Hello,
I am renovating my top-floor condo in boston’s south end. The 1985 “renovation” to make condos was pretty much junk and included wall-to-wall carpeting in the bedroom which I have removed to expose the original (fir? pine?) floors. There is no sub-floor beneath these. I have put a lot of effort–using a U-Sand machine, chemical strippers, and now denatured alcohol–to remove what seems to be very tough shellac finish, which I assume to be original. Couple questions:
- Was it common in late 1800s to not lay a sub-floor? (Said another way, “I’m not refinishing the sub-floor, am I?”)
- Are there “typical” stains/finishes in this type of restoration? The original floor had a very warm orangish tone, but I am not going to use shellac again?
- Any experience with using hemp rope to fill in gaps between boards? I have several, but they’re too narrow (~1/8 – 1/4) and irregular to be filled with wood. I need to fill the gaps primarily to deal with cooking odors that come from the unit below.
Many thanks,
Nick
Replies
After reading many posts on shellac, I'm now re-thinking. Perhaps since the original was (likely) shellac, and I'm having a hard time removing all of it, I would be best-off to make the new finish shellac--with the idea that the two will blend. Thoughts? Thanks,
Nick
It's easy to test and see if it's shellac. Stick a Q-tip or small cloth into some denatured alcohol and rub it on the floor. If the finish is shellac, it'll turn gummy. If it doesn't, try some lacquer thinner (have no idea if they would have finished floors with lacquer, but what the heck). forestgirl -- you can take the girl out of the forest, but you can't take the forest out of the girl ;-)
"I would be best-off to make the new finish shellac--with the idea that the two will blend." I have done this with small tables, but never anything big. A mixture of denatured alcohol and lacquer thinner will soften the original finish. With a badly crazed table, for instance, using #0000 steel wool, I'd work the finish to remove the worst of it, and redistribute what was left (a series of clean pieces of steel wool). Once a fairly uniform look was achieved, and the piece was dry, new layers of finish could be applied. The advantage being that the patina and/or orignal stain isn't affected much.
Have no idea if this would work with a floor. Not positive why the lacquer thinner is part of the equation, but I'm pretty sure it's because it "cuts" the DNA so you're not actually removing the shellac. It might evaporate more slowly also.forestgirl -- you can take the girl out of the forest, but you can't take the forest out of the girl ;-)
Thanks for the advice. DNA definitely makes it somewhat gummy. Lacquer thinner *maybe* makes it a tiny little bit gummy. Mineral spirits do nothing. The (various) strippers I used some monthes ago were moderately effective. I guess I'm just disappointed that the DNA is not more effective. Maybe it has something to do with the shellac likely being 125+ years old, and perhaps applied very thinly (penetratingly) into moisture-hungry softwood boards.
Nick
Nick,
It most likely was shellac.. untill about the 1920's that's all that was used
Flood it with denatured alcohol
Alcohol evaporates extremely fast so it's possible that you weren't keeping it wet enough to disolve the old shellac.. You're right Shellac hardens with age and You have some age there! and use some 0000 steel wool to remove it.. don't sweat the small stuff because as you say it will be melted together with the new and wind up looking great..
You'll want to keep the new coatings thin as well thick is absolutely wrong for shellac..
Nick, sounds like it is shellac. Frenchy's on target about the DNA evaporating fast (he's a major shellac-sorta-guy ;-) If you get to the "flooding" stage, be sure to wear a respirator with the activated charcoal filters. You do not want to be breathing that much in the way of fumes!!!
forestgirl -- you can take the girl out of the forest, but you can't take the forest out of the girl ;-)
Another way to remove shellac.
Get some industrial paper towels, 3m makes a decent one. Also fill a few good size squirt bottles with DNA. Lay the paper towels out in a section that is manageable. You have to determine that. Squirt them down with the alcohol so the towels are nice and wet. Make sure there are no air bubbles and then cover it with some newspaper to slow the evaporation. In under 10 minutes the shellac will have dissolved. Remove the paper, roll the towels back a foot or two at a time and wipe the floor clean with clean towels and or a grey scotch pad as needed.
This works like a charm. You will use less alcohol and keep the fumes down at the same time. Be sure and wear a respirator and gloves
If the floor has a thick finish it may take a little while and a little bit more alcohol. If you see that the towel is starting to dry simple squirt some more alcohol on it and let it do it's thing.
I've used this technique on numerous pieces of furniture. It is non destructive to any patina the wood has acquired over time. I've also rung out the shellac and alcohol mixture and in some cases re-used it.
Good Luck
But if it is shellac on there, the original idea to just re-shellac may not be bad.
I can see no reason for the lacquer thinner with the DNA, and removing shellac with DNA is a lot easier than any other finish removal, to me. However, let me say upfront, haven't done floors (=many square feet!).Gretchen
Thanks so much. These ideas are really good. I'm now resolved to re-finish with shellac & only worry about additionaly stripping where I have to for modifying the wood profile underneath the finish (e.g., 1880s planer chatter). My gut now is the Zinzer Amber: the pine (?) is quite pale and bare in most areas from my previous sanding and stripping. I've pulled a test plank from the floor of a new closet area and will look at how well it matches the original warmth. I'm assuming the issue of wax being in the Zinzer Amber will not affect me since this is either bare wood or 1880s shellac so I won't have adhesion problems.
My next battle is the gaps--Hemp soaked in linseed/tung oil (stuffed btwn boards after final shellacing); or driving (and beating the hell out of) a router bit to make consistent gaps that I could possibly fill with ripped strips.
Thanks to all.
There is stuff called "water putty" up here, or floor leveler, that will fill those gaps easily, and is stable. I grew up in a house that had 14" boards for a floor, with 3/8" to1/2" gaps filled with Water putty, it doesn't shrink is repairable, and looks quite nice. A nice contrast. Someone else may know of this stuff by another name.
Pedro
Edited 3/9/2007 12:16 pm by ptu
ptu,
Water putty! Ugh! Double ugh!!
If what you saw looked "quite nice," OK. That surprises me. But I have never seen it used in a way that I would want it to show. It's just a flat, featureless, obvious, fill-in repair.
Rich
I guess it depends what you are used to, and looking for. I don't know what was usually used to fill the cracks in wide board floors, but it was used in our house, with no complaint.
Pedro
Interesting idea. I never would have thought of using water putty that way. Depending on the color, it might be quite interesting.
The water putty that I have (Durham's) says that it can be colored with latex or vinyl stains or with latex paint. I've colored some with latex paint but not the stains as I don't stock any water-borne stains. I would think that a dark, brownish earthtone might really make those Pine boards stand out nicely.
To fill the cracks, go to a marine supply store and get some oakum. It's used in wooden boats to fill the cracks between planks when caulking the bottom. Simply twist it into whatever size you need and drive it into the gaps with a screwdriver.
Dick
I wasn't advocating stripping over re-doing. Just another idea if it needed to come up.
Peter,
Thanks for the guidance. I have many, many areas where original shellac still sits after sanding and stripping either because of low spots or walls & corners where I couldn't sand. Now resigned (happily, I think) to the idea of re-applying shellac, I'm going to test how well a new coat mixes with a difficult-to-remove 125-year-old coat. If it's good--well, MONEY. Otherwise I'll employ your good guidance and try to pull the old stuff up. It's all either planer chatter depressions, walls and corners, or thickness inconsistencies that still hold original finish.
Let me say this to all: 1800s shellac is a seriously bad-#### finish. I have used the "U-Sand" 4x random orbit floor stripper, at least 3 different chemical strippers, DNA, 50 grit in my 3"x20" Dewalt belt sander, scrapers, hand paper, razor blades, 3M pads, two d'fft ro palm sanders, sweat and cussing. The finish still fights; even a little 3"x3" area flooded with denatured alcohol and scrubbed vigorously with a 3M pad, wiped and re-flooded, etc. over 15+ minutes still fights to hold the shellac.
Nick
Nick,
You are definitely perseverant. There is the definitive possibility there are other materials besides shellac there. After all the mindset of "mixing your own finish" is certainly not new.
While shellac was predominant, there were also other fixed oil varnishes used. These were usually linseed based varnishes with hard resins added.
You said you tried flooding it and scrubbing it. If you are intent on pulling it, try the method I suggested. You may want to double the towels and keep it wet for a while.
See if that does the trick. If you're still not satisfied, give it a good washing and then re-coat with fresh shellac, That's the great thing about shellac, it will "bite" to almost any surface
FWIW, if you could find a conservation lab, and in your area there are, you could provide them with a small piece of the finish. They can provide you with a microscopy report. You'd see a cross section of your finish under magnification and lit by black light; shellac will glow orange while other (vegetable) based resins will glow white. The newer synthetic resins will be grey. They can also show you the layer sequence. While this is usually reserved for pieces of furniture being studied and conserved, it is available.
Old houses are fun aren't they?
Peter
Hello Frenchy,
I've taken your shellac enthusiasm and am testing how it looks on my (originally-shellaced) bedroom floor. I want/need the amber color and so have purchased the Zinsser 3# cut amber. Per (what I think is) your recommendation, I've cut canned stuff 1 can:2 DNA. Since the Zinsser site says "3-lb to 2-lb = 3 parts alcohol + 2 parts shellac," I think that the "Frenchy method" is a 3/4# cut. This seems thin relative to the other guidance I've read. Is your method biased towards furniture over floors (or vice-versa)? Should I think about thinning/thickening as I progress through the coats? Thanks to you and all in advance.
My 3rd test coat is now dry and looks great but looks so absorbed that I wonder what is protecting the surface. Perhaps I'm too used to the look of poly- coated floors.
ERROR! Sorry.
Instead of Since the Zinsser site says "3-lb to 2-lb = 3 parts alcohol + 2 parts shellac,"
I shoud have said "3-lb to 1-lb = 3 parts alcohol + 2 parts shellac,"
auntbeatch,
Well to skip ahead a bit, thin is in with shellac.. the thinner you can get the coat the more durable the finish will be.. (crazy isn't it)?
Now we all want our finish to cover grain and wood pores and whatever imperfections are present so we tend to put too much on, sand some of it off, to make it smooth and in general like the look. (at least with furniture and music boxes etc)..
As to my aim, actually I make really big stuff for my house!
No little boxes for this kid!!!
If the board is less than 18 feet long it's not really worthy ;-) <G> (anything less than a couple of hundred pounds is just sticks, not really a board)
I'll grant you in the past I have sinned and made some smaller boxes for stuff, but I've repented and sworn to never make that error again! Please don't judge me for my past transgressions!
OK I'll be serious for a bit.
I do want shellac thin for durability so I wasn't kidding there.. when you flood a bunch of shellac that's over thinned it naturally dries in a real thin coat. if you follow the directions on zinssers can it's extremely easy for it to dry as you apply and that's a mistake. Sure you use less coats and yes it will cover the wood pores, grain, and such better, but that is going to be a mistake down the road.. Crazing or alligatoring will result and then you will be forced to remove it and start over.. (not right away, it may take several decades, heck a half a century depending on a whole lot of factors)
If you want that really deep look with shellac you need to do better prep work. scrappers, well tuned scrappers are called for. If you aren't ready to go to that skill level then you'd better plan on sanding down to 2000 grit in careful stages checking carefully to ensure that all the scratches from the previous sanding have been removed.
It still won't be as deep looking as scrappers can get it but it will be better than a typical 100 grit sanding finish will be.
If you look at my floor pictures it's easy to see the wood pores and grain etc.. but standing at normal height the floor looks shiney and deep and will remain that way for a very long time. That's three overly thinned coats as I describe.. a brief sanding between the fiorst and second coat to remove nibs is all the attention that floor had once I started to apply finish..
