Replies

1. 
   Cincinnati | Feb 20, 2009 01:25am | #1

   There is a liming wax that a woodworker at Woodcraft recommended. He said he saw a pen turned from oak finished with this liming wax that looked great. I don't recall the brand, but you can probably look it up on woodcraft.com

   Greg

   •••••••

   Exo 35:30-35

2. 
   SteveSchoene | Feb 20, 2009 04:36am | #2

   Whether to use pore filler or not is an aesthetic decision.  Filled pores give a somewhat more formal finish.  I've seen craftsman styles done both ways, though often with partially filled pores. 

   Oil based fillers have a silica mineral (silex) that is somewhat translucent, and doesn't shrink very much, but if one coat only is used on oak (which has quite large pores relative to mahogany or walnut) you will not get a complete fill. 

   I usually dye the base wood first, then seal lightly, and then use pore filler with tint added.  On sealed wood, the coloration will be concentrated in the large pores.  You can also use pore filler over unsealed woods, in which case they take on a dual role acting as pore filler and as a pigmented stain.  If you do seal first, don't get carried away.  Too much sealing material in the pores makes them so smoothly lined that the pore filled doesn't adhere very well to the insides of the pores.  The oil based pore fillers give you plenty of working time, but also do require plenty of curing time before applying the ultimate top coats (which need to be film finishes)  I usually give a week just to be sure, though with good drying conditions--over 70° and reasonably low humidity, 2 days will suffice.  If you do rush it, you run a risk that the filler turns light grey in the pores, sometimes months later.  In general, the pore filler seals the surface well enough that you can't expect to stain or dye the surface after using the pore filler. 

   Water based/borne pore filler dries much more quickly, so quickly that you usually don't have time to get all the excess wiped off, but must resort to more extensive sanding.  Fortunately it does sand relatively well.  Waterborne shrinks quite a bit more, often requiring several coats.  Certain stains will be accepted by the waterborne pore filler, but you need lots of experimentation before hand to be sure what effect you will end up with. 

   You can buy pore fillers already tinted, but I prefer to add my own pigment.  With oil based filler, Japan colors work fine, pre-mixed stains, artists oil paints, or even dry pigment and UTC colors.  With waterborne, UTC colors or artists acyrlic paints will work. 

   Plaster of Paris can also work, and will accept dye after it dries.  I don't have experience with it personally so can't discuss the fine points. 

   In any event, no matter what way you choose you need to have experimented with the entire finishing system, on decent sized scrap of the same wood, prepared in the same way as the project to avoid surprises  

1. 
   SgianDubh | Feb 20, 2009 05:10pm | #3

   "Plaster of Paris can also work, and will accept dye after it dries.  I don't have experience with it personally so can't discuss the fine points."

   I do though Steve. Here is a link to a short discusion on doing the job for the original poster to have a look at. 

   I can't ever recall seeing any original British examples of open pored wood Arts and Crafts furniture that were grain filled, and I've examined in close detail many pieces from that period. If grain filling did occur on Arts and Craft furniture I have to surmise it most likely happened to non-British items. Slainte.Richard Jones Furniture

1. 
   SteveSchoene | Feb 20, 2009 05:40pm | #4

   I agree, most of what I have seen haven't been filled, but I think I have seen pieces in the style, though not necessarily of the period, that had the look of least substantially filled pores.  My preference would be to not fill the pores, and that would be what I would recommend if authenticity were a requirement. Otherwise, it becomes one of the divergences from the authentic that individual taste might make. 

   That's a very interesting link.  It brings to mind some of the decorative filled pores shown in  Wood Finishing with George Frank, though I'll not want to adopt his filler, plain chalk powder mixed with the needed dry color, with a carrier of gasoline and with wax, both beeswax and parafin as the binder.  The top coat with shellac--only thing that would stick to that, I would suppose.  Of course he developed this technique in the late 1920's so attitudes toward safety were somewhat different, as were alternative materials. 

2. 
   danmart | Feb 22, 2009 06:52pm | #9

   Steve

   On the subject of pore filling, I tend to stay with the oil based fillers. In the last few years I have found the Behlen stuff too thin. I spoke with Peter Gedrys and he recommends Sherman Williams filler - only available in 1 gallon units.

   Questions:

   1. Do you find the Behlen too thin?

   2. If you do, what might you do to thicken the filler?

   3. Do you add any drying accelerators to your mix?

   thanks

   dan

1. 
   SteveSchoene | Feb 22, 2009 10:05pm | #10

   The last Pore O Pac from Behlen I bought was far from too thin.  But, "thin" means a lot of things for pore filler.  I learned to use pore filler when the guidance was to thin to the consistency of heavy cream which with that batch meant lots of thinning.  I think that works fine, though if you don't get enough of the solvent evaporated before removing the excess you will have more shrinkage.  Even thinning with Naptha--which reduces the time it takes to "flash off" or haze over ready to scrape off,  but has no effect on the curing time, gave plenty of working time.   We've bought a new house within the last couple of years--I've not been able to work on formal furniture with fully filled finishes for several years. 

   I don't do production work, so allowing a week for cure before top coating generally works no hardship.  Philosophically, I'm loathe to add driers, especially, when I can't (1) know which ones are already in product already, and (2) when it is hard to know what is in products labeled "japan drier".  Once you get beyond the lowest priced products, (and that's not the segment pore fillers are made for) I pretty much assume that the Ph.D. chemists who formulate the products know what they are doing.   Low-end products might well be formulated to give priority to saving the last $0.02 per quart. 

3. 
   rdasilva | Feb 21, 2009 10:04am | #5

   Behlen Pore-O-Pac. Comes in several shades or you can buy the neutral and match your wood shade with artist oil tints. I've used it on Walnut with great success. Seal the wood first (shellac works fine). Once the sealer has dried, pour some pore-o-pac on the wood. Move it around the wood surface working it into the pores with a rag until fully covered. Let it set up just a bit (about 15 minutes) and then scrape the excess off with a hard rubber edged squeegee. I let the product set up over night before giving it a light sanding. Then just use your favorite finish.

   
   

   ---

   Edited 2/21/2009 2:06 am ET by rdasilva

4. 
   Woodman41 | Feb 21, 2009 10:20am | #6

   SteveSchoene provided a really comprehensive reply on the subject but I will take issue with the statement that oak won't fill as completely as something like mahogany. I haven't used grain filler on white oak but on red oak I have achieved consistent results that rival mahogany. Incidentally, I had to use some leftover filler for hardwood floors once and achieved really good results with that, although pore-o-pac is definitely much easier to apply.

   I also have mixed feelings on the need to tint prior to finishing if you are using a dye to color the base material. I just did a bunch of walnut pieces and filled with natural pore=o-pac, then dyed mission brown with Transtint, shellac and then used a polyurethane top coat. The final result looks fantastic, which caused me to question the merits of tinting the grain filler.

   Another effect to consider is using the grain filler to accent the wood. I built a dining room table with padauk and tinted pore-o-pac with some oil based artist colors to achieve a pinkish tone. The final table was topcoated but not dyed or stained, the result is that the grain filler created a flecking pattern that is quite obvious but not overwhelming. I get a lot of positive "how'd you do that" comments about that table.

   Grain filler is aesthetic but it can add a noticeable finishing touch to a piece that is built using an open grained wood. Well worth the extra step IMO.

1. 
   SteveSchoene | Feb 21, 2009 02:10pm | #7

   I wouldn't want to be read as saying you can't get oak to be fully filled, just that it will likely take an extra coat or two of pore filler to accomplish it.  White oak is generally easier to fully fill than red oak. 

   I also agree that there are lots of schedules that work, the key is to realize that it is important to discover whether your particular sequence works is to try it FIRST on scrap.  That way, if applied as you do it, the filler seals the surface to a greater extent than you had planned, and the dye takes unevenly or insufficiently, you can still make alterations, either dying or staining first, or adding color as a toner, mixed into a top coat, etc. 

1. 
   Woodman41 | Feb 22, 2009 06:26am | #8

   Agree completely, and over time you will build a nice library of finish samples from all those scraps. PS- I really admire your work.

   Edited 2/21/2009 10:30 pm ET by Woodman41