blotchy finish on cherry
Tom Deering
turned out somewhat blotchy. I've read that you can prevent
blotching if you're staining by using a light coat of shellac
first, but I was under the impression that oiling wouldn't be
a problem. Guess I was wrong! Anybody know how to prevent
this if you're oiling?
-Tom
PaulMPacak
>-Tom
I have a theory that your problem isn't a materials problem, but instead a
sanding problem. Your situation sounds very much as though you sanded with
progressively finer grits without perfectly leveling the surface from the
previous grit. I would bet that if you can go back and resand these surfaces
until they're _uniformly_ at 220 to 320 grit and then finish again using the
same product, your results may be greatly improved.
Paul
Slant27
much success.
http://www.taunton.com/fw/features/techniques/14stainchrry.htm
Duke of URLs
>I have a theory that your problem isn't a materials problem, but instead a
>sanding problem.
Sorry Paul but your theory is just that. I'm not saying proper
sanding won't help but woods like cherry, maple and birch are prone to
blotching no matter what measures you take prior to finishing.
Here is an article that address' the subject.
http://www.taunton.com/fw/features/techniques/14stainchrry.htm
There's also an article in a past issue of Fine Woodworking by Jeff
Jewitt on blotch free finishing. You can search the home page of the
site above for a back issues article index.
Keith Bohn
wudnglu
The natural oil sets up the fibres and cells of the wood to take a stain
evenly. I usually flood the area, let it sit 10 minutes, lightly sand
with 320 wet/dry sandpaper, wipe it off completely, then add a coloured
oil, say Watco Cherry in your case. Works great for me.
Henry
Bob Pritchard
cure was sanding completely with each grit . I usually stop at 220 .At
220 your stain is going to penetrate less than a lower grit resulting in
lighter color.That you can control. Bob
Michael Glennon
Read your question and the replies you have received so far and they may be
a bit confusing for you since, depending on the circumstances they are all
correct.
Any stain whether it's Wastco or just plain old stain, when applied, lays
down a coat of some combination of carrier, binder, pigment. When you apply
the staining agent then wipe it off, the pigments catch in pores, sanding
scratches, etc. leaving you with a colored wood.
Trouble occurs with certain porus or open poured woods (i.e.. pine, cherry
oak) in that some parts of the wood grain catches more of the pigments then
others and will give you splotching. It also occurs if you do an poor job of
surface preparation since more pigment will collect in sanding scratches
left in the wood and really show up those errors.
With that in mind along with the responses that I have seen you receive, if
you sand properly with the grain and with small gaps in the progressive
grits and remove ALL the scratch marks from the previous grit, the higher
grit you sand too the smaller the sanding scratches to catch the pigment and
thus a lighter and more even stain. Unfortunately though, not necessarily
without splotching, since you still haven't dealt with the tendency of some
woods to have uneven absorption thoughout it's grain or very open pores.
In the latter case sealing the wood first with a one pound cut of shellac,
or, as suggested, a coat of natural (no stain) watco followed by a light
rubbing with 0000 steel wool prior to applying the stain should seal the
more absorbent parts of the grain and eliminate blotching.
A couple of thoughts, Hope it helps
Mike G.
Tom Deering wrote in message <36E87623...@pixar.com>...
Shafner
>
> >I used Watco on my first project, a cherry nightstand, and it
> >turned out somewhat blotchy. I've read that you can prevent
> >blotching if you're staining by using a light coat of shellac
> >first, but I was under the impression that oiling wouldn't be
> >a problem. Guess I was wrong! Anybody know how to prevent
> >this if you're oiling?
>
> >-Tom
>
> progressively finer grits without perfectly leveling the surface from the
> previous grit. I would bet that if you can go back and resand these surfaces
> until they're _uniformly_ at 220 to 320 grit and then finish again using the
> same product, your results may be greatly improved.
