Minwax Date Codes

[Doug Miller]

Just thought I'd share this, in case anyone else has ever wondered how to read the date
codes on Minwax cans.

Can of Minwax Wipe-on Poly shows the following coded information:

BATCH-MW1310C
00664 BLH

Decodes as follows:
131 means it was made on the 131st day of the year
0 is the last digit of the year of manufacture, 2010 in this case (presumably, any product
manufactured in 2000 is no longer on store shelves)

00664 is the serial number of that particular can
BLH are the initials of the machine operator

According to Minwax, the shelf life of an UNopened can is five years. They won't quote a
shelf life for *opened* cans, but my own experience suggests that it's more than one year,
but probably not much more than two. Certainly, by June 2012, varnish from a can
manufactured in May 2010, purchased, opened, and used in June 2010, does not dry nearly
as quickly as it did two years ago. It does dry. But takes 3x as long. I'm glad I tested that on
scrap: the project in question was a wedding present, so the deadline wouldn't slip. I bought
a new can. Guess I'll use the old one for shop projects...

[Leon]

Jeez Doug! LOL


Now you have me wondering what Minwax deciphers the MW as. :~)


And what does the C stand for?



Anyway thanks, I am sure the 1310 is all one needs if purchasing a
single can. Seems odd that each can would have a serial number vs. a
batch number. Would Miniwax recall a single can or could you trust
#00664 to be the same as #00700?

[G. Ross]

Which reminds me of Jummywood.

--
G.W. Ross

He who laughs last, thinks slowest.

[Doug Miller]

Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
news:zs6dnbojtJHKBGzS...@giganews.com:

>
> Anyway thanks, I am sure the 1310 is all one needs if purchasing a
> single can. Seems odd that each can would have a serial number vs. a
> batch number. Would Miniwax recall a single can or could you trust
> #00664 to be the same as #00700?

I figured it was a batch number, but their customer service guy said it was a serial number.

I'll check, next time I'm at the Borg, to see which it is. Should be easy enough to tell.

[Leon]

On 7/2/2012 7:32 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
> news:zs6dnbojtJHKBGzS...@giganews.com:
>
>>
>> Anyway thanks, I am sure the 1310 is all one needs if purchasing a
>> single can. Seems odd that each can would have a serial number vs. a
>> batch number. Would Miniwax recall a single can or could you trust
>> #00664 to be the same as #00700?
>
> I figured it was a batch number, but their customer service guy said it was a serial number.

That does not surprise me at all.

>
> I'll check, next time I'm at the Borg, to see which it is. Should be easy enough to tell.

Exactly! If it is actually a serial number there will be no two with
the same number.

[Bill]

Leon wrote:
> On 7/2/2012 7:32 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
>> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
>> news:zs6dnbojtJHKBGzS...@giganews.com:
>>
>>>
>>> Anyway thanks, I am sure the 1310 is all one needs if purchasing a
>>> single can. Seems odd that each can would have a serial number vs. a
>>> batch number. Would Miniwax recall a single can or could you trust
>>> #00664 to be the same as #00700?
>>
>> I figured it was a batch number, but their customer service guy said
>> it was a serial number.
>
> That does not surprise me at all.

Here ya go. Right off of the pages of Wikipedia:

A serial number is a unique code assigned for identification of a single
unit. Although usually called a number, it may include letters, though
ending with digits. Typically serial numbers of a production run are
incremented by one, or another fixed difference, from one unit to the next.

I doubt that this comes as a big surprise to anyone--there is merely,
perhaps, some confusion about terminology.

Bill

[Leon]

On 7/3/2012 12:51 PM, Bill wrote:
> Leon wrote:
>> On 7/2/2012 7:32 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
>>> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
>>> news:zs6dnbojtJHKBGzS...@giganews.com:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Anyway thanks, I am sure the 1310 is all one needs if purchasing a
>>>> single can. Seems odd that each can would have a serial number vs. a
>>>> batch number. Would Miniwax recall a single can or could you trust
>>>> #00664 to be the same as #00700?
>>>
>>> I figured it was a batch number, but their customer service guy said
>>> it was a serial number.
>>
>> That does not surprise me at all.
>
> Here ya go. Right off of the pages of Wikipedia:
>
> A serial number is a unique code assigned for identification of a single
> unit. Although usually called a number, it may include letters, though
> ending with digits. Typically serial numbers of a production run are
> incremented by one, or another fixed difference, from one unit to the next.
>
> I doubt that this comes as a big surprise to anyone--there is merely,
> perhaps, some confusion about terminology.
>
> Bill
>

Was there a doubt as to what a serial number vs a botch number was? ;~)

And again I find it odd that Miniwax says that their cans have serial
numbers. Serial numbers are pretty much exclusively used to identify a
specific single item. I do not see a reason for that in this particular
situation.

Now if Miniwax actually mixed the product separately each time for each
individual container a serial number would be called for.

[Puckdropper at dot]

Bill <Bi...@nospam.net> wrote in news:jsvbf...@news1.newsguy.com:

>
> Here ya go. Right off of the pages of Wikipedia:
>
> A serial number is a unique code assigned for identification of a
> single unit. Although usually called a number, it may include letters,
> though ending with digits. Typically serial numbers of a production
> run are incremented by one, or another fixed difference, from one unit
> to the next.
>
> I doubt that this comes as a big surprise to anyone--there is merely,
> perhaps, some confusion about terminology.
>
> Bill
>

It could be a batch serial number. *mischevious grin*

Puckdropper
--
Make it to fit, don't make it fit.

[dpb]

On 7/3/2012 3:17 PM, Puckdropper wrote:
...

> It could be a batch serial number. *mischevious grin*

Or a serial batch number... :)

--

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 15:16:19 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:

>On 7/3/2012 12:51 PM, Bill wrote:
>> Leon wrote:
>>> On 7/2/2012 7:32 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
>>>> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
>>>> news:zs6dnbojtJHKBGzS...@giganews.com:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway thanks, I am sure the 1310 is all one needs if purchasing a
>>>>> single can. Seems odd that each can would have a serial number vs. a
>>>>> batch number. Would Miniwax recall a single can or could you trust
>>>>> #00664 to be the same as #00700?
>>>>
>>>> I figured it was a batch number, but their customer service guy said
>>>> it was a serial number.
>>>
>>> That does not surprise me at all.
>>
>> Here ya go. Right off of the pages of Wikipedia:
>>
>> A serial number is a unique code assigned for identification of a single
>> unit. Although usually called a number, it may include letters, though
>> ending with digits. Typically serial numbers of a production run are
>> incremented by one, or another fixed difference, from one unit to the next.
>>
>> I doubt that this comes as a big surprise to anyone--there is merely,
>> perhaps, some confusion about terminology.
>>
>> Bill
>>
>
>Was there a doubt as to what a serial number vs a botch number was? ;~)

Why would anyone buy a product with a botch number on it? ;-)

>And again I find it odd that Miniwax says that their cans have serial
>numbers. Serial numbers are pretty much exclusively used to identify a
>specific single item. I do not see a reason for that in this particular
>situation.
>
>Now if Miniwax actually mixed the product separately each time for each
>individual container a serial number would be called for.

How expensive is this stuff? ;-)

[Bill]

Leon wrote:
> On 7/3/2012 12:51 PM, Bill wrote:
>> Leon wrote:
>>> On 7/2/2012 7:32 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
>>>> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
>>>> news:zs6dnbojtJHKBGzS...@giganews.com:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway thanks, I am sure the 1310 is all one needs if purchasing a
>>>>> single can. Seems odd that each can would have a serial number vs. a
>>>>> batch number. Would Miniwax recall a single can or could you trust
>>>>> #00664 to be the same as #00700?
>>>>
>>>> I figured it was a batch number, but their customer service guy said
>>>> it was a serial number.
>>>
>>> That does not surprise me at all.
>>
>> Here ya go. Right off of the pages of Wikipedia:
>>
>> A serial number is a unique code assigned for identification of a single
>> unit. Although usually called a number, it may include letters, though
>> ending with digits. Typically serial numbers of a production run are
>> incremented by one, or another fixed difference, from one unit to the
>> next.
>>
>> I doubt that this comes as a big surprise to anyone--there is merely,
>> perhaps, some confusion about terminology.
>>
>> Bill
>>
>
> Was there a doubt as to what a serial number vs a botch number was? ;~)

I may have read Wikipedia too fast. When I read "serial numbers of a
production run", I interpreted it that production run's have serial
numbers.

I doubt that each can of tuna get it's own serial number--even if they
comnes from the same fish! Now each particular tuna fish might get it's
own serial number. Leaving some meat on the bone, that's alot like
naming them...

[Doug Miller]

dpb <no...@non.net> wrote in news:jsvk79$1m3$1...@speranza.aioe.org:

Not to be confused with the cereal batch number you might find on a box of Cheerios...

[Leon]

On 7/3/2012 3:56 PM, k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 15:16:19 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>
>> On 7/3/2012 12:51 PM, Bill wrote:
>>> Leon wrote:
>>>> On 7/2/2012 7:32 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
>>>>> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
>>>>> news:zs6dnbojtJHKBGzS...@giganews.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyway thanks, I am sure the 1310 is all one needs if purchasing a
>>>>>> single can. Seems odd that each can would have a serial number vs. a
>>>>>> batch number. Would Miniwax recall a single can or could you trust
>>>>>> #00664 to be the same as #00700?
>>>>>
>>>>> I figured it was a batch number, but their customer service guy said
>>>>> it was a serial number.
>>>>
>>>> That does not surprise me at all.
>>>
>>> Here ya go. Right off of the pages of Wikipedia:
>>>
>>> A serial number is a unique code assigned for identification of a single
>>> unit. Although usually called a number, it may include letters, though
>>> ending with digits. Typically serial numbers of a production run are
>>> incremented by one, or another fixed difference, from one unit to the next.
>>>
>>> I doubt that this comes as a big surprise to anyone--there is merely,
>>> perhaps, some confusion about terminology.
>>>
>>> Bill
>>>
>>
>> Was there a doubt as to what a serial number vs a botch number was? ;~)
>
> Why would anyone buy a product with a botch number on it? ;-)

LOL I have seen some fine work done with Miniwax stains, I was never
satisfied with it. So it is a botch number. ;~)

>
>> And again I find it odd that Miniwax says that their cans have serial
>> numbers. Serial numbers are pretty much exclusively used to identify a
>> specific single item. I do not see a reason for that in this particular
>> situation.
>>
>> Now if Miniwax actually mixed the product separately each time for each
>> individual container a serial number would be called for.
>
> How expensive is this stuff? ;-)

No kidding.. LOL

[Leon]

On 7/3/2012 3:56 PM, k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

> On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 15:16:19 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>
>> On 7/3/2012 12:51 PM, Bill wrote:
>>> Leon wrote:
>>>> On 7/2/2012 7:32 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
>>>>> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
>>>>> news:zs6dnbojtJHKBGzS...@giganews.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyway thanks, I am sure the 1310 is all one needs if purchasing a
>>>>>> single can. Seems odd that each can would have a serial number vs. a
>>>>>> batch number. Would Miniwax recall a single can or could you trust
>>>>>> #00664 to be the same as #00700?
>>>>>
>>>>> I figured it was a batch number, but their customer service guy said
>>>>> it was a serial number.
>>>>
>>>> That does not surprise me at all.
>>>
>>> Here ya go. Right off of the pages of Wikipedia:
>>>
>>> A serial number is a unique code assigned for identification of a single
>>> unit. Although usually called a number, it may include letters, though
>>> ending with digits. Typically serial numbers of a production run are
>>> incremented by one, or another fixed difference, from one unit to the next.
>>>
>>> I doubt that this comes as a big surprise to anyone--there is merely,
>>> perhaps, some confusion about terminology.
>>>
>>> Bill
>>>
>>
>> Was there a doubt as to what a serial number vs a botch number was? ;~)
>
> Why would anyone buy a product with a botch number on it? ;-)

LOL I have seen some fine work done with Miniwax stains, I was never
satisfied with it. So it is a botch number. ;~)






>

>> And again I find it odd that Miniwax says that their cans have serial
>> numbers. Serial numbers are pretty much exclusively used to identify a
>> specific single item. I do not see a reason for that in this particular
>> situation.
>>
>> Now if Miniwax actually mixed the product separately each time for each
>> individual container a serial number would be called for.
>
> How expensive is this stuff? ;-)

No kidding.. LOL

[dpb]

Would that not be a cereal box serial batch number?

--

[Leon]

No you are thinking batch number commonly used when a quantity of
product is divided and sold in individual containers. A new batch of
the product would get a new batch number. If you are buying 3 quarts of
stain you would want to make sure each can was from the same batch and
had the same batch number to insure that they were all identical in
color. if the batch numbers were different it would be wise to mix all
together to insure a uniform color.

Serial numbers typically indicate a single manufactured item that is not
divided and sold in smaller quantities. Manufacturers use serial
numbers mostly for recall and or repair purposes. If there is a problem
with a series of manufactured products they are easier to identify by
serial number.

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

No, no, no. The box' batch isn't serialized, the cereal batch has a serial
number printed on the box. ;-)

[Doug Miller]

Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in news:4FF372DB.6030403@swbelldotnet:

>
> LOL I have seen some fine work done with Miniwax stains, I was never
> satisfied with it. So it is a botch number. ;~)

All kidding aside, it really is a serial number. I checked at HD today; three consecutive cans
on the shelf, all with the same date code, had serial numbers 04062, 04063, 04064.

[Leon]

Wow! That is really strange.

[Swingman]

Shouldn't that be a blotch number?

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

[-MIKE-]

On 7/4/12 9:22 AM, Swingman wrote:
> On 7/3/2012 10:35 PM, Leon wrote:
>> On 7/3/2012 10:18 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
>>> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
>>> news:4FF372DB.6030403@swbelldotnet:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> LOL I have seen some fine work done with Miniwax stains, I was never
>>>> satisfied with it. So it is a botch number. ;~)
>>>
>>> All kidding aside, it really is a serial number. I checked at HD
>>> today; three consecutive cans
>>> on the shelf, all with the same date code, had serial numbers 04062,
>>> 04063, 04064.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Wow! That is really strange.
>
> Shouldn't that be a blotch number?
>

<ba-doomp chink!>
Tip yer waitress.

--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
mi...@mikedrumsDOT.com
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

[Larry Jaques]

On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 09:22:07 -0500, Swingman <k...@nospam.com> wrote:

>On 7/3/2012 10:35 PM, Leon wrote:
>> On 7/3/2012 10:18 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
>>> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in news:4FF372DB.6030403@swbelldotnet:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> LOL I have seen some fine work done with Miniwax stains, I was never
>>>> satisfied with it. So it is a botch number. ;~)
>>>
>>> All kidding aside, it really is a serial number. I checked at HD
>>> today; three consecutive cans
>>> on the shelf, all with the same date code, had serial numbers 04062,
>>> 04063, 04064.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Wow! That is really strange.
>
>Shouldn't that be a blotch number?

+1

--
Stain and poly are their own punishment.

[Doug Miller]

Swingman <k...@nospam.com> wrote in
news:APCdnfDjqIcNzGnS...@giganews.com:

> On 7/3/2012 10:35 PM, Leon wrote:
>> On 7/3/2012 10:18 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
>>> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in news:4FF372DB.6030403@swbelldotnet:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> LOL I have seen some fine work done with Miniwax stains, I was never
>>>> satisfied with it. So it is a botch number. ;~)
>>>
>>> All kidding aside, it really is a serial number. I checked at HD
>>> today; three consecutive cans
>>> on the shelf, all with the same date code, had serial numbers 04062,
>>> 04063, 04064.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Wow! That is really strange.
>
> Shouldn't that be a blotch number?
>

That *may* be a valid criticism of Minwax *stains*, but I've had nothing but great results from
the wipe-on poly. I tried it as an experiment about 8 or 8 years ago, figuring it couldn't be as
good as the General Finishes poly at Woodcraft. It's not. It's better. It dries faster *and*
harder, but the best part is that it comes in a bottle, not a can -- a bottle you can pour from. I
pour about an ounce into an empty prescription bottle to use on the project, and reseal the
varnish bottle immediately. So the varnish lasts a lot longer in the bottle because it's not
exposed to oxygen.

[Swingman]

I have no problem with Minwax products and use their stains in most all
construction and remodel projects, including entire kitchens, but not
usually on furniture projects.

That said, just went through 2 quarts of Minwax Red Mahagony #225 at a
client's request on this (no topcoat yet):

https://picasaweb.google.com/111355467778981859077/EWoodShopJustStuff#5761467891170259858

That client is a two hour drive from the shop, and because Minwax is
available just about anywhere, made it easy for her to chose a stain she
liked without my participation.

My paint contractor uses it almost exclusively and generally adds a
toner to the top coat of where shading is desired to match floors,
countertop, etc, and, depending upon the wood, in an effort to blend the
old and new, both situations faced here:

https://picasaweb.google.com/111355467778981859077/EWoodShopJustStuff#5761466760456472354

Not ashamed to use the product in the least ... :)

[Dave]

On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 19:28:59 -0500, Swingman <k...@nospam.com> wrote:
>https://picasaweb.google.com/111355467778981859077/EWoodShopJustStuff#5761467891170259858

A little unusual for it to have two drawers on the right and one on
the left? It affects the symmetry. Can I guess it was so it would fit
aesthetically in a specific area?

[Doug Miller]

Swingman <k...@nospam.com> wrote in
news:MrCdna4OP7VRQmnS...@giganews.com:

> I have no problem with Minwax products and use their stains in most all
> construction and remodel projects, including entire kitchens, but not
> usually on furniture projects.
>
> That said, just went through 2 quarts of Minwax Red Mahagony #225 at a
> client's request on this (no topcoat yet):
>
> https://picasaweb.google.com/111355467778981859077/EWoodShopJustStuff#
5761467891170259858

Nice! How long did that take to build?

[Swingman]

Yes, most unusual; not exactly easy to fabricate; took unusual methods
to do so; will indeed go in a very specific corner; made for two; must
hold large Apple monitors; one desk space required a minimum of 31" wide
leg room; drawers and doors placed _exactly_ as the client specified.

Basically designed with the same principle of a band wanting each
individual instrument louder than every other instrument in the monitor
mix. :(

... none of it my call, I just build what they want.

[Leon]

On 7/4/2012 3:21 PM, Doug Miller wrote:

My problem has always been that there has always been an area that would
absorb the stain. It could not be as bad as I think it is, ;~), I have
seen a lot of good work done with it.


Oddly I have resanded the whole section to bare wood and it had
absorption problems again. Resanded again and used another product and
no problem. This has happened to me more than once. Something odd
going on there.

[dpb]

On 7/4/2012 3:21 PM, Doug Miller wrote:

...

My problem has always been that there has always been an area that would
absorb the stain. It could not be as bad as I think it is, ;~), I have
seen a lot of good work done with it.


Oddly I have resanded the whole section to bare wood and it had
absorption problems again. Resanded again and used another product and
no problem. This has happened to me more than once. Something odd
going on there.

I don't think it's the stain; it's the preparation. I've used the
Minwax stains for 30+ years and they're no more prone to blotching than
any other oil based stain. Many woods need sized before staining;
almost always one will get a better job if do so.

--

[Leon]

It was the stain. If you will recall I resanded the area again and
reapplied and again and reapplied with another brand with no problem.

What I did not mention is that i resanded a third time to reapply the
Miniwax as the other brand was not a match.

Now if preparation is needed past 180 grip paper, I'll pass.

Now what concerns me is that you mentioned that you get no more
blotching than with any other oil based stain. I don't ever get
blotching. What I was witnessing was spots that the stain would not
stick and would come clean when I wiped off the excess.

Obviously it was the grain in the wood which Miniwax had a problem with.
I ended up having to apply it to the finger nail sized area with a
q-tip and lettigt dry thoroughly before applying varnish.

This was red oak that I was staining BTY.

[Larry Jaques]

On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 07:49:30 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:

>This was red oak that I was staining BTY.

BTW

--
Truth loves to go naked.
--Dr. Thomas Fuller, Gnomologia, 1732

[Swingman]

On 7/5/2012 9:27 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 07:49:30 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>> This was red oak that I was staining BTY.
>
> BTW

LOL ... I've always assumed that on Leon's keyboard the "Q" and "Y" must
be juxtaposed. <g.d &r>

[Leon]

On 7/5/2012 9:35 AM, Swingman wrote:
> On 7/5/2012 9:27 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 07:49:30 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> This was red oak that I was staining BTY.
>>
>> BTW
>
> LOL ... I've always assumed that on Leon's keyboard the "Q" and "Y" must
> be juxtaposed. <g.d &r>
>

Gotta keep y'all on your toes!

[Swingman]

^^^^

Ya'lls

[G. Ross]

Swingman wrote:
> On 7/5/2012 5:24 PM, Leon wrote:
>> On 7/5/2012 9:35 AM, Swingman wrote:
>>> On 7/5/2012 9:27 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 07:49:30 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This was red oak that I was staining BTY.
>>>>
>>>> BTW
>>>
>>> LOL ... I've always assumed that on Leon's keyboard the "Q" and "Y" must
>>> be juxtaposed.<g.d&r>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Gotta keep y'all on your toes!
> ^^^^
>
> Ya'lls
>

Not in Georgia. Ya'll is plural by itself.

--
G.W. Ross

A Metaphor is like a Simile.

[-MIKE-]

This is something I never got. If it's a contraction of "You" and
"all," why the apostrophe after the "a" and not before it? There's no
"a" in "you."

[Steve Turner]

On 7/5/2012 6:39 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
> On 7/5/12 6:31 PM, G. Ross wrote:
>> Swingman wrote:
>>> On 7/5/2012 5:24 PM, Leon wrote:
>>>> On 7/5/2012 9:35 AM, Swingman wrote:
>>>>> On 7/5/2012 9:27 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 07:49:30 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This was red oak that I was staining BTY.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BTW
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL ... I've always assumed that on Leon's keyboard the "Q" and "Y"
>>>>> must
>>>>> be juxtaposed.<g.d&r>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Gotta keep y'all on your toes!
>>> ^^^^
>>>
>>> Ya'lls
>>>
>> Not in Georgia. Ya'll is plural by itself.
>>
>
> This is something I never got. If it's a contraction of "You" and "all," why
> the apostrophe after the "a" and not before it? There's no "a" in "you."

Plus, in this case it's possessive, so I'd guess the truly correct form would
be Y'all's ... ;-)

--
Free bad advice available here.
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

[-MIKE-]

On 7/5/12 8:16 PM, Steve Turner wrote:
> On 7/5/2012 6:39 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>> On 7/5/12 6:31 PM, G. Ross wrote:
>>> Swingman wrote:
>>>> On 7/5/2012 5:24 PM, Leon wrote:
>>>>> On 7/5/2012 9:35 AM, Swingman wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/5/2012 9:27 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 07:49:30 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This was red oak that I was staining BTY.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BTW
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LOL ... I've always assumed that on Leon's keyboard the "Q" and "Y"
>>>>>> must
>>>>>> be juxtaposed.<g.d&r>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Gotta keep y'all on your toes!
>>>> ^^^^
>>>>
>>>> Ya'lls
>>>>
>>> Not in Georgia. Ya'll is plural by itself.
>>>
>>
>> This is something I never got. If it's a contraction of "You" and
>> "all," why
>> the apostrophe after the "a" and not before it? There's no "a" in
>> "you."
>
> Plus, in this case it's possessive, so I'd guess the truly correct form
> would be Y'all's ... ;-)
>

You're all wrong.
It's youins'.

[Swingman]

Bzzzt ... not in Texas. The sentence should properly read in the mother
tongue:

Gotta keep y'all on ya'lls toes!

The dual singular/plural "y'all", is always followed by the plural
possessive "ya'lls" in a sentence, and the possessive "'s" is an
elision, and optional, matter of personal choice.

Dayum, all y'all have to do is listen to Kinky Friedman.

;)

[Swingman]

On 7/5/2012 8:16 PM, Steve Turner wrote:
> On 7/5/2012 6:39 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>> On 7/5/12 6:31 PM, G. Ross wrote:
>>> Swingman wrote:
>>>> On 7/5/2012 5:24 PM, Leon wrote:
>>>>> On 7/5/2012 9:35 AM, Swingman wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/5/2012 9:27 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 07:49:30 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This was red oak that I was staining BTY.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BTW
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LOL ... I've always assumed that on Leon's keyboard the "Q" and "Y"
>>>>>> must
>>>>>> be juxtaposed.<g.d&r>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Gotta keep y'all on your toes!
>>>> ^^^^
>>>>
>>>> Ya'lls
>>>>
>>> Not in Georgia. Ya'll is plural by itself.
>>>
>>
>> This is something I never got. If it's a contraction of "You" and
>> "all," why
>> the apostrophe after the "a" and not before it? There's no "a" in
>> "you."
>
> Plus, in this case it's possessive, so I'd guess the truly correct form
> would be Y'all's ... ;-)

Bzzzt ... according to Kinky, that is a matter of personal choice.

;)

[Larry Jaques]

On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 17:24:26 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:

OK, you've proven your point. Now stoooooooooooooooooooooawp!

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 20:22:20 -0500, -MIKE- <mi...@mikedrumsDOT.com> wrote:

>On 7/5/12 8:16 PM, Steve Turner wrote:
>> On 7/5/2012 6:39 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>>> On 7/5/12 6:31 PM, G. Ross wrote:
>>>> Swingman wrote:
>>>>> On 7/5/2012 5:24 PM, Leon wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/5/2012 9:35 AM, Swingman wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/5/2012 9:27 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 07:49:30 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This was red oak that I was staining BTY.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> BTW
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> LOL ... I've always assumed that on Leon's keyboard the "Q" and "Y"
>>>>>>> must
>>>>>>> be juxtaposed.<g.d&r>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gotta keep y'all on your toes!
>>>>> ^^^^
>>>>>
>>>>> Ya'lls
>>>>>
>>>> Not in Georgia. Ya'll is plural by itself.
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is something I never got. If it's a contraction of "You" and
>>> "all," why
>>> the apostrophe after the "a" and not before it? There's no "a" in
>>> "you."

That's what happens when you misspell it. ;-) Y'all is a contraction of
"you" and "all", with the "ou" dropped and replaced by the '''. ;-)

>> Plus, in this case it's possessive, so I'd guess the truly correct form
>> would be Y'all's ... ;-)
>>

What's the possessive of "it"?

>You're all wrong.
>It's youins'.

In NY, it's yous.

[m II]

Sure it isn't a contraction of ya' (yuh) and all?
I doubt people using "ya'll" enunciate "you" frequently.

-------
wrote in message news:nqqev7l0itr5iu11s...@4ax.com...

That's what happens when you misspell it. ;-) Y'all is a contraction
of
"you" and "all", with the "ou" dropped and replaced by the '''. ;-)

What's the possessive of "it"?

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sat, 7 Jul 2012 09:44:48 -0400, "m II" <C...@in.the.hat> wrote:

>Sure it isn't a contraction of ya' (yuh) and all?

Positive.

>I doubt people using "ya'll" enunciate "you" frequently.

Wrong, in many ways, of course. Top posters always are.

[emomp...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, July 1, 2012 at 6:48:30 PM UTC-5, Doug Miller wrote:
> Just thought I'd share this, in case anyone else has ever wondered how to read the date
> codes on Minwax cans.
>
> Can of Minwax Wipe-on Poly shows the following coded information:
>
> BATCH-MW1310C
> 00664 BLH
>
> Decodes as follows:
> 131 means it was made on the 131st day of the year
> 0 is the last digit of the year of manufacture, 2010 in this case (presumably, any product
> manufactured in 2000 is no longer on store shelves)
>
> 00664 is the serial number of that particular can
> BLH are the initials of the machine operator
>
> According to Minwax, the shelf life of an UNopened can is five years. They won't quote a
> shelf life for *opened* cans, but my own experience suggests that it's more than one year,
> but probably not much more than two. Certainly, by June 2012, varnish from a can
> manufactured in May 2010, purchased, opened, and used in June 2010, does not dry nearly
> as quickly as it did two years ago. It does dry. But takes 3x as long. I'm glad I tested that on
> scrap: the project in question was a wedding present, so the deadline wouldn't slip. I bought
> a new can. Guess I'll use the old one for shop projects...

Would you assume MW 2088VN would be day 208 of 2008 or 2018?

[knuttle]

I don't know of the Minwax system, but worked with lot numbers and
dating codes. From what was given I assume the lot number structure is

"Batch" a Designator ie like the phrase "Lot Number", "Batch Number",
"Run Number'

PP (MW) is a product code.
nnn (131) is the day of the year the product was made. (Probably the
production facility makes one batch per day and packages it.)
Y (0) is a one digit character representing the last number of the year.

A field of 6 characters would be given for the lot number "PPnnnY"

Batch PPnnnY
If so, Minwax works on a 10 year cycle, with expiration date of 4
years, thus the year cycle is 2.5 time the expiration date. So by the
time a date number comes around again any produce would have expired 2.
times.

This is quite similar to a lot number system that I used for nearly 16
years.

[Leon]

Date does not matter if the product does not work. If you have a
product that could be 2 or 12 years old, test on a scrap. If it works
out OK proceed. Or to be safe, buy a new fresh can of the product.

[Painter_Paul]

The 040 is the batch number and the last three is the number can filled by that batch. If there would happen to be a problem with a product they will remove all of that batch from stores. They know exactly how many cans they filled from that specific batch. Just a FYI I am a painting contractor of 24 years and I have ran into a exact situation with minwax before Sherwin Williams bought the company. It's still the same way today the numbers except you will see a 4 digit number with SCW underneath the batch number. That is coding for Sherwin Williams.

--
For full context, visit https://www.homeownershub.com/woodworking/minwax-date-codes-543580-.htm