13.99/8oz, $3.50 per 2 oz

So the difference in cost between TBI and TBIII for one medium-small project is 38 cents. Seems to me like very cheap insurance in case your finished piece ever gets wet, or if you might possibly need the extra open time. And if you keep around a few types of glue, so you don't have to use the "expensive" ones when it's warm enough, is one of your bottles more likely to go bad or dry out? What if you forget to bring the TBI upstairs in the winter? I'm pretty careful about comparison-shopping for tools and materials, as I want to make sure I'm getting a good deal and don't want to waste money (i.e. my recent thread on double squares). But I'm guessing that most of us don't mind spending $20 or $50 on a router bit that we really need for our current project (after shopping around, of course). And even if we already have all the tools we need (yeah, right), 38 cents is less than the cost of gas to go and pick up the lumber, not to mention the actual price of that lumber. So why do we care so much about the (nearly insignificant) difference in glue prices? I'm not trying to criticize anyone based on the glue they use, just wondering "aloud" whether anyone else thinks about such things. Andy

[B A R R Y]

Good perspective. Sometimes we can get penny smart and pound foolish.

[dpb]

I would have been at least one who pointed out the disadvantages of TB III (and to a lesser degree, II) as being both relative cost and open time and also in the lower chalking temperature making it usable in colder temps (that's an advantage in that circumstance, not a disadvantage). Don't know that I was necessarily the only one, but at least I know I was one...

I'll agree that for small projects, small volumes it's in the noise as for total cost and is, obviously, even for larger volumes a lesser cost as compared to some of the other costs. But, otoh, I figured it worth pointing out as the actual glue joint strength is really essentially indistinguishable between the three and exceeds the wood breaking strength at the 65-75% level for all, so there's no advantage gained in using a more expensive where the less expensive serves.

If one has reason to suspect a piece is likely to have water exposure, then sure, it makes sense to use II or III. Then, otoh, if one is concerned about longevity and repairability, one might recommend that only hide glue or other "repairable" glues be used for future conservators to be able to correct/repair our mistakes (hopefully some of our work is of a level it will be around that long and considered worthwhile enough to be worthy of the efforts, but I doubt any of mine will be. :) ). So, it's a consideration of what's "right" for the project.

I'm a pretty much hit-n-miss kind of woodworker -- when I'm working, I'm usually doing a lot, when I'm not, I basically am not doing any. So, when I'm in an "on" mode, I buy by the gallon and keep a supply of all on hand--in that mode the price differential is more obvious than if one is into smaller projects and buys small quantities at a time.

It's not that I don't use Type III or even the urethanes when they're need -- I estimate I probably used nearly 5 gal of Type III on the barn restoration and several pints of urethane in the repair/ restoration of trim and rebuilding doors, windows, etc., ... Again, a small fraction of the overall budget (the paint bill was $8000 by itself), but where the lesser priced made sense it showed up...

Just a case of a particular perspective...

[Edwin Pawlowski]

Thought about it for a short time. I used to use Lee Valley's brand and it is good glue. Then I needed waterproof for a project. I then had two bottles instead of one. I've since settled on TBIII for everything and price is not a consideration, convenience is.

[dpb]

You don't find the longer setup time an inconvenience then, I take it, Edwin?

I found it changed the way I had to work slightly in comparison to established habits in that I found I had a lot more "waiting for the brads to hold that while the glue dries" moments w/ Type III... :)

[Morris Dovey]

| So why do we care so much about the (nearly | insignificant) difference in glue prices? I'm not trying to | criticize anyone based on the glue they use, just wondering "aloud" | whether anyone else thinks about such things.

I have GG, TB1, TB3, epoxy, and silicone caulk (is /too/ an adhesive!) in my shop. I generally choose the adhesive that I think will perform best and provide an appropriate open time.

The amount of open time is important to me because some of my glue-ups involve a really unreasonable number of joints that all need to be fit and clamped within a single "open time".

Outdoor stuff (for me, that's usually solar panels) needs weather and water resistance to maintain structural integrity over a period of decades - a good application for TB3.

The only time I worry about glue cost is when I dig out my wallet at the checkout counter - and it usually only hurts for a little while...

-- Morris Dovey DeSoto Solar DeSoto, Iowa USA

[Patriarch]

dpb wrote in news: [e-mail]:

Jumping in amongst the thoughts...

When you glue something up, then get back to the project three days or three weeks later, because life got in the way, what does it matter that the glue took an extra 3 hours to cure?

Use what's on the shelf that works.

Patriarch

[Edwin Pawlowski]

Not for me. Most times I'm either on to some other part or taking a break. Once I clamp something, it is usually a very long time before the clamps come off. I can see where it could be a factor for others though. Then again, there are fanatics in every hobby, like the guys that think you should sink a golf ball in only 6 or 7 stokes.

[J T]

Tue, May 22, 2007, 3:12am (EDT+4) [e-mail] (Edwin=A0Pawlowski) doth sayeth: Then again, there are fanatics in every hobby, like the guys that think you should sink a golf ball in only 6 or 7 stokes.

That's a problem?

is life without challenge and a constant stream of new humiliations?

- Peter Egan

[B A R R Y]

I don't see TBIII as having much more of an overall setup time over TB.

True, there's slightly more open time, but I'm clamping exactly as I always did.

[Peter Ashby]

And if you have a big glue up, the longer open time could be a positive advantage. Depends I suppose if you are a fan of nail guns and fire nails into everything to enable you take the clamps off and do things at a great rate.

Peter