>
> Paul
I am sorry but your theory is wrong. It is possible that UNEVEN and
INCONSISTENT sanding can lead or contribute to blotching. But if the wood had
been prepped to exacting standards, it would still blotch. That is the nature
of cherry, birch, maple, pine, etc. These are woods that are known for blotching.
So you would lose your bet because cherry is one of those woods that has
uneven densities. That menas that some Watco is going to penetrate more in
some areas and less in other areas. Tom's solution to partially sealing
(washcoating/sizing) the surface first with shellac is 100% correct. As a
matter of fact, this solution helps to correct some amount of uneven sanding,
although the rule is that a finish brings out a poor prep job, not hides it
(let's think of it as a bad workaround).
Another approach for Tom would be to use a wood conditioner, but the washcoat
of shellac (dewaxed) is an approach that will afford Tom the most control over
the uneven penetration of the Watco.
--
Daniel Shafner
shafner at earthlink dot net
Tom Deering
a distinction between a Danish oil like Watco (colored or not),
and "stains." I avoided shellacing because I thought that was
for use with stains, not oils, and that the shellac would be
incompatible with the oil. I'll be making the same piece
all over again for SWMBO, so I'll try it on that one. And I'll
be sure to sand evenly too, just to cover all bases.
Thanks for the info, all. The Taunton article was particularly
helpful.
-Tom
Shafner
Despite your experiences and your agreement with Paul, you are very far
off-base. Woods like cherry will blotch regardless of how good you are at
sanding. It is correct when you say that the finer you stain, the lighter your
pigmented wiping stain will look on the wood.
But one effect has nothoing to do with the other. Cherry, pine, maple, birch
and some other woods blotch because they have uneven densities. That leads to
uneven absorption of the liquids that you put on the wood. So then the woods
look blotchy.
Burnishing the wood with finer grits of sandpaper leaves the surface with less
places for pigmented colorants to lodge. But that does nothing for dye stains.
And sanding raw wood finer than 220 can compromise the adherence of a film
forming finish like lacquer, shellac, varnish or waterbase.
Bad sanding techniques makes blotching worse. Good sanding techniques does
nothing to stop blotching.
The way to deal with blotching is to control the penetration of the color
coat. That is done by:
1. Gel Stains -- they do not penetrate much. Hence, less blotching.
2. Washcoating -- sizing/partially sealing the pores of the wood limits the
ability of the color coat to penetrate. Hence, less blotching.
3. Wood Conditioners -- flooding the surface with mineral spirits or wood
conditioner helps your oil wiping stain to sit more evenly on/in the wood.
Hence, less blotching.
4. Spraying almost dry coats of colored finish (dusting/misting) on the
surface of the wood. The color coat is almost dry by the time that it hits the
wood, so it does not penetrate much into the surface. Hence, less blotching.
So if you control the ability of the stain coat to penetrate into the wood,
then you control the amount of blotch.
It should go without saying that you ought to prep your surfaces properly. If
you want to read a great description of what happens, the get Bob Flexner's
"Understanding Wood Finishing".
PaulMPacak
Bob Pritchard wrote:
>>
>> I agree totally with paul .I"ve had this problem in the past and the
>> cure was sanding completely with each grit . I usually stop at 220 .At
>> 220 your stain is going to penetrate less than a lower grit resulting in
>> lighter color.That you can control. Bob
Daniel wrote:
>Despite your experiences and your agreement with Paul, you are very far
>off-base. Woods like cherry will blotch regardless of how good you are >at
>sanding. It is correct when you say that the finer you stain, the lighter your
>pigmented wiping stain will look on the wood.
>But one effect has nothoing to do with the other. Cherry, pine, maple, >birch
>and some other woods blotch because they have uneven densities. That leads to
>uneven absorption of the liquids that you put on the wood. So then the woods
>look blotchy.
>Burnishing the wood with finer grits of sandpaper leaves the surface >with
less
>places for pigmented colorants to lodge. But that does nothing for dye
>stains.
