On my current project (red oak hallway table) I was aiming for a
filled-pore, stained look. I used a blend of water-based aniline dyes
(walnut and rosewood) to get the colour just right.
Then I brushed on my first coat of water-based acrylic finish and took
almost all the colour off. (Damn!) This didn't happen on my test
panel, but still I probably should have expected that a dye that
dissolves in water would also dissolve in water based finish. I
managed to get it so there aren't streaks, so the piece looks OK (the
friend I'm making it for doesn't know the colour I was aiming at, so
the colour I got will do just as well).
However, in hopes of never experiencing this pain again, I thought I
would ask for your advice on how to avoid it. I can think of some
ways:
1 - Spray the finish. I think it was the act of wiping the wet brush
over the surface that took off the dye and that a spray coat of stain
might not have caused it. However, this would require a spray booth
and a bigger compressor, both of which are problems. Anyway, I'm not
sure it would work. If I sprayed finish onto a vertical surface, it
seems like it might dissolve the stain and cause it to run downwards.
2 - Sack up and use oil-based polyurethane. I hate and fear oil based
finishes, not least because my shop is right next door to my furnace
room, but it might be time to learn.
3 - I have read that a thin coat of dewaxed shellac can be used to
seal the stain in the wood, and then water-based finish can be applied
over it. Has anybody tried it? Are there problems with the finish
curing improperly, or peeling, or otherwise failing?
4 - Somebody will suggest just not staining the wood, and instead
buying wood that is naturally the colour I wanted. I am seriously
considering it for next time. :)
- Ken
#3... almost.
If you stain with water based stains, then after staining you can coat
it with dewaxed shellac before applying a water based film finish.
Same goes for if you use an oil based stain, you can use shellac as a
barrier for oil\solvent based finishes.
Shellac is pretty much able to go under anything and is the end all
for setting a barrier for sap, fungus\mold, blending of finish and
stain, etc
If you seal the wood first the color won;t take much. It can be a
strategy with very thinned shellac or lacquer for woods that blotch,
to make a more even coloring but it has to be real thin and won't
helop the blending of the next coat if it a solvent of the color.
You said "Pore filled" but didn't mention when\how you will do the
pore filling. I would suggest a black grain filler for oak, since your
color sounds dark. I would put it on after the shellac and before the
acrylic or after the first coat of acrylic.
On May 11, 8:50 am, Ken McIsaac <[email protected]> wrote:
> On my current project (red oak hallway table) I was aiming for a
> filled-pore, stained look. I used a blend of water-based aniline dyes
> (walnut and rosewood) to get the colour just right.
>
> Then I brushed on my first coat of water-based acrylic finish and took
> almost all the colour off. (Damn!) This didn't happen on my test
> panel, but still I probably should have expected that a dye that
> dissolves in water would also dissolve in water based finish. I
> managed to get it so there aren't streaks, so the piece looks OK (the
> friend I'm making it for doesn't know the colour I was aiming at, so
> the colour I got will do just as well).
>
> However, in hopes of never experiencing this pain again, I thought I
> would ask for your advice on how to avoid it. I can think of some
> ways:
>
> 1 - Spray the finish. I think it was the act of wiping the wet brush
> over the surface that took off the dye and that a spray coat of stain
> might not have caused it. However, this would require a spray booth
> and a bigger compressor, both of which are problems. Anyway, I'm not
> sure it would work. If I sprayed finish onto a vertical surface, it
> seems like it might dissolve the stain and cause it to run downwards.
>
> 2 - Sack up and use oil-based polyurethane. I hate and fear oil based
> finishes, not least because my shop is right next door to my furnace
> room, but it might be time to learn.
>
> 3 - I have read that a thin coat of dewaxed shellac can be used to
> seal the stain in the wood, and then water-based finish can be applied
> over it. Has anybody tried it? Are there problems with the finish
> curing improperly, or peeling, or otherwise failing?
>
> 4 - Somebody will suggest just not staining the wood, and instead
> buying wood that is naturally the colour I wanted. I am seriously
> considering it for next time. :)
>
> - Ken
On May 11, 8:07 pm, Andy Dingley <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 May 2007 16:37:56 -0700, Larry Blanchard
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Dewaxed shellac is a great barrier coat between almost any other finishes.
>
> Almost any finish except shellac!
>
> I'm trying to do some japanning at present. I'm having such bad results
> with shellac that I might have to switch to using genuine urushiol
> lacquer, despite the cost and complexity of handling it. I'm trying to
> get a decent thickness built up over an uneven surface so that I can
> sand it down flat and smooth, but every layer disturbs the underlying
> layers too much.
3 lb cut, straight from the can. My favorite 15 year old Linzer
black
china angled sash brush. Use it with latex, I'll murder you.
Load the brush, lay it on heavy, work fast -- takes me about 30
seconds to lay one coat on a 32" threshold strip. Don't try to fill
in
skips while the coat is wet. Let that wait for the next coat.
Sand or scrape down any high spots after they dry. Sand
uneven coats level if you're not happy. 320 grit flooded with
mineral spirits works fast.
