My Poly Freaken Pealed Off!!

[Sweet Sawdust]

"WOW what a thread for such a little question!!!!

Mike G is right about the sand paper, I have never noticed any real problems Myself with it, but it is a possible. Now on your finish, when you mixed the poly with the thinner did you spill any thinner on the wood? did you by some chance wash your hands with soap before you applied the finish? When did you last wax you cast-iron? Did any contact glues, like sticker or label glue get on the surface of the table before applying finish? Any of these and a few dozen other items getting on the bare wood could cause the finish not to stick. Did you sand it to fine to allow the finish to grip the wood. Was the wood cold when you applied the finish? All of these are long shots but might lead you to an answer on the problem. Lemon or Citrus oil used to be death to Deft poly finish even after it had cured for a year or two, not so much of a problem now but think back and see if you can find the problem and good luck with the refinish.

[KYHighlander]

added that one to the keepers file,

thanks mike

KY

[Mike Hide]

Between "COASTS" !!! so whats that all about ??? mjh

[Mike Hide]

Ah as soon as you mentioned about rotting the brain ,that accounts for it........mjh

[Leon]

Interesting... but Varnish is a generic term. Shellac and lacquer can be considered varnishes. That said, there are varnishes that are not shellac or lacquer that do indeed burn in and or meld into the previous coat of varnish. Take Bartley's Gel Varnish for instance. Several days after aplication you can spot apply more of that gel varnish to a rough spot and smooth it over with a rag or simply add another coat.

[Mike G]

I'm not sure where you came up with that but the only part I can agree with is that varnish is a generic term in that any finish made up of a curing oil, resins and a carrier/thinner can be considered a varnish. And, of course, neither shellac or lacquer meets that criteria.

Further varnish is a reactive curing finish and both shellac and lacquer cure through evaporation of their thinner/solvent.

Finally, both shellac and lacquer, when cured, have solvents which also acts as their thinner, alcohol and lacquer thinner respectively. Cured varnish has no solvents. The thinner, usually mineral spirits, has no dissolving effect on cured varnish.nor does alcohol or lacquer thinner.

So, I'm sure you can see why I more then a little problem with your statement and can not see where the properties of shellac and alcohol fit in under the generic term of varnish.

As for the gel varnish example, well, it's meaningless and proves nothing. You can build up any spots in any surface finish by applying more. That does not mean it is melding with the previous coat, which it isn't in the example you give to justify the statement that shellac and lacquer falls under the term varnish.

Gel varnish fills the hole better and faster because it has less shrinkage then what you would get trying to do it with a liquid varnish but that doesn't mean it is burning into the previous coats. The same effect can be achieved with a liquid varnish by forming a dam of some sort, modeling clay works well, around the spot and pouring in liquid varnish then waiting, usually for several days, for it to cure. Neither of these procedures, gel or liquid, requires burn in and the physical properties of varnish, no solvent, prevents it.

[Leon]

Actualluy a varnish is, A paint containing a solvent and an oxidizing or evaporating binder, used to coat a surface with a hard, glossy, transparent film. The type of parts used in the mix need not be any specific one except to perform a specific function.

Additionally, Shellac is defined as

1. A purified lac in the form of thin yellow or orange flakes, often bleached white and widely used in varnishes, paints, inks, sealants, and formerly in phonograph records.
2. A thin varnish made by dissolving this substance in denatured alcohol, used to finish wood.a thin varnish made by dissolving this substance in denatured alcohol, used to finish wood.

The proof is how I repair or remove thick spots that I over looked. No actually the rough spot softens and can be rubbed off with a single rag stroke or scraped off with your finger nail if the fresh gel is left to set a bit on top of the problem area.

Again, if for example and specifically concerning Bartley's gel varnish if you leave a finger print on the first coat and let it dry for a day ot two you can reapply more gel varnish to that spot and that spot will soften and can esaily be rubbed away. Rub enough times with a fresh spot on the rag and you can almost get back down to bare wood. Additionally Bartley's Gel Varnish specifically indicates no need or not to sand between coats.

[Silvan]

Love it? Probably not. You'll grow to stop dreading it so much once you finally discover shellac though. Screw it up, no problem, just do it over again.

It's not a durable as poly, but it doesn't have any of poly's down sides either. It doesn't take forever and a day to dry, it doesn't attract dust, it doesn't demand sanding between coats just to get the next layer to stick, it doesn't give everything a dipped in plastic look, and it doesn't require extremely noxious chemicals to strip off if something goes wrong.

Shellac is awesome. Poly sucks. I have finally seen the light. :)

I agree with the others, BTW, that you didn't wait long enough for the stain to dry. I'd have waited a couple days at least. Oil and water don't mix after all.

[Leon]

A little more on the definition of a varnish including those in the form of shellac's and lacquers.

This was taken from Columbia University Electronic Encyclopedia Sixth edition.

varnish, homogeneous solution of gum or of natural or synthetic resins in oil (oil varnish) or in a volatile solvent (spirit varnish), which dries on exposure to air, forming a thin, hard, usually glossy film. It is used for the protection or decoration of surfaces and may be transparent, translucent, or tinted. For oil varnishes a hard gum or resin, often a fossilized plant exudation such as kauri or copal, is dissolved in oil (commonly linseed oil or tung oil) and is diluted with a volatile solvent such as turpentine. Spirit varnishes are commonly made of soft resins or gums, such as shellac, dammer, mastic, or sandarac, dissolved in a volatile solvent, e.g., alcohol, benzene, acetone, or turpentine. Enamel is varnish with added pigments. Lacquer may be a cellulose derivative dissolved in a volatile solvent, or it may be a natural varnish made in the East from the sap of trees. Among the varnishes named either for their constituents or for the proposed use are japanner's gold size, cabinet, carriage, bookbinder's, patent-leather, insulating, photographic, shellac, and copal picture varnish. Varnish has been known from antiquity; the Egyptians coated mummy cases with a pastelike form made of soft resins dissolved in oil and applied when warm. Another early use was for coating oil paintings. Stradivarius and other violinmakers used a slow-drying linseed oil varnish on their instruments.

[Mike G]

Since there are definitive physical characteristics that have to be considered when choosing between shellac, lacquer, and varnish as an appropriate finish I continue to find your arguments somewhat less then compelling, but if you want to call every common film finish varnish it's fine by me. Due to arcane naming a case may even be made for doing so but that hasn't been the relevant since the turn of the last century..

Personally I would prefer that when I say I varnished, lacquered, or shellacked something, the person I am talking to too knows what finish I am referring to plus the make up, physical characteristics, and plusses and minuses of that finish.

[Leon]

I will not disagree with you here. I was simply stating that lacquers and shellacs are varnishes. Further, the Bareleys Oil Varnish need not be sanded between coats and that it will indeed soften the previous layer with reaplication long after 24 hours.

Generally speaking most people probably do "not" think of a varnish as being a shellac or lacquer and probably follow your thinking. Up until about 6 years ago I went with that way of thinking. My brother in-law, an artist who does mix his own paints pointed out the error in my thinking. When I first called you on your comments you seemed to be quite specific about the properties and characteristics of varnishes. I was merely pointing out that there were exceptions to what you were indicating. Since I use the Bartley products that do indeed work in some ways contrary to what you were indicating, no need to sand between coats, I thought I would point this out. Bartley's is commonly found in most better ww stores. For grins, you should pick up a small can of the Bartley Gel Varnish and experiment with it. Just something to try out FYI. I think you will find that it works a bit differently that the finishes that you categorize as varnishes. I don't in any way suggest that you switch to this product unless you want, I am sure that you are getting the results that you are looking for now.

[Mike G]

Fair enough Leon, we don't agree.

As for the gel varnish, not having used it nor done any real research into the type of product, I'll be happy too take your word that it is a different animal from my definition of varnish..

[Cape Cod Bob]

Use Waterlox and it becomes far less onerous and the finished results are most attractive. Waterlox is akin to the "Danish" oils, but in my mind, have significantly more resins so it builds a finish that can be rubbed out. I apply Waterlox with a rag, so no need for expensive brushes or the hapless chore of cleaning brushes.

Waterlox is not sold in a few states because of VOC requirements - including the two states I have lived in, Mass and NJ. However, it's easy to smuggle it in.

As a side note, but an important one, what's with trying to make Mike G become a bad guy? He is a longtime CONTRIBUTOR and has shared his knowledge with this group and to anyone looking for some help. If you want someone to drive away, do it to those whose contributions are mainly pseudo-folksy.

[Mike Hide]

I echo what CCbob says . Find a finishing product you like and learn to use it . Develop a procedure you go through each time you are ready to do finishing , that way you minimize surprises and come out with a satisfactory result 9 times out of ten.

Then after a while when you get reasonably proficient you will get to the point where you can't wait to finish the item to see what it is going to look like, and what's more you will know beforehand how good it's going to look ....mjh

[Young_carpenter]

I hate foam brushes an poly.

4-5 coats of wipe on won't do if you want to hi polish That's like putting 2 coats of regular no thin on. I found that 33% mineral spirits is much better than 50/50 and yes the last project I did was with Deft Brush on lacquer. For the most part it applies much like poly and lacquer thinner helps with any mistakes beautifully, I used stain under neath and didn't find any leak through. It dried quickly in 60-70 degree weather. Of course keeping a wet edge is even more important than for poly but more for the smoothness of brushing than anything. A little streak here and there won't hurt if it is only an undercoat, and the next coat is put on within 24 hours. Make sure you spend a little extra for good soft synthetic brush, I think the one I used was for enamels or something. Oh yes and it does smell and it takes a while for the stuff to fully cure so the smell lingers for about a week after that you have to put your nose buy the project to smell it.

[Charlie Self]

I hate foam brushes. I have never gotten a good result with any finish with one.

Charlie Self "Everything has its limit - iron ore cannot be educated into gold." Mark Twain

[Silvan]

Just out of boredom, I piddled around. A dictionary definition from the turn of the last century (1913) was pretty clear on the point that a varnish is "resinous matter in an oil or a volatile liquid" and that it "soon dries, either by evaporation or chemical action."

I consulted a dictionary from 2002 or thereabouts, and the largest difference between the two was in the etymology of the word. The 1913 definition showed the term "varnish" having come from Latin words related to glass:

[OE. vernish, F. vernis, LL. vernicium; akin to F. vernir to varnish, fr. (assumed) LL. vitrinire to glaze, from LL. vitrinus glassy, fr. L. vitrum glass. See Vitreous.]

The newer definition shows it coming from Midieval Latin /veronix/, "sandarac resin," from Midieval Greek /verenike/, from Greek /Berenike/, which was an "ancient city of Cyrenaica."

Interesting.

Either way, it's pretty clear that all shiny, glassy looking coatings could be called "varnish" by speakers of the American dialect of the English language all the way up until 2002. I don't think you have a leg to stand on with respect to the distinction you're trying to make. Perhaps it would be less ambiguous to use the term "spirit varnish" to refer to varnishes that are neither lacquer nor shellac.

Hey, not that I really care. I'm just a bored language weenie, so don't get bent out of shape over this.

[Luigi Zanasi]

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 02:09:24 -0500, Silvan scribbled:

But "spirit" originally referred to alcohol and only later got applied to other brain-cell destroying volatile liquids. So shellac would be a spirit varnish. Despite the dictionary definitions, I go for Mike's definition where varnish is a combo of various oils, solvents and resins. IIRC, Flexner also uses the word varnish this way, and Flexner is inerrant holy scripture.

Just checked my "Woodworker's dictionary" by Vic Taylor:

Varnishes: There are two principal types of varnish, namely spirit varnish, and oil varnish. Spirit varnishes are usually made from shellac dissolved in spirit . . . Old-style oil varnishes were a solution of natural resins in a drying oil . . . Modern oil varnishes are usually compounded from tung and/or linseed oil, and alkyd or phenolic resins . . .

But that's a Brit definition.

Me too, except for the bored part.

Luigi Note the new email address. Please adjust your krillfiles (tmAD) accordingly Replace "nonet" with "yukonomics" for real email address

[Young_carpenter]

Hey we agree on something:)

[Silvan]

Yeah, you're right about that for sure. Spirit = booze. Where on earth did that come from anyway, etymologically?

As for the rest, I'll just shut up about it and go blather somewhere else. :)