Replies

1. 
   derekcohen | Aug 10, 2009 04:34pm | #1

   Hi Gina

   It depends on what you like aesthetically.

   It depends on how large the area to be filled is.

   And it depends on where on a board the filler needs to be placed. For example, on a corner, I might add a filet of wood.

   If the wood is difficult to match and there are a few pieces to fill, I may use a contrasting colour, such as black (I tend to fill darker than the original). Two-part 5 minute epoxy works well. Add a black tint.

   If the need is to match the wood, and the area is small, I will add saw dust (for a colour match) to epoxy.

   I find epoxy to be stable and you can either sand or plane it.

   If the area is large, I will consider a patch.

   Regards from Perth

   Derek

2. 
   oldusty | Aug 10, 2009 05:36pm | #2

    Gina ,

          As Derek stated it depends ,, on what it is you are filling and the color of the wood changes so one filler will not always work .

     If it is small voids or nail holes and such for the very best match soft color putty can also be mixed to match well , use it inbetween finish coats so it gets sealed over.

              regards from Oregon               dusty, boxmaker

1. 
   GEide | Aug 10, 2009 05:40pm | #3

   Thanks folks. I actually posted for a friend from the old Ask the Experts forum... hopefully he can chime in.

   Appreciate the help! Gina

3. 
   hammer1 | Aug 11, 2009 01:22pm | #4

   Most pro finishers use a lacquer based grain filler these days. Easily applied with spray and sanded down, can be colored. The old por-o-pack style fillers are too labor intensive and difficult.

   http://www.hoodfinishing.com/wood_finishes.html

   Beat it to fit / Paint it to match

1. 
   Rich14 | Aug 11, 2009 01:39pm | #5

   hammer,"The old por-o-pack style fillers are too labor intensive and difficult"I strongly disagree. Behlen's silex Por-o-Pac has been the excellent, predictable, reliable product to use for decades. Comes pre-tinted in several colors or clear to be tinted whatever one wants. It's so easy to use, um, a cave man could do it. It's the gold standard for filling open grain wood to be finished absolutely smooth.Rich

1. 
   hammer1 | Aug 11, 2009 02:33pm | #6

   Which lacquer based grain fillers have you used, Rich, and what didn't you like about them?Beat it to fit / Paint it to match

1. 
   Rich14 | Aug 12, 2009 02:28am | #7

   "too labor intensive and difficult."They are neither.I also disagree that "most pro finishers use lacquer-based fillers these days." On what do you base that?If you like lacquer-based, I have no problem with that at all. If you have had better results with it than with por-o-pac type stuff, I have absolutely no quibble. I have no reason to doubt you get great results with it.I just don't agree with the stuff you said about the silex-based fillers and provided an alternative opinion. Simple. Nothing more. All I said was that I strongly disagreed. Fair enough?Rich

1. 
   SteveSchoene | Aug 14, 2009 08:49pm | #8

   I'm not going to weigh in on what most pro-finishers use. 

   Silex based fillers work pretty well, and I'm not really ready to argue that sanding off a lacquer based filler (and cleaning spray equipment) is less labor intensive than buffing off silex filler.  It depends largely on your equipment set up, and whether the schedule called for the  surface being filled to be dyed before filling.  

   I have it from a reliable source that many of the Pore-O-Pak type fillers have reduced the silex content, leaving only pro-products, like the Sherwin Williams (gallons only) available with full silex content.  The difference would be found largely in how much shrinkage that might occur after the initial set up.  Might need a second coat now. 

   It would probably help to know what object is to be filled and the rest of the proposed finishing schedule.   

2. 
   Rich14 | Aug 15, 2009 04:32pm | #10

   Interesting Steve.Pore-o-Pac itself is Behlen's brand silex product. I have never used any other. It's always been readily available, seems dependable and unchanged in character over a long time of purchasing and I haven't been aware of other brands.There have been times when I've needed to do a second application on a particular project but I always thought that was part of the technique when necessary. Is Behlen's one of the products that has lowered the silex content?Rich

3. 
   SteveSchoene | Aug 15, 2009 08:19pm | #11

   Behlen does still have some chrystaline silica shown as being between 10% and 20% of the composition, with other solids, (with the same listed percentages)  being calcium sulfate (anhydrous gypsum), tremolite (a silicate that comes in several forms), and magnesium silicate hydrate (talc.)  

   Bartley's MSDS was useless only listing solvents (almost all Stoddard solvent) as the hazardous ingredients.  Wood-Kote shows calciium carbonate as constituting 50% to 60% of the weight.  Hydrous aluminum silicate is also listed, without percentage given, as was something labeled rheological additive without CAS.   

   Sherwin Williams Sher-Wood filler shows 73% of the weight as quartz (CAS14808-60-7, the same as the crystalline silica reported by Behlen)  The only other reported ingredient was mineral spirits, for 13% of the weight. 

   I haven't yet personally compared the Sher-Wood filler to Pore-o-Pac though as I indicated one reliable source likes the Sher-Wood much better. 

    

4. 
   padauker | Aug 15, 2009 07:16am | #9

   I've found that a couple of coats of wet sanding with Waterlox does the trick.

   Denny