>And sanding raw wood finer than 220 can compromise the adherence of a >film
>forming finish like lacquer, shellac, varnish or waterbase. <snip>
This is often true, however the original poster mentioned using Watco. These
types of finishes are most unforgiving, and good, thorough sanding to at least
400grit is usually necessary to obtain great results. In the past, I've taken
sanding on several pieces of cherry and maple to the 600 grit level. The
finish was virtually flawless.
Also, I use about $70.00 (wholesale) of aniline dyes each month and they will
tend to offer a consistency of color and tone, however, anytime I've seen a
"splotchy" effect when an oil finish was applied, a close scrutiny usually
reveals inadequate sanding. We'd really need to see the piece to be sure, but
keeping all the comments and suggestions in mind, will probably result in
greatly improved results in the future.
Paul
Michael Glennon
Just a quick clarification which is probably not necessary but.........
There is a distinct difference between stain and colored watco or any of the
minwax protect/color type products. That difference is, of course, that
stains only stain and provide no protection, the others provide not only the
color but the finish all in one. As a side note, with the exception of the
watco I don't particularly like these products since it is difficult to
control your coloring.
Go with the 1 LB cut shellac sealer then your watco and you should be fine.
I would suggest that you may want to look into aniline dyes though, but then
I'm prejudice since these are my colorants of choice on all but extremely
poor pieces of wood. They are easier to control and tend towards less
splotching, just be sure to use one that uses a different solvent then the
finish you are going to use.
Another poster mentioned gel stains and I have to add that I have
experimented with them on unsealed pine and was very pleased with the
results as far as blotching goes though the color was a bit darker then I
preferred.
In any case you should try your sealer/stain/finish combinations on a piece
of scrap finish sanded to EXACTLY the same level as your project. It's the
safest way to do the job and will cause less aggravation.
A thought or two
mike G.
Tom Deering wrote in message <36E961F7...@pixar.com>...
Gerry Glauser
the blotching worse. This is primarily with pigmented stains but will also
have some effect with oil stains, and even certain dye stains, depending
upon the carrier. While you can (and you have) seen a visible effect here,
it's usually not very pronounced, compared to other effects.
In the case of cherry, birch and similar others, the blotching due to the
uneven wood density will typically be more important, and from that point on
I agree with Ed's post.
As an aside, one problem with the shellac approach is that even a thin
washcoat of shellac may lighten the stain too much. Other approaches such as
a neutral carrier have less lightening effect, but subsequently tend to do
less for the blotching problem. In extreme cases or where a darker stain is
needed, it's often better to use the shellac with a light stain, and then
use glazing or toning to add additional color.
--Gerry Glauser
On Fri, 12 Mar 1999 07:51:20 -0500 (EST), bbbb...@webtv.net (Bob Pritchard)
David James Miller
that's not how things work in group is it! :)
I have been using linseed oil on cherry, followed by a film finish. I have
used spray laquer and padded orange shellac.
Both have produced beautiful results. I have read quite a bit about
blotching and caught Scott ? on one of those PBS shows advocating using
poly over bare cherry to avoid blotching...
If I skip the oil, do I still accent the grain? In other words, if I
started right out with shellac, does it pop the grain as well as linseed
oil? French polish write ups I've seen recommend a coat of oil first.
I'll try and give it a shot tonight, but was curious as to the collective
new experience with this.
Dave
Michael Glennon <mj...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<7cdlgu$f...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
Shafner
>
> OK, I know I could simply experiment and answer this question, but hey,
> that's not how things work in group is it! :)
>
> I have been using linseed oil on cherry, followed by a film finish. I have
> used spray laquer and padded orange shellac.
>
> Both have produced beautiful results. I have read quite a bit about
> blotching and caught Scott ? on one of those PBS shows advocating using
> poly over bare cherry to avoid blotching...
>
> If I skip the oil, do I still accent the grain? In other words, if I
> started right out with shellac, does it pop the grain as well as linseed
> oil? French polish write ups I've seen recommend a coat of oil first.
