Shellac goof...please help.
Neil Summers
I've recently experienced the pleasure and pain of brushing shellac
for the first time. This is a beautiful finish but it was sure
difficult to apply. It's very thin and dries WAY too quickly! Anyway I
applied 2 coats of a 2 pound cut of orange shellac to a spice cabinet
Red Oak) I checked my results today and found to my dismay a huge run
on one side. I thought I was very careful in checking for this. There
were some other minor glitches but nothing I couldn't live with. But
this run was just plain ugly. I tried to sand it out but this didn't
work. Then I made the bonehead mistake of disolving the run with
alcohol. Now I have this big white spot where the run used to be (at
least the run is gone...heh). I've since sanded the whole side and
applied another coat but it did little to correct my glaring error. Is
there anything I can do to help alleviate or eliminate this problem?
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/
nsum...@sprint.ca
Neil Summers
Calgary, Alberta
Canada
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/
Bruce Taylor
On Mon, 04 May 1998 02:15:08 GMT, nsum...@sprint.ca (Neil Summers)
wrote:
>applied another coat but it did little to correct my glaring error. Is
>there anything I can do to help alleviate or eliminate this problem?
You might find it easier to control the shellac if you apply it with
a bunched-up cotton cloth or (better) a pad made from scraps of
cotton or wool packed into a tightly knotted "bag" of cotton or linen
(what some French Polishers call a "fad" ) . Shellac does not
behave well when brushed on like varnish. It has very little body, so
even a very heavy cut of the stuff will tend to run & dribble. If
you wipe the shellac on with a cloth (as if it were an oil finish) you
can avoid many of these problems.. If you use a lighter cut, you'll
find that the thin layer you have wiped on dries almost immediately,
so that within a few seconds you can apply another layer. Once you've
gone this far, you've taken the first step toward a true French
Polish (which, as you probably know, entails the use of a non-drying
oil as a lubricant for the pad). However, if you would rather not go
to the trouble of learning F.P. you can simply use the pad or cloth
to build a nice coating of shellac and then rub the finish out with
rottenstone or your favourite polishing compound.
Incidentally, you can try using the cloth or pad to repair the bare
spot in your finish. Unfortunately, since you're using .orange
shellac you might find that you end up with a somewhat patchy,
unevenly coloured finish. The problem is that you probably won't be
able to build up a thick layer on the bare spot without adding more
shellac (and therefore more of that nice orangey colour) to the area
around the bare spot which already has some finish on it. The result
will be a darker ring around the area you're trying to fix. It might
be easiest to take all the finish off that panel, and start fresh.
That's one of the nice things about shellac ....it's totally
reversible.
stev
In article <354e242...@news.sprint.ca>, nsum...@sprint.ca says...
>
>I've recently experienced the pleasure and pain of brushing shellac
>for the first time. This is a beautiful finish but it was sure
>difficult to apply. It's very thin and dries WAY too quickly! Anyway I
>applied 2 coats of a 2 pound cut of orange shellac to a spice cabinet
>Red Oak) I checked my results today and found to my dismay a huge run
>on one side. I thought I was very careful in checking for this. There
>were some other minor glitches but nothing I couldn't live with. But
>this run was just plain ugly. I tried to sand it out but this didn't
>work. Then I made the bonehead mistake of disolving the run with
>alcohol. Now I have this big white spot where the run used to be (at
>least the run is gone...heh). I've since sanded the whole side and
>there anything I can do to help alleviate or eliminate this problem?
Runs and other assorted blemishes are not a problem with shellac.
I know cause Ive been screwing around a lot with this stuff lately
under the guidance of the Almighty Paul Radovanic who steered me
away from my evil polyurinestain ways.
So as you have noted shellac dont work quite like varnish. You are
not going to get it on there perfect, at least I cant. Once its on,
dont touch it. Let it dry, and level it with a scraper. Then sand it,
then rub it out. The scraper is the tool to use, works great. Its
a lot of work, leveling the finish and rubbing it out. But on the
other hand, you dont need to worry so much about getting it on
perfect. In my case, thats a good thing. And you *should* rub it
out, cause the rubbed finish feels so damn fine and smooth and
looks great.
steve k
--
stev_ix_netcom_com
Add the @ and the dots, the auto reply address
is a fake. Sorry, Im tired of all the crap I
get in the mail.
************************************
Paul T. Radovanic
stev wrote:
> Runs and other assorted blemishes are not a problem with shellac.
> I know cause Ive been screwing around a lot with this stuff lately
> under the guidance of the Almighty Paul Radovanic who steered me
> away from my evil polyurinestain ways.
Now, I've been called a lot of things in my life, and "almighty" ain't
one of 'em. But Steve's the kind of guy to pass out credit, even when
he did all the work. Plus, he gave me a few useful tips of his own,
like shimming a doweling jig on one side to drill an offset mortise --
great idea, Steve!
And if I can discourage anyone from using <spit-ptui!> polyurinestain, I
think that might be enough to make the _real_ Almighty happy!
As for shellac, it is a very forgiving finish. Don't get discouraged on
your first try. You kinda have to "unlearn" the ways of oil before you
can understand shellac. Once you do, and you've completed a 4-coat
finish in one day, you may not go back to oil! As Steve says, a rubbed
shellac finish is a joy to touch, as well as look at. Personally, I use
a razor blade to slice off a run -- with the blade usually mounted in
one of those window-scraper thingies. But Steve & Odeen got me to try
the cabinet scraper, and it works great. Either way, Steve's advice is
good regarding slice/scrape/sand and recoat. As for applying it without
blemishes, you'll get better at that with time & experience. Shellac is
laid on the wood in one stroke. You might have time for one tip-off
stroke but that's all. It's very different from oil & varnish that
way. Instead of using denatured alcohol as the thinner/solvent, I
learned from rec.ww's Jim McNamera to use 99% Isopropyl alcohol if I
want the shellac to dry slower. Slower drying gives the finish a little
more time to level before it sets up. I paid $15 for a gallon of 99%
isopropyl at the pharmacy, and they had to special-order it.
Bruce's advice was good, too, about wiping shellac as opposed to
brushing. I usually start and end shellac finishes with a rag, using a
brush for build between wipings. And, I prefer dewaxed blonde shellac
to the other flavors. It has exceptional clarity, and the dewaxing
actually improves water-resistance.
For rubbing, you can use automotive polishing compound, or pumice and/or
rottenstone, then follow with a coat of pastewax. A good finishing
book, like Jeff Jewitt's "Hand Applied Finishes" is very helpful, too.
Just hang in there! -- Paul
Larry Jaques
"Paul T. Radovanic" <pau...@concentric.net> wrote:
>And if I can discourage anyone from using <spit-ptui!> polyurinestain, I
>think that might be enough to make the _real_ Almighty happy!
You guys are painting (PIGmented stains) nice Mahogany wood, stifling it
with Bondo (pore filler) and you think a nice sleek Poly is bad?
As the 12-Steppers say "Some are sicker than others." <wry grin>
>> perfect. In my case, thats a good thing. And you *should* rub it
>> out, cause the rubbed finish feels so damn fine and smooth and
>> looks great.
Agreed, hand-rubbed finishes are tres bien.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
* Scattered Showers My Ass! * Insightful Advertising Copy
* --Noah * http://diversify.com/ljaques
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul T. Radovanic
Larry Jaques wrote:
> You guys are painting (PIGmented stains) nice Mahogany wood, stifling it
> with Bondo (pore filler) and you think a nice sleek Poly is bad?
>
> As the 12-Steppers say "Some are sicker than others." <wry grin>
Heh heh. That's okay Larry. Even if your obsession makes you "sicker
than others", you're still welcome here. You'll get over that
"either/or" conspiracy thing. There's nothing wrong with coloring wood,
per se. Staining pine to look like walnut is a bad thing. Staining
pine to look like aged pine is okay. Staining cherry is a capital
crime, because cherry has its own special colors. You'll catch on.
Putrid, unsavory pink Honduran Mahogany is the one good wood that looks
better after staining. As for pore-filling, I suppose you could
wet-sand with Watco to fill the pores if you want to, but I don't always
have that kind of time. Besides, the contrasting color of a dark pore
filler is nice.
Just don't talk about bleaching walnut while I'm around, ok? ;o)
Paul
Mike G.
HOwdy all
If I may be allowed to put a little addendum here, part of the secret
for apply a good shellac finish (polyurathane? I heard of that once,
have to agree with the spit) is spending the bucks for a good
brush!!!!!!!!!
at 15 to 30 dollars for a top of the line brush it may seem
extravagant but it will pay for itself in frustration and finish used.
A brush should hold large almounts of finish yet allow that finish to
flow smoothly off the brush and onto the surface to be finished in an
even constant rate. Spend the money and cherish the brush and about
half your finishing problems will vanish.
On 04 May 1998 20:12:33 EDT, "Paul T. Radovanic"
<pau...@concentric.net> wrote:
>stev wrote:
>> Runs and other assorted blemishes are not a problem with shellac.
>> I know cause Ive been screwing around a lot with this stuff lately
>> under the guidance of the Almighty Paul Radovanic who steered me
>> away from my evil polyurinestain ways.
>
>Now, I've been called a lot of things in my life, and "almighty" ain't
>one of 'em. But Steve's the kind of guy to pass out credit, even when
>he did all the work. Plus, he gave me a few useful tips of his own,
>like shimming a doweling jig on one side to drill an offset mortise --
>great idea, Steve!
>
>And if I can discourage anyone from using <spit-ptui!> polyurinestain, I
>think that might be enough to make the _real_ Almighty happy!
>
>> perfect. In my case, thats a good thing. And you *should* rub it
>> out, cause the rubbed finish feels so damn fine and smooth and
>> looks great.
A thopught
Mike G. AKA mtcowboy
mj...@tiac.net
Patrick Olguin
On Tue, 5 May 1998, Mike G. wrote:
> HOwdy all
>
> If I may be allowed to put a little addendum here, part of the secret
> for apply a good shellac finish (polyurathane? I heard of that once,
> have to agree with the spit) is spending the bucks for a good
> brush!!!!!!!!!
Amen, hallelujah and pass the plate, brother. It's amazing how much
we'll spend on tools, wood, explosion-proof fans, and other geegaws, but
we blanche at the prospect of shelling out less money than the cost of a
beat-up jack plane for a nice badger brush. A neon light went on in my
head when I read this, Mike. I mean here I am, a complete klutz, and
I've not had the shellac problems I read about every day. Now I know.
It's the brush. (well, that and the expert advice I've gotten here from
the likes of Paul R. and Jeff J., among others).
Keep your shellac brush away from other finishes. Even if you don't get
all the shellac out when cleaning it, the shellac will completely melt
next time you use it. So not only is shellac very forgiving to the user,
it's easy on your tools. Treat your brushes with the same loving care
you give your planes, chisels and belt-sandahs.
O'Deen
Disclaimer: I am not a finishing expert, but I've found shellac easy to
use. I've never tried applying it with a cheap brush, so it may very
well be possible. I have done a bit of French polishing, and found it to
work well also. YMMV, FWIW, EMBO.
--
Old tools and old fools: a dangerous combination
http://www.concentric.net/~odeen/oldtools
Jeffrey Thunder
In article <354F1B15...@concentric.net>,
"Paul T. Radovanic" <pau...@concentric.net> writes:
> Larry Jaques wrote:
>> You guys are painting (PIGmented stains) nice Mahogany wood, stifling it
>> with Bondo (pore filler) and you think a nice sleek Poly is bad?
> "either/or" conspiracy thing. There's nothing wrong with coloring wood,
> per se. Staining pine to look like walnut is a bad thing. Staining
And there's nothing wrong with using polyurethane varnish, per se, either.
What's the point of denegrating different finishes and/or finishing
techniques with which one's personal tastes disagree? (I'll stop here
before I write something really incendiary.)
--
Jeff Thunder
Dept. of Mathematical Sciences
Northern Illinois Univ.
jthu...@math.niu.edu
Paul T. Radovanic
That's a fair question, Jeff -- you model of incendiary restraint, you.
;o)
Some finishing issues are a matter of taste. I think the art of
coloring wood falls in the "taste" category. Most hobbyist woodworkers
go through a progression that starts with dimension S/P/F whitewood and
Minwax walnut stain from Home Depot. As they progress into other woods,
they carry that habit with them, and they stain every piece of oak,
pine, or whatever, with little thought to aesthetics or the individual
beauty of different woods. They see staining as a necessary part of
finishing.
In my view, a woodworker raises his skill level when he starts to
consider color as a tool that should fit the project. In many cases,
(like, oh, say cherry, for example, off the top of my head), that
decision will be not to use any coloring agents. In other cases, like
evening out natural color variations, matching existing furniture, or
darkening pores for enhancement and contrast, it's a valid aesthetic
decision. The key is that the color & finish are considered in a
thoughtful way, and match up with the wood & the project. I mean, you
wouldn't attempt a piano finish on a rustic pine tater box.
As for poly, I don't see it as a taste issue. I see no value to poly in
furniture. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. Poly is difficult to work with,
has major adhesion problems, and it's irreversible and non-repairable if
it gets damaged -- which it will, eventually. I use poly for shop jigs
and shop furniture, because it's characteristics make sense out there.
It is very tough, making it scratch-resistant. Having said that, it is
_not_ scratch-proof. So when the inevitable scratch happens, it's there
until you completely strip & re-coat. In the shop, that's not a major
concern. In the living room, that's a bitch. When your child walks by
a poly'd piece of furniture with her ice skates slung over her shoulder,
and drags a blade across the wood making a scratch, what do you do? You
either completely strip and refinish, or worse -- you live with the
blemish until you get time to refinish. Then, refinishing is a very
long, involved, frustrating, and polluting process.
On top of all that, poly, at its best, makes only a passable looking
finish. That's if you are skilled enough and lucky enough to get a
perfect application, with no drips, runs, or brush strokes. Rubbing out
poly is just about impossible. Shellac, lacquer, traditional alkyd
varnish, or even the new acrylics can make an _outstanding_ finish --
far more beautiful than poly could ever be -- because they are easy to
apply, and can be repaired/rubbed out. I put poly in the same category
as using epoxy to fix chair joints. It's tough and effective for a
while, but it shows no respect for the wood, or for whoever has to fix
it later on.
My intention wasn't to denigrate anybody. I was busting Larry's chops,
mainly because he has a sense of humor. But this group has broadened my
horizons in many ways. I now enjoy the use of hand tools for certain
applications, and I've learned too many new techniques here to list. So
I want to share the joys of good finishing with others here; sort of a
payback, you might say. Rec.ww'ers that have used only oil or poly
finishes should branch out, and try shellac, and/or lacquer. Then put
that newly finished project next to one of your older projects that was
finished with poly. Then fix a scratch. Then tell me if poly is still
acceptable for furniture.
When Steve first applied shellac over a cured tung oil, then rubbed it
out with polishing compound and waxed it, his comment to me was "that is
the nicest finish I've ever done". It's very rewarding. Now, I know
lots of people who have stopped using poly, and moved into the other
finishes. I can't say I've ever heard from anyone who's done the
reverse.
Getting back to your original question, I guess the point is that
coloring wood is a valid decision, based on personal taste, where two
reasonable people can disagree. As for poly, well, I'm an opinionated
SOB. ;o)
Paul
Jeffrey Thunder wrote:
> And there's nothing wrong with using polyurethane varnish, per se, either.
> What's the point of denegrating different finishes and/or finishing
> techniques with which one's personal tastes disagree? (I'll stop here
> before I write something really incendiary.)
Neil Summers
Just wanted to say thanks for the good advice and the words of
encouragement. I wiped on some alcohol and then scraped the entire
side, then sanded and started over. Worked like a charm. This project
(the spice cabinet, not a rack) had lots of "cubbyholes" and it made
brushing more difficult. If I had my time back I wiuld have wiped on
several coats, as someone suggested. Overall my first experience was
positive because the result is beautiful...I love this finish and will
use it more often in the future. Thanks again.
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/
nsum...@sprint.ca
Neil Summers
Calgary, Alberta
Canada
Paul Scott
Hi there.
I've made an end-grain chopping board from beech (don't ask why)
and have got to the finishing stage. I've used Tung oil to finish it but
it has become very patchy. Do I just need to do more coats, or should I be
selectively sanding it, or what?
All advice gratefully received.
-----------------------------
Paul Scott pms...@dera.gov.uk
stev
In article <354fba8...@news.sprint.ca>, nsum...@sprint.ca says...
>
>On Mon, 04 May 1998 02:15:08 GMT, nsum...@sprint.ca (Neil Summers)
>wrote:
>
>Just wanted to say thanks for the good advice and the words of
>encouragement. I wiped on some alcohol and then scraped the entire
>side, then sanded and started over. Worked like a charm. This project
>(the spice cabinet, not a rack) had lots of "cubbyholes" and it made
>brushing more difficult. If I had my time back I wiuld have wiped on
>several coats, as someone suggested. Overall my first experience was
>positive because the result is beautiful...I love this finish and will
>use it more often in the future. Thanks again.
Heres some more advice from a shellac novice. Next time, finish as
much as you can prior to glueup. I learned this the hard way myself.
Mask off the areas that will need glue. Amazing how easy and fast it
is to put shellac on a nice straight board.
Regards
Richy
Paul T. Radovanic <pau...@concentric.net> wrote in article
<354FC2A8...@concentric.net>...
>
> In my view, a woodworker raises his skill level when he starts to
> consider color as a tool that should fit the project.
Marquetry is a good example. But staining good furniture? Yeah, it's a
taste thing, as in BAD. : )
> As for poly, I don't see it as a taste issue. I see no value to poly in
> furniture. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. Poly is difficult to work with,
> has major adhesion problems, and it's irreversible and non-repairable
How do you really feel, Paul?
> concern. In the living room, that's a bitch. When your child walks by
> a poly'd piece of furniture with her ice skates slung over her shoulder,
> and drags a blade across the wood making a scratch, what do you do? You
> either completely strip and refinish, or worse -- you live with the
> blemish until you get time to refinish.
Hmm. Even I'm not that anal. Most scratches are only noticeable in
certain light, and even then most people wouldn't notice them. If you mean
scratches deep enough to show bare wood, I've touched them up to near
invisibility with very little effort. But actually scratches are pretty
rare. It's the danish oil only pieces that get scratches all over them,
but that's OK - it means they're being used.
> On top of all that, poly, at its best, makes only a passable looking
> finish.
It sounds like you've never gotten good results, but can't ya understand
that others have? I've used the thick, globby stuff, too, but that's
ancient history.
That's if you are skilled enough and lucky enough to get a
> perfect application, with no drips, runs, or brush strokes. Rubbing out
> poly is just about impossible.
Well that depends. Drips and runs can be sanded off easily if you get 'em
the next day. Slow drying times has its good side, too.
But, yeah, it's easier not to get them in the first place.
Rich
Just say staining and pore filling's OK but varnish ain't? Ugh.
bigc...@pagesz.net
Paul T. Radovanic wrote:
>
> In my view, a woodworker raises his skill level when he starts to
> (like, oh, say cherry, for example, off the top of my head), that
> decision will be not to use any coloring agents. In other cases, like
> evening out natural color variations, matching existing furniture, or
> darkening pores for enhancement and contrast, it's a valid aesthetic
> decision. The key is that the color & finish are considered in a
> thoughtful way, and match up with the wood & the project. I mean, you
> wouldn't attempt a piano finish on a rustic pine tater box.
>
> a poly'd piece of furniture with her ice skates slung over her shoulder,
> and drags a blade across the wood making a scratch, what do you do? You
> either completely strip and refinish, or worse -- you live with the
> long, involved, frustrating, and polluting process.
>
argument. If I've artificially colored my tater box to make it "rustic"
then anything that abrades the surface of the wood is likely to damage
the thin color layer, making repair more difficult. I think you have to
draw a line between gross physical trauma which is likely to affect the
wood's surface and lesser trauma which may be limited to the finish.
Actually, if those taters were recycled into vodka, I'd prefer having
poly on the tater box when your daughter sets her glass down...and if
the vodka puts her in a dancing mood, poly is still okay. hehehe :)
Chris Hubner
Paul T. Radovanic
I may have been unclear in presenting two arguments. The "tater box"
point was made to illustrate the fact that the finish should fit the
project. It had nothing to do with the scratch.
Re the scratch, your point is well taken that stained wood is harder to
repair -- but repair is still easier with non-poly finishes.
And, if your surfaces are likely to be repeatedly saturated with
Stolichnaya Potato Juice, then alkyd varnish is the finish for you. And
my daughter don't dance with nobody who slops wodka all over the
furniture, bubba. ;o)
Paul
Paul T. Radovanic
It sounds like more coats are required. Also, keep the wood wet with
oil for 30-40 minutes each coat before wiping off the excess. For a
great article on applying oil finishes, check out
http://www.mdn.com/~belex
Paul
Paul T. Radovanic
I sorta figured I'd hear from some people who use poly for furniture. I
don't bother with disclaimers, because it's obvious that everything said
here is subjective. Poly does not ruin furniture. I still have some
older projects that were finished with poly. But I'll never use it
again.
> Paul T. Radovanic wrote:
> > In my view, a woodworker raises his skill level when he starts to
> > consider color as a tool that should fit the project.
Richy wrote:
> Marquetry is a good example. But staining good furniture? Yeah, it's a
> taste thing, as in BAD. : )
Now, now, Rich. Coloring has its uses.
> > As for poly, I don't see it as a taste issue. I see no value to poly in
> > furniture. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. Poly is difficult to work with,
> > has major adhesion problems, and it's irreversible and non-repairable
> How do you really feel, Paul?
Glad you asked. Did I mention that poly feels like a cold wet fish?
;o)
> > concern. In the living room, that's a bitch. When your child walks by
> > a poly'd piece of furniture with her ice skates slung over her shoulder,
> > and drags a blade across the wood making a scratch, what do you do? You
> > either completely strip and refinish, or worse -- you live with the
> > blemish until you get time to refinish.
> Hmm. Even I'm not that anal. Most scratches are only noticeable in
> certain light, and even then most people wouldn't notice them. If you mean
> scratches deep enough to show bare wood, I've touched them up to near
> invisibility with very little effort. But actually scratches are pretty
> rare. It's the danish oil only pieces that get scratches all over them,
> but that's OK - it means they're being used.
Ahem. You may change your mind in a few years, when the kids are older,
or after a move. It's safe to say that poly will sustain fewer
scratches than shellac or lacquer in normal use. That's its only
benefit -- it's tough, like a car tire, so it takes more force to
scratch poly than some other finishes. But that's the trade-off.
Harder to scratch means harder to repair. Point taken about some
scratches becoming part of the patina.
I would be interested in hearing your method for touching up poly. Do
you use poly for the touch up, or something like a shellac stick?
> > On top of all that, poly, at its best, makes only a passable looking
> > finish.
> It sounds like you've never gotten good results, but can't ya understand
> that others have? I've used the thick, globby stuff, too, but that's
> ancient history.
Not at all. I have used poly, and -- with practice -- gotten good
results. Like any other finish, you have to experiment, and learn its
quirks to get it right. But poly's best results just aren't that good.
Have you ever tried an alkyd varnish, shellac or lacquer finish, rubbed
it out, and compared it with your best poly effort?
> That's if you are skilled enough and lucky enough to get a
> > perfect application, with no drips, runs, or brush strokes. Rubbing out
> > poly is just about impossible.
> Well that depends. Drips and runs can be sanded off easily if you get 'em
> the next day. Slow drying times has its good side, too.
That's true -- as long as you still plan to add one more coat. There
will still be witness lines that will show through where you've sanded,
but not too badly. But the final coat has to be perfect -- it's
practically impossible to rub it out. This is a case where I'd say I've
never gotten good results, and I can't understand how others have.
> But, yeah, it's easier not to get them in the first place.
Ayep.
> Just say staining and pore filling's OK but varnish ain't? Ugh.
Staining and pore-filling can be far more than ok -- done right, both
can be beautiful, especially on oak or mahogany. Alkyd varnish can be
beautiful. Poly just can't compare. If you're going to encase your
furniture in plastic, why stop with poly? Why not use bar-top epoxy? I
guess we all draw the line in a different spot.
Having said all that, I'll concede that poly is better than paint. And
clear poly is better for cherry than stain. The good news is that wood
looks good enough, in most cases, that the finish is only a minor part
of its character, anyway. It took me a few years to learn that lesson.
I just enjoy my woodworking more, now that I have a few more finishes in
my arsenal. Learning a new finish is as much fun as learning a new
jointery technique, or buying a new tool.
But I'd still like to hear about it, if anyone out there ever switched
to poly after succeeding with shellac, lacquer, or alkyd varnish.
Paul
Larry Jaques
"Paul T. Radovanic" <pau...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Larry Jaques wrote:
>> You guys are painting (PIGmented stains) nice Mahogany wood, stifling it
>> with Bondo (pore filler) and you think a nice sleek Poly is bad?
>>
>> As the 12-Steppers say "Some are sicker than others." <wry grin>
>
>Heh heh. That's okay Larry. Even if your obsession makes you "sicker
>than others", you're still welcome here. You'll get over that
>"either/or" conspiracy thing. There's nothing wrong with coloring wood,
Right. And spray paint a car with a can of Krylon is just fine, too?
<insert "taste" saying here> ;)
>per se. Staining pine to look like walnut is a bad thing. Staining
>pine to look like aged pine is okay. Staining cherry is a capital
>crime, because cherry has its own special colors. You'll catch on.
The pine-to-aged-pine staining is almost acceptable. But I prefer the
look for mismatched-but-from-the=same-pile look of REAL wood. If one
likes the look of stain, why not save the money and purchase that old
standard: woodgrain-look contact paper? Neither fools ANYONE, both say
"I'm really CHEAP", and the contact paper is more environmentally sound
since the backing is recyclable (saving more trees) and the plastic
doesn't fume as it cures. "Catch on? I think NOT!" he hissed. ;)
>Putrid, unsavory pink Honduran Mahogany is the one good wood that looks
BZZZZZZZZZT! If wood doesn't look good, don't BUY it. Maybe they'll stop
cutting _down_ the crap.
>better after staining. As for pore-filling, I suppose you could
>wet-sand with Watco to fill the pores if you want to, but I don't always
>have that kind of time. Besides, the contrasting color of a dark pore
>filler is nice.
Yes, filling pores with a clear finish is acceptable if one wants a
bar top look. But if one doesn't have the time, why is one doing fine
woodworking in the first place? Huh? Huh? Huh? (I speak partially
from regrets here, so don't think I'm being my usual elitist self.)
>Just don't talk about bleaching walnut while I'm around, ok? ;o)
Wouldn't THINK of it. Well, 'cept to reveal the punishment for that crime.
ADDENDUM: I just saw a request for the type of stain/preservative to use
on a stockade fence. A stain might be good here to cover any blood should
an uprising occur. (See, I'm flexible.)
----------------------------------------------------------------
* * Humorous T-shirts Online
* Norm's Got Strings * Typesetting - Web Design
* * http://diversify.com/ljaques
----------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake
>As for poly, I don't see it as a taste issue. I see no value to poly in
>furniture. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. Poly is difficult to work with,
>has major adhesion problems, and it's irreversible and non-repairable if
>it gets damaged -- which it will, eventually. I use poly for shop jigs
>and shop furniture, because it's characteristics make sense out there.
>It is very tough, making it scratch-resistant.
I see it as a taste issue also, but I respectfully disagree. I think its
wood dependent. Water based poly, if this qualifies as poly, looks great on
cypress, oil based finish tints the cypress yellow. (I seal the cypress with
a dewaxed shellac wash coat, it helps bring out the grain
Oil base poly looks good on old virgin forest heart pine floors. It brings
out the soul in the wood. It explodes in shades of color.
For hardwoods, mostly I like rubbed on varnish type finishes.
Its taste and its wood dependent.
stev
In article <6ir7m7$c7u$1...@newsfep2.sprintmail.com>, roger...@sprintmail.com
says...
>
>
>
>>As for poly, I don't see it as a taste issue. I see no value to poly in
>>furniture. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. Poly is difficult to work with,
>>has major adhesion problems, and it's irreversible and non-repairable if
>>it gets damaged -- which it will, eventually. I use poly for shop jigs
>>and shop furniture, because it's characteristics make sense out there.
>>It is very tough, making it scratch-resistant.
>
>I see it as a taste issue also, but I respectfully disagree. I think its
>wood dependent. Water based poly, if this qualifies as poly, looks great on
>cypress, oil based finish tints the cypress yellow. (I seal the cypress with
>a dewaxed shellac wash coat, it helps bring out the grain
I did a small project with water based, and it does look great. One of
the better looking finishes I have managed to put on a piece in fact.
I think the mistake most people make with poly is putting it on too
thick. The thicker, the more it looks like plastic.
Richy
Paul T. Radovanic <pau...@concentric.net> wrote in article
<3550C6E8...@concentric.net>...
> here is subjective. Poly does not ruin furniture. I still have some
> older projects that were finished with poly. But I'll never use it
> again.
Isn't that kinda like saying 'I'll never use paint again'? What do you use
on your floors?
> Now, now, Rich. Coloring has its uses.
Sure - painting one's house.
The only woods I've seen that can benefit from stain are pine (the white
stuff - old heartwood should be left alone) and ash. I say they CAN
benefit - usually they don't, since most people stain much too dark.
A taste issue.
> Ahem. You may change your mind in a few years, when the kids are older,
You may be right, Paul! And your point that people's tastes and standards
change over time is right on the money.
> I would be interested in hearing your method for touching up poly. Do
> you use poly for the touch up, or something like a shellac stick?
Thinned poly. To avoid lines, one must usually feather it. I've used a
dry foam brush, and my fingers. If it's on a corner, it's easier.
That said, with eleven years of using PU'd kitchen cabinets and floors,
I've touched up damage only a very few times. You are right that
significant damage (that also damages the wood) would be nearly impossible
to make invisible, but since the wood is also damaged, I don't think it
much matters. Hard to say - I've never had that kind of damage. Of course
it also depends where the damage is, how visible it is, whether light
reflects off of it, etc.
> Not at all. I have used poly, and -- with practice -- gotten good
> results. Like any other finish, you have to experiment, and learn its
> quirks to get it right.
That's for sure!
But poly's best results just aren't that good.
> Have you ever tried an alkyd varnish, shellac or lacquer finish, rubbed
> it out, and compared it with your best poly effort?
Hee hee! Nice one, Paul! But now I didn't say it looks better - just that
it looks good.
> > Well that depends. Drips and runs can be sanded off easily if you get
'em
> > the next day. Slow drying times has its good side, too.
>
> That's true -- as long as you still plan to add one more coat. There
> will still be witness lines that will show through where you've sanded,
> but not too badly.
Not noticeable on my last project, but you're right - one more coat is of
course necessary.
But the final coat has to be perfect -- it's
> practically impossible to rub it out. This is a case where I'd say I've
> never gotten good results, and I can't understand how others have.
Like you (I think), I wipe on the edges. Brushing them will usually result
in runs or build up.
> Staining and pore-filling can be far more than ok -- done right, both
> can be beautiful, especially on oak or mahogany. Alkyd varnish can be
> beautiful. Poly just can't compare. If you're going to encase your
> furniture in plastic, why stop with poly? Why not use bar-top epoxy?
You're losing me here, Paul. Any surface finish can be over applied. Even
shellac looks plasticky if you use too many coats. The key to keeping PU
from looking like plastic, IME, is thinning it, using thin coats, and not
too many of them. Yes, many (most) PU'd projects look kinda plasticky,
but that sure doesn't mean it (PU) HAS to.
> clear poly is better for cherry than stain. The good news is that wood
> looks good enough, in most cases, that the finish is only a minor part
> of its character, anyway. It took me a few years to learn that lesson.
Nice lesson, Paul! And statements like that are what make this a good
thread. Thanks for starting it!
Rich
bigc...@pagesz.net
Here we are having a serious discussion about good taste and you bring
up your fish fetish. Shameful! What's next, the advantages of the
seminal secretions of long-dead sex starved bugs? ;-)
Chris
Paul T. Radovanic
> Paul T. Radovanic wrote:
> > here is subjective. Poly does not ruin furniture. I still have some
> > older projects that were finished with poly. But I'll never use it
> > again.
Richy wrote:
> Isn't that kinda like saying 'I'll never use paint again'? What do you use
> on your floors?
Carpet or tile. But, we were speaking of furniture. Which I never
painted, anyway!
> > Now, now, Rich. Coloring has its uses.
>
> Sure - painting one's house.
Heh heh. Expand your horizons, my good man. Staining does not imply
subterfuge. Applying a deep burgandy stain to mahogany is not deceptive
-- it just makes the mahogany look like better mahogany.
> The only woods I've seen that can benefit from stain are pine (the white
> stuff - old heartwood should be left alone) and ash. I say they CAN
> benefit - usually they don't, since most people stain much too dark.
> A taste issue.
There are literally millions of combinations of colors, pore-fillers,
and woods. Some of these combinations are attractive, and enhance the
natural characteristics of the wood. Other combinations are either ugly
or deceptive. The key is to know the difference.
You know that "factory finish" that we see on cherry? It's actually a
very pretty color. My contention is that in this case, the wood is the
artist's canvas, and since the many layers of color hide the wood
underneath, bland poplar should be used for this finish, instead of
cherry. Let cherry's special blend of natural colors and interesting
grain figure show through a clear oil and/or shellac finish. Then layer
all the color you want on poplar for that "factory finish." But if you
use a little van dyke brown pigment mixed in your tung oil for an oak
project, that qualifies as "staining" -- and yet it makes the oak look
more like oak, because it highlights the figure.
> > Ahem. You may change your mind in a few years, when the kids are older,
>
> You may be right, Paul! And your point that people's tastes and standards
> change over time is right on the money.
Yeah, I still have an old shoe stand that was constructed of nailed or
screwed butt joints, and 2 x 2 whitewood lumber, plus plywood. It was
finished with Minwax walnut stain and poly. I keep it just as it is, as
a reminder of how much I've learned since then.
> > I would be interested in hearing your method for touching up poly. Do
> > you use poly for the touch up, or something like a shellac stick?
>
> Thinned poly. To avoid lines, one must usually feather it. I've used a
> dry foam brush, and my fingers. If it's on a corner, it's easier.
This sounds like the monthly trip I make around the house with a
paintbrush to touch up the walls. I feather the spots out, but they
still stand out, a little. Patching a scratch in poly is similar. It
looks better than if you had left the scratch alone, but it is still
visible. Just remember that, with other finishes, the repair can be
invisible.
> That said, with eleven years of using PU'd kitchen cabinets and floors,
> I've touched up damage only a very few times. You are right that
> significant damage (that also damages the wood) would be nearly impossible
> to make invisible, but since the wood is also damaged, I don't think it
> much matters. Hard to say - I've never had that kind of damage. Of course
> it also depends where the damage is, how visible it is, whether light
> reflects off of it, etc.
The main point still stands. No matter how minor, or how bad the
damage, shellac/lacquer finishes are still easier to repair.
> But poly's best results just aren't that good.
> > Have you ever tried an alkyd varnish, shellac or lacquer finish, rubbed
> > it out, and compared it with your best poly effort?
>
> Hee hee! Nice one, Paul! But now I didn't say it looks better - just that
> it looks good.
Fair enough. We're singing out of the same hymnal, now. Jalapena,
brother, Jalapena. ;o)
> > > Well that depends. Drips and runs can be sanded off easily if you get
> 'em
> > > the next day. Slow drying times has its good side, too.
> > That's true -- as long as you still plan to add one more coat. There
> > will still be witness lines that will show through where you've sanded,
> > but not too badly.
> Not noticeable on my last project, but you're right - one more coat is of
> course necessary.
Exactly. With shellac/lacquer/alkyd varnish, you can rub out the
offending marks _after_ the last coat.
> But the final coat of poly has to be perfect -- it's
> > practically impossible to rub it out. This is a case where I'd say I've
> > never gotten good results, and I can't understand how others have.
> Like you (I think), I wipe on the edges. Brushing them will usually result
> in runs or build up.
Wiping is good. Or, with any finish, it pays to have a small brush
handy in a jar of clean thinner. Use the thinner-only brush to feather
out runs on edges before they set.
> > Staining and pore-filling can be far more than ok -- done right, both
> > can be beautiful, especially on oak or mahogany. Alkyd varnish can be
> > beautiful. Poly just can't compare. If you're going to encase your
> > furniture in plastic, why stop with poly? Why not use bar-top epoxy?
>
> You're losing me here, Paul. Any surface finish can be over applied. Even
> shellac looks plasticky if you use too many coats. The key to keeping PU
> from looking like plastic, IME, is thinning it, using thin coats, and not
> too many of them. Yes, many (most) PU'd projects look kinda plasticky,
> but that sure doesn't mean it (PU) HAS to.
Au contraire. Poly always looks plasticky, unless it was applied as one
thin wipe-on coat. Even then, it still _feels_ like plastic. As for
the other point, my last project had pore-filler, 8 coats of shellac
plus two coats of lacquer, on top of a coat of Watco. After rubbing out
& waxing, it definitely does not look plasticky. It looks and feels
*sensational*, in my ever-so-humble opinion. ;o)
> > clear poly is better for cherry than stain. The good news is that wood
> > looks good enough, in most cases, that the finish is only a minor part
> > of its character, anyway. It took me a few years to learn that lesson.
> Nice lesson, Paul! And statements like that are what make this a good
> thread. Thanks for starting it!
Yeah, it's been a good thread with viewpoints from all sides. Thanks
for your contributions!
Paul
Paul T. Radovanic
Heh heh. I wondered if I'd hear about that "bug dung" thing! I wonder
if a lac bug would work as well as WD40 for luring those fish? Hmmm?
;o)
Paul
Paul T. Radovanic
Paul wrote:
> >As for poly, I don't see it as a taste issue. I see no value to poly in
> >furniture. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. Poly is difficult to work with,
> >has major adhesion problems, and it's irreversible and non-repairable if
> >it gets damaged -- which it will, eventually. I use poly for shop jigs
> >and shop furniture, because it's characteristics make sense out there.
> >It is very tough, making it scratch-resistant.
> I see it as a taste issue also, but I respectfully disagree. I think its
> wood dependent. Water based poly, if this qualifies as poly, looks great on
> cypress, oil based finish tints the cypress yellow. (I seal the cypress with
> a dewaxed shellac wash coat, it helps bring out the grain
I tried to head this off earlier in the thread. Water-based products
actually don't qualify as "poly", even though they are advertised as
such (to capitalize on the poly hype, I suppose). They are acrylics,
and they can be repaired, for a while after completion. People have
told me that they have been able to repair acrylics as much as two weeks
after completion, because of the long cure time. In addition, though my
experience is limited, I find that acrylics feel better than poly, plus
they can be rubbed out. So, when "water-white" (clear) finishes are
required, acrylics are right up there with lacquer. I just don't use
the acrylics much, because they dry too fast here in Fla.
> Oil base poly looks good on old virgin forest heart pine floors. It brings
> out the soul in the wood. It explodes in shades of color.
Well, I wouldn't argue with poetry such as that! Of course, alkyd
varnish would do the same thing, from a color standpoint. But, I've
never finished a wood floor. Most people here have recommended poly for
floors, so I would follow that advice. This thread was about furniture,
though -- not floors.
> For hardwoods, mostly I like rubbed on varnish type finishes.
>
> Its taste and its wood dependent.
Agreed. All finish choices are taste & wood dependent. Of course, with
the exception of cherry. Staining cherry is not an option. This would
tear a hole in the fabric of the universe. Do you really want that on
your head? ;o)
Paul
Paul T. Radovanic
"Paul T. Radovanic" wrote:
> >per se. Staining pine to look like walnut is a bad thing. Staining
> >pine to look like aged pine is okay. Staining cherry is a capital
> >crime, because cherry has its own special colors. You'll catch on.
> The pine-to-aged-pine staining is almost acceptable. But I prefer the
> look for mismatched-but-from-the=same-pile look of REAL wood. If one
> likes the look of stain, why not save the money and purchase that old
The "staining-as-deception" argument. See earlier comments in this
thread. Staining wood does not mean that we are trying to "fool"
anyone. We are not using color to fake anything, rather to enhance the
value of *some* projects. That's all. It's no more valid to say "never
stain" than it would be to say "always stain." That's that "either/or"
conspiracy thing again. There are enclaves in Waco, Tx, and parts of
Montana based on resistance to the either/or conspiracy. Be careful out
there...
> >better after staining. As for pore-filling, I suppose you could
> >wet-sand with Watco to fill the pores if you want to, but I don't always
> >have that kind of time. Besides, the contrasting color of a dark pore
> >filler is nice.
> Yes, filling pores with a clear finish is acceptable if one wants a
> bar top look. But if one doesn't have the time, why is one doing fine
> woodworking in the first place? Huh? Huh? Huh? (I speak partially
> from regrets here, so don't think I'm being my usual elitist self.)
The real question is, why do we let real life interfere with our
woodworking time? ;o) I HATE when that happens!
> >Just don't talk about bleaching walnut while I'm around, ok? ;o)
> Wouldn't THINK of it. Well, 'cept to reveal the punishment for that crime.
Okay, I'll bite. What's the punishment?
> ADDENDUM: I just saw a request for the type of stain/preservative to use
> on a stockade fence. A stain might be good here to cover any blood should
> an uprising occur. (See, I'm flexible.)
Hmmm. A blood-based stain. It has possibilities...
Paul
The Joe Man
Paul T. Radovanic wrote in message <3553921D...@concentric.net>...
>Heh heh. I wondered if I'd hear about that "bug dung" thing! I wonder
>if a lac bug would work as well as WD40 for luring those fish? Hmmm?
<slice>
>>Shameful! What's next, the advantages of the
>> seminal secretions of long-dead sex starved bugs? ;-)
>> Chris
Well my seminal secretions vary greatly from my dung. Sounds like a
genitourinary problem. But hey, to each his own.
Larry Jaques
"Paul T. Radovanic" <pau...@concentric.net> wrote:
>> > Now, now, Rich. Coloring has its uses.
>>
>> Sure - painting one's house.
And crayons. And in Photoshop. (shameless plug) (No, not the crayons...)
>Heh heh. Expand your horizons, my good man. Staining does not imply
>subterfuge.
No, it requires it. ;)
>Applying a deep burgandy stain to mahogany is not deceptive
>-- it just makes the mahogany look like better mahogany.
ROTFLMAO. Can I recommend a good optometrist, Paul?
(P.S: Burgundy has no "a".)
>You know that "factory finish" that we see on cherry? It's actually a
>very pretty color. My contention is that in this case, the wood is the
>artist's canvas, and since the many layers of color hide the wood
>underneath, bland poplar should be used for this finish, instead of
>cherry. Let cherry's special blend of natural colors and interesting
>grain figure show through a clear oil and/or shellac finish. Then layer
IMNSHO, Cherry shouldn't be singled out as the lone clear-finished wood.
I think all woods have charm and like the keep them looking that way.
I put Honey Oak on the Oak table of my parents. That's as dark as I go,
at least voluntarily.
>all the color you want on poplar for that "factory finish." But if you
>use a little van dyke brown pigment mixed in your tung oil for an oak
>project, that qualifies as "staining" -- and yet it makes the oak look
>more like oak, because it highlights the figure.
Anything wet highlights the figure. Myself? I'll forego the stains.
>Yeah, I still have an old shoe stand that was constructed of nailed or
>screwed butt joints, and 2 x 2 whitewood lumber, plus plywood. It was
>finished with Minwax walnut stain and poly. I keep it just as it is, as
>a reminder of how much I've learned since then.
I've got a few of those klinky reminders around, too. <blush> They make
up my "what NOT to do" shelf, along with the crap from garage sales.
>> But the final coat of poly has to be perfect -- it's
>> > practically impossible to rub it out. This is a case where I'd say I've
>> > never gotten good results, and I can't understand how others have.
You and I probably have the patience to do it, eh, Paul? ;)
>> You're losing me here, Paul. Any surface finish can be over applied. Even
>> shellac looks plasticky if you use too many coats. The key to keeping PU
>> from looking like plastic, IME, is thinning it, using thin coats, and not
>> too many of them. Yes, many (most) PU'd projects look kinda plasticky,
>> but that sure doesn't mean it (PU) HAS to.
Agreed. Too many coats ruin the soup. I've always laid on poly very thin
and usually no more than 3 of those thin coats, sanding lightly in between.
Your 8 coats of shellac aren't overdone since shellac is so DAMNED thin.
And a single shot of morning breath is enough to take it right off the wood.
(No lac bug broth for me, thankyouverymuch.)
>Au contraire. Poly always looks plasticky, unless it was applied as one
>thin wipe-on coat. Even then, it still _feels_ like plastic. As for
>the other point, my last project had pore-filler, 8 coats of shellac
>plus two coats of lacquer, on top of a coat of Watco. After rubbing out
>& waxing, it definitely does not look plasticky. It looks and feels
>*sensational*, in my ever-so-humble opinion. ;o)
The question is: Why would someone put all that stuff on TOP of a nice
Watco finish? (Well, a single coat isn't nice yet, but...)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Life is full of little surprises. * Inexpensive gifts online
--Pandora * http://diversify.com/ljaques
Larry Jaques
"Paul T. Radovanic" <pau...@concentric.net> wrote:
>The "staining-as-deception" argument. See earlier comments in this
>thread. Staining wood does not mean that we are trying to "fool"
>anyone. We are not using color to fake anything, rather to enhance the
>value of *some* projects.
Aw, pshaw! You might not be but the majority of foos using stain are
in cahoots, lying to us all.
>That's all. It's no more valid to say "never
>stain" than it would be to say "always stain." That's that "either/or"
>conspiracy thing again. There are enclaves in Waco, Tx, and parts of
>Montana based on resistance to the either/or conspiracy. Be careful out
>there...
(Oops, busted on the conspiracy angle...)
Ok, I'll go with "Never use more than 1/100th of a gram of stain per
100,000 board feet of project, avoid pigmented stains, and avoid going
more than 5% darker than the underlying wood." (Felt your sphincter
tighten, didja?) <tsk, tsk, tsk>
>The real question is, why do we let real life interfere with our
>woodworking time? ;o) I HATE when that happens!
Unfortunately, reality is 95% while wood is 5. <wiping a tear away>
>> >Just don't talk about bleaching walnut while I'm around, ok? ;o)
>
>> Wouldn't THINK of it. Well, 'cept to reveal the punishment for that crime.
>
>Okay, I'll bite. What's the punishment?
Creating a self-inflicted organic blood-based stain for use on cherry.
Then their addresses would be given to Paul R, wooddorker cum hitman.
Can you think of a worse punishment than waiting for the hitman in their
already weakened state?
>> ADDENDUM: I just saw a request for the type of stain/preservative to use
>> on a stockade fence. A stain might be good here to cover any blood should
>> an uprising occur. (See, I'm flexible.)
>
>Hmmm. A blood-based stain. It has possibilities...
I knew you'd see it that way...
Ciao!
Paul T. Radovanic
> "Paul T. Radovanic" wrote:
> >Applying a deep burgandy stain to mahogany is not deceptive
> >-- it just makes the mahogany look like better mahogany.
> ROTFLMAO. Can I recommend a good optometrist, Paul?
> (P.S: Burgundy has no "a".)
At this point, I must respectfully say "Bite me, Larry."
> IMNSHO, Cherry shouldn't be singled out as the lone clear-finished wood.
> I think all woods have charm and like the keep them looking that way.
> I put Honey Oak on the Oak table of my parents. That's as dark as I go,
> at least voluntarily.
Heh heh. So, the only question is "where does one draw the line?" And
what does "...and like the keep them..." mean, exactly? You grammarian,
you.
> >Yeah, I still have an old shoe stand that was constructed of nailed or
> >screwed butt joints, and 2 x 2 whitewood lumber, plus plywood. It was
> >finished with Minwax walnut stain and poly. I keep it just as it is, as
> >a reminder of how much I've learned since then.
>
> I've got a few of those klinky reminders around, too. <blush> They make
> up my "what NOT to do" shelf, along with the crap from garage sales.
Hey! There is no "l" in "kinky".
> And a single shot of morning breath is enough to take it right off the wood.
> (No lac bug broth for me, thankyouverymuch.)
Now the whole world knows about YOUR morning breath. Lay off the
pepperoni & Muscatel. Or did you drink the lac bug dung broth?
Paul ;o)
Larry Jaques
"Paul T. Radovanic" <pau...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Larry Jaques wrote:
>> ROTFLMAO. Can I recommend a good optometrist, Paul?
>> (P.S: Burgundy has no "a".)
>
>At this point, I must respectfully say "Bite me, Larry."
Now who's the klinky one, Paul? ;)
>Now the whole world knows about YOUR morning breath. Lay off the
>pepperoni & Muscatel. Or did you drink the lac bug dung broth?
Nary a lac nor Musky bottle within an hour of THIS dungeon, er, I
mean "house", sir. I drink only purified water and 'nilla nut coffee.
(The 'nilla is the flavoring and the nut is my description, JICYWW)
Roger Blake
Paul T. Radovanic wrote in message <3553952A...@concentric.net>...
>Paul wrote:
.>>
>> Its taste and its wood dependent.
>
>Agreed. All finish choices are taste & wood dependent. Of course, with
>the exception of cherry. Staining cherry is not an option. This would
>tear a hole in the fabric of the universe. Do you really want that on
>your head? ;o)
>
Ah no. Actually I don't like to stain wood.
Richy
Paul T. Radovanic <pau...@concentric.net> wrote in article
<35539175...@concentric.net>...
> Richy wrote:
> > Isn't that kinda like saying 'I'll never use paint again'? What do you
use
> > on your floors?
>
> Carpet or tile. But, we were speaking of furniture. Which I never
> painted, anyway!
You simply have no taste, Paul. First shellac, then PU, THEN paint.
> > > Now, now, Rich. Coloring has its uses.
> >
> > Sure - painting one's house.
>
> Heh heh. Expand your horizons, my good man. Staining does not imply
> subterfuge. Applying a deep burgandy stain to mahogany is not deceptive
> -- it just makes the mahogany look like better mahogany.
Most domestic woods look better than any mahogany, and w/o any paint, er,
stain, IMO. Heh heh. So just fergit that ferrin stuff!
> There are literally millions of combinations of colors, pore-fillers,
> and woods. Some of these combinations are attractive, and enhance the
> natural characteristics of the wood. Other combinations are either ugly
> or deceptive. The key is to know the difference.
As usual, you're too generous, Paul. Of all those millions, exactly
millions of them are ugly or deceptive. Did I say deceptive? I meant
hideous.
Here's the best I'll do. Occasionally a stained piece will look OK.
Extremely rarely, it'll look better than w/ a clear finish.
> You know that "factory finish" that we see on cherry? It's actually a
> very pretty color. My contention is that in this case, the wood is the
It's a decent color of paint.
> artist's canvas, and since the many layers of color hide the wood
> underneath, bland poplar should be used for this finish, instead of
> cherry.
If you're going to paint it, use poplar. Yeah, that's good advice, if'n
you get a good price on poplar.
Let cherry's special blend of natural colors and interesting
> grain figure show through a clear oil and/or shellac finish. Then layer
> all the color you want on poplar for that "factory finish." But if you
> use a little van dyke brown pigment mixed in your tung oil for an oak
> project, that qualifies as "staining" -- and yet it makes the oak look
> more like oak, because it highlights the figure.
Water highlights the figure, too, but I don't recommend it as a final
finish - it needs refinishing too often.
Seriously, Paul, I've never bought this "highlights the grain" thing. It's
no different than saying that cherry stain "highlights the cherry". No,
you're altering it.
> Yeah, I still have an old shoe stand that was constructed of nailed or
> screwed butt joints, and 2 x 2 whitewood lumber, plus plywood. It
Yeah, I have one or two of those. Some I've dismantled and planed to make
other projects (wow, that old pine is pretty!). Others still serve a
purpose.
> This sounds like the monthly trip I make around the house with a
> paintbrush to touch up the walls. I feather the spots out, but they
Once a month to touch up walls? My god, Paul, you are SERIOUSLY anal. Has
Bennett asked you for any pointers?
Paint is different in that in changes color over time. I'd give your
comparison a 5.7.
> still stand out, a little. Patching a scratch in poly is similar. It
> looks better than if you had left the scratch alone, but it is still
> visible.
Sometimes it is slightly visible in just the right light - other times it's
invisible. The point is that it's quick, and it's rarely needed.
> The main point still stands. No matter how minor, or how bad the
> damage, shellac/lacquer finishes are still easier to repair.
Actually it's kneeling at best, at least as far as minor ones go.
For refinishing you're on the money.
> Exactly. With shellac/lacquer/alkyd varnish, you can rub out the
> offending marks _after_ the last coat.
Guess I better keep on being careful with that last coat, eh?
> Wiping is good. Or, with any finish, it pays to have a small brush
> handy in a jar of clean thinner. Use the thinner-only brush to feather
> out runs on edges before they set.
Wow, advice. Good idea.
> > You're losing me here, Paul. Any surface finish can be over applied.
Even
> > shellac looks plasticky if you use too many coats. The key to keeping
PU
> > from looking like plastic, IME, is thinning it, using thin coats, and
not
> > too many of them. Yes, many (most) PU'd projects look kinda
plasticky,
> > but that sure doesn't mean it (PU) HAS to.
> Au contraire. Poly always looks plasticky, unless it was applied as
I see - I wasn't aware that you had seen every PU'd project ever made,
Paul! I concede.
Rich
Tad
Paul T. Radovanic wrote:
[snip]
>conspiracy thing again. There are enclaves in Waco, Tx, and parts of
>Montana based on resistance to the either/or conspiracy. Be careful out
>there...
Heh, not anymore. I know because I watched "Worlds Scariest Keystone
Kops" on Fox last night. They were investigating an arson or something.
Looked like a John Woo flick with even more mayhem and some annoying "ex
police chief" doing the narration.
>Hmmm. A blood-based stain. It has possibilities...
This reminds me of a story. <What story is that, Bonsai Tad?>
Glad you asked. You see, I was down in my basement the other day
planing a piece of walnut. I never got around to actually building a
bench, so I just C-clamped the board to the wife's laundry table. (She
hates it when I do that)
So here I am, just planing away like a madman with my #666 S8tanly when
the clamp gives way and the board bangs into the laundry shelves. I
watched in horror as the Clorox(tm) bleach bottle danced around on the top
shelf before falling towards my board. I dove towards it, grabbing, but
no luck. My hand grazed the side of the bottle sending it spinning
towards the board. To my dismay, the cap had flown off.
All I could do is watch as the bleach splashed across my freshly planed
board and began to drip onto the floor. OHMYGOD! Acting quickly, I
grabbed a red shirt from the floor and began to mop up the mess. Luckily
the shirt was red, because, wouldn't you know I'd stab myself on the
ScarySharp(tm) chisel that I'd forgotten to put away earlier. Bled like a
pig, I did. Well, to make a long story short, by the time I got the bleach
mopped up, the board would pass as "whitewood" at the "home emporium".
Well, except for all the blood, that is. I was seriously bummed and, in
disgust, threw the white t-shirt into the corner and the board on the
floor in the dustiest corner of the basement. And proceeded to ignore it,
occasionally spitting my chaw on it in disgust.
Fast forward a few weeks. I've just made some popcorn and sat down to
watch that fun flanneled father-figure known as Nahm. "Hey self, he's
making a pretty cool table today out of antique pine. Wish I had some of
that."
You can probably guess the punchline. Later that day, as I was spitting
my chaw into the dusty corner, I saw _IT_. A piece of antique pine. "I
don't remember seeing that before." It was stunning. Marvelous patina
with mysterious brown spots and wild grain. A couple passes through the
power planer and it was ready to make my own version of Nahm's table.
Well, the top at least. I had to bleach a few more pieces of walnut to
finish it, but it was well worth it. A few coats of poly and some "fly
spotting" with india ink and it looked just like Nahm's masterpiece.
I was really happy to find out that I could do this because I've always
admired the "antique pine" look, but all I have available around here is
some first-growth walnut that my GG Grandfather chopped down on his farm
back around ought-six or so. I figure that I can make antique pine
furniture for another three years or so before I run out of wood and need
to find another source.
Bonsai Tad
"Trolling, trolling, trolling down the river..."
Paul T. Radovanic
Richy wrote:
> > > Isn't that kinda like saying 'I'll never use paint again'? What do you
> use
> > > on your floors?
Paul T. Radovanic wrote:
> > Carpet or tile. But, we were speaking of furniture. Which I never
> > painted, anyway!
> You simply have no taste, Paul. First shellac, then PU, THEN paint.
Ok. I think I've got it now. Thanks ever so much.
> > > > Now, now, Rich. Coloring has its uses.
> > > Sure - painting one's house.
> > Heh heh. Expand your horizons, my good man. Staining does not imply
> > subterfuge. Applying a deep burgandy stain to mahogany is not deceptive
> > -- it just makes the mahogany look like better mahogany.
> Most domestic woods look better than any mahogany, and w/o any paint, er,
> stain, IMO. Heh heh. So just fergit that ferrin stuff!
Walnut, cherry, then mahogany. The Big Three in looks & workability.
All behave well -- like an old dog, they do just what you tell them to
do. And all can be equally ruined by poly. Only mahogany benefits from
coloring, but yeah, whut kin ya expeck from 3rd world timbuh?
On the other hand, domestic oak benefits from coloring -- not that
"natural" oak looks bad (it doesn't) but applied color can look
mahvelous. And, curly maple, in many cases, looks positively stunning
with a water-based dye -- it really enhances the figure. Once again,
I'm not saying it's necessarily better, just that it looks wonderful, in
a different way. However, poly would lessen the quality of appearance,
in this case.
> > There are literally millions of combinations of colors, pore-fillers,
> > and woods. Some of these combinations are attractive, and enhance the
> > natural characteristics of the wood. Other combinations are either ugly
> > or deceptive. The key is to know the difference.
> As usual, you're too generous, Paul. Of all those millions, exactly
> millions of them are ugly or deceptive. Did I say deceptive? I meant
> hideous.
Get off the fence, Rich, and tell us where you stand, once & for all!
> Here's the best I'll do. Occasionally a stained piece will look OK.
> Extremely rarely, it'll look better than w/ a clear finish.
Stop gushing. It's embarrassing!
> > You know that "factory finish" that we see on cherry? It's actually a
> > very pretty color. My contention is that in this case, the wood is the
> It's a decent color of paint.
Critic.
> > artist's canvas, and since the many layers of color hide the wood
> > underneath, bland poplar should be used for this finish, instead of
> > cherry.
> If you're going to paint it, use poplar. Yeah, that's good advice, if'n
> you get a good price on poplar.
Heh heh. Well, yeah, you could call it paint, of a sort.
> Let cherry's special blend of natural colors and interesting
> > grain figure show through a clear oil and/or shellac finish. But if you
> > use a little van dyke brown pigment mixed in your tung oil for an oak
> > project, that qualifies as "staining" -- and yet it makes the oak look
> > more like oak, because it highlights the figure.
> Water highlights the figure, too, but I don't recommend it as a final
> finish - it needs refinishing too often.
Don't be so lazy.
> Seriously, Paul, I've never bought this "highlights the grain" thing. It's
> no different than saying that cherry stain "highlights the cherry". No,
> you're altering it.
Hmmm. An oil finish highlights the grain all by itself, without color.
Based on your logic, all finishing alters the wood, therefore all
finishing is bad. That just doesn't hold, er, water (see previous
paragraph ;o). I guess it's a question of degree -- how much altering
will one tolerate? The answer is probably "as much as I've had success
with", or "I'll accept any alterations, as long as the finish is easy
for me to apply."
> > This sounds like the monthly trip I make around the house with a
> > paintbrush to touch up the walls. I feather the spots out, but they
> Once a month to touch up walls? My god, Paul, you are SERIOUSLY anal. Has
> Bennett asked you for any pointers?
As I mentioned once before, call me in a few years, when your kids are
older!
Anal, my a.. no wait, that didn't come out right. Anyway, it's a 5
minute job, that keeps the walls looking good. No big deal. Make that
ten minutes, when you count brush clean-up time.
> Paint is different in that in changes color over time. I'd give your
> comparison a 5.7.
This much is true, your honor. The paint eventually blends. The poly
never does.
> > still stand out, a little. Patching a scratch in poly is similar. It
> > looks better than if you had left the scratch alone, but it is still
> > visible.
> Sometimes it is slightly visible in just the right light - other times it's
> invisible. The point is that it's quick, and it's rarely needed.
I'm with you, Rich, but I'm curious. What other finishes are you
comparing your poly to?
> > The main point still stands. No matter how minor, or how bad the
> > damage, shellac/lacquer finishes are still easier to repair.
> Actually it's kneeling at best, at least as far as minor ones go.
> For refinishing you're on the money.
"Kneeling" -- nyuk, nyuk, nyuk...wiseguy, eh? Why, I oughtta... ;o)
> > Exactly. With shellac/lacquer/alkyd varnish, you can rub out the
> > offending marks _after_ the last coat.
> Guess I better keep on being careful with that last coat, eh?
No. You ought to try a real finish for a change. Really try it, then
tell me if you would switch back to poly. I'm still waiting to hear if
anyone else has ever switched back to poly after succeeding with the
finer finishes.
> > Wiping is good. Or, with any finish, it pays to have a small brush
> > handy in a jar of clean thinner. Use the thinner-only brush to feather
> > out runs on edges before they set.
> Wow, advice. Good idea.
Hmmm. Sarcasm, then a compliment. Hmmm.
> > Yes, many (most) PU'd projects look kinda
> plasticky,
> > > but that sure doesn't mean it (PU) HAS to.
> > Au contraire. Poly always looks plasticky, unless it was applied as
> I see - I wasn't aware that you had seen every PU'd project ever made,
> Paul! I concede.
Ouch! Okay, every poly finish that I HAVE SEEN looks plasticky.
Howzat? Better?
For the record, I still think that poly is good for kitchen cabinets &
floors. My comments have been directed at furniture.
For the record, I don't consider this a flame war, if anyone is still
paying attention. This is a spirited discussion between two opposing
viewpoints. Richy is wrong, of course. But he'll come around. ;o)
Paul
Richy
Paul T. Radovanic <pau...@concentric.net> wrote in article
<35579CBB...@concentric.net>...
> > Most domestic woods look better than any mahogany, and w/o any paint,
er,
> > stain, IMO. Heh heh. So just fergit that ferrin stuff!
>
> Walnut, cherry, then mahogany. The Big Three in looks & workability.
> All behave well -- like an old dog, they do just what you tell them to
> do. And all can be equally ruined by poly. Only mahogany benefits from
> coloring, but yeah, whut kin ya expeck from 3rd world timbuh?
Yeah, mahogany works well and is stable. The trouble is that bland figure
makes beech look good, and then there's that awful PINK color!
> I'm not saying it's necessarily better, just that it looks wonderful, in
> a different way. However, poly would lessen the quality of appearance,
> in this case.
Well, of course!
> > As usual, you're too generous, Paul. Of all those millions, exactly
> > millions of them are ugly or deceptive. Did I say deceptive? I meant
> > hideous.
>
> Get off the fence, Rich, and tell us where you stand, once & for all!
>
> > Here's the best I'll do. Occasionally a stained piece will look OK.
> > Extremely rarely, it'll look better than w/ a clear finish.
>
> Stop gushing. It's embarrassing!
Now THAT'S funny!
> > Water highlights the figure, too, but I don't recommend it as a final
> > finish - it needs refinishing too often.
>
> Don't be so lazy.
> > Seriously, Paul, I've never bought this "highlights the grain" thing.
It's
> > no different than saying that cherry stain "highlights the cherry".
No,
> > you're altering it.
>
> Hmmm. An oil finish highlights the grain all by itself, without color.
> Based on your logic, all finishing alters the wood, therefore all
> finishing is bad. That just doesn't hold, er, water (see previous
You're putting words in my mouth. I said that stain alters it. YOU said
all finishing alters it. That's REALLY the difference between 'highlights'
and 'alters'.
> paragraph ;o). I guess it's a question of degree -- how much altering
> will one tolerate? The answer is probably "as much as I've had success
> with", or "I'll accept any alterations, as long as the finish is easy
> for me to apply."
That answer is probably true for who? Nobody I know, fortunately. If so,
we'd use paint on everything.
And FWIW, I've had success with staining. I've even listed examples of
where it's acceptable. And yet I still won't tolerate it in most cases.
> > Once a month to touch up walls? My god, Paul, you are SERIOUSLY anal.
Has
> > Bennett asked you for any pointers?
> This much is true, your honor. The paint eventually blends. The poly
> never does.
Well, I won't shatter your dreams.
> > Sometimes it is slightly visible in just the right light - other times
it's
> > invisible. The point is that it's quick, and it's rarely needed.
>
> I'm with you, Rich, but I'm curious. What other finishes are you
> comparing your poly to?
At the moment we're comparing it to paint. Previously I compared it to
pure danish oil. Or am I missing something?
> > Guess I better keep on being careful with that last coat, eh?
>
> No. You ought to try a real finish for a change. Really try it, then
> tell me if you would switch back to poly. I'm still waiting to hear if
You sweet talker, you!
> > Wow, advice. Good idea.
>
> Hmmm. Sarcasm, then a compliment. Hmmm.
Yeah, I can do both. Right now I'm typing whilst tapping my foot to "Hitch
a Ride". Impressed yet?
> > I see - I wasn't aware that you had seen every PU'd project ever made,
> > Paul! I concede.
>
> Ouch! Okay, every poly finish that I HAVE SEEN looks plasticky.
> Howzat? Better?
MUCH better. And every lacquered finish I've seen looks more plasticky
than my last oil/PU effort. But I won't assume that means that ALL lacquer
looks like that.
> For the record, I still think that poly is good for kitchen cabinets &
> floors. My comments have been directed at furniture.
Glad to clear that up, Paul.
> For the record, I don't consider this a flame war, if anyone is still
> paying attention. This is a spirited discussion between two opposing
> viewpoints. Richy is wrong, of course. But he'll come around. ;o)
Around the mountain, maybe. Yes, we're pigheaded idiots, but no, I'm sure
no one else is still reading. We're not quite funny enough for that.
Later, Dude!
Richy
Keith Bohn
Paul sed:
>> For the record, I don't consider this a flame war, if anyone is still
>> paying attention. This is a spirited discussion between two opposing
>> viewpoints. Richy is wrong, of course. But he'll come around. ;o)
Richy replied with:
>Around the mountain, maybe. Yes, we're pigheaded idiots, but no, I'm sure
>no one else is still reading. We're not quite funny enough for that.
Hey guys, I'm still here. Then again I have to find something to do
till the bandages come off.
Keith Bohn
b2d
Richy
Keith Bohn <b...@execpc.com> wrote in article
Richy wrote:
, I'm sure
> >no one else is still reading. We're not quite funny enough for that.
>
> Hey guys, I'm still here. Then again I have to find something to do
> till the bandages come off.
Wow, thanks for letting us know, Keith! But I feel out of it - what're the
bandages from?
Rich
Paul T. Radovanic
Richy wrote:
> > > Wow, advice. Good idea.
Paul wrote:
> > Hmmm. Sarcasm, then a compliment. Hmmm.
> Yeah, I can do both. Right now I'm typing whilst tapping my foot to "Hitch
> a Ride". Impressed yet?
Well, I heard ya were chewing gum at the same time. THAT impressed me.
> > For the record, I don't consider this a flame war, if anyone is still
> > paying attention. This is a spirited discussion between two opposing
> > viewpoints. Richy is wrong, of course. But he'll come around. ;o)
> Around the mountain, maybe. Yes, we're pigheaded idiots, but no, I'm sure
> no one else is still reading. We're not quite funny enough for that.
Agreed. Let Odeen & Bennett take it from here. Thanks for the joust!
Paul
Patrick Olguin
On 12 May 1998, Richy wrote:
> Paul Radovanic wrote:
> > Walnut, cherry, then mahogany. The Big Three in looks & workability.
> > All behave well -- like an old dog, they do just what you tell them to
> > do. And all can be equally ruined by poly. Only mahogany benefits from
> > coloring, but yeah, whut kin ya expeck from 3rd world timbuh?
>
> makes beech look good, and then there's that awful PINK color!
Hey Reechy,
Mahogany darkens with age too, bub. I've got one of Ron Hock's marking
shivs with a mahogany handle and it's darkened nicely to a deep cinnamon
brown. Of course by now it's gotten about twenty coats of walnut oil in
a year and a half.
And what's wrong with PINK anyways? You prefer periwinkle or mebbe
mauve? Honduras rosewood, now *that's* pink.
O'Deen
Just say Not every piece of wood has to have wild figure in it to be
beautiful.
Larry Jaques
Patrick Olguin <Od...@concentric.net> wrote:
>On 12 May 1998, Richy wrote:
>> Paul Radovanic wrote:
>> > Walnut, cherry, then mahogany. The Big Three in looks & workability.
>> > All behave well -- like an old dog, they do just what you tell them to
>> > do. And all can be equally ruined by poly. Only mahogany benefits from
>> > coloring, but yeah, whut kin ya expeck from 3rd world timbuh?
>>
>> Yeah, mahogany works well and is stable. The trouble is that bland figure
>> makes beech look good, and then there's that awful PINK color!
>
>Hey Reechy,
>
>Mahogany darkens with age too, bub. I've got one of Ron Hock's marking
>shivs with a mahogany handle and it's darkened nicely to a deep cinnamon
>brown. Of course by now it's gotten about twenty coats of walnut oil in
>a year and a half.
Got any Murphy's Oil Soap? You can find out what the REAL color is since
I'm sure that the shiv hasn't been washed in eons. Who knows, it may
have darkened from the blood. (Whaddyameanyanevermiss?)
>And what's wrong with PINK anyways? You prefer periwinkle or mebbe
>mauve? Honduras rosewood, now *that's* pink.
Only the nicest grey and mauve will do in YB wooddorking, Mr. O.
>Just say Not every piece of wood has to have wild figure in it to be
>beautiful.
Nope, only women do. <gd&r>
==========================================================
Save the + http://diversify.com/ljaques
Endangered SKEETS! + Executive Gifts Online
==========================================================
Richy
Patrick Olguin <Od...@concentric.net> wrote in article
<Pine.SUN.3.96.98051...@mariner.cris.com>...
> On 12 May 1998, Richy wrote:
> > Yeah, mahogany works well and is stable. The trouble is that bland
figure
> > makes beech look good, and then there's that awful PINK color!
>
> Hey Reechy,
>
> Mahogany darkens with age too, bub. I've got one of Ron Hock's marking
> shivs with a mahogany handle and it's darkened nicely to a deep cinnamon
> brown. Of course by now it's gotten about twenty coats of walnut oil in
> a year and a half.
> And what's wrong with PINK anyways?
Nah, that was just a reference to Paul's reason for staining it. Didn't
really expect anyone but him to get it, though.
> Just say Not every piece of wood has to have wild figure in it to be
> beautiful.
This much is true - this is why stuff like purpleheart gets used. Plus,
with no obvious figure, you don't need to worry about straight shelves
looking like they're sagging, eh, Paddy?
Rich aka Reechy (is this a reference to that damn chihuahua on the taco
bell ads my daughter loves?).
Paul T. Radovanic
Richy wrote:
> Nah, that was just a reference to Paul's reason for staining it. Didn't
> really expect anyone but him to get it, though.
Heh heh. Present, and accounted for, your honor.
> Rich aka Reechy (is this a reference to that damn chihuahua on the taco
> bell ads my daughter loves?).
Yo quiero dark mahogany.
Pablo
Bob D.
Thus spake Patrick Olguin <Od...@concentric.net>:
> On 12 May 1998, Richy wrote:
> > > Walnut, cherry, then mahogany. The Big Three in looks & workability.
> > > All behave well -- like an old dog, they do just what you tell them to
> > > do. And all can be equally ruined by poly. Only mahogany benefits from
> > > coloring, but yeah, whut kin ya expeck from 3rd world timbuh?
> >
> > makes beech look good, and then there's that awful PINK color!
>
> mauve?
You forgot a couple of natures other colors from the near damp side of
the rainbow, fuchia and magenta. If the intention is to be flattering
"salmon" might be a better appellation. Yeah, that it, it's not *pink*,
it's "salmon". :-)
> O'Deen
>
> Just say Not every piece of wood has to have wild figure in it to be
> beautiful.
So, not all beauty has wild figure, but all wild figure has beauty?
Then how dost thou explain the evil at the heart of that wood which thou
knowest as "zebra wood" (or is this wood natures way of confirming that
beauty is only a few molecules deep)? :-)
--
============================================================
...two thousand, five hundred Terabytes of spinning data,
all at home on the 'net....home to net wanderers, drifters,
and aliens...the name of the place...Internet '98.