I sanded that floor to 120 grit and then used the burnishing pad to get it to the currant level.. I used one of those new square pad DA floor machines I rented. I'd never use one of those old drum sanders ever again. Can you spell gouge!
For most people that's a great finish, some people just want a glass like finish and that's what those more plastic ones do.. but then it looks plastic so they go to satin to put some richness and warmth back into it.. Satin eliminates any depth so I really can't figure out what modern finishes really achieve, (except cost the devil, are difficult to apply, and stink like heck)
Edited 3/9/2007 9:08 am ET by frenchy
frenchy,
We agree on our affection for shellac as a finish. But I must disagree with your assertion that the thinner one applies it, the harder the ultimate finish. There is simply no evidence for this. None. And your assurance that your floor is going to stand the test of time while thicker applications on other projects will suffer problems of crazing and need re-application simply are not founded. Want to test something for hardness, Get some shellac flakes. They are typically about 1/32-1/16" thick. Try to scratch the surface of one! I have never seen a crazed shellac flake.
I have been applying shellac for a long time, always in much thicker coats than you have been recommending with absolutely no problems such as you predict for heavier coats. I don't take any issue with your use of the stuff, although I would finish a floor with much more resin than you are laying down. You are quite right that the thinner one applies it, the easier it is to apply. But a 1# cut is really as thin as anyone should go, and that is really too thin for practical reasons.
I have applied as many as 30 "coats" in french polishing a guitar and have seen work by masters in this technique who are able to build a shellac film even thicker. Those instruments are simply stunning and there is no problem such as you describe.
I have furniture that is 20 years old to which I applied the equivalent of 4 to 5, 2# cut coats. No problems there.
Because shellac can be less flexible than the underlying wood, it is possible for crazing to happen if the piece goes through some really extreme, repeated exposures to humidity and temperature changes. But that is a completely different issue. Heck, Martin guitar does not ship instruments during winter months due to concern about their lacquer finishes crazing. Properly applied shellac films much thicker than those you recommend do not craze in the vast majority of environments.
I like getting as many people interested in shellac as the fine finish it is, and removing the "fear of brushing it" as you advocate is a great way to do that. Keep it up! But I fear you are introducing a different, unnecessary fear at the other end of the equation.
Rich
Rich,
I have to second your opinions. You need to have a basic mill thickness to the coating.
The theory behind keeping the resin content so incredibly low makes, in my opinion, very little sense.
Even with French polishing, you start with something in the 1 12 to 2 pound range. There is a reason this step is called "bodying up" It's to get a "body" of shellac on the object.
To the person doing this floor; do yourself a big favor and put some shellac down. Let me qualify that statement; Two or three may be just enough. The Seal Coat brushes out very nicely and quickly. If you feel the need to thin it, do it lightly. You will not end up with a "thick" coat either.
Be sure and do a few samples to see what you like.
You'll save time in the end.
Peter
Peter28
If you put down shellac straight from the can you risk having it dry as you apply it.. That's always a mistake.. I'm not there to supervise things but I've noticed the thinner the mix the faster people work, just human nature I suppose.
Given a choice between a too thin of a coat that requires another layer and a too thick a coat that dries as it's applied I error on the side of too thin.
You may have the experiance and technique to apply directly out of the can but that doesn't mean everyone should, or can..
Besides there is the advantage of overthinning in that it helps melt the underlying mistakes and everything flows better, smoother and dries faster.
frenchy,
I came in from the shop at lunch and saw your four points. The project I'm working on; guess what's involved? Shellac.
First off, shellac and in this case, Seal Coat, does not dry that quickly even right out of the can.
I took the time to get out some substantially sized pieces of cherry plywood and do some samples. I brushed shellac right out of the can with (HORRORS) a foam brush. I actually brushed out the surface and went back over it four or five times. Would I advocate doing that NO. Did it come to a screeching halt or dry in mid flight? No again.
I OVER THINNED it and did the same test.
In 15 minutes both were dry. I repeated exactly as above. A half hour later the THIN was dry. So was the two pound cut although a little tacky still.
Of course the thin was drier, there is little more than solvent there.
In an hour, I sanded both with 220. The Thin had little if any surface coating. The Two pound was not quite ready but the surface build was superior and certainly not THICK. After a day I'll do a scratch test and let you know which stands up better.
READ THE SIDE OF THE SEAL COAT CAN; THE SECOND INGREDIENT IS ISOPROPOL ALCOHOL. Do you know what that's for? A retarder to aid in brushing.
Your analogy,on point two, is wrong. Period. Things can get gummy if you work it too hard but it does not dry as you apply it. Unless of course you stop for a cup of coffee in mid stroke. You make it sound very hard if not done your way. That is wrong.
As you say, I do have a fair amount of experience. That's why I teach classes, to shorten peoples learning curves not lengthen them. For the record, I do thin it LIGHTLY out of the can. I'll also thin it in half at times for a variety of reasons.
I can think of a few places this over thinning would be disastrous; how about a vertical surface like a chair or table leg or wall for that matter.
Two things keep creeping up in your posts.
One is you are trying to alleviate the fear of working with shellac and if you DON'T do it like THIS major problems will arise. As a teacher I feel that's a disservice. I always tell a student " for everything you get, you give up something" I also noticed on earlier posts you were hawking three gallons of alcohol to one gallon of shellac. Lately you are selling two gallons per gallon of shellac. Was it too thin?
I always feel like you are selling something with the self effacing " I do everything large and if this fool can do it.." etc. etc. etc. What is it you do for a living?
Peter
for that matter.
Peter,
One trait that you will see with novice painters is they tend to put too much paint on their brush. Let's assume that they thinned as I suggested. On vertical surfaces they will get runs , lots of runs, are you suggesting that a novice would calmly continue to slowly dab away? Nah, it forces them to speed up. which means that that surface will be covered before it has a chance to dry.
Next thing look at runs that dry, they disappear don't they? That's the advantage of thin wash coats. Thicker shellac will leave little bumps or whatever you want to call them at the end of the run and the run itself can actaully be felt or seen sometimes.. whereas thin coats sort of make up for beginners mistakes.
Then if the next coat is as thin it will remove traces of the previous run should there be anything showing.. Since you are putting a fresh coat of mostly alcohol right over fresh shellac.
Your test isn't a real world test. It's flawed in several ways.
First of all, you know what you are doing.. Someone new to finishing thinks that there's a whole lot of mistery and special technique to appling shellac or any other finish. Read just about any article written about shellac and you'll see stuff about disolving flakes and X# cut and all sorts of hard sounding stuff..
Now you and I know the truth but someone new to finishing? Shellac sounds scary as heck and when I speak to others about shellac you can see their eyes glaze over and the avoidance posture assumed.. They don't know and they don't want to know!
Anyway back to why your test isn't a real world test, this table or entertainment center or jewelery box or whatever is not just a flat chunk of wood, it's got corners and crevices and vertical and upside down surfaces. A bigginner is going to dab and stab and poke at it.. trying to get it on perfect. He thinks the key is in the brushing. He doesn't realize that thinned out enough the shellac will do it's own leveling.. So if he dabs and stabs and pokes at the finish it's going to go off on him.. You can't finish a big entertainment center inside of 15 min.or any bigger complex piece and fifteen minutes after you started you said it was dry. So it was drying inside of 10 minutes or less That's the point, actaully about three or four minutes is the max amount of time I feel comfortable with really thin coats. I remember when I first started with shellac the deer in the headlites feeling.. Oops I missed a spot oh,oh, that's not leveling off, better go back over it, and etc..
Do you remember those early experiments with painting shellac?
Maybe you're a naturally gifted painter and it carried no fear, or you had lessons or a good teacher.
Myself and a lot of others aren't gifted painters, we didn't have lessons, or know an expert.. We picked up a brush and taught ourselves..
Mainly we taught ourselves that we didn't know and were terrible at it..
Overthinned shellac compensates for that. It's a godsend to frightened new painters. The only thing wrong with it is you use a little more alcohol than you should. every other thing is totally in the hands of the person who does it.. If you like thick finishes to sand out, you can go right ahead and make thick surfaces.. if you like colored or special or whatever, go right ahead and do it.. but if someone picks up a brush and does a job they can be proud of because they used my overthinned technique I feel vindicated..
frenchy,Sorry, but I have to continue to disagree with your advice and with your assumptions about the way shellac behaves.Yes, it's easy to "paint" a very dilute solution. That's true. But you contend that the worst case is that if one wants more resin on the wood than an "overthinned" solution has layed down, all one needs to do is add more coats.That is perfectly logical, but it doesn't work out that way in practice.I've been using 1-1/2# cuts, 1# cuts and sub 1# cuts over the last several days to test your method. I think the most dilute solution I've used previously was 1-1/2# cut, doing french polish. But I hadn't use below that when finishing wood. I've been coating test pieces and allowing to dry several hours before adding another coat.With the 1# cut, and ESPECIALLY with the sub 1# cut (probably about a 3/4 # cut), the finish DOES NOT BUILD. It certainly looks like the brush is laying down shellac solution each time (the surface is wet), but after more than 9 applications with the 1# cut, the finish is not as thick as 2 applications of 1-1/2# cut. NOT EVEN CLOSE.In fact, after those nine 1# cut applications, I can't level the finish without sanding through to the wood. I've been trying to use steel wool instead and that abrades the thin film that's there, but does not do an adequate leveling.Each of the two 1-1/2# cut applications leveled nicely and has left plenty of shellac to rub out. Mind you, the film is NOT thick, that's still a very thin shellac layer - the pores and grain show very well, as though I have applied an oil/varnish and wiped it off.There is something very different about the way that very dilute shellac and the brush interact compared to using even a 1-1/2# cut and above. It's as though, above a certain alcohol content, the brush pulls up almost as much shellac as it lays down, simply wetting the surface mostly with alcohol, way out of proportion to the ratio of shellac in the mixture. It could be capillary action or other physical properties of the brushing environment.It's logical that two 1# cut applications should leave as much resin as a single 2# cut application. But it most certainly does not. Far less. Just a microscopically thin amount.I can't test it right now, but I think that spraying would not produce this "non-linear" behavior. Not that spraying is the issue here.I suggest you try brushing a 1-1/2# cut or a 2# cut and see how MUCH MORE shellac is left on the wood compared to your dilute mixtures. Try multiple coats of a 1# cut (at least 5-6) and compare to 2 coats of a 1-1/2# cut. I welcome others to try the test also.Rich
Edited 3/11/2007 5:12 pm ET by Rich14
rich,
When I build up a thicker finish to do my color sanding to a real smooth finish I admit I do tend to get to thicker coatings. Nothing radicle mind you. I mean absolutely nothing like straight out of the can, but to be honest I can't tell you how diluted they are. I mean like I said I use the old wash right back into the can and strickly speaking that's not pure alcohol but I sorta treat it as pure alcohol.
IN addition I tend to dump and run rather than measure and check. So I assume that if you are correct I do drift up in thickness. Am I at 1 1/2 # cut? who knows, it could be.
I know that each coating builds and around the 4th coating the pores are filled and the grain disappears. That's the point I start to color sand..My sanding is fast, real fast.. I go for an even soft satin finish. and once I have that I'm on my way.. I've never once sanded thru to bare wood if I get to that point before wood appears so I believe that I'm really doing what color sanding is supposed to do which is remove the scratches from the previous grit of paper..
I've offered to explain color sanding to those who have said they are using my approach and so far nobody has taken me up on that offer. Either they know how to do that or they are satisfied with what they see.