>
> I'll try and give it a shot tonight, but was curious as to the collective
> new experience with this.
To pop the grain on cherry or maple, the method that you suggest -- using
linseed oil as your first application of material -- is the best way to go. If
you skip that step, the grain will NOT pop as much. Why? Linseed oil
penetrates into the wood, giving the wood depth/chatoyancy/moire/reflectivety
when you then apply a film finish over that.
So if you just apply a coat of finish, you will get some of the depth because
your finish should penetrate into the wood jsut a little, but it does not
penetrate nearly as much as the linseed oil, so you do not get to peer "into"
the wood as much.
For that mater, a waterbased dye will penetrate further than an oil-based dye,
and that will penetrate further than an alcohol-based dye. So you get the most
depth from the waterbased dye, then the oil, then the alcohol, but not until
you apply a topcoat does that depth of beauty reveal itself.
Some people in this thread have mentioned oil stains without regard to the
coloant used in the oil stain. It seems to me that these people assume that if
the base of the stain is oil, then the colorant is a pigment. Not so! Minwax
oil stains are a combination of pigment and dye colorants. Benjamin Moore
Penetrating Oil Stains are oil soluble dyes set in an oil vehicle. Mentioning
the vehicle of the stain means nothing if you are discussing an issue of
pigments vs. dyes. Most oil stains on the shelves are said to be pigmented. So
that is where the confusion comes from.
Paul T. Radovanic
>If I skip the oil, do I still accent the grain? In other words, if I
>started right out with shellac, does it pop the grain as well as linseed
>oil? French polish write ups I've seen recommend a coat of oil first.
The shellac will act as a lens to highlight the grain, or figure, of
the wood -- with or without the oil, but...
The oil accomplishes two things:
First, it adds depth, or translucence -- the same way that smearing
some oil on a brown paper bag makes it translucent. This is, IMO, the
main benefit of oil.
The second thing that oil does is to collect in the pores and grain
lines. Its amber color highlights the shadow line. This is what
people mean when they say that oil "enhances the grain".
So, to answer your question, the answer is no, shellac alone does not
pop the grain as well as the combination of oil and shellac.
Paul Rad
steveK
says...
>The oil accomplishes two things:
>
>First, it adds depth, or translucence -- the same way that smearing
>some oil on a brown paper bag makes it translucent. This is, IMO, the
>main benefit of oil.
>Paul Rad
It will add some darkness to the wood as well. I built a piece that
inadvertently has some parts finished with oil and some with straight
shellac. Frame members are oil/shellac, the drawers and doors are
straight shellac. The doors and drawer fronts are definately lighter
than the carcass and it is a nice look. Since the piece is cherry,
my bet is that in another 6 months or so, the color will even out into
the same hue throughout.
steve k
--
stev_ix_netcom_com
Gerry Glauser
> For that mater, a waterbased dye will penetrate further than an oil-based dye,
> and that will penetrate further than an alcohol-based dye. So you get the most
> depth from the waterbased dye, then the oil, then the alcohol, but not until
> you apply a topcoat does that depth of beauty reveal itself.
Since one method oa reducing blotching is effectively to reduce penetration,
would you see a significant difference in a problem piece of wood, if
trying the three above dye carriers? If so, how would you compare this
difference in blotching to that obtained by other methods?
> Some people in this thread have mentioned oil stains without regard to the
> coloant used in the oil stain. It seems to me that these people assume that if
> the base of the stain is oil, then the colorant is a pigment. Not so! Minwax
> oil stains are a combination of pigment and dye colorants. Benjamin Moore
> Penetrating Oil Stains are oil soluble dyes set in an oil vehicle. Mentioning
> the vehicle of the stain means nothing if you are discussing an issue of
> pigments vs. dyes. Most oil stains on the shelves are said to be pigmented. So
> that is where the confusion comes from.
It seems to me that most off-the-shelf common stains are a pigment-dye
combination, a few are dye only, and you'd have to look long and hard
to find (at HD or local stores) a pigment only stain.
--Gerry Glauser
> --
> Daniel Shafner
> shafner at earthlink dot net
--
Patrick Olguin
:Burnishing the wood with finer grits of sandpaper leaves the surface with less
:places for pigmented colorants to lodge. But that does nothing for dye stains.
:And sanding raw wood finer than 220 can compromise the adherence of a film
:forming finish like lacquer, shellac, varnish or waterbase.
Dan, this makes me curious. I rarely sand unless I absolutely have to,
preferring a planed surface, especially on woods like pine, cherry,
birch and fir. The plane behaves better when faced with varying
densities than sandpaper, IME. I've not yet had any adhesion problems
with shellac on a planed surface. Is this because the fibers are
cleanly cut and not burnished?
I know Frid recommends scuffing a planed board with 220 grit to give
the wood some bite for the finish to grip, but somehow I've never been
able to bring myself to do it. My oldest projects are only a few years
old. Am I looking at finish failure?
:
:Bad sanding techniques makes blotching worse. Good sanding techniques does
:nothing to stop blotching.
:
:The way to deal with blotching is to control the penetration of the color
:coat. That is done by:
[clip]
And don't forget tinting with various shellacs. It gives you complete
control over color without the possibility of muddying-up the grain
with a stain.
O'Deen
--
There's an old Spanish saying:
Si no puedes correr con los perros grandes, vete al portal
http://www.concentric.net/~odeen/oldtools
David James Miller
this last night on a piece of scrap. Oiled a little with linseed oil,
wiped it off, waited a while, covered both oiled and unoiled areas with
some orange shellac.
So, back to the original topic. Can I use linseed oil without blotching?
Should I dilute it with mineral spirits?
I'm not interested in coloring agents. So far, I have not experience much
blotching with the oil on cherry.
Dave
Paul T. Radovanic <pau...@concentric.net> wrote in article
<36eece74...@news.concentric.net>...
> On 15 Mar 1999, David James Miller wrote:
> >If I skip the oil, do I still accent the grain? In other words, if I
> >started right out with shellac, does it pop the grain as well as linseed
> >oil? French polish write ups I've seen recommend a coat of oil first.
>
> The shellac will act as a lens to highlight the grain, or figure, of
> the wood -- with or without the oil, but...
>
> The oil accomplishes two things:
>
> First, it adds depth, or translucence -- the same way that smearing
> some oil on a brown paper bag makes it translucent. This is, IMO, the
> main benefit of oil.
>
David James Miller
Patrick Olguin <Od...@concentric.net> wrote in article
<Pine.GSU.4.05.99031...@galileo.cris.com>...
> On Fri, 12 Mar 1999, Dan Shafner wrote:
>
> :Burnishing the wood with finer grits of sandpaper leaves the surface
with less
> :places for pigmented colorants to lodge. But that does nothing for dye
stains.
> :And sanding raw wood finer than 220 can compromise the adherence of a
film
> :forming finish like lacquer, shellac, varnish or waterbase.
>
> Dan, this makes me curious. I rarely sand unless I absolutely have to,
> preferring a planed surface, especially on woods like pine, cherry,
> birch and fir. The plane behaves better when faced with varying
> densities than sandpaper, IME. I've not yet had any adhesion problems
> with shellac on a planed surface. Is this because the fibers are
> cleanly cut and not burnished?
>
> I know Frid recommends scuffing a planed board with 220 grit to give
> the wood some bite for the finish to grip, but somehow I've never been
> able to bring myself to do it. My oldest projects are only a few years
> old. Am I looking at finish failure?
I watched the Klauz video on finishing recently, and Frank also sands after
planing and scraping. He did not say why (or I missed it).
Tom Deering
as possible changing the color of the wood, apart from the deepening
effect of the oil. I wanted to see the oiled wood itself, unchanged
by dyes or stains. I don't know what color the "natural" stuff is,
but the finished wood looks pretty nice, I think (apart from the
blotching). So my question about avoiding blotching has nothing to
do with staining, unless that's what the natural Watco does, and
everything to do with the oil/varnish finish.
I do love the deep richness of the oiled wood, and will experiment
with a wash coat of shellac, but I just hope it won't lighten the
color *too* much. I suppose it might be worth trying shellac over
linseed oil (thanks, Dave), I just thought a coat of wax over the
3 coats of Watco would have the sheen I'm looking for. Gotta love
nicely finished wood (even if I don't yet know how)...
-Tom
George Nazarko
is my preference. Runs in faster/farther(?). Third coat is either straight
linseed or linseed based varnish.
I have no experience with blotching on cherry, but I don't stain it, I
choose my boards for a close match. Easy to do when you buy the log, a bit
tougher when you buy the boards.
David James Miller wrote in message
<01be6fe4$f5000b40$4322...@CMILLD11.lexis-nexis.com>...
Tom Deering
sanding too far down. I got just a little of that, but I'm
going to live with it, and I'll see what it looks like with
the coat of wax on it -- maybe that'll even it out some.
-Tom
"John W. Shear" wrote:
>
> For the first coat, I kept it flooded for 30 minutes, then let sit
> for another 30, then wiped off.
> Two days later, I flood again and wet sanded with 400, let it sit
> a while and wiped off (perpendicular to grain)
> Two days later, flooded again and wet sanded with 400 again.
> Still, some spots were real dull and some places had a satin sheen
> so last night I flooded again and wet sanded.
> This morning, I'm still disappointed that large portions are still
> pretty dull, though it feels glass smooth.
>
> Like I said, it's my first experience with cherry so I'm wondering
> if I'm on the right track.
Shafner
>
> Shafner <insert.my.la...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > For that mater, a waterbased dye will penetrate further than an oil-based dye,
> > and that will penetrate further than an alcohol-based dye. So you get the most
> > depth from the waterbased dye, then the oil, then the alcohol, but not until
> > you apply a topcoat does that depth of beauty reveal itself.
>
> Since one method oa reducing blotching is effectively to reduce penetration,
> would you see a significant difference in a problem piece of wood, if
> trying the three above dye carriers? If so, how would you compare this
> difference in blotching to that obtained by other methods?
I do not understand your question. But even if I did, I have to tell you that
I do not compare one type of blotch with another. I do not do testing. But I
do create finished wood samples (step down boards) before I go ahead with a
project. I determine ahead of time how much vibrancy (chatoyancy) is as an
issue before I come up with a finish schedule. If it is an issue where I want
the grain to pop, then I proceed one way. If I am out to avoid any blotch,
then I proceed a different way.
Also, I do not use the different water, oil, alcohol vehilcles for my dye
stains. I buy premixed NGR's and I spray them on mostly. Sometimes I have
wiped them on. So in real terms, I have not used a water soluble aniline
except for many years ago. And with the advent of textile dyes and metalyzed
dyes into our trade, I have used nothing but these new-fangled dyes.
My methods of finishing leave very little color in the wood, most of the time.
Like factories, I put most of my color in the finish, not in the wood. But
that is beacause I like to do factory-styled finishing. And I need to be able
to strip back to white wood if I am having finishing problems, or whatever the
case may be. I like my finishes to be reversable. That is often my finishing
priority when I am choosing which of the many paths that we have available for
us to use. No one path is right. Only the paths with finish failures are the
wrong ones. Everything else is a matter of taste.
> It seems to me that most off-the-shelf common stains are a pigment-dye
> combination, a few are dye only, and you'd have to look long and hard
> to find (at HD or local stores) a pigment only stain.
