Steve,
I am finishing a BUNCH of big leaf Maple parts for book racks I am building. I made some samples and decided on the following:
Scrape mill marks etc.
Sand to 240
first coat BLO
four coats of shellac (Zinser Clear, straight from the can)
sand to 320
I would like to put a film finish over the shellac; something in gloss so I can cut it back later on if it’s too shiny. What’s your recommendation? I’d like to keep sanding to a minumum as there are MANY pieces.
Thanks much,
Mack
“Close enough for government work=measured with a micrometer, marked with chalk and cut with an axe”
Edited 9/2/2009 6:48 pm ET by Mackwood
Edited 9/2/2009 7:00 pm ET by Mackwood
Replies
Hope you don't mind someone else chiming in.
If you might topcoat the shellac with a water borne product, make sure the shellac is dewaxed. I'm not familiar with that product to know if it is.
One person here in Cincinnati, who promotes shellac constantly as a topcoat, advises that only a single application of shellac should be used. Thicker, it tends to crack and craze in time. Target Coatings sells a water borne dewaxed shellac, and specifically recommends spraying a very thin coat of their product to avoid crazing.
If all you want is a tie coat between BLO and final topcoat, one coat of shellac should be adequate. In response to a question on the finishing forum at Homestead Finishing Products, it was suggested to me that a single sprayed coat of 1# cut of shellac was sufficient as a sealer.
Just some advise I have noted, for what it's worth.
Don,
Thanks for the response. I was not thinking of water borne as a top coat. I'm pretty sure the shellac I'm using is not dewaxed. It does not say that on the can. The Zinser "dewaxed" is labeled "Sanding Sealer".
I was thinking of something beyond the shellac to add protection. Depending on the advice I get, I may just call it good with the shellac. The project is book racks so it will not get wet or get a lot of abuse. I have two coats on a handful of the pieces at present. I may carefully sand what I have and see what's left.
Regards,
Mack"Close enough for government work=measured with a micrometer, marked with chalk and cut with an axe"
Don's recommendations sound exactly right to me from the way I learned it.rocGive me six hours to chop down a tree and I will spend the first four sharpening the axe. Abraham Lincoln ( 54° shaves )
Edited 9/2/2009 9:48 pm by roc
The Zinsser Clear has not had wax removed. Consequently you can't apply varnish containing polyurethane or waterborne finishes without running into potential adhesion problems. But, you can apply non-polyurethane varnish. The lighter color varnishes are based around soya oil, and include Cabot 8000 Varnish, and Pratt & Lambert 38.
Zinsser SealCoat may be labeled sanding sealer, but it is just shellac that has had the wax removed. It works perfectly well as a shellac top coat (and in fact will be more water resistant than the shellac with wax, particularly the Zinsser Clear which gives up some of its water resistance due to the chemical bleaching it undergoes to become so light in color. Seal Coat isn't quite that light, but is still toward the lighter end the color range. You can mix shellac from flakes and get a little lighter shade of dewaxed shellac--these flakes are usually called something like ultra blonde or super blonde.
Shellac would be a good finish by itself for book shelves. It is very hard and books don't stick to it. Shellac rubs out to any desired sheen more handily than any varnish.
Edited 9/2/2009 10:02 pm ET by SteveSchoene
Steve,
Thanks for the response. I think I will sand the pieces which already have two coats of shellac on them (I have difficulty getting shellac smooth with a brush and always end up sanding). I'll try wiping on a final coat to see if I can get a smooth finish. I'll probably leave it after that and finish off with a buff with 0000 steel wool and wax (definitely NOT the old Briwax formula (ref.Maloof Goof; what a mess that was!))
Thanks again for your patience and helpful comments!!
Mack"Close enough for government work=measured with a micrometer, marked with chalk and cut with an axe"
Mack,re "I have difficulty getting shellac smooth with a brush and always end up sanding"While there are many who apply film finishes (shellac, lacquer, varnish) with the expectation that the process just involves somehow laying down the material on wood and it levels to a smooth final surface appearance, such an application results in only the most crude kind of results (no offense intended). Especially with shellac. Such applications are suitable only for shop made jigs and fixtures and the like.I know, I know, it is common practice, especially in low-end cabinetry. But with shellac (brushed or sprayed) it's what often has given shellac the reputation as a cheap, quick and dirty finish. "Slap some shellac on it and we're done," said the carpenter.For ANY film finish, leveling and final rubbing out are an integral part of the process. Sanding between coats is NOT an extra step. Is is THE step that takes all the uncertainty out of applying the finish. It removes all the problems caused by dust, bugs, sags and drips, ridges, brush lines and gives shellac the ability to be what fine finishes know it as - a finish rivaled only by lacquer (given the same attention) and one of the most beautiful finishes that can be put on wood.Your project can be finished with shellac only, or over coated with any other film finish. But shellac is ideal. If you use shellac as a sealer/undercoat, 2 coats is enough, but as the entire finish, you'll need more coats. about a 2# cut, or slightly thinner, but no less than 1.5 cut is the way to go.Level sanding between coats not only results in a perfectly smooth surface, ready for any final rub-out treatment you want (matte to mirror gloss) but it actually tells you when you've applied the right amount of total finish.The wood is sanded to 180-220 grit. Apply one or two thin applications. Let COMPLETELY dry. (Zinser takes MUCH longer to fully harden then shellac mixed freshly from flakes. Sometimes 4-5 days! Fresh stuff hardens overnight) Level sand with 320 grit on a firm rubber or felt sanding block. Use just the pressure of your hand and block. The shellac should easily sand to a fine, dry powder. If it doesn't it's not ready. Do NOT try to get the whole surface sanded. You'll sand right through. Instead, only the tops of the highest irregularities and the dust nubs will get abraded by the leveling, leaving plenty of shiny, untouched areas in-between - the valleys between the higher mountains.Apply another coat or two, let completely harden and level sand again. With each application and sanding, the abraded high spots will get larger and larger and the valleys will get smaller and smaller until, with enough applications - 4-6 depending on your technique, the valleys will completely shrink and the abraded areas will merge and the surface will easily achieve a uniform, perfectly flat, ground glass appearance. This whole leveling process takes just a few minutes each time. It is very easy. Shellac is a joy to work.At that point, you have enough shellac on the wood. It will be a surprisingly thin film because the leveling takes off a lot of the applied material. At that point you can add more if you want, anticipating heavier use than a piece that is just for beautiful "display" or you can start the rubbing out process.4-0 steel wool will give a soft matte glow, 600 grit wet-or-dry and finer grits, with or without a lubricant (low odor mineral spirits or water - a quart with a drop of dish washing detergent) - will give progressively finer-grained semi-gloss. Final rubbing with automotive rubbing compound (red), polishing compound (white) will give a very fine semi-gloss and swirl remover will then give a glass mirror polish.Have fun.Rich
Edited 9/3/2009 6:07 am ET by Rich14
Rich,
Thanks for your response. In playing around with the pieces I've already shellaced, I realize that my mistake has been sanding too much! I've been looking for the perfect surface too early and ended up putting eight to ten coats of shellac on but sanding almost all of it off.
Your detailed description helped me out a great deal and will same me many hours.
Thanks,
Mack
"Close enough for government work=measured with a micrometer, marked with chalk and cut with an axe"
If you aren't applying shellac over dye or stain then there isn't really any harm of sanding (just) to the cut through point while leveling. It doesn't take much shellac in the end, though within a fairly wide range the choice is mostly aesthetic.
You might go to Homestead Finishing site, under Articles is Padding Shellac. This works very well for me on flat surfaces where I can avoid a brush. Also gives quick explanation of his rubbing out technique.
Also - not sure if it is mentioned in this article, but I learned from Jeff's book about adding lacquer retarder to shellac to improve flow and help keep a wet edge during brushing or padding. Max 10% by volume.
Agree with other comments about dewaxed, flakes, fresh, etc.
I have a question for mack in ref to an aversion to using original briwax over shellac. Can you be a little more specific or refer me to an earliar post? I just finished a piece using that method and had moderate success and was curious to know what experiances, neg. or pos. you or any one else had? Thanks for any advise. I now use a moderated "frenchy's shellac method", in most of all of my finishes. I would have to aggree with the "frenchman" that you can't get it too thin and you can't mess it up. It may be my imagination but it seems to me that adding fresh alchohol to a shelf can mix of shellac adds a little more insurance that its going to work better in the end. thanks, omah.
Omah
The aversion was sort of a general thing. I used the Original Briwax over a completed Maloof finish and the tulene in the wax made a mess of it. It sort of dissolved the finish. I had to go back, remove it using thinner and steel wool and start over. The Maloof finished pieces are part of a project that includes pieces finished with shellac as well.
I've since learned that the original formula was designed for restoration work and the new, Briwax 2000 is designed for new work.
I don't know (actually doubt) that the Original Briwax will have the same effect on newly applied shellac but I'm certainly not going to take the chance.
Regards,
Mack
"Close enough for government work=measured with a micrometer, marked with chalk and cut with an axe"
Edited 9/9/2009 11:51 am ET by Mackwood
Edited 9/9/2009 11:51 am ET by Mackwood
The toluene should have a greater impact on an oil based finish, such as the Maloof, than on shellac. It takes months for an oil/varnish finish to be fully, fully cured. Only then would the toluene not act as a solvent for the finish. Still, I agree with the caution.
There just isn't any benefit on new work from using a cleaning wax like the original Briwax. The stronger solvent does help remove old oily dirt from old furniture. Frankly though, I think I'd prefer to deal with that separately, mineral spirits, and to try to combine it with a waxing. More control.
Thanks for that clarification and warning. It may seem trivial but it's actually very usfull information to me.
I have been trying my first attempt at a french polish. Well can't find pumice Grrrr.
But going thru the motions has had some good yet mixed results.
Steve can you dewax shellac at home? been using orange shellac flakes from LV.
You can do a pretty good job letting the shellac set undisturbed for some time, letting the waz settle. Then pour off the clear portion on top.
It's not really necessary to have dewaxed shellac for French polishing. Pumice shouldn't be very hard to find. Many paint and hardware stores carry it, at least around here. I look for a small group of little boxes, blue with a rainbow on them. This is where I have found things like pumice (you want the finer), rottenstone, oxalic acid, whiting, cement pigments, etc.
Shoemaker,You can remove 99% + wax from any batch of shellac. Just letting it settle and decanting off the clear top part is hard to do without stirring up the wax and getting it into the decant. The demarcation between the shellac and the wax is hard to determine and the wax swirls into the shellac at the slightest movement of the container.Get a plastic bottle with a cap that includes a pointed tip and a cap on the tip. Fill the bottle a little less than half-full with the shellac solution. Add about an equal amount of mineral spirits. Leave enough room to shake the mixture.Shake the bottle vigorously for about a minute, thoroughly mixing and homogenizing the mixture to a uniform milky-white appearance. The wax will dissolve into the mineral spirits which has much greater affinity for it than does the shellac solution. Stand the bottle supported upside down for 12-24 hours. The mixture will separate with a clean demarcation between the mineral spirit layer on top containing the wax and the clear, dewaxed shellac solution beneath.Remove the tip on the pointed, downward-facing spout and carefully squeeze the clear shellac out until the milky layer just enters the spout and stop before it gets down to the tip.Discard the mineral spirits, wash out the bottle a few times with a little alcohol plus mineral spirits.Rich
Thanks. You guys are a wealth of information.
Steve,I recently (6 months ago) was curious to see the relative coloring differences between a fresh mixed super blonde (Behlens) 1# cut and Z seal coat - one month old. Thinking it might be more convenient at times to just use store bought. Put a single pass stroke with two new brushes of each on a piece of window glass (not green plate). Not matter what light passed through or reflected on (3200K and 6000K) - no discernable difference to me. I put both on a piece of plain, undistinguished piece of very light rock maple, side by side with a small overlap and asked a 3rd party what they thought of the finish. Then asked if any change in color. Bupkis. One continuous monochromatic finish.
I then repeated it on a piece of butternut with almost the same results. "Is there or isn't there a difference?" type of thing.
So subtle -- hard to say.
I think, if there are discernable differences (without the use of a color analyzer),the changes so insignificant, that I for one don't have a problem in blindly grabbing one can over the other when comes to tight and white and not enough to loose sleep over when it comes to more coarse and darker.Just my observation.Boiler
That's good to know. It has always seemed to me that the Seal Coat was just a slight bit darker, but obviously, if so can't very very much at all. I hadn't made the side by side test, though to be more conclusive, you would need apply a number of "coats" to have more thickness. Of course that means matching the cuts of the shellac and method of application. Off hand, I'd say color wasn't a much reason to chose between them.
I do think that fresh mixed from flakes will likely dry a bit harder and a bit faster than Seal Coat, especially since it can be hard to find Seal Coat with really recent manufacturered date. And, I would be extremely sceptical toward the end of the manufacturer's suggested life. Likely still good for many purposes, but for fine furniture finishing that will be rubbed out I'd want the hardest drying material.
Steve,It always seemed that seal coat was a bit darker also. As I may have indicated, this was by no means a comprehensive test. More of a lark.
Would be interesting though -- to see and actual test. See which was more LAC-tose intolerant : )BB
>>> "Is there or isn't there a difference?" type of thing.Zinsser SealCoat is a blond or super blond color of shellac as I recall from some discussions with there tech folks a few years ago. Therefore, I would expect that the color differences between Behlen Blond and SealCoat would be very slight and subtle.One thing to keep in mind is that Zinsser is the sole US importer of dry shellac except for some hobby sellers catering to music instrument repair and manufacturing. Zinsser is the only manufacturer of pre-mixed shellac in the US.Howie.........
If I understand correctly from Zinser's web site, their clear shellac is a 3lb cut straight from the can. I've never had any luck getting shellac that thick to flow out. I generally use the seal coat (which is a 2lb cut) and still thin it a bit to about a 1.5lb cut. I use a taklon brush to apply the shellac. Laquer retarder does slow it down a bit, but not enough to make a big difference in my opinion. Developing the fortitude to lay it on and walk away is the most important thing (and the most difficult for me). When I level it, I use 400 wet or dry paper lubricated with Naptha then follow with 0000 steel wool and wax.
Shellac is a film finish and except *perhaps* for wax needs nothing over the top of it.
If you feel the need to use varnish or lacquer then just use one or the other and skip the shellac.
These intricate protocols that have different products used over the top of others (all of them film finishes in their own right) unnecessarily complicate the finishing process and add nothing to the look of a piece of furniture, all the while exponentially increasing the chance that you'll crap up an otherwise well executed project.
Keep it simple.
Edited 9/8/2009 5:51 am ET by CStanford
There is a place for finishing schedules that are a bit more sophisticated than just applying product from one can.
The most widely useful is the schedule that begins to color the wood with a dye. That allows almost infinite choices of color and intensity, but can lack depth, and with some woods the dye doesn't "take" well in pores. So to add that depth, a stain with pigment can be used. But such a stain may do too much--you often want it to lodge mostly in pores to provide a bit of additional definition to the grain with a slightly different color or shade from the dye. To allow that to happen the dyed surface must be protected from too much and to "overall" pigment. The quickest and simplest way to do that is with shellac to seal, or partially seal the dye before staining.
Sometimes incompatible materials are desirable to be used over each other. For example, a water soluable dye might need to be protected from being dissolved by a waterborne finish.
Sometimes oily woods need to be sealed so that oil based finishes will cure, or waterborne finishes adhere.
You can't often get exactly the look you want without a bit of finesse. Yes, done wrong it can create complications, but done right a much wider world of finishing can open up. There is absolutely, nothing wrong with just a simple clear finish over uncolored wood, but it's not always the right answer.
Blech, to the whole bloody thing.
"Infinite choices of color and intensity" Double-blech.
I'm with you, Charles. I recently tried the Roland Johnson mix you recommended (gloss 38, tung, turps, and shot o' japan drier), and it is terrific. A go to finish for me going forward.
View Image
That's just gorgeous..............thanks for posting.Rich
Thanks, Richard.
I'm pleased to have finished. Life kept interupting progress for weeks at a time. I hope to take some decent shots of the whole piece some time, but will likely need to drag it outdoors to get any decent lighting. This was just a goof around shot I took when I was already on the floor for a shot I was taking of one of our cats.
Gorgeous!
Thanks, Charles. How's life with the baby? Getting enough sleep?
She's doing great. We're doing great - on schedule and pretty much sleeping through the night.
What an absolute doll!
Mine's starting third grade. It goes by fast! Enjoy.
Thanks....
I agree that just layering on products willy-nilly isn't a good idea. If you don't need it, don't use it.
I also agree that wood finished with clear finishes alone can be quite attractive and is a good thing, when the design of the piece accommodates that. I don't like finishes that obscure and hide the natural grain and figure of the wood. That does mean the the most important step in the finishing process is among the first steps of the project--choose the woods carefully.
But those are not the only desirable ways to finish projects. People have different tastes and expectations. For example, I like 18th. century furniture and have made some reproductions of a few pieces. But for several of the examples the originals were made with mahogany--and in particular Cuban or Dominican Mahogany. Well, that's just not available, and least not in prices on this side of the moon. So a schedule of dye and pigment stain can yield a result that enhances the wood in that particular application.
Lots of other people like the clean lines of Arts & Crafts furniture. But a number of the originators of the style fumed and or stained the wood. They may have done that because lots of people like darker colored wood in their household furniture. Consequently, when woodworkers want to make objects with that inspiration they too are drawn to seeking methods to achieve the coloration that they desire.
Individual tastes determine what the final outcome should be. But, there is no accounting for taste. You can say one persons tastes are based on more education than anothers, or are more popular than anothers, but what can't be said is that one person's taste is better than anothers. You can say you don't like it, but not that your choice is the better one--it's better only for you.
That's why I do say there is a place to allow people to choose for themselves, from an infinite range of hue, shade, and intensity, and to find ways to reach their individual idea of what they like.
You can say one persons tastes are based on more education than anothers, or are more popular than anothers, but what can't be said is that one person's taste is better than anothers. You can say you don't like it, but not that your choice is the better one--it's better only for you.
You are using taste in the sense of "preference." And indeed, everyone is entitled to their own preferences. That said, taste is also defined as an ability to discern things of high aesthetic quality. Individual's preferences in this sense may show bad taste. Someone may genuinely prefer a black velvet Elvis painting over a classic Rembrandt, but this does not mean that the rest of us cannot agree that the black velvet Elvis is not equal in quality to the Rembrandt. Quality judgements are possible and valid. People can like what they wish, but that doesn't make the thing they like good in any objective sense.
You are right, in a sense. But the problem is that the only way there can be an "objective" taste is if one person or group is objectively better than another person or group, and I reject that. So a great many of us may agree that Rembrant is superior to an Elvis on velvet, but it still is a matter of informed popularity, or popularity among the informed, or the like, not really a matter of "better". "The ability to discern things of high aesthetic quality" and having a preference are at the core are just the same, when you break them down.
Nope, I really couldn't disagree more. Quality is a fact, not an opinion. Have you ever read the Sack "Good, Better, Best" books, for example? I'm not saying there is not room for disagreement on the fine points, but consensus of connisseurs over time is meaningful - agreement among those who have made it their lives to study and judge quality in a field and compare the bests across the generations is indeed better than the single opinion of an uninformed person with a peculiar preference.
It's a fact of life that some things are better than others. It's easy to identify those things when you have empirical metrics like: which car is faster, safer, more luxurious, etc., but it is equally true with aesthetic metrics like: more beautiful. Quality judgments are as important in art as quality judgemnts are in drug efficacy - they are guideposts. If we could not make such judgements, what would be striving towards?
Sorry, I'll have to fundamentally disagree on this. Some opinions, like Albert Sack's, or John Kirk's are more worthy of respect than others. A concensus of connoisseurs over time ought to be convincing, but after all it is still the concensus of the opinions of connoisseurs. Adding all the opinions in the world doesn't create objective truth, it creates a strong opinion. There is a fundamental difference between empirical metrics and aesthetic ones. Aethetics, essentially by definition, can only be an opinion. Even in science there is no objective truth--only unfalsified hypotheses and definitions. To look for objective truth in art is therefore fruitless.
Those aesthetic "norms" are valid things of which to be aware and to strive to achieve, but it must still be realized that in the end one is striving to gain the good opinion of others--not always a good thing. And, sometimes, it takes a very long time for those concensus opinions to realize which artistic endeavor are worthy and which are not. Some times those opinions stagnate for long periods, and, sometimes those opinions change, and change radically.
"More beautiful" has no constant meaning. This is a good thing, for only through change, through testing the very definitions of what is "high aesthetics" that Art (capital A) can be created.
I think we are perhaps talking past each other to some extent. Art is fundamentally a human cultural phenomenon - a term describing human emotional expressions through, and reactions to, creations in various media. Quality in art therefore is necessarily a tally of our human consensus as to whether something is good or not. Such judgements are meaningful and useful. I just can't understand the idea that "because everyone has an opinon, no opinion is more valid that another." We have catalogs of masterpieces from Michaelangelo to Mozart to Shakespeare with more being added all the time. The judgments of humankind on what works inspire and are indeed "best" is informative, useful, and valid.
"Quality in art therefore is necessarily a tally of our human consensus as to whether something is good or not. Such judgements are meaningful and useful."I would disagree with that. There are forms of art I consider low quality, even though there is concensus among many that they are tasteful. Just because the majority says its 'good', does NOT make it so. You could easily pull examples from science, religeon, politics, or anywhere else to prove this. Does the expression "W" mean anything to american voters? For an art example, there is a concensus among many that Rap music is tasteful but I would certainly call it low quality. Art (and taste) is not a democratic topic. It is an individual one.I agreed with everything Steve said except his use of the phrase "aesthetic quality". I don't think taste and quality are the same at all, nor should they be used interchangeably.My individual taste for furniture is clear finish. Saves me learning about the messy art of dyes and compound finishes. :)Andy
It's not majority or poll of people generally, it's consensus of those who are experts in what they are assessing (paintings, sculptures, furniture, wine, music, whatever) over time (not a snapshot of popular today, but a consensus as to what holds up as high quality across generations and centuries).
It is completely predictable that you might not peraonlly like everything experts/enthusiasts agree is high quiality in a field or genre - you have your personal favorites and areas of interest like everyone else. You personally do not have to recognize quality in something for that quality to nevertheless be present and evident to lovers of type of piece at issue (whether a rap song or a fine wine).
Ok. I can buy that to a certain point, if you allow that many 'experts' seem to be self-appointed. And if I can use another example... Riesling based vino is not so fine by me. :)Andy
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled