How to make wood pop / Accentuate grain and Chatoyance with Water-Borne Finish

[Alan Lightstone]

OK. While my Waterlox is curing on my present project, I've set up my spraying booth and am attempting to duplicate the color and chatoyance that Waterlox adds to Sapele, but doing it with a water-borne finish, or with a water-borne topcoat.

My first choice for water-borne (since I have some on hand, and because I think I'll need a finish that burns in) is Target Coatings EM6000. Outside of some small pinhole bubbles (which others describe also with this), it seems very easy to spray. I haven't tried to rub out any of it. That will come after >100hr cure (per their fact sheet).

By itself, even with Amber TransTint added to it to aid in the color matching, the resulting finish is very lifeless. I think I could probably approximate the color, but the depth, grain structure, and chatoyance are absent.

My next approach will be to wipe on 2 coats of Waterlox S/F, then spray on a barrier coat of dewaxed shellac (I'll experiment with Super Blonde, Amber, and Garnet Shellacs), then top coat with the EM6000 to enable easy rubbing out.

OK guys. Please chime in. What other approaches can I use to get the look I am looking for? Boiled Linseed Oil first, Tung Oil first, shellac first, different top coats, etc.

I'll start posting some pictures later of the different samples. Hopefully this will prove to be instructive to all. I'm sure it will be to me.

[Prashun Patel]

I would first try an amber shellac as a base coat, followed by the Target (assuming compatibility). I've found shellac to give good depth and pop.

[Scott Holmes]

Amber shellac THAT HAS BEEN DEWAXED. Zinsser Amber HAS WAX!

I would use dewaxed garnet shellac. I would NOT add color to the EM6000; any heavier application areas, runs, drips etc. will show up in spades.

[Alan Lightstone]

How about heavier tint added to one or two coats of EM6000, then clear coats over that. Would that solve the non-homogeniety problem, or make it worse?

If not, how to get the wood the correct color?

I always use dewaxed flakes and mix my own shellac.

[John Coloccia]

I would recommend spraying 2 or 3 coats of 1# cut shellac, and then finish over that. You can add a touch of amber transtint to the shellac if you like. You can add it to the EM6000 too but you will find it's difficult to get the proper color because the 6000 is milky before it dries. I do all my coloring with shellac, actually. It takes transtint beautifully and sprays beautifully.

You shouldn't get any pinhole bubbles with the 6000. I never do, and I don't consider myself to be any great sprayer. Maybe you're putting it on too heavy or recoating too quickly? Possibly it's too warm/dry and you need some retarder.

Let the 6000 cure a bit more than 100 hours. 100 hours works, and I've leveled/buffed in that time period, but it still felt a little soft and I think the finish would be better if I let it go a couple more days. I would let it go a solid week.

The trick to even coloring is the lay the color down evenly...LOL. There's really no trick to it at all. Just a little practice. One thing, and maybe this is a trick, is to lay down a weaker color multiple times instead of a strong color once. Any little bobbles in your technique will tend to blend in much better. I do it all the time, though, and it's not hard to get an even coloration with a bit of practice on scrap.

edit: oh, the other trick, and this really is a trick, is to spray color WITH the grain, not across. Any minor variation, especially where passes overlap, will tend to blend in with the grain as opposed to stripes across the grain.

[sheldon pettit]

Nitrocellulose lacquers are perfect solutions, which means the coating is completely
soluble in the vehicle (or the solvents). Water-based wood finishes are mostly emulsions.
Though there are or were some water-based finishes
supplied in a solution form (totally clear in wet state, as opposed to milky in color), they
have/had abysmal water resistance; they are/were water soluble even after they cured.

In a dried nitrocellulose finish, the light passes through the finish - all the way to the
wood grain or stain at 90-degree angle, or straight down. With a water-based finish, the
light reflects at a 60-degree angle and doesn’t reach the wood grain or stain. Fixing this
difference is possible, and is being worked on year by year as to improvements.

So what does this mean at present? Any aqueous emulsion coating you buy or use
that is milky in appearence will never give you the features found in a perfect resin solvent solution
such as lacquer/shellac/solvent acrylic/polyurethane/varnish/or other non aqueous/emulsion coatings.

[Alan Lightstone]

True, and even though I have an explosion-proof fan on order (mostly to improve air flow through my spraying booth, but also for safety), I'm not sure I'll be able to safely spray NC lacquer in my garage workshop.

[Alan Lightstone]

You shouldn't get any pinhole bubbles with the 6000. I never do, and I don't consider myself to be any great sprayer. Maybe you're putting it on too heavy or recoating too quickly? Possibly it's too warm/dry and you need some retarder.

Let the 6000 cure a bit more than 100 hours. 100 hours works, and I've leveled/buffed in that time period, but it still felt a little soft and I think the finish would be better if I let it go a couple more days. I would let it go a solid week.



On most coats I don't get the tiny bubbles. When you go to Target Coatings website and visit their Finishing Forum, I'm not the only one with this issue. Interestingly, when I spray and obtain a 1 mil wet coat, I never get bubbles. When I go to a 3 mil wet coat, they start to appear.

It is very humid and pretty hot down here now. I haven't tried adding the retarder yet.

Thanks for the hint on waiting a week, instead of 100 hours. Still better than the full month with Waterlox.

I'm still a total newbie with spray finishing also.

[John Coloccia]

I think you're seeing "solvent pop". The water (or whatever solvent/carrier) gets trapped underneath a skin of finish....or you recoat too quickly and essentially do the same thing by trapping finish. Eventually, the little bubble you made pops and it looks like little bubbles or craters. I think this is what you're seeing.

3 mils isn't too heavy but maybe for your conditions it is. Either add some retarder, or spray lighter coats. Part of the beauty of this particular finish is that you can recoat in as little as 20 minutes. It also flows out beautifully, though the first 5 minutes looks like an orange peel mess!

edit: you know, that Fuji is pumping out relatively warm air. That will contribute too. Anything that makes the finish want to evaporate quickly and skin over (essentially) contributes.

[sheldon pettit]

True, and even though I have an explosion-proof fan on order (mostly to improve air flow through my spraying booth, but also for safety), I'm not sure I'll be able to safely spray NC lacquer in my garage workshop.

LOL, i didn't mean for you to use lacquer Alan, i was only using lacquer as an example. Any totally clear finish be it nitro/urethane/shellac/etc. can get you where you'd like to go better than any emulsion finish will.

[John Coloccia]

That's actually why I'm switching back to solvent based, Sheldon. Shellac underneath helps wake up the wood a great deal, but I still feel like it's missing something and it's bothering me that I can't achieve it.

[sheldon pettit]

That's actually why I'm switching back to solvent based, Sheldon. Shellac underneath helps wake up the wood a great deal, but I still feel like it's missing something and it's bothering me that I can't achieve it.

A good coat of tung oil will help with that John, The refractive index of tung is higher than BLO, and shellac also. thus giving you mre depth perception than shellac alone.

[Alan Lightstone]

A good coat of tung oil will help with that John, The refractive index of tung is higher than BLO, and shellac also. thus giving you mre depth perception than shellac alone.

I was planning on trying a coating of Tung Oil, sealed with shellac, then EM6000 as one of my experiments. How long to I have to wait for the Tung Oil to dry before spraying on shellac?

[sheldon pettit]

I was planning on trying a coating of Tung Oil, sealed with shellac, then EM6000 as one of my experiments. How long to I have to wait for the Tung Oil to dry before spraying on shellac?

Alan it is best if you wait several days or more before further coating ok, when it feels dry to the touch when rubbing , [non-oily], then it is safe to spray without repercussions. Since your only running test at this point, then yes, for sure run one sample with shellac and tung and the other with the 6000 over it - i think you will readily see that the shellac and oil give a better visual look than the one with the 6000 top coat.

[Jim Becker]

I personally use BLO followed by de-waxed shellac for figure accentuation. That's all followed by several coats of EM6000. For certain woods, such as tiger maple, I'll use dye first to darken the more porous wood, sand it back to further accentuate (repeating if necessary) and then do the oil, shellac and top coat to finish it off, as it were.

[Alan Lightstone]

I personally use BLO followed by de-waxed shellac for figure accentuation. That's all followed by several coats of EM6000. For certain woods, such as tiger maple, I'll use dye first to darken the more porous wood, sand it back to further accentuate (repeating if necessary) and then do the oil, shellac and top coat to finish it off, as it were.

I've thought of trying BLO, but do worry about the spontaneous combustion. I know all the precautions necessary, etc..., Jim, but it still gets my attention enough that I haven't tried it.

That regimen you use (with either Tung Oil or Waterlox substituted for the BLO) is what I seem to be gravitating towards. Do you have any issues with it? Shortcomings, etc.

[Prashun Patel]

The spontaneous combustion concerns are IMHO easy to alleviate: 1) Don't flood the oil on; Pour a dab onto a shop towel, and rub it in. Repeat until the whole piece has been wiped down. 2) spread your towel out to dry.

You only need a little bit of oil to achieve the color and accentuation. If you flood it on, you're just increasing your drying time, wasting product, and giving yrself wetter rags that take longer to dry.

[Sam Murdoch]

To add to the discussion I offer this WoodWeb link on the subject http://www.woodweb.com/knowledge_base/Options_for_Finishing_Cherry.html

The Paul Snyder comment is pertinent.

[sheldon pettit]

Though the ester gum in waterlox does have a good refractive index, [1.4670-1.4710] it still is not as good as that of tung oil [1.49-1.52] but not only is a good refractive index necessary, but a good understanding of why figured woods respond to the refractions. That is to lengthy to discuss here on a forum, but well worth investigating and knowing when your trying to obtain the best results. For the casual observer, any coating that can produce a good match in R/Index's, will give the desired results wanted. For this i still recommend tung over waterlox or any other, better to use an oil by itself then overcoat with something that will give proper depth and clarity, this really rules out any water emulsions such as 6000. It has to be something with pure clarity that doesn't redirect the angle of viewing, in other-words a solvent based material.

[Jeff Hamilton Jr.]

Sheldon, you seem extremely knowledgeable and I (and no doubt others) truly appreciate your thoughts.

I've got some dewaxed shellac flakes dying to be used and wondering where a good source of tung oil can be found. This site: http://www.realmilkpaint.com/oil.html says there's is the best ;) ...

Any suggestions?

How many coats of Tung are necessary? 1, 2, more?

Fun topic. Thanks for the opportunity to learn!

[Scott Holmes]

So they are saying that their 100% pure tung oil is better than someone else's 100% pure tung oil...
Makes me think... "Hmmmm" ....marketing hype.

As for it providing (as they say on their site)

"...but will penetrate deeply into the wood to enhance character and water resistance while creating a great wood finish."

Yes, it will penetrate deeply into the wood to enhance character, (this is pretty much all it will actually do) it will only very very slightly improve water resistance and it is NOT a good finish by itself.

I know Sheldon says it's better for popping the grain than boiled linseed oil (better refractive number) but in side by side tests I see very little difference. Tung oil doesn't darken as much over time as BLO; so, that may be a plus, may be a minus, depending on what you want to achieve.

[sheldon pettit]

Sheldon, you seem extremely knowledgeable and I (and no doubt others) truly appreciate your thoughts.

I've got some dewaxed shellac flakes dying to be used and wondering where a good source of tung oil can be found. This site: http://www.realmilkpaint.com/oil.html says there's is the best ;) ...

Any suggestions?

How many coats of Tung are necessary? 1, 2, more?

Fun topic. Thanks for the opportunity to learn!

Jeff i'm sure most of the "pure" tung oils out there are sufficient for finishing purposes, i hate to degrade any ones offered unless i was to use them myself and test. The best i have used are from "Alnor" the leading manufacturer or distributor of all industrial oils. But unfortunately they do not sell to the public at large, though you may contact them and see for certain ok? If so, purchase the most highly refined one they have, something with the highest iodine number and unsaturation ok? if they do sell to the public, get back with that so others will know also ok? Also no matter what, keep in mind that as a first coat application you only need 1 coat, not multiples ok, let it do it's thing and then over coat with varnish/waterlox/ or whatever else but water dispersed top coats. Oh, as reguards to Alnor, be prepared to buy more than just a pint or quart, they do not sell in small quantities last i know of ok? Thing is i have not purchased from them for some time now so i don't really know where thier at on these things, good luck.

[sheldon pettit]

So they are saying that their 100% pure tung oil is better than someone else's 100% pure tung oil...
Makes me think... "Hmmmm" ....marketing hype.

As for it providing (as they say on their site)

"...but will penetrate deeply into the wood to enhance character and water resistance while creating a great wood finish."

Yes, it will penetrate deeply into the wood to enhance character, (this is pretty much all it will actually do) it will only very very slightly improve water resistance and it is NOT a good finish by itself.

I know Sheldon says it's better for popping the grain than boiled linseed oil (better refractive number) but in side by side tests I see very little difference. Tung oil doesn't darken as much over time as BLO; so, that may be a plus, may be a minus, depending on what you want to achieve.

"hype", lol, yes and that's why i don't pick or choose unless i'm needing certain other qualities such as higher/lower hydro peroxide content or unsaturation for increased hydroxyls for combining with other resins or chemicals.

As to visual response to refraction indexes, when their as close as say BLO and pure tung, you correct, that is normally measured with a refractometer, just like color is judged with a color spectrophotometer because we can't see many colors when they vary minutely, take for example a very light tinted latex paint - how many can look at it and say when the colors vary in appearance by as little as 1/128 of an ounce or less how close two close colors are? that's why i had problems trying to convince anyone of the differences in optical appearances with oils, lol. It can be seen but in your case and others here it does appear to be little difference, but again as you say - tung also does not continue to darken as Lo does. To me that's a good point, lol.

Lastly, tung is not used as it once was long ago, there was none of this let penetrate for awhile and then remove all the excess, this is also true of linseed oil to a same extent also. cold pressed oil's were used, there was no heating to thermal temps. and removal of mucilage [break] or any fats etc. It was applied as pressed and basic filtering was done and only lower heat levels if any. A thin coat was left on to build the finish and with using that type of oil could give incredible protection such as on ship hulls with the ancient Chinese. a sample of such use follows:


Oil Polish.—One quart of cold-drawn linseed-oil to be simmered (not boiled) for ten minutes, and strained through flannel; then add one-eighth part of spirits of turpentine: to be applied daily with soft linen rags, and rubbed off lightly; each time the oil is applied the surface should be previously washed with cold water, so as to remove any dirt or dust. This method of polishing is particularly useful for dining-table tops; it will in about six weeks produce a polish so durable as to resist boiling water or hot dishes, and be like a mirror for brilliancy.
Richard Bitmead, 1910

Six weeks - 42 coats, quite a build huh? who'd a thunk? lol.



With this it is shown that such can be and was accomplished, the need is to not use processed oils, just as it holds true not to use processed shellac for best results.

Ok, that's my 1 Penny's worth, I'll save the other for later, lol.

[Sam Murdoch]

Ay yi yi you guys :rolleyes: Refractive index indeed... Interesting reading but you are leaving me in the dust - my problem not yours. I'd be proud to develop such a mirrored finish but alas none of my clients would be willing to pay for it and if I produced a finish like that for my house it would clash with the 80s decor :D.
Oh well...

[Alan Lightstone]

Though the ester gum in waterlox does have a good refractive index, [1.4670-1.4710] it still is not as good as that of tung oil [1.49-1.52] but not only is a good refractive index necessary, but a good understanding of why figured woods respond to the refractions. That is to lengthy to discuss here on a forum, but well worth investigating and knowing when your trying to obtain the best results. For the casual observer, any coating that can produce a good match in R/Index's, will give the desired results wanted. For this i still recommend tung over waterlox or any other, better to use an oil by itself then overcoat with something that will give proper depth and clarity, this really rules out any water emulsions such as 6000. It has to be something with pure clarity that doesn't redirect the angle of viewing, in other-words a solvent based material.
OK. Sheldon. I'll bite. You're testing my MIT and Harvard education, but what the heck, that's what it's for. Still hurting my brain.

What is the issue with refractive index in regards to water emulsions such as EM6000 that rules them out in your opinion?

[Alan Lightstone]

To add to the discussion I offer this WoodWeb link on the subject http://www.woodweb.com/knowledge_base/Options_for_Finishing_Cherry.html

The Paul Snyder comment is pertinent.

I agree, and I'm heading in that direction. My test samples seem to need 2 coats of Waterlox, though. The tung oil sample is looking good too.

I'm spraying shellac in between the Waterlox or Tung oil and EM 6000 for compatibility, though. Not 100% sure it's necessary (probably isn't if allowed to perfectly cure), but it sure makes the process quicker.

I'll post some pictures later in the week.

[sheldon pettit]

OK. Sheldon. I'll bite. You're testing my MIT and Harvard education, but what the heck, that's what it's for. Still hurting my brain.

What is the issue with refractive index in regards to water emulsions such as EM6000 that rules them out in your opinion?

Sorry Alan, just saw this post now.

Nitrocellulose lacquers are perfect solutions, which means the coating is completely
soluble in the vehicle (or the solvents). Water-based wood finishes are at best
dispersions, but mostly emulsions.

In a dried nitrocellulose finish for example, the light passes through the finish - all the way to the
wood grain or stained surface's at 90-degree angle, or straight down. With a water-based [emulsion] finish, the
light reflects at a 60-degree angle and doesn't reach the wood grain or stain. Fixing this
difference is possible, but no formulator wants to make that investment while
nitrocellulose lacquers or other solvent based finishes are still in existence.
Or at least that was the case when i was still active. since i have been out of it for awhile i will concede
to anyone who has updated knowledge on the subject.


From what I've read of the crytalac's line of coatings, they appear to be as the name implies "crystal clear"
but being crystal clear does not make them any less of an emulsion coating,
though if the latest most advanced resins over the last several months are being used,
it may have significantly reduced what I'm talking of, this i don't know do you?

Anyway, to test what I'm talking of you can easily buy a pane of window glass and coat part of it with the
6000, let dry good and then place it on a wood surface and view the difference between the 6000 and the crystal clear glass
as to appearances overall. If there are no differences such as equal or better clarity/depth/figure enhancement/shimmer/ etc., that would prove me wrong.
For proper evaluation as i spoke of before it would also help to apply a coat of some type of oil,
so that you do-not have the air to glass to air interface to deal with but one that is surface to surface ok?

Another thing that should be seen is when viewing items through the coated glass vs. just the glass, such a looking at a tree or car etc., is that if what I'm saying is true, then the appearances should also differ, the glass giving more distinct visual affect than the coated side. With these suggestions you should be better able to understand why it's better to for go the emulsions until such time as the problems they have are taken care of ok?

Get back with your results!!

[Alan Lightstone]

Interesting, Sheldon. Thanks.

Now if I could just find a piece of glass to do another experiment. Of course, adding the oil coat it would have to be thick enough so that it fully coats the underside of the glass and the surface of the wood, which would increase its depth dramatically compared to the depth of a true oil coating. Would that distort the results dramatically?

One thing I don't understand about your above explanation. NC lacquer is a perfect solution as you say. But how does its properties change when the solvent evaporates? In the same vein, water-borne finishes are emulsions, but after the water evaporates how do the properties change (certainly they appear to get more clear) as they are also no longer emulsions but are a hardened finish.

I guess to distill my question - How are the properties of the finishes in their liquid state relevant to the properties of the finish once it solidifies? Enquiring minds want to know...

[Alan Lightstone]

Also, the Tung Oil I used was from a bottle of Woodcraft Tung Oil I purchased a few months ago when they were having a clearance. Any comments as to the quality of their Tung Oil? Is it polymerized?

[sheldon pettit]

Interesting, Sheldon. Thanks.

Now if I could just find a piece of glass to do another experiment. Of course, adding the oil coat it would have to be thick enough so that it fully coats the underside of the glass and the surface of the wood, which would increase its depth dramatically compared to the depth of a true oil coating. Would that distort the results dramatically?

One thing I don't understand about your above explanation. NC lacquer is a perfect solution as you say. But how does its properties change when the solvent evaporates? In the same vein, water-borne finishes are emulsions, but after the water evaporates how do the properties change (certainly they appear to get more clear) as they are also no longer emulsions but are a hardened finish.

I guess to distill my question - How are the properties of the finishes in their liquid state relevant to the properties of the finish once it solidifies? Enquiring minds want to know...

As to your first question, the oil will neither add or take away in the sense that both sides of the glass will be under the same influences, the only difference will be in the properties of the coated side and whatever visual phenomena it may have to the glass side in comparison. what were trying to determine is how much affect the coated side has on distinction of image, depth, clarity, figure enhancement or lack thereof, etc.. Those are all things which give viable evidence to the differences of the emulsion applied film as to one that is acting as a nitro or other film would. If your still concerned you can always spray the other half of the glass with a pure solution of nitro or acrylic, etc.. Just make sure the coatings are all gloss to be fair ok? Specular gloss [flatting agents] definitely kill the appearance characteristics, more surface refraction = lighter looking color / less depth,less saturation of color, etc.

Your second question, The solvent /diluents, do not figure into it at all, they are merely carriers [vehicles] that allow viscosity adjustments or solutions of the resins etc. Any testing of any types of films are done when in the final state they are intended for by or in use. it is only the dried film we are concerned with at the moment ok? how could we possibly compare a milky wet solution with one that is water or crystal clear? Hm.... unless the case were such that the end use was to be that of a resin solution being kept intact permanently or long term.

[sheldon pettit]

Also, the Tung Oil I used was from a bottle of Woodcraft Tung Oil I purchased a few months ago when they were having a clearance. Any comments as to the quality of their Tung Oil? Is it polymerized?

LOL, i don't know Alan, i never used it nor most others, I'm personally familiar with Sutherland wells, some from Alnor, and a few polymerized types from Degan oil. I can tell you a good polymerized oil should be as thick as molasses or more. and no other things should be listed on the MSDS as to diluents for either type. that would be your best bet and just query WC tung oil msds ok?

[Chris Hedges]

[QUOTE=sheldon pettit;1928056]i'm needing certain other qualities such as higher/lower hydro peroxide content or unsaturation for increased hydroxyls for combining with other resins or chemicals.
[QUOTE]

http://translate.google.com/#auto|af|%20i%27m%20needing%20certain%20other%20qu alities%20such%20as%20higher%2Flower%20hydro%20per oxide%20content%20or%20unsaturation%20for%20increa sed%20hydroxyls%20for%20combining%20with%20other%2 0resins%20or%20chemicals.

LOL!!!

[Alan Lightstone]

[QUOTE=sheldon pettit;1928056]i'm needing certain other qualities such as higher/lower hydro peroxide content or unsaturation for increased hydroxyls for combining with other resins or chemicals.
[QUOTE]


LOL!!!


איך בין נידינג זיכער אנדערע מידות אַזאַ ווי העכער / נידעריקער כיידראָו פּעראַקסייד צופרידן אָדער ונסאַטוראַטיאָן פֿאַר געוואקסן הידראָקסילס פֿאַר קאַמביינינג מיט אנדערע רעזינז אָדער קעמיקאַלז


LOL. I use that all the time for texting at work. It's always funnier in Yiddish... Swahili has it's moments too.

[Alan Lightstone]

OK. some test samples in.

These have not been rubbed out yet, so there are large glossiness differences between the pieces.

This picture is of two of the boards side-by-side. The Tung Oil sample has gotten considerably darker. The Sample on the right is a pretty close match to the sapele/waterlox control board. It was done by using the same dye combo as the control board, then spraying two coats of super blonde shellac, two coats of waterlox wiped on, two coats of orange shellac, followed by several coats of EM6000 sprayed on.

The sample on the left also got the same dye treatment, followed by two wipe-on coats of Tung Oil, then two spray coats of orange shellac, followed by several coats of EM6000.

232454
Here are the pieces of wood on the sapele table:
232455
The color match is pretty good with using the Waterlox underneath the EM6000. The shellac coats (mainly there for compatibility, but also to add amber coloration) helped with the color matching.

I'm not so sure the chatoyance is equivalent, though. The piece seems to have less luster with the EM6000 compared to the control. Of course, when rubbed out in about a week, the samples may be very close to the control. Time will tell.

A work in progress...

[sheldon pettit]

232485

No dyes, no oils, no shellac, no waterlox, no aqueous emulsion finish.

[John Coloccia]

Is that just nitro? That would be my guess.

[sheldon pettit]

Is that just nitro? That would be my guess.



Good guess, but no, 4 hour rock hard varnish behlen's. 5 coats gloss, 1 coat low satin 30°

[Alan Lightstone]

Sprayed? Shaken, not stirred.

[sheldon pettit]

Sprayed? Shaken, not stirred.

sprayed all coats.

[Alan Lightstone]

Ah, to be able to spray combustible finishes...

[Alan Lightstone]

Is it better to spray multiple gloss coats, then rub out to a lower level of gloss or to do as you did and spray all but the last coat gloss and the last semi-gloss?

At least with rubbing varnish or brushed-on coats, most people I've noted have suggested using gloss coats for all then rubbing out to semi-gloss.

[John Coloccia]

It's always best to build with gloss, and then spray semi/satin to get the sheen you want (or rub it out to a flat finish if you think you can do it evenly). The flatteners in the non-gloss finishes completely screw up clarity of the finish. It will look completely dead, and maybe even a bit cloudy compared to building with gloss and flattening as the last step.

I have great success rubbing out a finish to semi/satin on lighter colored woods (alder/maple/etc). Not so much on darker woods. I find it very difficult to get it looking even on dark woods. That said, I rub out my mahogany guitar necks to a satin and with a little care they look OK, but I would have more trouble on a large, flat piece of wood as is more typical for furniture.

[Scott Holmes]

Shaken is fine with me... Proper application technique will eliminate the bubbles.

[sheldon pettit]

Is it better to spray multiple gloss coats, then rub out to a lower level of gloss or to do as you did and spray all but the last coat gloss and the last semi-gloss?

At least with rubbing varnish or brushed-on coats, most people I've noted have suggested using gloss coats for all then rubbing out to semi-gloss.



It's always best to spray anything if you can - and you can!!

John, has the right concept, always spray all your coats with gloss! Reason? every coat of satin or flat you apply has "extra" flatting agents in them, This is to insure that as it dries there will be good upper level [just below the surface] accumulation of the flatting particles to insure even flatting as it "cures" lol or "dries" - just for you Scott, lol. The rest of the flatting agents lay beneath this upper surface, they still are able to refract and scatter the light, but being sub-surface it shows up as haze/milkiness/ a frosty appearance. With each additional coat this worsens the case. To see this one only has to spray a board gloss black and when dry tape half off and spray a clear coat of satin/flat over it, when dry remove the tape/paper, and one the gloss side will look deep and clear with no milkiness at all, the other well...... you'll see :)


If this is continued for several coats each time you spray you will again see the finish continues getting more milky. That same color saturation diminish-er FA, when used on natural woods does the same, it may not be as noticeable depending on the lightness or darkness of what your spraying, but it is no less diminished on those than what you see on the black you sprayed. The hardest time i have convincing people of this are those who finish light woods [maple/birch/pine/holly/etc..]

The other thing that has been bought up to me elsewhere is people telling me they have done such and later a customer would call complaining about the finish turning glossy or a higher sheen right under or around the handle areas of doors - One even said he solved the problem by bringing all the drawers and drawers back to his shop and sanding and applying 4-5 coats of satin over them.

My response was that sooner or later the same would happen again because the flatting takes place just below the surface, the coating overlaying the flatting agents is still quite capable of being rubbed up to a higher gloss be it polyester or any lower degree of hard finish, it just takes more time to do so. Again an easy way to prove this is to simply take a fine rubbing or polishing compound on a soft cotton cloth and with your finger apply the compound and rub on softer finishes within 30 seconds, [or less], you'll see the sheen get glossier, on harder ones maybe 2-3 min, on polyester, maybe a little more, but not necessarily. With the right compounds i can rub it up glossier in a minute at most.

I've included 2 micro-photos of this phenomena to show it better, but keep in mind the reason for these initially was to show how blushing formed in a nitro finish, the glossy one shows the blush sharply and the flatted one of course shows all the haze, but you can still distinguish the larger water molecules of the blush from the flatting agents obscuring it. The pics are 200x, darkfield microscope. Don't go into asking me why the blush is in the geometric form that is seen, that's a whole different subject. lol.

Back to spraying coatings for a moment Alan, with the right viscosity coatings, fluid tips and needles and some gun adjustments, you can spray anything you want, well.... within reason and common sense, lol. [U]Due caution of course always!! Last summer, for example, i sprayed over 800 ft of trim for my son outside in the wide open with poly, plus some inlaid floor pieces and other stuff also, all of it turned out very good using a cheap gun and a cheap compressor, of course he lived outside the city limits, but still you can spray what i see you doing without anywhere near the over-spray one would have spraying dozens of square ft at a time, at least consider it as an alternative, a "viable" alternative. WCS, you could call around when you have something coming up to spray to see if any local spray shops may let you use their facilities for an hour or so a day over a several day or less period of time, something i have also done on occasion.

Scott i use an pneumatic drill and stirrer to mix with and if doing much spraying, outside of test samples, i will incorporate a couple of 1/4 inch ball bearings to keep it stirred, not as good as my old devilbiss agitated cup gun, but it does the job :), oh and if spraying something large keeping the flatting agent stirred is a must!! If not, by the time you've sprayed a half a cup if your starting and stopping to move things, you will notice a difference in the beginning sheen as to the final sprayed pieces, This is especially true if you stop for several minutes and don't re-stir before starting your spraying again ok? Flatting agents can settle out pretty quick, if you don't believe me fill a jar with satin well stirred and watch for 10 min. or so, then continue to occasionally watch over an hour, tell me what you find.

Ok that's it!! :)

[Alan Lightstone]

Shaken is fine with me... Proper application technique will eliminate the bubbles.

LOL. I was just using the James Bond line to get over the 10 character limit.

[Alan Lightstone]

OK. Waving the white flag. I waited a month, then tried rubbing out the drafting table top with Micro Mesh. Low and behold - Lots of witness lines. Aaaarrghhhhhh!!!!!! :mad::mad::mad:

Clearly rubbing out with Waterlox is beyond my capabilities. I just can't do it. It's been 3 months since I finished the intial coats of Waterlox on the table top, I've tried rubbing it out on two separate occasions after initially failing, and redoing multiple coats of Waterlox. I'm out of my league.

Plan B will be to spray EM6000, several coats on top of the present Waterlox (do I need to put a dewaxed shellac coat on top for compatibility?), wait until that cures, then rub that out. If that doesn't work, who here wants to finish a table top?????

Actually, a question for everyone. It says that EM6000 and EM7000HBL are "100% burn in".

Which of the following Target Coatings finishes burn into themselves:

EM 2000 Waterborne Alkyd Varnish?
EM 6000 Production Lacquer? (Web site says this is 100% burn-in)
EM 7000HBL High Build Lacquer? (Web site says this is 100% burn-in)
EM 8000 Conversion Varnish?

[Jim Becker]

Only EM6000 and the new EM7000HBL exhibit "burn-in" characteristics, as far as I know. I've never used the latter, but the former is my primary top-coat finish and has been for years, if you consider I used two generations of predecessors before the EM6000 name came into being.

You should be able to shoot directly on top of the existing Waterlox after scuffing, but there's no harm in a quick, thin barrier coat of de-waxed shellac before shooting the EM6000.

[Alan Lightstone]

Thanks, Jim. Already have the EM6000, so just need to finish my knock-down spray booth to give this a go.

[Julie Moriarty]

While Googling "How to make wood pop" this thread came up. And then I read the wood being used is sapele. Perfect!

I'm really trying hard to do the waterborne thing. Practically all the finishing I do is in the basement. I don't need to comment on odors imparted throughout the house. :rolleyes:

So I purchased some General Finishes WB products - Medium Brown dye, Vintage Cherry dye and Enduro-Var in satin. The project is kitchen cabinet doors and drawer fronts. The drawer fronts and the door rails & stiles will be solid Honduran mahogany, the door panels sapele.

After a number of tests, I realized the sapele will darken more than the mahogany so I purchased the dyes just for the mahogany. I'm pretty happy with the Vintage Cherry on the mahogany, compared side-by-side with mineral spirit saturated sapele.

I was told the Enduro-Var imparted an amber hue and was the closest WB finish one could get to oils. So I took a test piece of sapele and laid down a couple coats of Enduro-Var. BLAH! No pop, no life, no "like oil" finish and nothing even close to the mineral spirit saturated appearance. Next I tried garnet shellac and BLO. The shellac was very close to the Enduro-Var. That surprised me. I thought there would be some pop, but there wasn't. The BLO however, was beautiful! The grain popped. Viewing from different angles gave the feeling of "motion" in the wood. It was just gorgeous! And that's why we chose sapele, for that rich look properly finished sapele can give.

My plans were to spray the finish. I was unsure about the dye, but the Enduro-Var, spray for sure. There's 35 doors and about a dozen drawer fronts. And I just started the basement spray booth but only for WB finishes. The booth is not explosion proofed.

So if I use BLO for the sapele, give it a week or so to dry, is there any reason I can't finish with the Enduro-Var?

[Julie Moriarty]

Doesn't it figure? Just when you've given up on trying to find the answer and post the question online, you find the article with the answer.

Teri Masaschi wrote an article for FWW about spraying WB finishes. I read it before but my photographic memory was out of film. It usually is. Anyway, right at the end I read if you use an oil to enhance the grain, you need to coat it with dewaxed shellac before spraying the WB finish.

And I thought this was going to be easy.