If you go brand by brand, let's see:
Minwax Oil Stain: pigment/dye combination
Benjamin Moore's Penetrating Oil Stain: dye in an oil vehicle
Sherwin-Williams Sherwood Wiping Stains: pigment
Olympic Wiping Stain: pigment
Behlen's Wiping Stain: pigment
M.L. Campbell's Woodsong: pigment
Guardsman Grain Perfect: pigment
I am just not familiar with enough other than the ones that I mentioned above,
so I cannot speak about all of them. I do not buy harware store items because
I need the availabilty of tech support with my materials. So I stick with
companies that cater to the production and small shop user like Guardsman,
M.L. Campbell, Mohawk and sometimes Sherwin-Williams.
Shafner
>
> I'm about the embark on my first-ever cherry project and have
> been experimenting on samples. I also used Watco (applied 4th
> coat last night) and have what appears to be blotching. However,
> as I walk around the piece, the spots seem to move or disappear
> as the angle and light changes. I'd say it's more like a shadow
> than a blotch.
> It's a neat effect that I kinda like, but I'm wondering if that's a
> normal thing, a sign of bad surface prep, or incorrect application.
What you are noticing is an effect that G-d went out of his way to create when
H- made wood. It is called chatoyance or moire. It is the vibrancy and tree
dimentionality of the cells of the wood that you are noticing, like the
flowing long grasses in a large meadow or rolling hills (anyone see "A Thin
Red Line"). On unstained wood, you probably want this effect. This is what we
are talking about when we say "pop the grain". And just like the legs of
footsoldiers as they march in lock-step, of fans in a large arena as they "do"
the wave, your wood cells are creating macro-patterns as you peer into them
like looking in the tops of a handful of clutched straws. This is nature's
artwork that we embellish a bit so that we can enjoy it. The tree died for
you. And you are showing your appreciation by making that grain come alive,
when the tree can't.
> For the first coat, I kept it flooded for 30 minutes, then let sit
> for another 30, then wiped off.
> Two days later, I flood again and wet sanded with 400, let it sit
> a while and wiped off (perpendicular to grain)
> Two days later, flooded again and wet sanded with 400 again.
> Still, some spots were real dull and some places had a satin sheen
> so last night I flooded again and wet sanded.
> This morning, I'm still disappointed that large portions are still
> pretty dull, though it feels glass smooth.
>
> Like I said, it's my first experience with cherry so I'm wondering
> if I'm on the right track.
>
> Btw, I also am doing this on piece of walnut and have similar
> shadows, though they appear more like rows of shadows that run
> perpendicular to the grain. Gosh it looks cool, but I don't know
> it it's supposed to do that or not.
> --
> John Shear
> Chippewa Falls, WI
steveK
>I'm about the embark on my first-ever cherry project and have
>been experimenting on samples. I also used Watco (applied 4th
>coat last night) and have what appears to be blotching. However,
>as I walk around the piece, the spots seem to move or disappear
>as the angle and light changes. I'd say it's more like a shadow
>than a blotch.
>It's a neat effect that I kinda like, but I'm wondering if that's a
>normal thing, a sign of bad surface prep, or incorrect application.
Blotchy cherry is an old topic on rec.w, and it goes to show different
people like different looks. I myself love the blotch that you see
as you change your angle of view. Thats the curl in the wood, the grain
changing direction, the depth you get from an oil finish.
The 'blotch' is not a sign of bad surface prep or incorrect application,
it is instead the natural effect of putting finish on the grain of the
cherry. What is not natural in my humble opinion is to go to great
lengths to remove this wonderfull character from the cherry. Some people
don't like the blotch. It is, however, a free country and people
are entitled to a homogenized store-bought furniture look if they so
choose.
Actually, staining aside, it probably would be tough to make cherry
look bad, blotch or no blotch. I would say that if you like the look,
then be happy.
>Btw, I also am doing this on piece of walnut and have similar
>shadows, though they appear more like rows of shadows that run
>perpendicular to the grain. Gosh it looks cool, but I don't know
>it it's supposed to do that or not.
Hellyah it's supposed to do that, that's why walnut is such a great
wood. The rows of shadows, that's curl. Curl is good.
steve k
--
stev_ix_netcom_com