On May 11, 11:50 am, Ken McIsaac <[email protected]> wrote:
> On my current project (red oak hallway table) I was aiming for a
> filled-pore, stained look. I used a blend of water-based aniline dyes
> (walnut and rosewood) to get the colour just right.
>
> 2 - Sack up and use oil-based polyurethane. I hate and fear oil based
> finishes, not least because my shop is right next door to my furnace
> room, but it might be time to learn.
Oil-based poly looks only slightly less like you varnished with
Elmer's Glueall
than waterborne poly. For a tabletop, try Behlen's Rockhard, a
phenolic
resin varnish that looks more like lacquer.
> 3 - I have read that a thin coat of dewaxed shellac can be used to
> seal the stain in the wood, and then water-based finish can be applied
> over it. Has anybody tried it? Are there problems with the finish
> curing improperly, or peeling, or otherwise failing?
Shellac is _the_ sealer.
> 4 - Somebody will suggest just not staining the wood, and instead
> buying wood that is naturally the colour I wanted. I am seriously
> considering it for next time. :)
Varnishes can be tinted with artists' oils to any color you like.
The palette of just four earth pigment colors, raw and burnt sienna
and umber, can be mixed to match any wood color known.
On May 12, 6:12 pm, B A R R Y <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 12 May 2007 13:41:33 -0700, Father Haskell
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > For a tabletop, try Behlen's Rockhard, a
> >phenolic
> >resin varnish that looks more like lacquer.
>
> Some of the better water based lacquers look as good as Rockhard, and
> may be even more chemical and heat resistant.
Any specific brands? Water-clear and dead, or slightly (and
pleasingly)
ambered? Is the feel closer to lacquer or to Elmer's glue?
I can blend Rockhard with tung or linseed to make a first-class
oil-varnish mix. Not sure I can do that with waterborne (which is
still oil-based, being made from a petrol-based plastic resin,
emuslified with a glyclol type "bridging solvent; "water-based"
is technically incorrect).
You can get water poly that is dead clear or with ambering. NC lacquer
has natural ambering and other lacquers all have some amber when new
or over time.
The biggest differences is in how hard and how easy to rework. Ploy is
hard shit. Once its setup its done. Yes you can rub it out from gloss
to satin, but it takes much more work and is not nearly as nice or
even a finish. Also, poly is not soluble after it dries.
Lacquer is softer or brittler (is that a word?) but rubs out much
easier and nicer. Also super fast drying so easy to be productive and
avoid dust nibs. Also soluble after it dries so it is "more" fixable
than poly. I say "more" because it is hard to repair either but you
have a better chance with lacquer.
On May 14, 11:34 am, Ken McIsaac <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 12 May 2007 13:41:33 -0700, Father Haskell
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On May 11, 11:50 am, Ken McIsaac <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On my current project (red oak hallway table) I was aiming for a
> >> filled-pore, stained look. I used a blend of water-based aniline dyes
> >> (walnut and rosewood) to get the colour just right.
>
> >> 2 - Sack up and use oil-based polyurethane. I hate and fear oil based
> >> finishes, not least because my shop is right next door to my furnace
> >> room, but it might be time to learn.
>
> >Oil-based poly looks only slightly less like you varnished with
> >Elmer's Glueall
> >than waterborne poly. For a tabletop, try Behlen's Rockhard, a
> >phenolic
> >resin varnish that looks more like lacquer.
>
> I must confess my ignorance. I know they are chemically different,
> but in appearance aren't polyurethane and lacquer both just slightly
> amber, transparent polymer films that can be rubbed out as glossy or
> flat as you want? I can imagine that they might feel different, or
> age and wear differently but you can tell them apart just by looking?
>
> Thank you to everybody who replied. It seems that next time I should
> indeed seal with shellac first, no matter what comes after.
>
> - Ken
I think you should be using a clear grain filler or something else to
flatten a surface but not just the film finish. I have laid down
enough lacquer to flatten Oak to a piano type finish or even easier
poly but it is nevr as flat as doing a proper grain fill and the
finish is really susceptible to cracking and crazing.
On May 11, 5:07 pm, Andy Dingley <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 May 2007 16:37:56 -0700, Larry Blanchard
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Dewaxed shellac is a great barrier coat between almost any other finishes.
>
> Almost any finish except shellac!
>
> I'm trying to do some japanning at present. I'm having such bad results
> with shellac that I might have to switch to using genuine urushiol
> lacquer, despite the cost and complexity of handling it. I'm trying to
> get a decent thickness built up over an uneven surface so that I can
> sand it down flat and smooth, but every layer disturbs the underlying
> layers too much.
On May 14, 2:34 pm, Ken McIsaac <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 12 May 2007 13:41:33 -0700, Father Haskell
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On May 11, 11:50 am, Ken McIsaac <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On my current project (red oak hallway table) I was aiming for a
> >> filled-pore, stained look. I used a blend of water-based aniline dyes
> >> (walnut and rosewood) to get the colour just right.
>
> >> 2 - Sack up and use oil-based polyurethane. I hate and fear oil based
> >> finishes, not least because my shop is right next door to my furnace
> >> room, but it might be time to learn.
>
> >Oil-based poly looks only slightly less like you varnished with
> >Elmer's Glueall
> >than waterborne poly. For a tabletop, try Behlen's Rockhard, a
> >phenolic
> >resin varnish that looks more like lacquer.
>
> I must confess my ignorance. I know they are chemically different,
> but in appearance aren't polyurethane and lacquer both just slightly
> amber, transparent polymer films that can be rubbed out as glossy or
> flat as you want? I can imagine that they might feel different, or
> age and wear differently but you can tell them apart just by looking?
Lacquer is water-clear, closer to shellac than poly. Poly is used
for toughness -- that means it's soft, and soft coatings can't
be rubbed out. Lacquer or shellac rub out to a higher sheen.
Lacquer's big advantage over shellac is water and alcohol
resistance.
Its main disadvantage is its solvent's toxicity and volatility.
Use what's most appropriate, and it varies. For kids' furniture, poly
is
perfectly fine. For your better work, shellac or lacquer if you want
a film
finish. Amber shellac is hard to beat, especially on pine or red
oak.
Poly lends a cheap look like nothing else.
> Thank you to everybody who replied. It seems that next time I should
> indeed seal with shellac first, no matter what comes after.
>
> - Ken
On May 15, 3:49 pm, "SonomaProducts.com" <[email protected]> wrote:
> You can get water poly that is dead clear or with ambering. NC lacquer
> has natural ambering and other lacquers all have some amber when new
> or over time.
>
> The biggest differences is in how hard and how easy to rework. Ploy is
> hard shit. Once its setup its done. Yes you can rub it out from gloss
> to satin, but it takes much more work and is not nearly as nice or
> even a finish. Also, poly is not soluble after it dries.
>
> Lacquer is softer or brittler (is that a word?)
More brittle?
Hard = brittle. Elastic = tough. Tool steel is made less
brittle by tempering it, which makes it less hard and more
elastic. Really good swords can be bent 180 degrees without
snapping, and will return to dead straight when released.
> but rubs out much
> easier and nicer. Also super fast drying so easy to be productive and
> avoid dust nibs. Also soluble after it dries so it is "more" fixable
> than poly. I say "more" because it is hard to repair either but you
> have a better chance with lacquer.
>
> On May 14, 11:34 am, Ken McIsaac <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On 12 May 2007 13:41:33 -0700, Father Haskell
>
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >On May 11, 11:50 am, Ken McIsaac <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> On my current project (red oak hallway table) I was aiming for a
> > >> filled-pore, stained look. I used a blend of water-based aniline dyes
> > >> (walnut and rosewood) to get the colour just right.
>
> > >> 2 - Sack up and use oil-based polyurethane. I hate and fear oil based
> > >> finishes, not least because my shop is right next door to my furnace
> > >> room, but it might be time to learn.
>
> > >Oil-based poly looks only slightly less like you varnished with
> > >Elmer's Glueall
> > >than waterborne poly. For a tabletop, try Behlen's Rockhard, a
> > >phenolic
> > >resin varnish that looks more like lacquer.
>
> > I must confess my ignorance. I know they are chemically different,
> > but in appearance aren't polyurethane and lacquer both just slightly
> > amber, transparent polymer films that can be rubbed out as glossy or
> > flat as you want? I can imagine that they might feel different, or
> > age and wear differently but you can tell them apart just by looking?
>
> > Thank you to everybody who replied. It seems that next time I should
> > indeed seal with shellac first, no matter what comes after.
>
> > - Ken
On May 15, 3:49 pm, Father Haskell <[email protected]> wrote:
> Lacquer is water-clear, closer to shellac than poly.
Depends on the shellac. Garnet shellac is... well... garnet colored.
Blonde is blonde, etc. And lacquer is only clear if it is water
based, CAB, or some of the post catalyzed brands.
>Poly is used for toughness -- that means it's soft, and soft >coatings can't be rubbed out.
Poly is indeed used for toughness. But depending on the catalyst and
the chemical makeup, the "polys" aren't necessarily on the soft end of
the urethanes. Nor are they hard and brittle if properly applied. Go
to WoodWeb and snoop around. To make the point that just about any
fully cured finish can be "rubbed out", someone took a three coat
finish of solvent based polyurethane (Jeff Jewitts product from
homesteadfinishing.com) and rubbed it out to such a mirror finish you
could read the label on the can in its reflection. No witness lines.
>Lacquer or shellac rub out to a higher sheen.
See above.
> Lacquer's big advantage over shellac is water and alcohol
> resistance. Its main disadvantage is its solvent's toxicity >and volatility.
Only in application. When fully cured, none of these products are
toxic.
> For your better work, shellac or lacquer if you want
> a film finish.
I think you may have misspoke, or in this case, misstyped. I do it
all the time in the wee hours of the morning when I respond.
Shellac and lacquer are >build< finishes. This means that all
subsequent coats of the same will 'burn into" or "melt into" the
previous coats. This makes them a build finish, meaning you can build
a MONOLITHIC coat.
Film finishes are those that rely adhesion to bond to the previous
coat of material. These are most lumberyard polyurethanes, varnishes,
paints, etc. While they adhere, they do not burn into the previous
finish.
There is a good thread that is three or four days old on this very
topic on Woodcentral.com with commentary by my favorite finisher/
refinisher, the vaunted Michael Dresdner. If you really want to dig
into this subject of "build v. film" pick up some of the books by him
and Jeff Jewitt.
The ability to build a finish on a piece of furniture that can be
rubbed to mirror finish is one of the reasons that lacquer was the
coating of choice for fine furniture makers for decades.
Robert
On May 15, 5:41 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On May 15, 3:49 pm, Father Haskell <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Lacquer is water-clear, closer to shellac than poly.
>
> Depends on the shellac.
Meant blonde shellac. Should have said.
> Garnet shellac is... well... garnet colored.
> Blonde is blonde, etc. And lacquer is only clear if it is water
> based, CAB, or some of the post catalyzed brands.
Never seen garnet polyurethane (except maybe some color of Minwax
polyshades).
> >Poly is used for toughness -- that means it's soft, and soft >coatings can't be rubbed out.
>
> Poly is indeed used for toughness. But depending on the catalyst and
> the chemical makeup, the "polys" aren't necessarily on the soft end of
> the urethanes. Nor are they hard and brittle if properly applied. Go
> to WoodWeb and snoop around. To make the point that just about any
> fully cured finish can be "rubbed out", someone took a three coat
> finish of solvent based polyurethane (Jeff Jewitts product from
> homesteadfinishing.com) and rubbed it out to such a mirror finish you
> could read the label on the can in its reflection. No witness lines.
More shiny than I get on raw wood from my stropped plane irons?
> >Lacquer or shellac rub out to a higher sheen.
>
> See above.
>
> > Lacquer's big advantage over shellac is water and alcohol
> > resistance. Its main disadvantage is its solvent's toxicity >and volatility.
>
> Only in application. When fully cured, none of these products are
> toxic.
How about as explosive as an aerosol suspension of nitrocellulose
resin in acetone, toluene, etc.?
> > For your better work, shellac or lacquer if you want
> > a film finish.
>
> I think you may have misspoke, or in this case, misstyped. I do it
> all the time in the wee hours of the morning when I respond.
>
> Shellac and lacquer are >build< finishes. This means that all
> subsequent coats of the same will 'burn into" or "melt into" the
> previous coats. This makes them a build finish, meaning you can build
> a MONOLITHIC coat.
>
> Film finishes are those that rely adhesion to bond to the previous
> coat of material. These are most lumberyard polyurethanes, varnishes,
> paints, etc. While they adhere, they do not burn into the previous
> finish.
>
> There is a good thread that is three or four days old on this very
> topic on Woodcentral.com with commentary by my favorite finisher/
> refinisher, the vaunted Michael Dresdner. If you really want to dig
> into this subject of "build v. film" pick up some of the books by him
> and Jeff Jewitt.
>
> The ability to build a finish on a piece of furniture that can be
> rubbed to mirror finish is one of the reasons that lacquer was the
> coating of choice for fine furniture makers for decades.
That, and the ability to do so quickly.
On May 15, 6:10 pm, Father Haskell <[email protected]> wrote:
> On May 15, 5:41 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > On May 15, 3:49 pm, Father Haskell <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Garnet shellac is... well... garnet colored.
> > Blonde is blonde, etc. And lacquer is only clear if it is water
> > based, CAB, or some of the post catalyzed brands.
> Never seen garnet polyurethane (except maybe some color of Minwax
> polyshades).
I havent' myself now that you bring it up. MIght make since, though.
>>To make the point that just about any
>>fully cured finish can be "rubbed out", someone took a three coat
>>finish of solvent based polyurethane (Jeff Jewitts product from
>>homesteadfinishing.com) and rubbed it out to such a mirror finish you
>> could read the label on the can in its reflection. No witness lines.
> More shiny than I get on raw wood from my stropped plane irons?
I am suspecting that you are bragging about the quality of your plane
cut. I must say, I would find it hard to believe that any raw wood
could be as shiny as a coated and buffed piece, but then again, I
haven't seen your planes, either.
> > > Lacquer's big advantage over shellac is water and alcohol
> > > resistance. Its main disadvantage is its solvent's toxicity
> > >and volatility.
>
> > Only in application. When fully cured, none of these products are
> > toxic.
>
> How about as explosive as an aerosol suspension of nitrocellulose
> resin in acetone, toluene, etc.?
Can't buy into that one. As I said, when fully cured, these products
aren't toxic. And again, once cured, they don't exhibit any explosive
characteristics. I don't see the relevance of comparing cured resins
to high V.O.C. solvents.
> > The ability to build a finish on a piece of furniture that can be
> > rubbed to mirror finish is one of the reasons that lacquer was the
> > coating of choice for fine furniture makers for decades.
>
> That, and the ability to do so quickly.
Absolutely true. Not too many paint booths and clean rooms when they
started using it. Speed to keep the dust down and to increase
production was the reason it flourished as a finish.
Robert
Very good info. I had a different assumed definition of build vs film
and didn't relate the two as being such comparitive terms.
Thanks for that insight, it really helps my understanding. While I
knew the concepts expressed, I had clearly been using the terminology
wrong.
Love these groups!
On May 15, 2:41 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On May 15, 3:49 pm, Father Haskell <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Lacquer is water-clear, closer to shellac than poly.
>
> Depends on the shellac. Garnet shellac is... well... garnet colored.
> Blonde is blonde, etc. And lacquer is only clear if it is water
> based, CAB, or some of the post catalyzed brands.
>
> >Poly is used for toughness -- that means it's soft, and soft >coatings can't be rubbed out.
>
> Poly is indeed used for toughness. But depending on the catalyst and
> the chemical makeup, the "polys" aren't necessarily on the soft end of
> the urethanes. Nor are they hard and brittle if properly applied. Go
> to WoodWeb and snoop around. To make the point that just about any
> fully cured finish can be "rubbed out", someone took a three coat
> finish of solvent based polyurethane (Jeff Jewitts product from
> homesteadfinishing.com) and rubbed it out to such a mirror finish you
> could read the label on the can in its reflection. No witness lines.
>
> >Lacquer or shellac rub out to a higher sheen.
>
> See above.
>
> > Lacquer's big advantage over shellac is water and alcohol
> > resistance. Its main disadvantage is its solvent's toxicity >and volatility.
>
> Only in application. When fully cured, none of these products are
> toxic.
>
> > For your better work, shellac or lacquer if you want
> > a film finish.
>
> I think you may have misspoke, or in this case, misstyped. I do it
> all the time in the wee hours of the morning when I respond.
>
> Shellac and lacquer are >build< finishes. This means that all
> subsequent coats of the same will 'burn into" or "melt into" the
> previous coats. This makes them a build finish, meaning you can build
> a MONOLITHIC coat.
>
> Film finishes are those that rely adhesion to bond to the previous
> coat of material. These are most lumberyard polyurethanes, varnishes,
> paints, etc. While they adhere, they do not burn into the previous
> finish.
>
> There is a good thread that is three or four days old on this very
> topic on Woodcentral.com with commentary by my favorite finisher/
> refinisher, the vaunted Michael Dresdner. If you really want to dig
> into this subject of "build v. film" pick up some of the books by him
> and Jeff Jewitt.
>
> The ability to build a finish on a piece of furniture that can be
> rubbed to mirror finish is one of the reasons that lacquer was the
> coating of choice for fine furniture makers for decades.
>
> Robert
I meant this to be in response to Nailshooter Robert about h is build
vs film comments.
On May 17, 12:21 pm, "SonomaProducts.com" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Very good info. I had a different assumed definition of build vs film
> and didn't relate the two as being such comparitive terms.
>
> Thanks for that insight, it really helps my understanding. While I
> knew the concepts expressed, I had clearly been using the terminology
> wrong.
>
> Love these groups!
>
> On May 15, 2:41 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 15, 3:49 pm, Father Haskell <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Lacquer is water-clear, closer to shellac than poly.
>
> > Depends on the shellac. Garnet shellac is... well... garnet colored.
> > Blonde is blonde, etc. And lacquer is only clear if it is water
> > based, CAB, or some of the post catalyzed brands.
>
> > >Poly is used for toughness -- that means it's soft, and soft >coatings can't be rubbed out.
>
> > Poly is indeed used for toughness. But depending on the catalyst and
> > the chemical makeup, the "polys" aren't necessarily on the soft end of
> > the urethanes. Nor are they hard and brittle if properly applied. Go
> > to WoodWeb and snoop around. To make the point that just about any
> > fully cured finish can be "rubbed out", someone took a three coat
> > finish of solvent based polyurethane (Jeff Jewitts product from
> > homesteadfinishing.com) and rubbed it out to such a mirror finish you
> > could read the label on the can in its reflection. No witness lines.
>
> > >Lacquer or shellac rub out to a higher sheen.
>
> > See above.
>
> > > Lacquer's big advantage over shellac is water and alcohol
> > > resistance. Its main disadvantage is its solvent's toxicity >and volatility.
>
> > Only in application. When fully cured, none of these products are
> > toxic.
>
> > > For your better work, shellac or lacquer if you want
> > > a film finish.
>
> > I think you may have misspoke, or in this case, misstyped. I do it
> > all the time in the wee hours of the morning when I respond.
>
> > Shellac and lacquer are >build< finishes. This means that all
> > subsequent coats of the same will 'burn into" or "melt into" the
> > previous coats. This makes them a build finish, meaning you can build
> > a MONOLITHIC coat.
>
> > Film finishes are those that rely adhesion to bond to the previous
> > coat of material. These are most lumberyard polyurethanes, varnishes,
> > paints, etc. While they adhere, they do not burn into the previous
> > finish.
>
> > There is a good thread that is three or four days old on this very
> > topic on Woodcentral.com with commentary by my favorite finisher/
> > refinisher, the vaunted Michael Dresdner. If you really want to dig
> > into this subject of "build v. film" pick up some of the books by him
> > and Jeff Jewitt.
>
> > The ability to build a finish on a piece of furniture that can be
> > rubbed to mirror finish is one of the reasons that lacquer was the
> > coating of choice for fine furniture makers for decades.
>
> > Robert- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Liquid dishwashing soap is the typical suggestion. Good Q about
silicon. Not sure. I've only done it with mineral spirits and it works
nice. It actually works better once you get a sort of slurry of sanded
powder and the spirits, then it starts to cut like a polishing agent.
Just keep adding spirits as they evap. At least that has been my
experience with rubbing out poly. I never got to that really nice
finish some say is possible. I just killed the nubs, etc. Still regret
using ploy though. I feel like I ruined the nice Cherry coffee table
and end table but the cutso seemed to like it. Too plastic for me.
Since then I always do a sample finish on extra stock for custos
before committing to the whole piece.
On May 17, 1:28 pm, Ken McIsaac <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On May 15, 2:41 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> >wrote:
> >> On May 15, 3:49 pm, Father Haskell <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> > Lacquer is water-clear, closer to shellac than poly.
>
> >> Depends on the shellac. Garnet shellac is... well... garnet colored.
> >> Blonde is blonde, etc. And lacquer is only clear if it is water
> >> based, CAB, or some of the post catalyzed brands.
>
> >> >Poly is used for toughness -- that means it's soft, and soft >coatings can't be rubbed out.
>
> >> Poly is indeed used for toughness. But depending on the catalyst and
> >> the chemical makeup, the "polys" aren't necessarily on the soft end of
> >> the urethanes. Nor are they hard and brittle if properly applied. Go
> >> to WoodWeb and snoop around. To make the point that just about any
> >> fully cured finish can be "rubbed out", someone took a three coat
> >> finish of solvent based polyurethane (Jeff Jewitts product from
> >> homesteadfinishing.com) and rubbed it out to such a mirror finish you
> >> could read the label on the can in its reflection. No witness lines.
>
> With regard to rubbing things out, my understanding is that wet/dry
> sandpaper with a soapy water lubricant can be used to level the
> finish. What sort of soap? I tried it with some diluted dishwashing
> detergent and it seems to have created spots in the finish. More
> coats of finish over top seems to have undone the damage, but I am
> loathe to try it again.
>
> Is it possible that some dishwashing detergents contain silicone,
> which I understand to be deadly for finishing?
>
> - Ken- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
On 12 May 2007 13:41:33 -0700, Father Haskell
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On May 11, 11:50 am, Ken McIsaac <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On my current project (red oak hallway table) I was aiming for a
>> filled-pore, stained look. I used a blend of water-based aniline dyes
>> (walnut and rosewood) to get the colour just right.
>>
>> 2 - Sack up and use oil-based polyurethane. I hate and fear oil based
>> finishes, not least because my shop is right next door to my furnace
>> room, but it might be time to learn.
>
>Oil-based poly looks only slightly less like you varnished with
>Elmer's Glueall
>than waterborne poly. For a tabletop, try Behlen's Rockhard, a
>phenolic
>resin varnish that looks more like lacquer.
I must confess my ignorance. I know they are chemically different,
but in appearance aren't polyurethane and lacquer both just slightly
amber, transparent polymer films that can be rubbed out as glossy or
flat as you want? I can imagine that they might feel different, or
age and wear differently but you can tell them apart just by looking?
Thank you to everybody who replied. It seems that next time I should
indeed seal with shellac first, no matter what comes after.
- Ken
Additional layers of shellac won't disturb the underlying layers as much if
each layer is dried thoroughly before the next layer is applied. I usually
put my parts out in the bright sun for a few hours to get them really dry.
Then spraying on the next coat is the best way to minimize disturbance of
the previous layer. In bad or winter weather this won't work, but I haven't
needed to face that situation yet.
--
Charley
"Andy Dingley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 11 May 2007 16:37:56 -0700, Larry Blanchard
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Dewaxed shellac is a great barrier coat between almost any other
finishes.
>
> Almost any finish except shellac!
>
> I'm trying to do some japanning at present. I'm having such bad results
> with shellac that I might have to switch to using genuine urushiol
> lacquer, despite the cost and complexity of handling it. I'm trying to
> get a decent thickness built up over an uneven surface so that I can
> sand it down flat and smooth, but every layer disturbs the underlying
> layers too much.
Andy Dingley wrote:
>
> I'm trying to do some japanning at present. I'm having such bad results
> with shellac that I might have to switch to using genuine urushiol
> lacquer, despite the cost and complexity of handling it. I'm trying to
> get a decent thickness built up over an uneven surface so that I can
> sand it down flat and smooth, but every layer disturbs the underlying
> layers too much.
Are you using a brush? I apply shellac with a pad - 3 or 4 cosmetic pads
wrapped in cotton or linen. Takes more coats but they dry faster so elapsed
time is about the same. Requires little or no sanding as it's pretty smooth
as is.
I never had much luck with a brush. Even with a retarder, the stuff dried so
quickly that lap marks were a problem. It may have just been my technique,
but it was so much easier with a pad that I've never felt the need to do any
more experimentation with a brush.
--
It's turtles, all the way down
On 17 May 2007 14:58:46 -0700, "SonomaProducts.com" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Liquid dishwashing soap is the typical suggestion. Good Q about
>silicon. Not sure. I've only done it with mineral spirits and it works
>nice. It actually works better once you get a sort of slurry of sanded
>powder and the spirits, then it starts to cut like a polishing agent.
>Just keep adding spirits as they evap. At least that has been my
>experience with rubbing out poly. I never got to that really nice
>finish some say is possible. I just killed the nubs, etc. Still regret
>using ploy though. I feel like I ruined the nice Cherry coffee table
>and end table but the cutso seemed to like it. Too plastic for me.
>Since then I always do a sample finish on extra stock for custos
>before committing to the whole piece.
>
Thanks for the suggestion about mineral spirits.
The final finish on the piece I've been working on I would describe as
"okay". I might wait until the finish cures harder and try to rub it
out again, but I'm afraid that I've reached some kind of local
maximum. It is not perfect, but I'm afraid more effort on my part is
likely to make things worse.
I did make a sample piece that I was very happy with, but it was too
small to predict my actual skill level, I think. My sample was only
4"x4", and it has no flaws. The drawer front is 3"x20" and it also
has no flaws. The table top has approximately one flaw per square
foot. Since the drawer and my sample are both less than half of one
square foot the probabilities have worked out exactly. :)
After rubbing with steel wool and wax, the sheen on the top is oddly
uneven, too. (More glossy stripes beside less glossy stripes.) The
piece looks OK most of the time, but if the light source is oblique
the inconsistent reflection really shows. This is what I think I can
fix with more rubbing, but I'm going to wait a couple of weeks until
the finish is as hard as it will get. And then I'll decide if I want
to risk cutting all the way through.
Foolishly, I thought the hard part was over when the dovetails fit. :(
- Ken
"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
>
> "Father Haskell" wrote in message
> > Poly lends a cheap look like nothing else.
> >
>
> In most cases, yes, if you just brush it on.
>
> If, however, you let it cure for a couple of weeks and go through the wet
> sanding, steel wool, pumice, rottenstone, then wax, it will look as good
as
> any finish.
Not my favorite finish, but you are indeed correct. It is often the
product/type of finish which gets the blame, when it should be the
operator/applicator.
I've seen some gorgeous pieces with a "poly" finish.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/20/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)
"Father Haskell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Poly lends a cheap look like nothing else.
>
In most cases, yes, if you just brush it on.
If, however, you let it cure for a couple of weeks and go through the wet
sanding, steel wool, pumice, rottenstone, then wax, it will look as good as
any finish.
Ken McIsaac wrote:
> 3 - I have read that a thin coat of dewaxed shellac can be used to
> seal the stain in the wood, and then water-based finish can be applied
> over it. Has anybody tried it?
Often!
> Are there problems with the finish
> curing improperly, or peeling, or otherwise failing?
No. You get the bonus of much less grain raising, along with slight
ambering, which makes the WB finish look like an oil version.
My favorite is ML Campbell Ultrastar (WB Lacquer), over Zinnser
Sealcoat. The Sealcoat replaces Ultrastar Sanding Sealer, use one or
the other, or you risk too thick of a finish. I spray it all with a
Fuji HVLP gun, using a suction or pressure feed cup with a #3 setup, or
a #4 with a gravity cup. I prefer "Dull" for most furniture, which has
more gloss than you'd expect.
On Fri, 11 May 2007 16:37:56 -0700, Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Dewaxed shellac is a great barrier coat between almost any other finishes.
Almost any finish except shellac!
I'm trying to do some japanning at present. I'm having such bad results
with shellac that I might have to switch to using genuine urushiol
lacquer, despite the cost and complexity of handling it. I'm trying to
get a decent thickness built up over an uneven surface so that I can
sand it down flat and smooth, but every layer disturbs the underlying
layers too much.
On 13 May 2007 12:52:37 -0700, Father Haskell
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On May 12, 6:12 pm, B A R R Y <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 12 May 2007 13:41:33 -0700, Father Haskell
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > For a tabletop, try Behlen's Rockhard, a
>> >phenolic
>> >resin varnish that looks more like lacquer.
>>
>> Some of the better water based lacquers look as good as Rockhard, and
>> may be even more chemical and heat resistant.
>
>Any specific brands?
ML Cambell Ultrastar
>Water-clear and dead, or slightly (and
>pleasingly)
>ambered?
Slightly ambered, but not as ambered as solvent based. I use Sealcoat
as a sanding sealer, in place of WB Sanding Sealer, and a few drops of
TransTint amber dye to help it a bit.
>Is the feel closer to lacquer or to Elmer's glue?
Just like the ML Cambell nitrocellulose lacquer I also use. I've got
five gallon buckets of both on hand pretty much all the time.
_IF_ you pay attention to the film thickness. Hose it on with a fire
hose, and it'll get thick looking. The NC stuff is much better on
cherry.
This stuff IS NOT the same as water based, home center or paint store
polyurethane. Not even in the same league. That stuff is Elmer's
Glue...
I'm not anti-solvent based, but I have to go elsewhere to spray it in
a proper booth. I can spray Ultrastar in my basement or on an
occupied site without explosion risks, Fire Marshall hassles, or
clearing a 50 mile radius. It dries in minutes, just like NC lacquer,
and it is plenty rubbable.
>I can blend Rockhard with tung or linseed to make a first-class
>oil-varnish mix. Not sure I can do that with waterborne
Probably not, but I don't see why you'd want to. If I wanted a very
thin oil-varnish mix, I still use an oil-varnish. It's just that this
stuff is incredibly easy to use and possibly more durable. <G>
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> Are you using a brush? I apply shellac with a pad - 3 or 4
cosmetic pads
> wrapped in cotton or linen. Takes more coats but they dry faster
so elapsed
> time is about the same. Requires little or no sanding as it's
pretty smooth
> as is.
>
> I never had much luck with a brush. Even with a retarder, the
stuff dried so
> quickly that lap marks were a problem. It may have just been my
technique,
> but it was so much easier with a pad that I've never felt the need
to do any
> more experimentation with a brush.
>
SFWIW, had similar problems with 2 lb shellac.
Cutting it to 1/2 lb seems to solve the problem.
Again, more coats, but less aggravation.
Lew
[email protected] wrote:
<snip>
> Shellac and lacquer are >build< finishes. This means that all
> subsequent coats of the same will 'burn into" or "melt into" the
> previous coats. This makes them a build finish, meaning you can build
> a MONOLITHIC coat.
>
> Film finishes are those that rely adhesion to bond to the previous
> coat of material. These are most lumberyard polyurethanes, varnishes,
> paints, etc. While they adhere, they do not burn into the previous
> finish.
<snip>
A "film" finish is anything that form a film on the surface of the wood
as opposed to a penetrating finish such as one of various the oil
finishes (linseed oil, tung oil). Of the film finishes there are
evaporative finishes (lacquer, shellac, and water-base finishes) and
reactive finishes (oil based finishes, and catalyzed lacquers and varnishes.
See Jeff Jewett's article at:
http://www.homesteadfinishing.com/htdocs/ChoosingFinish.htm
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
[email protected]
Ken McIsaac wrote:
> 3 - I have read that a thin coat of dewaxed shellac can be used to
> seal the stain in the wood, and then water-based finish can be applie=
d
> over it.=A0=A0Has=A0anybody=A0tried=A0it?=A0=A0Are=A0there=A0problems=
=A0with=A0the=A0finish
> curing improperly, or peeling, or otherwise failing?
Whatever the finishing question, the answer is shellac :-).
Dewaxed shellac is a great barrier coat between almost any other finish=
es.=20
Just be sure it's dewaxed.
Of course, it's a great finish in and of itself as well.
--=20
It's turtles, all the way down
On Sat, 12 May 2007 16:02:19 GMT, Lew Hodgett
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Again, more coats, but less aggravation.
>
I usually just spray it. Spray cans are always on hand for jobs too
small to justify messing up the gear.
On 12 May 2007 13:41:33 -0700, Father Haskell
<[email protected]> wrote:
> For a tabletop, try Behlen's Rockhard, a
>phenolic
>resin varnish that looks more like lacquer.
Some of the better water based lacquers look as good as Rockhard, and
may be even more chemical and heat resistant.
>On May 15, 2:41 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>> On May 15, 3:49 pm, Father Haskell <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > Lacquer is water-clear, closer to shellac than poly.
>>
>> Depends on the shellac. Garnet shellac is... well... garnet colored.
>> Blonde is blonde, etc. And lacquer is only clear if it is water
>> based, CAB, or some of the post catalyzed brands.
>>
>> >Poly is used for toughness -- that means it's soft, and soft >coatings can't be rubbed out.
>>
>> Poly is indeed used for toughness. But depending on the catalyst and
>> the chemical makeup, the "polys" aren't necessarily on the soft end of
>> the urethanes. Nor are they hard and brittle if properly applied. Go
>> to WoodWeb and snoop around. To make the point that just about any
>> fully cured finish can be "rubbed out", someone took a three coat
>> finish of solvent based polyurethane (Jeff Jewitts product from
>> homesteadfinishing.com) and rubbed it out to such a mirror finish you
>> could read the label on the can in its reflection. No witness lines.
With regard to rubbing things out, my understanding is that wet/dry
sandpaper with a soapy water lubricant can be used to level the
finish. What sort of soap? I tried it with some diluted dishwashing
detergent and it seems to have created spots in the finish. More
coats of finish over top seems to have undone the damage, but I am
loathe to try it again.
Is it possible that some dishwashing detergents contain silicone,
which I understand to be deadly for finishing?
- Ken
Ken McIsaac wrote:
>
>
> With regard to rubbing things out, my understanding is that wet/dry
> sandpaper with a soapy water lubricant can be used to level the
> finish. What sort of soap?
Murphy's Oil Soap (no the spray version!) works, as does purpose-made
Behlen "Wool Lube".
> Is it possible that some dishwashing detergents contain silicone,
> which I understand to be deadly for finishing?
Silicone hurts finishes as you try to apply the finish over silicone.
It shouldn't affect a previously appled finish. Many auto and furniture
care products have lots of silicone and get used over just about all
finishes without damage.