Heck it might be that they go to folks like you when they want advanced explainations. I know as soon as they start to speak about mixing flakes and color options I tend to shut up and get the heck out of the way.. far better to get good information than my half azzed rumbelings.
frenchy,Try the test I suggested. Measure accurately so the results mean something. If you are getting good coverage, I believe you are actually working with a 1.5# cut or higher.Rich
Wow. This is awesome I got great and disparate guidance. Perfect. You guys have given me bounds (x#<"my cut"<y#) while enhancing my awarness of both basic and subtle issues. I am sold on shellac for my floors largely due frenchy's almost zealous enthusiasm and guidance.
I intend to experiment with coats thinker than the (thin!) 3/4#, but am committed to 1) 1# or less (3/4#) Seal Coat initial coat. To be followed by numberous coats as necessary of BullsEye Amber cut per frenchy or as new experiments prove beneficial.
Thanks to frenchy, forestgirl, peter28, rich14, ptu, Gretchen, Joe Sullivan, ETD, rwdare, Steve Schoene and ALL of you for pushing me to ACT! I wll send pictures w/in 2ks to show results. No "you boys" don't push each over of the mountian: It's that tall b/c each of you...anyone rolls down, the hill shrinks.
Well,Here's a little more.I think I know why I'm getting thinner shellac films than frenchy gets.He's putting it down on a floor. I'm applying it to small test pieces, including some small knick-knacks and "objects d'art." His application process is probably "flooding" it compared to the careful brushing I'm doing because I have lots of vertical surfaces and some intricate details (that's common in furniture, y'know).If he's flooding it (relative to my technique), there's more resin in his thicker wet layer than in mine and it has no where to go but settle out on the surface. But I CAN'T flood it. The reality of furniture finishing is that it has to be carefully applied. And I believe each careful application of "overthinned" shellac is removing almost as much as it's putting down.Rich
Thank you Rich,
I can understand better why we are getting differant results. Yes I do flood everything which I can get away with only because I over thin it.. otherwise I'd have runs and gobs all over everything.. I apply shellac to all the timbers (vertical and horizontal) in my house as well as windows and well darn near anything I want to keep as natural wood.
The 3 gallon pot I mix everything in is from my pressure pot for my sprayer. I use three gallons at a time because I find that I can brush that on vertical and horizontal surafaces and even do the ceilings by putting the lid on and hooking up the hoses for the sprayer.. Three gallons can be applied in about an hour, my personal endurance anymore for physical work without a break..
(I've tried brushing overhead and it is a most miserable experiance) I use the sprayer for anything I shellac upside down.. this pot is at least three decades old and I just hang a new gun off it as I wear out the old ones..
Hi guys! I thought I would just chime in here and give my three cents (with inflation) worth. A couple of points I would just like to add or reintroduce. First of all the floor finish in question is most assuredly a shellac finish ... It was the finish of choice on most wood floors prior to the 1930's. When trying to strip a shellac finish and alcohol does not seem to be working then there are a few things to take note of.. are you using methanol ( also known as methyl hydrate or wood -alcohol) or are you using ethanol ( also know as ethyl-hydrate or corn alcohol) ? Ethyl hydrate or ethanol is the preferred thinner for high grade shellacs such as Zinnsers SEAL COAT. This is not the method I would try to use if I had to use alcohol in large quantities to try to strip the floor as there are safety concerns to take in to account - namely- breathing in the vapors is quite harmful in large doses AND more importantly due to the low flash point we have explosion hazards as well. It seems that no one here ( at least I could not find mention of it) is aware that ammonia is also a way to dissolve shellac. Household ammonia will work but due to the lowconcentration of it you are better off going to a janitor supply house and buying a commercial concentration. Make damn sure you wear a respirator as one sniff close to the source and you can say goodbye to all vestiges of nosehair! When you use a quality oxhair or better brush with shellac the preferred way to clean it is to use a small amount of the particular alcohol you used to thin the shellac and after cleaning with that and hand spinning out most of the residue then dip the brush into a small amount of ammonia and spin again. After ward rinse with dish soap and water and final rinse with clear water and your brushes will last forever ( or at least as long as bristles remain). I am not diverging here from the topic just pointing out that ammonia will also strip away dried shellac as well. Once the floor is stripped and sanded to the point of being at least somewhat satisfactory the as has been mentioned already I would then coat it with a straight out of the can coat of SEAL COAT. It is wax free and will NOT promote any adhesion problems with subsequent coatings. The cut is 2LB as manufactured and I have no problem personally with brushing it at all. However if you are somewhat inexperienced then read the directions on the can to cut it down to a 1LB cut for the first coat. You are just simply reducing the resin to solvent ratio by doing so and it will dry quicker and be easier to sand. That is why frenchy has such an easy time with his "cut" shellac coats. One thing you all must remember though is that when you keep cutting the resin ratio in the shellac base by adding alcohol then you also are "opening up" the shellac as well . In other words when I need to stain a wood such as fir and do not want any blotching problems etc. then I first do a "spit coat" or a 1lb cut of shellac to even out the discrepancy between hardwood and softwood. Because it is a 1lb cut and has very little resin then the stain will still penetrate through the shellac just not as freely do to reduced resin content. When it comes to a floor however a 1LB cut of shellac do NOT have enough resin content to protect the substrate. Nor ,in fact does a 2lb cut ! The traditional cut for floor finishes has always been a 3lb cut of shellac. There is lots of literature out here on this subject. I am a finisher by trade by the way. Hope this helps in any wayLorne" if you are not sure if you have the time to do the job properly then don't bother starting it"Edited 3/12/2007 12:12 am by lsteed
Edited 3/12/2007 12:14 am by lsteed
I corresponded extensively with Zinsser tech support before starting my own floors. They recommend using Seal Coat in the 2# cut that comes out of the can. That is what I did with very good results on two different extensive floors, The regular Bullseye can be thinned down.J
I would like you to explain your "color sanding". Frankly I am having trouble using shellac. I try it thin and go fast or thicker and slower or any other variation and I still can't get a smooth finish. I get a lot of "orange peel" or ridges, and if its on thin it won't "rub out" with out going through to the wood. If its on thick there are so many imperfections that it takes me forever to rub it out to a smoother finish. I like the look of shellac and want to use it but I am frustrated when you and others say it is so easy and I can't seem to make it work. Any ideas?
Frank
fgnoel,
A couple of questions if I may.. do you ever go back over something once you've put the first pass with a brush down? If so, stop it!
One wipe is all you get (or I'll flick boogers on your computer screen).. <G>
OK let me explain color sanding.. it's simply a way to get shellac (or any finish) nice and flat so it reflects the maximum lite which is what gives it the deep look we all seek.
Start out with 320 sand paper.. if it's really lumpy and the finish is thick enough you can use 220 to start.
Make sure you use a sanding block, your fingers will leave grooves thru the sandpaper if you don't and you'll never get there. If I do use 220 grit I like to use the 3M sanding sponge (the yellow one) or I have several sanding blocks to use. I don't like wooden ones but if in a pinch I'll make them out of a comfortable size piece of wood (a 2x4 seems to be acceptable if a little big)
Now when I sand I try to get the whole surface the same soft satin look.. once it's all satin, stop!
Don't keep sanding!
OK if you had a really powerful microscope and could look at the shellac sideways you'd see what appear to be 10,000 foot mountians and valleys. All of your sanding from now on is trying to flatten those mountians. Leave the valley's alone. so you'll see sanding goes really really quickly from now on..
Switch to the next finer grit and sadn just enough to remove the 10,000 foot mountians down to say 5,000 feet. 400 grit and do it again, etc.etc. keep going grit by grit untill you are down to 2000 grit (4000 is better anymore and you are just showing off (although I do it all the time ;-)
You may be really happy at this point, if so I'm glad, you can do the same thing with polish if you want.
A couple of critical points.. edges sand thru really, really, fast! Look at them carefully before deciding to sand on them. Due to the risk of sanding thru I avoid edges if at all possible. If you can't watch yourself very closely!
which brings up point #2
if you sand thru stop and reshellac, all three coats..
and point #3
If the surface you start with is rough you'll never getthe deep look you seek. I stop at 220 at the most and if I really want depth I'll go to 400 to almost burnish the wood prior to shellac.
frenchy,
Concerning my "flawed test" boards; I scratched across both surfaces with a finger nail (The same nail by the way) Then I lightly scratched across the surface with a small square peg. Both surfaces showed the scratches. I sanded both surfaces with 320. The scratch on the THIN surface went down to the wood and even with the lightest touch, the sanding removed some color. I then sanded the scratch on the FULL surface. The coat leveled out nicely and the scratch went away. Now, on the THIN sample, I have a color repair to make. Easy for me maybe but not so for a novice. This" flawed" test sample taught me to put something on the surface. BTW, it's not thick either. I think I'll include this test in the next shellac class I teach.
Shellac is not that mysterious, it's made so by people telling others that mixing flakes is hard, it's going to dry on you, you'll make a mistake, you'll get a run, it's complicated etc. etc.
You are right about one thing, I do know what I'm doing, although I'm learning all the time. Speaking of learning, FYI, I didn't have a pro show me or take any classes. I learned the hard way, just like most here will do. I found out early on each person you ask has the way to do it. I had to weigh through a lot of BS and misinformation getting here. That's the main reason I teach finishing classes; to shorten learning curves and dispel MYTHS.
You didn't address the two questions I asked you; why the change in recommending three gallons of alcohol to a gallon of shellac down to two gallons?
The other was; what you do full time? (and that's just professional curiosity)
There have been a fair number of very substantive responses to your methods. That's interesting.
While I find your enthusiasm for shellac compelling, not so much of your advice.
Peter
Peter,
You are as wrong as can be.. Like others trying to mystify the process because you've got your pet way and nobody else can possibly do things right..
Except for the past decade or so I've shown a lot of people how to use shellac without the voodoo and they like the results.. Come here and look at my finish, or talk to those who've been inspired to use shellac where they were fearful before..
You may not like the way I do things but frankly I don't like your condescending manner either..
I've given you plenty of leeway but your self important know it all manner offends me so I will deal with you the way Knots allows us.. you are on ignore!
Well, This is a bit of a shame. Nothing good ever comes of "ignore." Reasonable people can advocate diametrically opposite ideas. That doesn't mean right or wrong. Only different. Disagreement is good. It doesn't mean attack. It just airs additional ideas. Additional ideas benefit all those who care to listen. Rich
Rich,
I have no disagreement with your method of discussion or even when we disagree. Heck you seem to be a reasonable person willing to make your case and argue the merits of your position.. That's a good thing..
You don't however attack and belittle something which I believe has no place in this forum. You are willing to accept that variation does exist and there is no one absolutely correct technique.
frenchy,
I don't want to ever stop learning. And the only way to learn is to hear other ideas.
Rich
Rich,
I too am anxious to hear about others techniques.. However not everybody has the same skill aptitude or desires. This is a hobby for most, and if you choose to do your trim work with a chain saw it should be allowed, not condemned.
Trim work with my chain saw?!!
No. I use it to cut my toenails!
;-)
Rich
rich,
You're a braver man Than I ;-)
Rich,
This is the easy way to get out of a corner. He doesn't have to answer the question I asked about thinning.
No big deal. It's funny, I wasn't going to re post after I gave him the results of the surface test I did. I found his tone so condescending, I couldn't resist.
You know at the end of the day, we're just talking finishes. In a class room he'd be next to impossible as a student. I love students that come in somewhat daunted only to learn finishing is not that hard. It just takes a little time, patience and practice to learn. Mystery solved.
Peter
Frenchy.
I'm puzzled. If anyone has a "pet way" it is you. Your very thin approach is way, way out of the norm, and frankly leads to results that are quite marginal, and useful only in a few narrow circumstances. Wide use would end up discouraging the use of shellac not encourage it because the results will look so-so and protect even less.
Shellac isn't hard to use, or mysterious, but it is best applied quite a bit differently than varnishes or oils. Training oneself to move quickly and not to go back for skips or drips is not really very difficult, and that's about the only tricky part about it. This applies to shellac applied with brush or with pads.
Even the French polish variant isn't all that hard to learn, though a bit of step by step formal instruction is helpful. But if you read published instructions they all differ from each other quite a bit, which implies there is lots of latitude for variation.
Steve,
Well we certainly do agree that there is latitude for variation.
I'm dyslexic, if you watch me typing you'd go nuts. I have to spot the keys each time I type a letter. I took typing in highschool and with my two finger typing technique I could type faster than most of her students could using the proper fingering techniques. That infuriated the teacher and I was ordered out of her class and sent to wood shop..
My instructor was an eight fingered neo-nasi. He spent most of the class with book work and focusing on the mundane.. we actaully spent one whole class period on the shop apron. The pencil will be here and not anyplace else, it will be sharpened to this sort of point and kept next to the ruler like thus. Do not allow your pencil to lie on top of your ruler.......
During the whole school year we only made one picture box. Now while building a box is a good thing because it teaches you all sorts of skills, one box for a whole years worth of work?
In the end when he graded your work points had been deducted for speaking in class, for sitting down after the bell had rung and countless other infractions.. Even though my box was about average I recieved a failing grade.. (first application of shellac)
He managed to convince me that I was not a wood worker..
Which is the message that some give when they describe shellacing. You do it this way, every other way is wrong..
I kept that feeling untill I bought a grandfather clock and found out only after I bought it that all I had bought was the wood, the movement, and a class whereby I could make it..
Imagine my surprise when I built a beautiful clock!
That lead to my interest in the woodworking hobby. It's now decades later and hopefully you've seen my timberframe house. I'm proud of the work I've done. but I'm darn sure that it's a differant approach than most have.
Over a decade ago I was building a box to go into my Corvette to hold my sales literature. I had choosen shellac because it dries quickly and I could be installing the box that same day. My sister was over and watched me slop shellac on and marveled that there were no runs.
She's well aware of just how miserable a painter I am. I mean I'm messy to an extreme. and the results normally show that. Not with my overthinned technique.
Once I showed her the technique, she began to shellac stuff that previously she would have painted. Her husband picked up the technique and thus began my "teaching" of shellacing..
Skilled painters don't need or want my approach. They aren't like the person who started the I hate to finish thread. There are a lot of those sorts of people out there. People who accept inferior or no finishes simply out of fear of the paint brush.
If one of those applies shellac as I mentioned the results tend to satisfy them. Hopefully that will start them on the trail of exploring the wide wonderful world of finishes..
If so I've achieved my goal. I don't want to make others wrong. That's why I make it as funny as possible, I'll flick boogers on your screen, Apply it with my socks etc.. Heck I learn from all of you.. I certainly don't claim to be the worlds expert on shellacing, simply that my approach works for those who would ordinarly be afraid to brush anything.
The people who ask questions here are trying to improve their finishing, not sink to the lowest common denominator. (There is a 4 letter magazine for that.) As I said before, your thin, thin, thin approach can yield results that are satisfactory for some projects, but frankly there is so much more that can be achieve with shellac with only a little care.
More conventional and more effective methods of applying shellac are only a tiny bit more challenging to learn and should be given a good trial before falling back to the minimal shellac approach. The range includes a great variety of methods of application--large reservoir mops, low reservoir watercolor wash brushes, pads of wool wrapped in fine linen, pads of old sheets, pads used with mineral oil lubrication or pads without. True French polish--and a dozen methods to achieve it. I don't think anyone has decreed that only one method should be considered--although you have been more consistent than anyone in promoting one particular method of applying shellac. I think you are tilting at the wrong windmill.
I think I'll invent a shellac (tinted) roller ball pen. It'll be pressurized and will write upside down, just like the astronauts use.
Talk about a special application application method!
Whoopee!
Rich
Steve,
Great point about the all the methods. These are the first words I say at the beginning of every class I teach;
There are many ways to do what I'm going to show you. First learn what the product can and can't do. I'll show you what works for me and why. Learn the basics and then make it comfortable for your touch.
I use the same opening when I teach beginners or professionals. I always end up learning from my students too. It's fun.
I'll sign off this post. I'm sure the mood has gotten tedious for all. It's been interesting talking with you all.
Peter
Steve,
As I've said many many times. I have no issue with those who want to follow other methods of shellac application.. If you can paint well, good for you. But I have helped people who have given up on anything except oils because they are afraid of the paint brush. Previous efforts have always wound up being disasters, as were mine untill I used this approach.
I first learned about this approach many decades ago when I was spraying lacquer with disappointing results. If you come and visit me I'll show you my first efforts done over 30 years ago. When it was fresh I won an award for it.. thirty+ years later in spite of major abuse and neglect it's still very presentable.
About a decade ago I started the same thing with shellac. I've shared with others my approach and while that's all I promote I do so to those who seem lost, My first comments were to the thread, I hate to finish..
I will always suggest those who suggest wipe on oils they consider using my approach to shellac. Common sense tells me that the reason they go with wipe on is previous negative experiance with a paint brush.
I know I've been contraversial with regard spraying Vs brushing.. but hopefully I made my case well.. Since I own so much spray equipment and have decades of experiance spraying I feel in a great position to comment. I don't expect anyone to throw away their pray equipment (I certainly haven't thrown mine away) but at least with regard application of shellac it is a viable option..
From my perspective it's a crying shame that you gave up on lacquer. Once one learns how to manipulate it there's nothing easier. I'm serious! It's insane how easy it is to make lacquer look absolutely perfect... if you've got spray equipment and access to a couple of key solvents. I've sprayed multiple brands/types of everything out there and nothing comes close to lacquer for ease of application and results, IMHO.
I've read Jeff Jewitt's books and wonder at how he makes "off the gun" finishes seem like some difficult thing... as if rubbing it out by hand afterwards is almost necessary to make it look presentable. That's crazy talk from my perspective! Spraying is a skill to be sure. But it honestly isn't that hard to master. And nothing's simpler than good old nitro lacquer, IMHO.
I guess my point is that we each bring our own biases to the table here. You, me, Peter, everyone with experience. I personally wouldn't steer a newbie towards shellac. But that's just me. C'est la vie.
Kevin
But I haven't given up on lacquer, I still use it on occasion. I can do really nice work with it, but It's time consuming and slow compared to shellac. Plus a whole lot more expensive. (and toxic)
As far as a newbie using shellac.. that's my whole point.. with my overthin technique it's nearly impossible to screw up.. Butt simple and a great starting point..
PS I didn't invent the overthinning technique.. that goes to a MG club member from San Diego..circa 1970
Rich,
Worst case if you apply shellac too thin is you add another coat.. Given how easy that is it's not very much of a burden.. However, I've seen the results of too thick a shellac finish, it's always the same, alligatoring (or crazing if you prefer) I will conceed that we are speaking of decades here not a few years..
In your case you may be removing enough of the shellac as you color sand that you return to my orginal thin coat thickness. Given the gloss and depth of shine you obtain with those efforts it may seem like a thick coat when in reality you are doing as the masters of old did And to be lauded for your results..
Yes,I do remove finish as I level sand and with the final rubout process, but 6 applications of 2# cut leaves substantially more resin on my furniture than 3 applications of the sub 1# cut washes you advocate.I wouldn't use 6 layers on a floor, but after a sanding sealer coat (1-1/2 to 2#), 2 full layers of 2# would be a fair job and I wouldn't hesitate to give it another coat if I felt it needed.Again I have never experienced crazing. In fact, I have seldom come across it at all, outside my own work. Where have you encountered this problem that you describe as such a concern with shellac?Rich
Edited 3/10/2007 9:58 am ET by Rich14
Rich,
I used to go antique hunting with my sister.. and well I sort of liked it myself. Not that I bought much but those wonderful old pieces always taught me something.
I developed and eye for recently applied finishes and noted that some really old shellac in fine shape was always much thinner than you'd expect it to be.. I used to think that was because frequent dusting and wear had thinned it. You can tell old finishes even ones in great shape by their patina. Whereas new ones looked perfect..
Shellac that had crazed/ alligatored was always much thicker than shellac in fine shape. Always, without exception!
My piano was just such a problem.. It was originally a display model, heck the price decal is still on the lid. Natuarly display models show off a deep luster and maybe they were too generous, the result was crazing or alligatoring..
Here's my Non- expert opinion on what happens. Wood shrinks and swells with moisture.. shellac while well adheared isn't allowed to do the same, dust and such builds up and somewhat"trips" the shellac from flowing with the result that crazing occurs. It doesn't happen overnight, heck it may not happen at all. If it does happen its a decades long process not something overnight or in a few years..
I certainly won't argue that your application method works.. I'm getting to the point where someday evan I might attempt that.
However I keep thinking like a total newbie and what can be done to limit problems..
We all know that it's a mistake to try to brush drying shellac. Really watery shellac flows so fast that you are forced to brush quickly just to keep up with it..
That's why I want to over thin shellac.
The problem with antiques as a guide is that there is no telling what finish is on them now, and what was on them originally, at least without either destructive testing and/or scientific (read expensive) tests. Lots of pretty strange things have been used in the past, including a wide variety of other spirit varnish ingredients and then, later, a fairly wide variety of reactive varnishes. Thick may mean varnish over rosin based old brown varnish, over wax, over shellac over oil. Some of those layers of things will have alligatored. I have some full filled shellac surfaces of 15 --20 year duration with not a hint of deterioration.
As another data point, when the cabinet makers at Williamsburg speak of using 40 coats of 2 lb. cut shellac, (albeit sanding with 220 periodically so not building full thickness) they are surely ending with a bit more of a film that I suspect you would approve. They have a pretty serious conservation staff around that would surely have put the kabosh on really unsound practices.
Steve,
While technically you may be correct, in reality I suspect that as common as shellac was in the 18th & 19th centuries it was rare that it wasn't used. I remember the little trick about pinching a piece of the finish off an inconspiuous spot and burning it.. The resulting oder is a pretty clear indicator. Maybe not scientific but good enough for me.
I'm glad you haven't had any issue of crazing or alligatioring.. I suspect that you keep your pieces relatively dust free which is what I suspect really causes the problem. (sure wish I knew but what the heck nobodies ever said that it's just not possible)..
I don't think that thick finishes are unsound.. heck haven't I agreed with you in the past about color sanding etc.. Sure it's called for in some applications it's just that for newbies getting the first finish done to an acceptable degree is a major achievement. Run free and smooth is great. To do things to a glass smooth degree is a goal they can still achieve with nature of shellac. I mean just how hard is it to add another layer or two of shellac?
Check out the annual publication American Furniture published by the Chipstone Foundation. It will often present photomicrographs and other technical data of old finishes on antiques. The range of substances is rather large, and far from universally being shellac. Shellac doesn't really become dominent until the last decade of the eighteenth or the early 19th century and doesn't remain universal once oil varnishes become commercially available. My copies of American Furniture are in storage as I am in rental quarters while we build a new house so I can't cite specifics, unfortunately.
All kinds of things have been suggested for maintaining antiques including mixes of boiled linseed oil and vinegar--the conservationists nightmare, and a major cause of those dark, crusty finishes so beloved of the twins on Antiques Roadshow. Think too about the process of doing crackelure finishes. It's not any one finish that does the trick, it is the process of applying two dissimilar finishes that sets of the process. That is the likely source of a lot of alligatoring in old furniture, in my opinion.
As another point, the process of going past the first few very thin coats of shellac is often where trouble arises. Move too slow, or try to smooth out slopped on finish and you can get "rumples" that yield to abandonment of shellac as a finish. To move past minimalist shellac coverings calls for systematic application of thin coats smooth coats that go on quickly without dissolving lower layers before the disturbance of brush or pad has passed. Neatness really counts when building shellac for a full finished surface suitable for rubbing out. And, in my opinion the beauty of evenly rubbed shellac, whether gloss or satin, makes the bit of extra effort well worth while.
Edited 3/11/2007 5:07 pm ET by SteveSchoene
Steve,
Wow I certainly agree with you that the effort needed to obtain the fine gloss finish available in shellac is well worth the effort.
I hope we're speaking about degrees and maybe argueing the same thing just a matter of differance in approach. I admit that once I get the first coat on the actaul #cut of my approach tends to increase. Nothing radicle mind you but I tend to treat old finish as pure alcohol rather than a 1# cut. It's not, I know it but it may be less than a quart or so and so I dump a gallon of pure shellac in and a couple of gallons of alcohol. and yes it's a dump and run so I'm sure I don't wind up dumping the full two gallons of alcohol. I mean I started with say a quart and there isn't room for 3 1/4 gallons in the pot. Actually to prevent slop over I suspect I am short another quart or more of alcohol. Does that change it to 1 1/2 pound cut ? I'm not sure, heck it might be close. It sure doesn't change my approach which is thin it out..
Thin really works for everybody I've shown. They stop being afraid of shellac and start using it as a finish. If you read the feed back here and over at breaktime I get on my approach I've gotten a fair amount of thanks and to date no complaints..
But If you think I'm wrong, I'll gladly accept that and bow out of being a advocate for shellac.. (at least on this forum)
Here is another approach to get reliably to the same end. I used it myself on my floors after extensive correspondence with Zinsser. Forget stripping. Just clean up the areas that you think need to be cleaned and be sure that dirt, oils, etc are off the floor. Then coat the floor with ZInsser seal coat. It is a 2# cut of dewaxed shellac and will adhere to any other finish, and any other finish will adhere to it. It dries in about 45 minutes. Then tyou can apply the amber shellac over it with confidence that whatever may be underneath, you are OK.
Took a couple photos after applying a 5th coat of the 3/4# cut. Sorry about focus on 002. I like the color and don't think I've built up too much of a surface. In the 001 photo there are various gradations of coats from 0 - 5. Yesterday I dug my thumbnail into the end of the board (dog-nails simulation) to test hardness after 4 coats. I was a little disappointed but have to get real--it's pine. Does hardness change much after 8 hours. (I realize that 8 hours is probably way too short.) Is laying 5 coats a bad idea? Thanks for all the help everyone.
Nick
Nick:You really don't need to go so thinly. I have applied Zinsser Bullseye right out of the can--using a brush, on highly sanded oak floors, and they look great. Floors are not furniture. Here is what I learned:1) As I mentioned before, ue SealCoat to be sure you willhave NO adherence problems. 2) About 45 minutes later to an hour or so later apply your first coat of full-strength Bullseye;3) The second coat will probably keep tacky spots for several hours, so give it overnight (yes, shellac is fast, but I managed to put sock prints in mine in certain spots six hours later and advise you do not do as I did). 4) Give the whole floor a second coat. If you are worried about color, drop down to clear (blonde) and it won't get much darker. Give this one a good long dryng time and test it gingerly. I waited 24 hours before putting anything on it.5) For high traffic areas, you can do a 3rd coat. It does not matter if you don't give the same number of coats to the whole floor.6) Shellac does not cure fully fo 3 months. However it it dry to use in 24 hours or so. I gave it 48 before putting furniture back in.We did this over a year ago, and have done no waxing since. Floors look very good. There is some minor scuffing, but you can eithe r wipe them doen with ethanol (denatured alc) or just brush on some sealcoat. Easiest finish in the world.
Joe Sullivan,
Thank you for pointing out what I've said.
Your second coat you said you managed to put sock prints in it six hours later..
I can move furniture onto my floors two hours after I start!
15 minutes after you apply your first coat with my technique you're on your hands and knees sanding the nubs off... 1/2 hour after the second coat you're back on your hands and knees checking that there isn't any that you missed or came up.
OK when I put the furniture back in place two hours later I do it in my stocking feet amd walk gently lifting the furniture into place. I do it very quietly in order to not wake up the floor gods, but hey, that's just me.. you do whatever you'd like. I darn sure won't call you wrong, simply differant..
Frenchy:
Cool your jets. I don't question what you have said. Not at all. We don't even disagree, unless you just want to. My whole point is that there is another effective way to get there.
If the guy wants to build up a film by brushing on multiple coats, he can do it your way. We know it has worked for you and will probably work for him. On the other hand, if he just wants to apply two coats of full-strength Bullseye over the SealCoat, and just wait a few hours, that will work, too.
When it comes to furniture and otehr fine finishes, I would only go with 2# or less, just as you recommend. However, I have found that with floors, the brushing is not much of an issue.
Still, your way will work, and you have proved it, and mine will work too. The guy has a good choice. For floors, I prefer mine, beause doesn't require me to operate the brush as much, but hey -- there is no right or wrong answer as between the two.
Joe,
I'm sorry if I come across as confrontational.. Hey, I certainly don't mean to and I apologize if that's your perception.
Guys with experiance are going to ignore my advice.. it's like shellac 101 and they are on shellac 9589 or some such thing..
I really intend my comments for those who are afraid of shellac and I make it as simple and fool proof as I can.. sure I exagerate. Hopefully I do it with some humor and in a fashion that will yield decent results for those who approach finishing with a great deal of fear and nervousness.
The one thing I will never pretend to be is the worlds expert on shellac.. All I want to do is sound confident that beginners can do a finish without fear of screwing things up.. A finish they like and can be proud of.
Joe (and anyone else who can help),
Regardless of what cut & coat combindation I use on the Amber topcoats, do you think that using sealcoat as a first application compromises my ability to get the deepest amber that I would achieve without using the Sealcoat?
The reason I ask the question is that there are certain parts of the floor that are ridiculously (please just trust me) difficult to get down to bare wood and therefore still have a very amber color. My hope is that these would reasonably blend with the finish I apply over the bare wood.
Thinking about this, I'm wondering if using a thinner (1#, say) Sealcoat cut might be better. In reviewing the can, I see that (as I think you or Peter may have said) it is not recommended to thin for "using as a sealer ro bond/barrier coat," but it does suggest that thinning is fine (3 pts. DNA : 2 pts. SealCoat) for use as a "pre-stain sealer."
Since it seems almost certain that the original (and all, if any, subsequent) finishes are shellac--albeit 125 years old perhaps--I'm if I 1) need SealCoat; 2) can use it thinner; 3) will hamper my coloration goals by using it.
Thanks a lot to all as always.
If your intent is to have the wood take on the amber tone from shellac that is more amber in color than SealCoat, using SealCoat will not prevent the tone imparted by whatever multiple amber coats you put over it. Shellac does not color wood by penetrating to any appreciable extent. It's a surface film finish.
But if you are going to use an amber shellac, why use SealCoat at all? Just use the amber shellac for all the coats. You may want to thin the first coat of such a schedule for ease of application of that "sealer/sanding" coat.
Rich
Rich,
Thanks. This is just what I needed to know--"shellac does not...by any appreciable"--to move forward. I think the idea of the sealcoat was a sort-of just-in-case some other finsh (that I've been unable to strip) was applied over the 125 years.
I've stripped almost all except for some really tough areas (against baseboards affixed to metal studs via hidden screws; random blemishes; and planer chatter), each of which as been at least partially stripped, so I don't really think I have to worry about a bonding issue.
I'm going straight amber unless someone here tells me I'm stupid. (Don't hold back.) Thanks.
Nick
Nick,
Shellac is shellac. SealCoat, schmealcoat! Just 'cause Zinsser calls it that.
Shellac is shellac.
Bullseye SealCoat is 2# cut blonde dewaxed shellac.
Bullseye (regular) is 3# cut amber shellac with the wax still in it.
It's all still just shellac (with Zinsser's proprietary additives to make its shelf life a bit longer in solution).
It's all good.
I suggest , if you want to use Zinsser's stuff (and no reason you shouldn't, it's good stuff), use the Bullseye amber product. Thin it with half as much alcohol to bring it down to about a 2# cut. Put it down. Don't overthink this. And enjoy the results.
Rich
Money. I will not overthink this. SUCH good advice. Gracias.
Just to add to what Rich has said, the only reason to use the SealCoat is if you plan to apply polyurethane or waterborne top coats over the shellac. It's just a shellac with wax removed. The shellac with wax will adhere fine to the other older finishes, its just that polyurethane doesn't adhere well to shellac with wax. Traditional resin varnishes do adhere OK to shellac with wax so you would not be foreclosing a varnish top coat if you ended up wanting to do that. Of course, if you are willing to mix shellac from flakes, you could have darker shellacs that are also dewaxed, so you could have your cake and eat it too. Dewaxed shellac freshly mixed from flakes will be slightly more water resistent than Zinsser Amber.
Steve and Rich:
As mentioned, I corresponded with Zinsser technical people before I started doing floors with shellac. They very strongly advised the SealCoat first approach. They made the point that the SealCoat would stick to anything under it and also give a consistant surface for subsequent top coats. I was going in over a prior two-part commercial finish that had serious wear in some places and not in others, and was sanded to the wood some places, and not in others. In the case of our friend in Boston, nobody really knows what has been done to that floor in the past, how many times it has been waxed, etc.
Of course, I am not a shellac materials scientist, and so I can't tell you of my own knowledge that they were advising a belt and suspenders approach. Still, were it my floor, I would continue to use that approach, because I had excellent results that are holding up over time.
So, given the uncertainty of what is on his floor now, the advice I got from ZInsser, and the very good results I am enjoying, I'd say that the price of a gallon or two of SealCoat (which goes a very long way) is pretty cheap insurance.
Edited 3/15/2007 10:18 am ET by Joe Sullivan
It certainly won't hurt. Seal Coat is a good product, though it is only dewaxed shellac--no additives give it unusual properties.
For some additional info check out http://www.homesteadfinishing.com. This is Jeff Jewitt's site. He sells quality shellac, and even some freshly mixed liquid shellac. There is a forum, and if you call you might well be able to speak to Jeff, who is one of the true experts around.
This entire subject is being made far, far too complicated and unecessarily uncertain, especially about the "Expert" advice that has been quoted from the manufacturer.
I don't disagree at all with their advice that their SealCoat be used as the first coat. What does anyone expect them to say? Of course that is "correct."
But it is no more correct than other advice to use their amber waxed shellac first.
Or any other shellac mix (as long as it's reasonably fresh).
Zinsser's SealCoat has absolutely no magical properties of any kind and their "Official Word" on this matter is simply correct "Corporate Speak" about their own product. IMHO it paroxically confuses the issue because they have to continue to repeat that their product, which is labeled as a sealer coat, to be used under other finishes, must indeed, be used like that.
Once again, shellac is shellac is shellac. It's the easiest, most straight-forward finish to use. JUST DO IT!!!!!
Rich
Edited 3/15/2007 1:02 pm ET by Rich14
OK, guys, I am out of the discussion after this post.
I know what shellac is as well as you do, and have plenty of experience with it on other things. I also know that I first contacted Zinsser not to ask about SealCoat, which I had never heard of at the time, but to look into the advisability of using shellac on floors at all. I did not know about this forum or Breaktime when I did it. My discussions with Zinsser were not superficial, and there was quite a bit of give and take over about three days of emails. It is a shame those emails seem to have been purged or I'd share them.
If they gave me the company line in order to sell a couple of gallons of SealCoat, so be it. On the other hand, I can't help but think that it might be possible that they know what they are doing and gave straight advice based on what their guys think is most likely to give the best results.
Either could be true. You pays your money and you takes your chances. I decided to follow their advice, and the reaults are just great. Maybe the results would have been just as good with an extra coat of BullsEye instead of SealCoat. Do I care? No.
1. "OK, guys, . . . I know what shellac is as well as you do"
2. "I first contacted Zinsser not to ask about SealCoat, which I had never heard of at the time"
3. "to look into the advisability of using shellac on floors at all"
Well, Joe. Statement 1 vs the other 2 doesn't really compute.
Just say'n'
Rich
OK, Rich. I will stipulate that you are the universal oracle of shellac, and that I was a very silly fellow to talk to the manufacturer's tech guys about wear characteristics and the other specifics of floor applications--let alone following their advice -- before just slapping the stuff down.
Oh well. I've been called ignorant before. At my age, I should be used to it, I guess.
J
Edited 3/15/2007 3:32 pm ET by Joe Sullivan
Get over it Joe,
You choose to keep ignoring what I'm saying, and you're perpetuating the problem of getting "expert" technical advice from a source as, or more concerned about liability issues as the straight facts.
When a Zinsser rep gives you advice that their dewaxed product is the best to use, his thinking gets restricted by the need to limit any possible problems that may come up as result of the advice. After all, he's the "expert," and that confers ownership responsibility.
Yes, "use the dewaxed variety" is a "right" answer for all issues of adhesion. Use it and you'll never have "problems." But shellac with wax is also a right answer. And using the waxed variety could be an advantage in some situations. The problem is, the user has to do a little thinking with that answer, and if he doesn't, something could go wrong. And the Zinsser rep can't get in the position of recommending a solution that might not work, when he has a solution that "always" works (but isn't as flexible")
Someone without the liability issue is free to describe the full range of options.
Now you come along, stridently insisting that the Zinsser rep's advice has got to be right. There you go, falling into the problem and acusing anyone with what seems to be different advice as being being wrong by definition. Then you go and get all pissy about it.
I prefer knowledge that's open and allows people to think.
Rich
Look , Rich, maybe you need a vacation or something. It is pretty simple, really: a) I didn't talk with the Zinsser rep. I talked with their technical people at the factory.b) The whole question (as far as SealCoat) was adhesion over old finishes -- and the lasting durability of the floor finishc) They said that if I wanted to be sure and comfortable, that SealCoat first was the way to go.d) I wanted assurance and comfort, and that is what I wanted to offer to OP.e) Their advice may have been driven by liability issues, but if it gives them comfort I share that comfort, and no one's ox is gored. I had to put down a first coat anyway, unless I just wanted bare wood. Why not follow the factory's advice? The price difference is not material in the quantities I was using, and besides, they might actually be right.f) If they were sure about the adhesion without dewaxed shellac as a first coat, they wouldnot be worried about liability. It would be a non-issue. It they are not sure, why should I risk my floor as a test case?And why do you care anyway, whether someone uses a practice that can do no harm and might do some significant good?
Joe,
I guess you really don't read.
Sorry, there's simply no reason to continue to try to explain a pretty simple concept to you. Better call tech support before each finishing jobyou do.
Rich
Actually, Rich, believe ot or not my reading comprehension is average or better. I fully understand you. I am just not sure you are in full command of the facts. Zinsser tech support is not the only group who discuss the benefits of the superior adhesion of dewaxed shellac. You seem to find it pretty easy to make fun of other people from behind the anonymity of the computer and a screen name, and you expect everybodo to take your word just because it was YOU who said it.
If you had any evidence other than your anonymous word for it that the adhesion of dewaxed shellac is unimportant in my application or OP's, well serious people might take you seriously. For now, that is pretty hard to do. In fact, your very limited profile suggests you are just another hobbyist. Are you really a materials scientist in mufti? Common, out with it, why should any of us listen to you?
I'm open minded and ready to learn. That's why I got ahold of the ZInsser techs in the first place. SO, the burden is on you, be credible, or just keep shouting.
Edited 3/15/2007 8:55 pm ET by Joe Sullivan
Edited 3/15/2007 8:58 pm ET by Joe Sullivan
Hi Joe,
With all due respect; I know my profile like yours states nothing about us. Personal choice I guess.
On this thread, If you've been following it, I asked someone what he did along with another question concerning a change in what he was widely advising. He went off on me.
I'm a professional finisher and have been for twenty years. For the last ten I've taught classes both at woodworking schools and the university level. I also write and lecture when possible. My wife always tells me I like what I do too much. I tell you this not trying to "one up" anyone for any reason. Please don't take it like. I know there are far more knowledgeable people out there than me. That's why I like this site. I've learned lots from it; not only fact but lots of fallacy as well.
Your turn, how about some kind of profile on who you are and what you like to do. Maybe Rich will join in and follow suit. I've seen some others who have talked about what they do on other threads and I'll tell you , there are some pretty smart people about.
Peter Gedrys
Peter:
You are right. Nothing in my profile--not choice; just never bothered--but my real name is my screen name. I am not a finisher or cabinet maker, but rather a consultant and writer on business and finance topics, with my own practice for the last 16 years.
I greatly respect the skills of those of you who have them, and wish I did, too. Over time, I might get there, or part way there. My father, grandfather, and one uncle were highly skilled woodworkers and many of the other men among whom I grew up were, too. As I said in another thread, I wish I had learned what the old boys would have gladly taught. Unfortunately, I was busy being a juvvenile delinquent.
In practice, I do a lot of carpentry and construction, built-ins and so forth inour house on the small horse farm we live on. We do most of our work ourselves. I personally installed our white oak floors 17 years ago, and finished them with Zinsser Target (no longer available).
I also have a cabin which requires maintenance, and furniture. Am currently building a new dining table from birch in the bark and burr oak, all sawn on the property. Built a new mantle last summer out of the same oak. That is the fun stuff. I also make doors, chests and the like for practical needs. As my skills become more refined, I venture into ever more challenging work.
On this shellac business, I do not pretend to be an expert. I do have substantial experience with the stuff, although nothing like yours. However, I had never applied it to a floor until late 2005. I got in touch with Zinsser at the time because although I knew that shellac was used for floors I wanted to know the best practices before messing up my own house. What they told me worked, and that is what I tried to pass along.
I am pretty well trained in testing and statistics, which is why I responded positively to the cross hatch test that another poster conducted. That is empirical evidence. If you or some one else with known, genuine expertise tells me something, I will listen with care. However, I see no reason why you, I or anyone else should stand still for an anonymous someone to shout them down by repeating the same thing over and over again in an insulting way. That is especially true when there are clearly some unresolved (on this thread) questions about the adhesion issue.
So, Peter, with respect and in the spirit of your own comment, that is as good a profile as I can give you for this purpose.
Thanks for your own insights, which I also read in the Experts section.
Joe,
That's good stuff. I can't imagine trying to go into your professional world and do as well as you're doing with this stuff.
O K Rich, if you're reading............. Your turn.
Peter
peter,
Interesting that you are playing social secretary here.
My profile says all it needs to say about my day job. More information might get some intersting responses, but that would have nothing to do with woodworking.
I agree that it's useful to know backgrounds of people who post here. But it's really not all that important after you have a chance to read the usefulness of their posts.
In the interests of the "social" aspects of your efforts, I'll divulge the following:
I grew up in a family of craftsman of many kinds, including woodworking. I have been a furniture maker since 1970. I do not make my living from my craft, and would certainly starve to death if I tried to. So I am an amateur woodworker.
I make furniture for my family and some friends. So I have the "luxury" of having no "production schedule." My current "project" is filling the homes of my 4 sons and their families with "stuff." So far, they all have had no problem avoiding furniture shopping.
I don't have to factor the cost of materials into my pieces. I use what I want as I don't have to recoup the cost. The cost of wood for a "one-off" piece is insignificant to the over-all effort. My only "problem" regarding materials is the severe shortage of Brazilian rosewood, which is my favorite wood. I work mostly with tropical hardwoods (Koa, rosewoods, teak, mahogany, ebony) and maple as practically the only domestic.
I would have to price my pieces at ridiculously high prices to justify the labor involved. I have no intention of ever selling my work, but I have been flattered by requests to do that. Of course those people didn't know what I would charge, and if they did would probably laugh their heads off and tell me that I'm crazy. I am, but that's a different issue.
Currently I have no workshop, but have a shop full of new equipment on order and expect construction of my new shop to begin later this spring. When I get some new pieces finished I'll post some images.
Rich
Rich,
We definitely share similar tastes in hardwoods. I dabble in fine woodworking on the side... trying to start a side venture. My daytime helper is my side venture partner and is a much more skilled/experienced woodworker than I am. But hardwoods are definitely my passion. That's really what I love the most about being a finisher is the inherent beauty of a nicely finished piece of hardwood. The rest was just a way to make a living for the most part.
Anyway what I wanted to comment on was the Brazilian Rosewood. Have you tried Palisander (Dalbergia Baronii) from Madagascar? It's supposed to be a highly sought after substitute for the Brazilian Rosewood because it looks very similar. The place that I buy almost all of my exotic wood caters mostly to instrument makers and acoustic guitar makers in particular. They claim that Palisander is extremely popular with the guitar makers as a substitute for Rio or Brazilian Rosewood. Pau Ferro/Santos "Rosewood" is also a popular substitute, but reportedly not as popular as Palisander and to my eye isn't as good of a match.
Kevin,
Yes, I know of the availability of that species. I haven't handled it, but I 've only seen it available in very small sizes, obviously for musical instruments.
I'm constantly on the lookout for brazilian veneer in wide, long flitches. I love the look of a large display of book-matched or flitch-matched figure as on a credenza, bureau or large wall unit. Every once in a while I find a supply of pre-banned stuff.
Rich
Hi Rich,
Social secretary. Good one! I look forward to being social if you get to Las Vegas. Will you introduce yourself?
Absolutely!
Um... maybe my recollection is wrong here but didn't Peter say that seal coat is not as hard as the other shellacs (due to be dewaxed?)? If so then it would not be inappropriate at all for Zinsser to recommend it as being better suited to a sealer coat and to recommend their other shellac products as better suited to use as topcoats.
Without hunting down the relevant post I believe he said that that info came from the Zinsser lab guys.
Obviously a dewaxed product is going to be a superior sealer coat if used under anything other than shellac. Equally obvious is the fact that regular shellac would be a very poor choice as a sealer coat under anything other than more shellac.
Seems to me that the official Zinsser advice is reasonable.
Hoo, boy!
This goes on and on and on.
I'm (we're) talking about using shellac and only shellac as the complete finish.
Yeah, Zinsser's advice is reasonable. I said it was. The paradox is, that when someone, with a little bit less knowledge of shellac tries to expand from there, it seems to go against the company's own advice about its own product to ignore the advice. And ignoring the advice is just as reasonable.
I'm done.
The paradox is, that when someone, with a little bit less knowledge of shellac tries to expand from there, it seems to go against the company's own advice about its own product to ignore the advice. And ignoring the advice is just as reasonable.
Absolutely. I couldn't possibly agree more, in principle.
Sorry if I misconstrued/misunderstood the thrust of your point. It seemed like you were saying that Seal Coat is every bit as good of a top coat as regular shellac. If it's softer than regular shellac then that obviously would not necessarily be true, especially on a floor. That's really the only thing that I meant to point out.
Cheers!
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point here but are you suggesting that waxed shellac would be just as good of a sealer coat as dewaxed shellac on a floor that still has residual non-shellac finish on it?
With respect to the adhesion of the shellac to whatever is already on the floor? Yes!
Rich
Don't get your knickers in a wad, Rich.
Adhesion isn't some form of mystical voodoo. It's pretty straight forward and I'd be willing to bet my next paycheck that in a standardized adhesion test, like say a cross-hatch test, that dewaxed shellac will adhere where waxed shellac will fail.
Think about this, Rich. I know that you know the correct answer but for whatever reason are copping an attitude about it now. Remember a couple weeks ago when we were discussing something that I'd had CAB lacquer fail miserably over shellac on? And we figured out that it was because I hadn't used dewaxed shellac under it? That very same dynamic works whether it's over another material or under another material. Either you have good adhesion or you don't.
Kevin,
This is getting out of hand. I'm not copping an attitude of any kind. I'm objecting to a very simple process being made very mysterious and getting very distorted.
Shellac is really, really simple. applied in its liquid form and allowed to dry, it sticks to just about anything.
Your tale about CAB Acrylic Lacquer over waxed shellac does not apply. While it won't adhere to "waxy" shellac, waxy shellac will adhere to an existing hardened CAB Acrylic film. Shellac of either persuasion has adhesion qualities superior to just about any other finish you can name. Containing its natural wax, or not, put it down over any stable (dry, hard, polymerized, cured) surface and it's down to stay.
The problem with various varnishes (water-borne and polyurethanes) not adhering to an existing waxy shellac film has everything to do with those substances, not the hardened shellac.
Rich
I don't think there would be any problem with shellac, even with wax, in adhering to a fully cured finish of any kind. But dewaxed is the safest route.
But it's not necessary to use shellac with wax to get orange shellac (amber in Zinsser's recent parlance). Dewaxed shellac is available in just about the full range of shades, though it would have to be mixed from flakes (or acquired from http://www.homesteadfinishing.com) which also sells freshly mixed dewaxed dark liquid shellac. It's a very informative web site.
I'm familiar with Jeff's site and his forum. I'm pretty certain that I've seen him recommend specifically dewaxed shellac to ensure adhesion over a non-shellac finish.
I just have to tell you all that I feel a certain pride, as a newbie, in having generated such heated, but thoughtful, reasoned, supported by theoretical and emprical data, interactive, iterative, far-ranging and subtle discussion amongst so many experienced and qualified finshers.
The discussion has been extremely beneficial for me as well as highly entertaining.
Guys (and forestgall and ?bossman's? wife), to revisit the reason for the post (#1 of now 94): I JUST WANTED TO REFINISH MY BEDROOM FLOOR.
Sorry for the Owen Meaney voice and THANKS for all the help.
Nick
Nick,
This has actually all been very civil and not at all unusual given how many highly experienced finishers have commented in this thread.
When I was younger and less experienced I had the opportunity to work for two of the Portland region's three top finishers and I turned down a job offer from the third. The first one I stayed in casual touch with and we ended up knowing some of the same finishers whom I'd known for a long time. Anyway, it wasn't until I worked for the second (and last) one of them that I found out that they all knew each other by reputation. I quickly learned that they each had absolutely nothing good to say about either of the other two even though all three of them were highly skilled and very capable finishers who demanded (and got) top dollar for their services.
It's as much professional rivalry as it is substantive disagreement on the merits of whatever is being discussed.
We're not the first and I have every reason to believe that we'll not be the last either. C'est la vie.
Nick,
I thought of you today. It's funny you put this reply out there. You did get quite a thread going. Kinda like a bunch of bulls all with their heads down pawing the dirt.
It's interesting how passionate it all gets. You're a newbie no more.
Pg
Sheesh, this was just getting interesting. And all this time I thought the first coat for a finish was WwwwwAaaaaaXxxxxxxx!
Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
Just getting interesting. Where have you been? It's been quite interesting. Wax? That's a whole other issue. Stay tuned.
PG
PG,
Lurking, I mean learning!
Absorbing every bit of the wisdom in this discussion, one of the better ones here. I'm new to using shellac and have adopted what I consider the best points thru executing them on some test pieces. Some worked and some didn't.
Can I pinpoint the reason(s) for the failures? In most cases, yes.
Overall I'm finding that if I use frenchy's application technique with others mixing techniques, that being generally a thicker mix, if I can be allowed the use of that term, I was more successful.
Also, I padded the shellac, no brush. I'm still experimenting but making great progress. As an aside, I am going to experiment with using dewaxed shellac as a sealer and apply different types of finishes on top.
Haven't thought about Franch polishing.............. Yet!
Regards,
Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
(Some pop-up related problem requires that I re-post.)
Peter,
Thanks for thinking of me. While enjoying the discussion's evolution, I spent my time making a foolishly large and heavy jig for my table-saw/router-table (TS/RT) to allow easy use of zero fences for any bit profile and also a sacrificial fence for making rabbets with my ShopFox.
(I know this belongs outside the finishing sxn, but since the jig is way amateur, I put it here just to demonstrate that I stayed busy while the shellac committee was wrapping up debate.)
If anyone acutally does care, I designed the fence in Google SketchUp with pretty good detail. If anybody wants basic SketchUp instruction in return for the (already dispensed) shellac knowledge, I'm happy to share: [email protected]
The first jpeg is the "pencil-style" depiction, but the model is perfectly precise when viewed otherwise. Pencil is just for fun. There are a couple pics afterward.
I wouldn't argue against using dewaxed at all, its probably a good thing, since there isn't really any cost in doing it other than a few dollars.
I think that a distinction can be made between well cured underfinishes--several months old at least and finishes that are still curing. If the finish is fully cured its chemistry can't have very much impact on the shellac, I wouldn't think, (alcohol not being a solvent for many of the un-touchable finishes left on the floors.) Thus, I suspect that any form of shellac could bond mechanically to it. When finishes aren't fully cured more interaction would seem possible with one finishing material potentially interfering with the cure of the other. At least that's my guess. Therefore. if my hunch is correct the general rule would be use dewaxed instead of shellac with wax, but with the exception that over well cured finishes it wouldn't be very important.
It would be complicated if you wanted to use a finish with more powerful solvents--such as certain two-part finishes which will act as a paint stripper over other single part finishes. I just don't think that is the kind of thing happening with shellac.
Good comment. It sparks several questions. And btw, this is actually very interesting to me as a finisher. Organic chemistry certainly isn't my strong suit, but for the last several years it has been the latest frontier that I've really wanted to better understand. While I may seem to be arguing with you, and in a way I suppose that I am, in reality this is my way of trying to get a better handle on the issue. I *think* I'm right, but far from convinced of that as yet and I tend to take the side that I *think* is right and argue it as a means of resolving it in my own mind. Just an FYI...
I don't think it's an issue of interfering with the cure of the shellac. It's a mechanical bonding issue between the old finish and the shellac. Obviously the wax is a natural part of shellac and therefore wouldn't impede how it cures. And the alcohols present aren't strong enough or the right kind of solvents to exhibit any kind of actual solvency with the old finish.
Wax, any kind of wax, is a known adhesion liability with automotive paints (which I work with on a regular basis). It's considered a surface contaminant and Naphthas are used to remove it prior to painting.
Assuming that the "wax" in shellac is more akin to carnuba wax than it is to paraffin wax, then in terms of adhesion it's not an issue of the shellac bonding with whatever (in this case an old floor finish which may contain...???). The physical bonding capacity of shellac is infamous. It's the potential (likelihood?) of the wax it contains interfering with that mechanical bond. Even if the contact surface area only contains, let's say 5% wax, then that bond is potentially 5% weaker than the same bond between the same two materials would be minus the wax because everywhere the wax particals contact the old finish there is going to be no adhesion.
I suspect that even waxy shellac appears to have good adhesion over old finishes in lay terms because the remaining 95% is shellac and it's bonding capacity is so superb that it masks whatever issues are caused by the presence of the wax. But in reality, while 95% compared to 100% may not exhibit any obvious differences to the casual observer, it is in fact a weaker bond.
That same wax-bearing shellac over just wood isn't going to exhibit any appreciable drop in adhesion because it soaks into the pores and the resulting mechanical bond is obviously going to be... significantly greater due to the significantly greater surface area that is soundly mechanically bonded for every square inch of surface.
Now soft wax like you'd see on wax paper can interfere with the cure because it will absorb and then very, very slowly release solvents from the finish. I've seen freshly lacquered surfaces that had shiny spots for hours and hours before the trapped solvents finally are able to work their way out and then in a matter of literally minutes that shiny spot will go from shiny to the same sheen as the rest of the surface. And I know that it was caused by wax paper. Certain adhesives used to make partical board type manufactored products cause the exact same thing to happen, although I don't really know why other than that there must be some chemical similarity causing it to behave similarly to those same solvents.
Hard waxes like carnuba don't trap solvents the way that soft waxes like whatever is on wax paper does. They just impede adhesion. And I'm guessing that the wax in shellac is a hard wax like carnuba and behaves similarly.
Earlier this afternoon I scrounged up an old finish sample that's a minimum of 6 years old - pre-cat lacquer over dye on Maple. I applied a coat of regular Zinsser shellac, let it cook off for about an hour and then applied another coat of the same, let it dry for four hours. Then I did a cross-hatch adhesion test to see how well the waxed shellac bonded to a fully cured out lacquer.
The adhesion was decent, even respectable. My understanding of how these things are rated by QC experts is that this test result would be rated a PASS. But I did get some failure. On the other half of the same old finish sample I did an identical cross-hatch adhesion test on the old pre-cat itself. Zero failure. Each scored line was dead perfect. The scored lines on the shellac were ragged, meaning that some of the shellac had failed. But I couldn't get anything more than the material right at the score line to fail. In QC terms I believe (without checking 'cause this is informal) that part or all of at least one square has to fail before the adhesion is considered marginal or failed.
For those who have never done or seen a cross-hatch adhesion test it's actually very easy to do. The QC pros use special, highly calibrated instruments (read expen$ive) but a lay person can reasonably replicate it and get reliable results very easily. All it takes is a razor blade and some high-tack tape (I used Tesa double-sided tape but have seen and used 2" masking tape used too). Score some lines into the finish/paint surface like you would playing tic-tac-toe only you'll want to do more lines than that. They should be approximately 1/8" apart and parallel over about a one to two inch width. Then score exactly the same kind of lines at a right angle to the first set. Apply the tape and rub it in firmly so that you've got maximum contact between the adhesive and the surface you just scored and then yank it off abruptly. Then you get to read the tea leaves. ;-)
Kevin:Do you think it would have made a difference if the shellac had cured for a couple of months?J
Honestly? I have no idea. Probably not but I really don't know. I would think that maybe a week maximum would be sufficient to reasonably infer results for older shellac. 24 hours would probably be a reasonable minimum. I'll try it again tomorrow PM when this stuff has had 24 hours and see what happens.
I would be most interested to follow the series of tests.
Interesting, but just barely. Based on my experience that shellac is too soft for rubbing out for a bare minimum of 24 hours and still better at 72 hours, why don't you repeat the test on the shellac after you've given it a little more time than the brutally short period of a few hours drying? I really don't get the point of comparing the adhesion of hours-old shellac to the surface of years-old cat lacquer vs that same lacquer to the wood. Was your point that even hours-old shellac "passed" the test? Rich
The point of doing the test also to the cured lacquer itself was to eliminate the possibility that it was the lacquer which had slightly failed, not to compare a cured finish with a green finish.
There's still room to do more tests on this piece. I'll do another one tomorrow and maybe another one on Monday and post the results if you'd like. If I'd wanted to make shellac look bad I could have fibbed the results. It passed and frankly did better than I expected it to.
I'd also shellacked a couple of other samples which had conversion varnish on them. One had a super high build polyester (Sayerlack product designed to give a super high build in production timeframes) under the varnish and the other had some color glaze replicating a old finish under the varnish. With both of those the varnish itself failed. The first one failed spectacularly!!! It was trying to pop off as I was scoring the lines. The other failed too but I think it was the glaze which hadn't cured before it was topcoated. Both were a couple years old and I tested them first. Which is why when I got to the lacquer sample I wanted to make sure that I wasn't getting any failure from the lacquer making the shellac look like it was failing when in fact it wasn't.
Edit: Just to make clear here... the existing cured finish on the second two failed and did it so badly that I wasn't able to discern anything at all about how well the shellac had adhered.
Edited 3/15/2007 11:15 pm by Kevin
Just to expand ever so briefly on why I felt the need to do a control test on just the pre-cat... I don't know if you've ever done this kind of test before but where I first learned it was painting sheet metal for electronics components years ago in a shop that adhered strictly to the then-current ISO 5000 QC standards, and with solid color paints the primer is almost always a different color. The constrast in colors is usually enough that you can determine whether the primer layer failed or not. But with lacquering being clear and having soaked into the wood rather than sat on top of an impervious substrait it's pretty hard to distinguish between the shellac and the lacquer. Not impossible, to be sure. But it was easier and faster just to do a quick control test.
Also, I didn't mention it in my original post but I did sand the cured finish before applying any shellac. That's obviously crucial if one hopes to realistically test adhesion. It would have been unreasonable to expect that the shellac would adhere properly to an unsanded finish.
Edited 3/16/2007 11:13 am by Kevin
Great idea to do the testing. (And, by the way, I don't see anything here as "arguing" just discussing the issues to expand all of our knowledge base. Hopefully, this back and forth between guys who have tried to pay a lot of attention to finishing will be of some help to folks who haven't.)
Let me suggest that you do the same tests with some dewaxed shellac over the older pre-cat to compare whether there is significantly more adhesion of the dewaxed compared to the natural shellac. I would join in with testing but almost my entire shop stuff is in storage while we are building a new house.
Steve:
I agree. Kevin is really on to something worthwhile.
There are some other tests of shellac including a time series, that would make for an excellent FWW article. They would all have to be approached systematically, just as Kevin's original offering here was. And good control samples would be needed as in any scientific experiment. Here are some ideas:
Crosshatch tests on bare wood and various pre-existing finishes for both waxed and dewaxed -- and maybe REALLY waxed like botton lac;
The same over time, say, at 3 months, six months, and 12 months (because dare I say it, ZInsser tech people say that shellac is not fully cured for three or more months);
Alcohol and water resistance over the same time series;
UV exposure.
Possibly use multiple brands and sources to seeif there really is a difference.
This information, done right, would be groundbreaking for the general public. Zinsser's labs have doubtless done this long ago, but don't publish the results.
Joe
Edited 3/16/2007 9:41 am ET by Joe Sullivan
I hope Peter read your excellent suggestions. Maybe we can look forward to a future article in FWW covering them.
(And, by the way, I don't see anything here as "arguing" just discussing the issues to expand all of our knowledge base. Hopefully, this back and forth between guys who have tried to pay a lot of attention to finishing will be of some help to folks who haven't.)
Good! and I agree about it's potential value.
I would have done some more with dewaxed shellac except that I don't have any. Besides, it seemed to me that nobody disputed it's capacity to adhere well. So I just tested the one that was in doubt.
Hopefully we can talk Peter into following up on Joe's excellent suggestions and maybe write it up in a future issue of FWW. That way the next time this comes up, and we all know that it will (:::sigh:::), we can point folks to the article and save Taunton some bandwidth here on Knots.
Okay, I wanted to check out application of SealCoat at "can strength" (2#), so I used it on an MDF fence jig I just made for the router in my TS extension. The surfaces are two 20"x12" and one 40"x12"--read, small. The configuration is such that I had to apply the shellac with the panels oriented in the vertical.
I have just applied the 3rd coat. Each coat had ample drying time and was sanded with 220. I used a Purdy Chinese Bristle 1-1/2" in excellent condition, soaked cleaned with DNA and spun dry between each coat.
Having read all the warnings about "just don't go back over," and "fight the urge to 'touch up' spot," I absolutely did not do either or anything like them. AND I worked *fast* real fast.
But this stuff was drying so quick I was feeling the tack and brush drag literally within less than one minute of application, even on the 3rd coat. I'm in Boston: it's relatively humid for late winter and my place is not warm--probably 60 degrees.
Is this normal? I was applying coats fairly thin (vertical surface) to avoid droops, and I still got some, though only notable on sanding.
Although I'm still interested in responses to my question ( 34931.123 ), I've thoroughly sanded each of the 3 2# SealCoat coats and have applied 2 coats of wax to my MDF jig. Good 'nuff. I'm satisfied.
I will *definitely* apply my floor at a 2# or less coat. Since more material will lay down (being horizontal) on post-first coats, I know that I'll get more "open" (or whatever the word is) time, but I am definitely of the following opinion:
Nick
(I'm a crappy painter, but I did co-own a company in the college years, so I get the basics, and have applied a lot of material--interior and exterior--and have always cared deeply about quality [or the quality vs. cost/time/effort balance] in most things that I do. Our exterior painting prep work "back in the day," for example was almost obsessive. We did not want to drive by, X years later, and see peeling. At X=10, we didn't.)
24 Hour Test Results
The same basic result. Slightly more failure along the score lines but still a solid PASS. I suspect that letting it cure out further will lead to slightly more failure along the score lines as the shellac becomes more brittle, but I don't expect to get a failure based on what I've seen thus far.
This old pre-cat lacquer sample has a relatively thin coat of lacquer on it. Meaning that there were still plenty of pores for the shellac to bite into. It would be interesting to try this same test on something flatter that doesn't allow anything more than the mechanical bond between the shellac and the old finish.
Adhesion test: 72 hours
I came into work today to work on a side project so I thought I'd do one more adhesion test on the shellac sample.
Same results as before. Very slight failure on the score lines, zero failure anywhere else. Visually I can't see any difference between the first one at 4 hours and this last one at 72 hours.
Hi, sorry to be slow to respond. Was out all day buying and loading a couple of tons of hay to relieve our droughted out pastures.
On shellac, a couple of observations:
1) A very good reason to use SealCoat is that it is completely dewaxed. In this respect, it is NOT just shellac. This means it will stick to about anything and about anything will stick to it. Once you have it down, you have a clean slate for whatever else you want to use.
2) SealCoat will not effect your use of colored shellac or its effectiveness. It just mekes it more sure to stick right.
2) You may be surprised at the extent to which the stuff will start to blend. I found after a while that I had been overdoing it by sanding down evenly. It just wasn't needed. However, I had an instance where I had to repair some termite damage including some bore holes that the pest contol guy left. This required me to sand to bare wood in an area that had a heavy patina from sun exposure and heat. I blended amber and lighter to suit until I got a color that blended quite nicely. I didn't get a perfect match, but on an old floor there are many color variations and so this is no big deal. We are pretty picky, BTW, and this is in a faily formal living room, in an area that is well lit bu sunlight during the day and is not covered by an oriental rug.
Joe, When shellac is going to be the only finish used, using a dewaxed shellac as a sanding sealer confers no additional benefit. Rich
auntbeatch
No I agree the thumbnail test after only 8 hours is not going to tell you much.. Try it in six months.. Besides no finish that I know will strengthen the underlying wood. Pine is and will remain soft.. Whatever finish is applied.
My black walnut floors are softer than my oak floors will be etc. it's wood.. The inevitable marks add charcter, only you can determine if there is too much character where it simply becomes scruffy looking. My sister who's a University trained and acredited interior designer puts these scruffy looking features into rooms etc. and all her artsy fartsy friends laud her taste and refinement ????!! Me,? They simply look like old wooden stuff in a new room..
It's difficult to determine from the photo if I'd say they thickness is right.. It does look shiney and has a nice deep appearance. I guess this is a case where you have the final say. If You're happy with the results then so am I..
You have an excellent resource right in Boston - the North Bennett St. School. They are one of the few places around that offers cousrse like "Preservation Carpentry" and I'm confident their students and faculty have a good working knowledge not only of the homes in Boston but also the materials and techniques used in the original construction.
Go slow and be very careful - lots of opinions out there so base any restoration of the best knowledge you can harness. You can also talk to restoration folks at Wintertur, Williamsburg and Sturbridge Village - I talked to all of them as I restored my 250 year old home.
Good luck!
I think ETG makes an excellent suggestion here. If it were my house I think I'd follow it.
I'm doing the exact project as you and have the same questions about filling gaps, subfloor and finishings.
Mine is a duplex in Wisconsin built in 1884. I got tired of my tenants destroying carpet so tore it all out of every room, and tore out the kitchen lino as well. I have pine/fir floors underneath that some people think is a subfloor It's sort of like a subfloor - but it looks like there are miscellaneous random layers of thick wood underneath it. So I don't know. But I guess its' what they had for flooring back then, and I'm sure it will look great restored. I've seen many pictures of this in woodworking magazines.
After all the hard work of sanding, I want to be sure I apply the right finish. I am grateful to my husband "bassman" who refered me to these postings.
On another inquiry I made, I was refered to Sutherland Welles, LTD. and to use Tung oil products only for old pine, because the finish should be flexible. I don't have any doubt that this probably would be the best finish on old pine flooring, but the products are pricey and I have a deadline. If it was my own home, and not a rental, I'd probably use their product line.
I was considering oil based polyurathane, which I did actually use in the kitchen (original 100 year old pine/fir) of the upper unit. It turned out OK but took awhile to dry. In less than one year - already has a cigarette burn and other damages from a negligent tenant. (Will be difficult to repair - not sure how)
So, after reading your responses and other postings, I am now convinced on Shellac for many reasons: I probably won't die from the fumes (it's eco friendly), it will be easy to apply in thin layers, and the finish will probably last for years. It will dry quicker so I can rent it sooner, And, easy to repair scuffs and scratches.
(Wish I had read these postings sooner, prior to having scraped and sanded layers of old varnish. It's really amazing that in the process of removing old shellac you can actually resuse the liquid DNA/shellac mix wrung out of industrial paper towels from the dissolved stuff. It's also interesting to me that shellac comes from an asian insect).
I also recently read about using rope to fill the gaps. It's flexible- will not be affected by wood expanding and contracting from climate changes, and natural looking. I tried a couple of rows of sisal yesterday. It's surprisingly easy to work into the gaps with a screwdriver and looks good. Also, I like that I don't have to deal with messy glues, putty or caulks. I'm filling the gaps with rope prior to applying stain and shellac. I'm thinking about staining the rope a dark color prior to applying the shellac. I guess the layers of shellac should hold the rope in place. (Also - I thought I read somewhere recently about hemp being more likely to absorb moisture - and then become moldy).
Alot of hard work, but rewarding. Good luck to both of us.
Spouse o' bassman,
Nice to have someone to commiserate with. My test pieces with the "frenchy method" 3/4# take the appearance of the original after 5-6 coats. Those, however (as mentioned in a post a couple before this) likely contain less material as I'm not "flooding" the single board I'm testing on. I am resolved to first coat with 1# SealCoat and then follow with 1#+ cut Amber. Due to the gaps in my floor, I'll be able to work on discrete areas without issues of lap marks, etc. if I'm unable to move quickly enough.
As for the cracks, the fiancee o' auntbeatch is anti rope. All the stuff I'd been able to find on this had the hemp rope first soaked in linseed oil, then applied. Alternatively, I've heard of oakum ("loosely twisted hemp or jute fiber impregnated with tar or a tar derivative and used in caulking seams and packing joints") primarily in the context of wooden boat building. I have been unable to find any photos. So can't quite picture it--if you have found some online, I'd be grateful for a link.
Therfore, I think I'm going to drop a 1/2" router bit in the gaps and run the length, with the aid of a temporary fence, and then fill with a glued and pinned darker hardwood, such as oak. A couple thoughtful posts have wisely recommended many of Boston's excellent historical restoration resources. Since the "condo" process obliterated nearly everything histortical, I'm less concerned with being true to that, and more concerned with what's aesthetically pleasing.
Good luck!
Nick
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled