I’m building a nightstand for my grown daughters bedroom from black walnut. I want to finish it with a tung oil/poly mix. Will that be a suitable finish for walnut (never worked with this material before) and do I need to fill the wood grain first???
Perhaps I need to seal the walnut with an undercoat of shellac?
As you can tell, I’m a REAL beginner on finishing….
Thanks….Jeff
Replies
Jeff,
Tung oil (the real stuff -- most of what is sold as "Tung Oil finish" has little or no actual tung oil in it) will really "pop" the grain on walnut. (So will BLO, if you want to use that instead.)
Personal taste here, but I don't like poly on most furniture: gives it too much of a plastic look for my liking. You might take a look at an oil/non-poly varnish mix like Formby's, Watco, Rockhard, or P & L 38, etc. Shellac also provides a very nice film finish.
If the piece you're building is more towards the formal end of the scale, it's "traditional" to fill the grain; generally speaking, filling the grain also seems to work better for film finishes (poly, varnish, shellac). For purely oil finishes (pure Tung oil, BLO, etc), filling the grain is not necessary. If you fill the grain, a wash coat (1 or 1½ lb cut) of shellac will help seal the grain filler in the pores.
Take a look at these books for a lot more detail on finishing options and techniques:
I hope that this is of some use to you.
.
Tschüß!
James
"I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that...."
-- A.C. Clarke
Lot's of options for walnut, depending largely on personal taste. Formal furniture would generally have pore filled under a film finish. For less formal pieces walnut can look extremely nice with an in-the-wood oil/varnish mix that doesn't build a film on the surface.
If you are thinking of tung/poly then it's the latter--an oil varnish finish. No pore filler--and no shellac, since oil/varnish is meant to go only over unsealed wood. You can buy it--Watco is a popular example, or you can mix it your self. If you mix your own the typical formula is 1/3 oil (usually BLO) 1/3 varnish (even poly will work here since it doesn't get thick enough for its faults to be apparent) and 1/3 mineral spirits.
You apply the oil/varnish liberally, let it soak in for a while (perhaps 15 minutes or what they say on the can) and then wipe off all that remains on the surface. Walnut does have open pores so there is a chance (not nearly as likely as with oak) that the finish could bleed back out of the pores. You need to catch this before they set up, so don't put your first coat on just before leaving the shop. Do it early in the day, and check it frequently for several hours.
Thanks for the replies.First off, let me clarify, I have pure tung oil, I also have polymerized tung oil, and I have BLO as well. I've been cutting my oils with mineral spirits. I was not referring to the commercial blends that are sold under a large variety of names as Tung Oil (e.g. MinWax, Formbys, etc.). I guess mixing poly with tung oil was a bad idea, because I do NOT want that plastic look. I also should have been more clear about the shellac, I was asking if that would make a good final coat to seal in the oil after allowing it to air dry. Thinking that through though, I'm guessing that especially with the pure tung oil/mineral spirit blend, the oil needs to breath and air dry for quite some time, and the shellac would interfere with that.The walnut is spectacularly beautiful without a finish, I don't want to mess it up with a bad finish. I'm open to ANY suggestion.
Jeff,
IME, shellac works fine over a BLO/Tung oil finish.
One thing to note (if you don't already know this) is that pure/polymerised Tung oil and BLO take about 30 days +/- to cure (the polymerised Tung oil is generally a bit faster). If you want to put shellac over the oil as the top coat, it's not at all a bad idea to wait (at least) a couple of weeks after the last application of oil before applying the shellac top coat.
.<!----><!----><!---->
Tschüß!<!----><!---->
<!----><!---->James<!----><!---->
<!----> <!---->
"I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that...."
-- A.C. Clarke
Mixing poly with tung oil is OK, it won't get that plastic look. That only occurs when you have build a film thick enough so that the slight haze of the poly can be seen. Applied as an oil/varnish mix, you don't build a film, the pores remain distinct, but you get a low satin sheen, and bring out the coloration of the walnut. If you are looking for that kind of finish, and it sounds like you are, you don't want any of the film finishes you can apply without sophisticated spray equipment. That rules out any varnish or shellac. These could go on top of the oil/varnish, but not the other way around--the oil varnish can't go on top because it dries too soft. You would have a gummy mess with oil/varnish over a film that has already sealed the wood.
You won't see much difference whether you use pure tung oil or BLO in your mix, though the tung oil might be a slight bit lighter in color, and may not darken as much over time. But, since walnuts gets lighter as it ages that's not generally a problem.
I strongly recommend against using the Tung oil by itself. It takes a very long time to cure. You would have to wait several days, in good drying conditions, between coats. It takes a number of coats to get the sheen even. And, if you haven't held your mouth right occasionally it develops a "frosty" appearance that can only be removed by stripping it off. Mixed with varnish it doesn't have this problem.
Jeff,
I've flooded "Varathane Oil" on Walnut, let it set until it won't absorb and more, then wipe it dry. Let it completely dry for 2 to 3 days. Lightly sand with 220 and wipe clear. Then use a film finish like Deft or Varathane and follow their application directions.
The other way is to use an oil base "Fruitwood" stain over the Walnut. Wipe it dry and let it dry overnight. Then use your favorite film finish. The stain will give the wood a deeper sense of patina.
Using a straight film finish over bare Walnut will only seal the wood. The wood tends to lighten when the project is placed in sunlight and the texture or tones of the once beautiful Walnut grain will look more like a "Fake" grain of Formica or contact paper....
Good question to ask,
Bill
Jeff100,
The finest finish (and easiest in my humble opinion) is shellac. Any oil finish is extremely poor at long term protection. Fine antique furniture is usually finished in shellac.. The depth of finish and quality of finish is best with shellac.
Frenchy....I'm stunned...you LIKE shellac eh? :-)Shellac by itself?What cut? Amber or blond? How many coats?Jeff
Jeff
Shellac makes black walnut simply pop! It brings out such vivid colors and depth plus it shows interesting grain patterns in ways that other finishes simply seem to mute..
For a piece of furnature I'd put far more coats on than for flooring or trim.. As for what color shellac that's more a matter of a variety of things.. where the piece will wind up, if the wood was air dried or kiln dried, natural lighting and surrounding colors.
This is all extremely subjective and no matter what I say someone will come up and object and tell you I'm all wrong, blah, blah, blah. Honestly you know what? they could be right, for them...
Kiln dried I'd go with amber. Kiln dried wood has a certain deadness to it that the amber color seems to mask fairly efficently.. You'll never get the vivid colors out that air dried wood has but it's better than clear/blond (IMHO) if the light is going to be florecsent again I'd go with amber.. incandescent I'd go with clear. If the surrounding colors tend towards the bright or light side I'd go with amber darker colors I'd go with clear..
Do the normal three coats and then look at the wood. If the grain is well filled and the finish just seems dull you're ready to color sand.. if you can see grain pores etc.. build up more coats... Don't ever worry about applying it evenly or even smoothly. that's what color sanding takes care off. just get'er on..
I've explained color sanding before and once you've done it you'll be amazed at how easy it is and how great it works.. all you need is a piece of sand paper in every grit from 320 to 4000 (going to 15000 is simply showing off ;-)
If You'd like I'll explain the color sanding process or my painting technique or anything else you wish.
Frenchy is right, IMHO, about adding warm tones to kiln-dried Walnut or under certain lighting. Those warm tones are crucial to getting Walnut to look it's best.
Another thing that I strongly suspect would work, but have never tried, would be to use a dilute mixture of Van Dyke Brown crystals. The original stuff comes from Walnut shell husks and thus would be adding back natural Walnut coloration to the kiln-dried stuff. It'd be worth experimenting with scrap. If you do try it, go ahead and try it with amber shellac over it. My hunch is that this would probably get you as close to the gorgeous air-dried look as anything and still look totally natural.
Thanks Frenchy (and everyone else). FYI...the walnut is air dried and has been sitting around since the sixties so I"m told. The wood is roughsaw and skip planed on one side to show off the grain. Once I plane it up the color is SPECTACULAR, the most beautiful wood I've ever seen with varying chocolate and purple hues swirling together. Stunning wood to me. My guess is that the rumor that it was air dried is spot on, given the coloration and beauty.
In all fairness, and because I like Tung Oil so much, I'll do a test piece with the shellac and another one with the tung oil and compare the results just for fun. The piece I'm building is a lamp table (nightstand) and will be in a bedroom, seen with both sunlight and incandescent (sp?) light. Some time back I followed the long thread about using shellac and enjoyed it very much, got excited and went out and bought a couple pounds of flakes in a couple of colors, so let the experimentation begin....
Jeff
Jeff, I too use airdried walnut (no sapwood allowed) sanded thru 300 grit.
I use only Minwax Helmsman spar urethane - either gloss or clear satin (your choice).
First coat thinned 50 - 50 with solvent - brushed with the grain and wiped across the grain with a clean cloth.
Subsequent coats applied from the can and also wiped lightly across the grain and lightly sanded between coats.
Finish coat is lightly brushed with the grain - very light sanding is optional.
Follow this with a coat or two of paste wax and enjoy the real beauty of walnut
I echo your comments about shellac making walnut pop, with one modification. I've tried orange shellac and found it made it a bit too orangy. Blonde was too bland.Then I picked up (on sale) a bag of Liberon's "Lemon" shellac. As Goldilocks said, "this was JUST RIGHT!" It brings out the warm browns, yellow, golds, etc. of the walnut while adding about 2 foot of depth to a 3/4" board.Don't know if anyone else markets this lemon shellac, but it is worth looking into.
Frenchy, from all I have read, you seem to be the master with shellac. I've been trying to work with it to no avail. I've experimented with it on maple and now this black walnut (test pieces of course). I can't seem to build up anything that looks remotely like a finish. I've tried brushing it on. I've tried flooding it on from my squeeze bottle and just shaking off the excess onto the floor, several flood coats using your timing schedule. At the end, I just don't see anything that looks like a finish, the wood surface barely shows any evidence of anything having been applied on it. Perhaps it's soaking it up, I don't know.I've tried applying three coats as directed, then gently sanding with only a couple of passes, then more shellac. The surface 'feels' smoother, but it doesn't look any different, certainly doesn't have any sort of a sheen or gloss look to it. It's a stretch to even call it satin. Just looks like bare wood to me. I'm mixing my own using flakes, weighing the flakes on a digital scale and mixing with alcohol by volume, trying a 1 lb cut and a 2 lb cut. Maybe I should try buying some premixed shellac like Zinsser Bullseye brand and thinning it, haven't used anything but flakes so far. This is driving me nuts, because I have no doubt I'm missing out here on a very good finish....sheesh!!Jeff
Jeff100,
Please, I'm an advocate not an expert.. To get a lovely shine have you used progressively finer sand paper?
Since I'm not there to watch please don't be offended if I repeat steps you've taken. First start out with a good coat of shellac.. properly done it's probably not the smoothest finish you've ever seen. Perfect painters can put it on pretty smooth.. I'm not one of them so I use overly thinned shellac as a crutch.. use whatever technique works for you. Follow the directions on the can,, use my overly thinned technique, mop it on whatever.. remember to sand the nubs off with 220 that develop after the first coat and check on the second to make sure they are all gone.. Once you have a full covering of shellac you are now ready to block sand.
Start out with 320, sand it to a satin finish. Make sure you block sand. If you use a sheet of paper it will conform to the shape of your palm and in case you haven't noticed your palm isn't flat ;-) the result will be a poor finish.. Here's what you are going for.. Have you ever been on a lake on a clear, wind free day? Notice how much deeper you can see than when the wind is up causing the waves to be choppy? You want a smooth lake of shellac.. when you apply it it's going to mess up, be a choppy lake. Please don't worry about it, it sands flat very easy..
The way you tell if the surface is properly block sanded is it will appear to be a uniform satin finish all over.. no spots of shiney shellac, no bare wood spots..
Now grab a sheet of 400 grit paper. (use the sanding block!) what you are now going for is if you had an electron microscope and looked at the surface that has been sanded with 320 would look like the scratches are 10,000 feet high. Use the 400 grit sandpaper to sand the mountin peaks off to about 5000 feet, without going into the valley's. It will take a sharp eye to spot the differance but it's there and it's extremely important that you don't skip a step.. Here's how to do it if you are semi blind or working in a dim light and can't see. Take that block and make a couple of light passes in one area. Leave another area so you can compare the feel. Close your eyes and feel the side that has been 400 sanded and then feel the side which has been 320 sanded.. your fingers should tell you the differance..
Ok, sand the whole piece to that same 400 grit surface. you're basically taking those mountin peaks you saw under your imaginary electron microscope down from 10,000 feet to around 5000 feet. Light sanding!
when the whole piece is that same satin finish go to your next grit 600 and repeat, keep going untill you hit about 1000 grit, going to 4,000 or higher is just showing off ;-) At this point you can polish it or simply wax it.. if you want to dramatically increase your work you can do the french polish technique. I'll caution you french polishing is extremely time consuming and when you are finished with it you'll go to insane measures to ensure that you won't need to ever do that again!
Color sanding sounds difficult and time consuming.. I think I could do a typical kitchen table in about an hour maybe less.. the top wouldn't take much time but the legs and sides require a great deal of dilegence to ensure that youi don't over sand or sand the corners oof..
The concept of using shellac to fill the pores will work but never with three or four coats of highly thinned shellac. For that 2 lb. cut is better, and it will still take quite a few coats to get a smooth surface with no pores. The key is that shellac sands pretty well, so you apply, let dry and then using 320 grit sand with off the entire surface shellac, leaving the shellac in the pores. But you can't sand past the point where you just start to have the shiney islands or you risk opening up new pores. Eventually you will be able to sand so that there are no shiney spots when you sand. Once that is accomplished you can begin the rubbing out process, though I like the comfort of another coat or two so I don't cut through while doing it. If you have dyed or stained the wood, you must stop sanding before you cut through to bare wood, so you will have to build a thicker coating before leveling.
It's not absolutely necessary to run through each grit. That would be most efficient in terms of time and materials if one knew when to stop one grit exactly at the point when the coarser grit scratches have just been eliminated. But usually it results in taking off more material and increasing the risk of cutting through. I usually just start over an unsanded final coat with 600 grit. If I have applied it carefully that will be sufficient to level out any defects, if not I can quickly shift back of a coarser grit. Then I sand to about 1000 grit if I am going to a satin finish, and may go a bit finer if my end goal is gloss.
By the way, color sanding is the automotive term for rubbing out, it isn't really a term used in the woodworking community, but it's exactly the same thing, so terminology isn't all that important, though on clear wood finishes it isn't very descriptive, while rubbing out is.
While French polishing is labor intensive (and true French polishing is started with the bare wood, not over a brushed on base) but it can yield about the finest high gloss finish possible. And, with some practice and some good intruction, even it is not all that hard to do.
Steve,
We've had our differences and I think I'm beginning to understand why.. nothing with technique really, more with adjectives used.. For example you mention true french polishing isn't that hard really..
I beg to differ. Maybe because I'm not in really fit condition, maybe because of poor technique (although my instructor was pleased with my technique) maybe because I found it enormously tedious but I found french polishing extremely hard. When finished I was exhausted and the piece I did wasn't that big. Yes, it was a great finish but not particularly durable. Once coated with dust the only way I could restore that level of gloss was to re french polish it, simply dusting it reduced it's gloss to more normal shellac gloss.
Same with skipping a grit on sanding.. sure I've done it and it's extremely hard to spot the differance, but it's there.. Plus I think if one get's attuned to looking for and feeling the differances skill gets built up that allows shortcuts without a noteable deterioration of end result.. Now that's opinon and not a known fact but I've found it true in most cases where I've shown others.
As for rubbing out versis color sanding, I deliberately used the term color sanding because it's more descriptive and rubbing out implies something that we really don't do. OK I started painting with automotive paints and had a few decades in before I started doing any real woodworking finishing. But even in the automotive world they often call the sanding step rubbing out. While the final step is called buffing which we do do..
Finally, my overly thinned painting technique versis your standard technique. the final coat winds up being about a 1 1/2 pound cut compared to a 2 pound cut. Then compare my flooding to your brushing and I really wonder if any significant differance really exisits.
If we are going for a sanded high gloss finish we both know what to look for, I'm looking for a easy to understand term that conveys the exact amount of shellac required. I've tried terms like filling the pores and covering the grain and so far haven't found a universally understood phrase that works well. Most frequently I see way too much build up when I use those terms. but simply leaving it at a fixed number of coats doesn't work since darn few people are chemistry majors and willing or even wanting to exactly measure out amounts of shellac and DNA.
Lately I've been playing with a final color sanding using BLO and 4000 grit paper prior to polishing, Since I've been so badly burned using BLO in the past I'm extremely reluctant to even mention it. However in the automotive field they wet sand everything and dry sanding doesn't quite leave the same finish no matter how fine a grit is used. Granted we're speaking about differant paints/shellac, but still I've noted a finish more approaching that of french polishing. It's too early to be definative about it,, frankly it's only happened over the past six months or so and as the BLO evaporates maybe the results will deteriorate.
I have never let French polishing become exhausting. It doesn't all have to be done in one session. In fact, multiple sessions are desirable. I can't imagine how the tradional "spiriting off" can be done at the end of a one day session. And, when you get into the rhythm it can be very therapeutic.
If you have have thoroughly sanded with one grit, it makes no difference whether the preceding grit was coarse or fine. The scratch pattern will be the same. If you don't thoroughly sand with a particular grit, of course you can see the coarser scratches coming through. The problem of going through each grit is that the tendancy is to over sand with each, increasing the risk of cutting through on the final grits. This is a serious problem with varnish, where you have only one coat to work with for the final rub out.
Frankly, I don't understand how "color sanding" is in any sense descriptive when we are working with clear finishes. How is wet sanding, followed by polishing, whether with rubbing compound or with traditional rottenstone or pumice. not "rubbing out." I know this is just a terminology distinction, but for people without automotive finishing experience (which is the vast majority of us) I still don't see how it aids understanding of the process.
I do find it interesting that "overly thinned" has moved up to 1 1/2 lb. cut (which I would find ideal for padded on shellac) from what appeared to be 3/4 lb. cut or less.
It is hard to say "how many coats" since shellac all fuses together. You have described how to tell quite well--when you don't have the little shiny spots. Personally, if there is any dye or staining needed, pore filler is a lot easier, although slower, than filling pores with shellac.
As a drying oil, using BLO as the lubricant for sanding doesn't make sense. You don't want any of it left on a fully sealed surface, it will just be soft and gummy. It only works well when it all soaks in, leaving none on the surface. Light mineral oil (paraffin oil) works well but has to be removed with naphtha or mineral spirits Mineral spirits will work fine, and even water with a drop of hand dishwashing soap to break the surface tension. BLO is 100% solids so its "evaporation" is quite a bit different that varnish or shellac.
I too prefer wet sanding, but it is riskier for the novice since it is more difficult to see when you start to cut through.
Steve,
See we simply have differant values, yours aren't wrong (unless you say mine are ;-) but your's are valid for you. I've never found any theraputic benefit to French polishing, nor can I stand to let something partially finished go untill I get back to it.. I suppose I'm compulsive that way. I know a lot of wood workers who do it as you do.. Me, I have to finish the goal I establish for myself or it will literally keep me awake at night..
Do you remember my little 10,000 foot mountain peak anology? I carefully explain the process of sanding off the mountin peaks to 5000 feet with the second grit and then go down to the next level with the next grit etc..
The idea is to create a mental image of what's entailed in order to prevent over sanding..
My over thinned technique has not changed one bit.. Go back and read my first description completely. As I mentioned unused shellac is added as the same as it was DNA, each time the cut slightly increases. Take my process to an extreme, the absolute worst that would happen is a bunch of DNA would be wasted.. Nothing would be ruined. Go the other way,, use a too thick cut of shellac to DNA and there will be issues.
Shellac isn't a chemistry experiament that must be carefully measured out for fear of failure.. Close is good enough!. Shellac is extremely tolerant compared to other finishes.. That's what I feel is extremely important to convey.. just how simple and easy shellac is.
Wipe on some oils and watch as that takes forever to dry properly and then a few years later it's as bare as if it'd never been done. (OK, few is relative rather than actual) Shellac can be applied so much faster and is so much more durable. But wipe on wins hands down with many woodworkers because of fear of painting..
Take that fear away.. let them finish a few pieces with a less than perfect technique. At least the wood will be protected. Then as their confidense increases thet'll want to learn about sanding, and mixing flakes, and french polishing etc..
Leave them hanging onto that rag soaked with a wipe on oil because shellac seems too complex and have you done them any favor?
I would appreciate knowing about your color sanding method.
Not really true in my opinion frenchy. Most fine antique furniture was finished with oils and waxes of various sorts, with a bit of spirit varnish used here and there-- shellac based usually.
Shellac, along with the french polishing technique that popularised it, didn't really come into common usage in the west until the early 1800's, and antique ends in1835. Victorian follows this date, then more recent stuff is merely old.
This therefore suggests that much antique furniture from the early 1800's and back into previous centuries wasn't finished with shellac.
I suppose there is some debate concerning the term antique, but one common date used as the border is the accession of Victoria the British throne. Others say it's anything over 100 years old. But 100 years ago they were knocking out Arts and Crafts and Art Nouveau and just getting into the Edwardian era which, to me, are their own distinctive categories. Slainte.Richard Jones Furniture
Hello Richard,
But that old oil/ wax finished furniture was still around in the 1800's, waiting for the frugal housewife to "freshen up" with a coat (or six) of the new improved "Vernis Martin" (shellac, copal, benzoin, et al) to make it nice and shiny, no?
Have you seen the little book reprinted by Dover, of the 1820's finishing guide (itself a reprint of earlier works), edited by Rob't Mussey? Fascinating read, esp since Mussey kindly did the legwork of deciphering the arcane ingredients; spirits of wine, oil of vitriol,litharge, French berries, etc.
Mmmm, spirits of wine (sounds of lip smacking),
Ray
You know, it is both remarkable and unknowable what may have been spread over the surface of an old piece of furniture at some point. However the really remarkable part is that any old furniture looks even half decent given all these treatments.
Joe
I haven't seen that wee book Ray. It sounds like it may be an interesting read. I'll have to check it out.
On the other matter there may well be some truth in what you say where a conscientious servant/householder/wife, or a keen furniture maintenance man/cabinetmaker might tart up a bit of tatty looking 18th., century Chippendale with a few coats of the new wonder polish, ha, ha. Slainte. Richard Jones Furniture
Richard,
The book is:
The First American Furniture Finisher's Manual, a Reprint of "The Cabinet-Makers Guide" of 1827, Robert D. Mussey, Jr, ed.
Dover publications ISBN # 0-486-25530-1
As far as tarting up an old crusty antique to make it look better, I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't still happen today, from time to time. And even in reverse, to make a tarty new piece look like a crusty old antique...I've heard it said, that if a tenth of the antique English furniture imported into the US were real, those old manors and castles would've been stuffed to the rafters with tallboys bureaus and chairs. ;-))
Ray
Ray, thanks for the lead. I've ordered it. Slainte.Richard Jones Furniture
You're welcome Richard. Hope you enjoy reading it.
Ray
Thanks for posting the title to that book, Ray.One more to pick up when the dibs get back into tune.Leon
SgianDubh
I stand semi corrected..
I say semi because most furniture restorers that I know use shellac, no matter what the period..
Evan in early American periods there are examples of shellac flakes arriving through customs and being recorded.. Evan before the little unpleasantness we had with England around 1776 ;-) shellac has been used for well over 4000 years.
Now I do stand corrected in that not all finishes were originally shellac
Hmmm. 4000 years ago eh? Lets go back say 500 years ago, what did they use for denatured alcohol? How long has alcohol been distilled as an industrial solvent? What did they use before alcohol was available?
Inquiring minds want to know....;-)
Jeff:
4000 years is a doggone long stretch, and I for one, have no idea what they were using to finish stuff back then, but I do know for certain that the Egyptians of the time had a very sophisticated command of finishes, as did some other peoples. Remember, 4000 years ago, the great pyramids were already ancient, as were many of the wonderful mummy cases and other painted work of the Old Kingdom and the early successor dynasties. There were well developed cultures in the east as well. They all knew how to make alcohol.
Did they know and use shellac? Beats me. But we certainly can't rule it out.
Joe
Dissolving it in alcohol isn't the only way to apply shellac. Heat works quite well too. My understanding, limited though it admittedly is, is that pre-industrial age use in India was via friction (heat).
Shellac is the base content in furniture repair "burn-in" sticks, such as the most infamous ones that Mohawk has been selling for decades, which are applied with a hot knife of one sort or another.
jeff100,
Sorry I don't know the details,, heck I was just a little kid back then ;-) Just one of those little tid bits I put in that storage cabinet called my brain.I'm sure if you do some research you'll find the answer
Actually, I did, you're right. Here's what I learnt.The art of distillation and alcohol itself, was introduced around the 12th century by various European authors who translated and popularized the discoveries of Islamic and Persian alchemists.Jeff
Jeff,
In the eighteenth century in this country (and probably others) alcohol, as a solvent, was called "spirits of wine"
The distillation process was not that sophisticated and the alcohol often had to be distilled a number of times to increase the proof.
They used a simple test to check it. A small amount of gunpowder was wet with the alcohol and then lit. If it burned, the alcohol proof was sufficient. If not, it still contained too much water and needed further distillation.
Peter
I am starting to figure out a finish for a spalted maple/walnut table and running test pieces
I have been using oil under shellac to accentuate grain on highly figured wood (see my curly maple dresser from last week).
I like the richness and the color that the oil gave the walnut but I also wanted the shellac to enrich the color even more (the top is being done in blonde shellac to preserve the maple color). Any thoughts on oil under shellac for walnut to help bring out the color.
Comments on thsi finish are very welcome:
1) oil coat (either tung or BLO)
2) shellac sanding coat
3) oil-based grain filler
4) shellac
5) possibly a glaze to even out any colors (I don't have any sapwood in the piece).
Anna
Lets go back say 500 years ago, what did they use for denatured alcohol?
_______________________IIRC, printers use alcohol-soluble inks. They probably used an alcohol that was triple-distilled, pretty much like Everclear is.I do recall reading that fires were an expected/unwelcome hazard in print shops due to this, there was at least one major fire started in a print shop in either Edinburgh or Glasgow in the 1700s. (Memory begins to fail here.)Shellac was being imported from India/SE Asia in the early 1600s at least, if not before, so one presumes there was alcohol of some sort available for a solvent.
Leon
lwj2,
500 years ago? heck 4000 years ago they were making alcohol. Distilation of alcohol has been around for an extremely long period of time. Wine making and beer making has been around for an extremely long time prior to that. I think it was national geographic that did a bit on the early days of it.
I'm far from an expert on the subject but the information is available if you are really interested..
I didn't know how long distillation had been around.I do remember NPR doing a story on beer found in an Egyptian tomb, the yeast was still viable and the archeologists turned it over to a Brit brewing firm (can't recall which one) who used it to produce a wheat beer, which was, apparently, the most common beer in Egypt at the time the yeast was used.
Leon
lwj2
I remember the show,and the story you mentioned. This is pure speculation but do you suppose the Egyptian priests and such had access to higher forms of distillation? beer seems so middle class, not really suitable for a "God" like the pharaoh. ;-)
Frenchy -- I'm no Egyptologist, but I suspect they didn't.The "spirits of wine" came from the northern areas, IIRC, and I suspect they set it out to freeze and poured off what didn't, just as applejack was made.Leon
lwj2
There are supposedly examples of 4000 year old shellaced pieces on display in China..
Since I haven't seen them it's purely rumor.
My understanding is that ancient Egypt didn't know how to distill spirits. Their version of beer was consumed by all social levels and had a relatively low alcohol content compared to what we today know as beer.
What the wealthy elite in the days of the Pharohs had access to, and which the lower classes couldn't afford. was grape wine. The middle class had access to pseudo wines made from Pomegranite and the lowest classes only had access to beer, and much of that was was provided by social elites at religious holiday feasts. But it was an integral part of their diet rather than a mere refreshment as we use it today. A significant portion of the average ancient Egyptian grunt's monthly caloric consumption came from drinking beer. But of course they worked far too hard to ever develop a beer belly. In fact, the way that ancient Egyptian artists indicated that the subject they drew or painted was wealthy was to draw in rolls of fat on the belly because everyone knew that only the wealthy had the luxery of consuming more calories than they burned.
Kevin,
Interesting comment about fat and the rich..(of ancient Eygypt) That has occured several times in history, most recently in the late 1800's when Ruebens was painting his nudes.
This really has nothing to do with the original thread but all the history of alcohol has been interesting. I do think when you talk history here that "distilling" and "brewing/fermenting" are two different things. Brewing beer and making wine has been around a LONG time as some of you have mentioned, and can be done fairly low-tech. Distilling spirits (alcohol) requires a different process with heat, condensers, etc. and is a fairly high-tech. Even moonshiners require a large amount of equipment compared to brewing beer. The major difference is the maximum percentage, or proof, of the final product. The process starts the same through fermentation to produce the alcohol, but without distillation the concentration required for use just won't ever get there. Beer and wine like have been discussed in here are mostly water and very little alcohol, distilled "hard" liquor and usable alcohol for woodworking has a much higher percentage of alcohol instead of mostly water. I have no idea when distillation was first developed but it was a long time after folks were swilling beer and chugging wine I would think.
Now this has thread has worked up a thirst, must be 5:00 somewhere!
I think the first thing you should do is find out if the walnut you are using has been steamed. Most of the walnut I am able to buy is steamed, and it has, as a result a bit of a gray cast to it and appears dull even after finishing, compared to wood that wasn't steamed.
I discovered this the hard way when I finished a project with my usual finish, BLO followed by a Tung Oil/ Varnish/ Turpentine wipe on mix. The project was a large high boy for a client who I hadn't done work for before. He was pleased with it and didn't ask that I change it. I was, however, disappointed by the colcor and grain "pop." I talked to my wood supplier and he explained that most of the walnut I was getting would be steamed in order to blend the sap wood streaks.
I asked questions on this site and experimented with various techniques. Garnet shellac, one pount cut, followed by sanding and then my wipe on mixture. Oil soluable dye in BLO followed by my mix was another, and the one I most often use. Cherry stained WATCO followed by medium walnut WATCO was another suggestion I tried and that got the gray out as well. I'm sure there are other techniques, maybe even better ones.
I built a neat bookcase for my daughter from black walnut. After testing a bunch with scrap, I finally settled on 5 coats of Watkins dark walnut danish oil, and after 8 days curing a buffed coat of Johnsons paste wax. It turned out beautiful. The watkins oil was wipe on-wipe off, so the process was easy. I used 0000 steel wool lightly between coats. Good luck.
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled