I know shellac can be applied under varnish if its dewaxed, but I wonder can
anyone tell me how much? I've been working on a rather large project that
will take four or five coats of brush on varnish then 3 or 4 coats of wiping
varnish before I get what I want. I was wondering if I could spray or brush
on shellac instead of the brushed coats of varnish. say 1 or 2 coats of 1lb
cut followed by a few coats of 2-3lb cut, finally after it dries good, do a
few coats of wiping varnish for durability and the sheen I'm looking for.
Am I way off base here, or will this work? I don't want to cut corners, but
it sure would be alot faster and less susceptable to dust contamination.
Thanks in advance.
--
Rich Harris :
You can surely put a few coats of shellac under the "varnish" (varnish
is a very broad term and can mean lots of various things). I am
wondering what type of look or performance you are after? This sounds
like a lot of film finish and depending on the wood and the sanding and
polishing steps, you will have a very flat (flat in terms of feel not
sheen) plastic like finish when you are done.
What are you trying to accomplish?
Also, typically with both lacquer and shellac you'll use a thinner mix
first and a thicker mix later and maybe a super thinned coat at the end
if you need to do some major falttening and just want to spray thinner
mostly. You describe the opposite with the shellac. I am wondering why?
BW
Rich wrote:
> I know shellac can be applied under varnish if its dewaxed, but I wonder can
> anyone tell me how much? I've been working on a rather large project that
> will take four or five coats of brush on varnish then 3 or 4 coats of wiping
> varnish before I get what I want. I was wondering if I could spray or brush
> on shellac instead of the brushed coats of varnish. say 1 or 2 coats of 1lb
> cut followed by a few coats of 2-3lb cut, finally after it dries good, do a
> few coats of wiping varnish for durability and the sheen I'm looking for.
> Am I way off base here, or will this work? I don't want to cut corners, but
> it sure would be alot faster and less susceptable to dust contamination.
> Thanks in advance.
>
> --
> Rich Harris :