Talk:Wood finishing

Rubbing Qualities?

I like the format of the chart but what the heck is implied by "rubbing qualities"? Judging by the chart it is virtually the opposite of what I understand by it. Linseed and tung oils are the classic "hand-rubbed" finish and other than in French polish, shellac MUST be applied with a brush unless you want a bunch of textile fibers in your finish. Am I wrong here?

OK, I found Flexner's article. Rubbing is with a grit inbetween coats. That would pretty much equate with "sanding" today.

Hoopiefromwayback 08:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of the table, thank you for the compliment. On "rubbing" and "rubbing qualities", if you weren't sure what it meant at first, this needs to be fixed as others will undoubtedly be confused by it. By "rubbing qualities" what was meant is not only sanding betwen coats but also the final polishing with sandpaper, steel wool, pumice & rottenstone to achieve the final desired level of sheen. I am not sure how to fix it to make it clear what we are talking about. My main source on the table was Flexner's book.

As I am sure you know, judging by the good work you did on the varnish, drying oil and wood stain articles, there is a lot of BS and marketingspeak around wood finishing. So-called oil "hand-rubbed" oil finishes aren't, as the oil is usually just wiped off. If any rubbing happens, my understanding is that it just heats the oil and makes it cure faster; it doesn't do much for the appearance. BTW, I have applied shellac with balled up cloths: much faster and a nicer streak-less finish than with brushes, no fibers in the finish (done with a lint-free clots, of course). I am not talking about French polishing here, but just using the rag as a "brush". Luigizanasi 15:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. As interesting as I find the subject to be, I'm still an amateur. I've been trying to cut through the BS for thirty years by bugging experts, making unwelcome phone calls to the tech departments at various manufacturers, and even reading a book or two. One thing I can say is the old-fashioned encyclopedias were pretty worthless, especially in more practical areas. There was no bridge between the scientific and tradesman's knowledge. Wikipedia has a lot of potential. So I appreciate any and all legitimate contributions and corrections. I'm just trying to move the awareness and knowledge down the line a bit. I'll have to get a hold of Flexner's book. Hoopiefromwayback 17:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You will then appreciate Flexner's book, as the main purpose of his book is to bridge scientific and trade knowledge. Luigizanasi 22:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit that I was also a little confused at the "rubbing qualities" column of the chart until reading your explanation above. I have been applying finishes in the coffin manufacturing industry in England and Scotland for 30 years, and the terms we normally use for "rubbing" are "de-nibbing" or "flatting" when smoothing between coats. The traditional hand-applied waxed finishes and the like have given way to spray finishes such as nitrocellulose, and more recently emmission regulation-compliant acid-catalysed two-part lacquers, especially for volume production. I can sympathise with Hoopiefromwayback regarding his search for enlightenment on the subject, but I have found that there is no substitute for rolling your sleeves up and learning from experience ( and sometimes many mistakes along the way!) Red Sunset 22:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it's really confusing, we could drop the "rubbing qualities" stuff from the table. I don't think it's really essential except maybe in the description, I just took it from Flexner. But traditionally, we need to mention that shellac and lacquer were often rubbed with successively finer abrasives until the desire shine was achieved. ()i did learn this technique from my cabinetmaker father, who was got totally frustrated one time in the 70s using rottenstone & pumice on polyurethane and ending up with white rings as he rubber through one coat. Production shops are different, they did use nitrocellose and now mainly pre-cat lacquer in North America also. Luigizanasi 07:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British vs American & professional vs amateur

I find the addition of the second a third paragraphs by Gavinmason somewhat inappropriately POV (see this diff [1]. I believe they should be deleted. However, there are two important points in there. First the British vs North American terminology and techniques. If they are as different as he claims we should document this in the article. Second, there is a substantial difference between what is available to the amateur in hardware stores and production finishes. The current article is heavy on the hardware store available finishes and haredly deals with the finishes available to the trade (Yes Gavin, we also have 'supplies are ordered via the manufacturer's representitive and are for "Professional Use Only" with no instructions on the tin.' in North American, and wiping a lacquer with a wet solvent-soaked rag to improve the shine is not exactly unknown.) Dresdner describes more than a dozen different types of spray finishes in addition to nitrocellulose lacquer, including: acrylic lacquer, CAB, vinyl lacquer, Urethane lacquer, sanding sealer, acrylic waterbase lacquer, polyacrylonite, polyacrylic, waterbased nitrocellulose, catalyzed lacquer, conversion varnish, polyester, cross linked waterbased lacquers. So how do we deal with these two issues? Suggestions? or someone wants to dive in? Luigizanasi 16:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read that paragraph and thought 'Wow, someone has strong opinions about American woodfinishing practices!' I made the text more neutral and also moved it to the bottom of the section since it shouldn't be the first paragraph. Other people can decide if the paragraph's even necessary for this article, but at least it's not so insulting now. Tocharianne 16:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as a person who has done wood refinishing both professionally for money and privately to improve furniture, I found that sentance to be uncalled for. Simply stated, novice wood finishers will grab the Minwax floor stain, while those of us with more experience and knowledge will reach for the Tung Oil or boiled Linseed Oil. Whomever wrote the article obviously has never dealt with an American wood finisher who knows his backside from a hole in the wall. ;) The sentance adds nothing to the article, as it comes off as an opinion, and not part of an encyclopedia article.Rookie Rover 03:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Impertinent" is the word that came to mind, in two senses. Comments such as this reduce individual accomplishments to a biased perception of a country's attainments as a whole. What if the "greatest finishing shop in the world" (entirely hypothetically) resided in America, while weekend woodworkers used anything to hand. Would that make the Americans "causal"? Or "discriminating"? The second sense of impertinence is the British POV which doesn't take in account the formidable skills -- with a long history -- in Japan, for example, and other countries.

I don't feel these statements accomplish anything except to defame, may be categorically untrue, and since they are not sourced...they appear to be inappropriate and unuseful. Given this, and the discussion above, I've taken the liberty to delete them.

24.130.9.210 (talk) 17:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oil-based polyurethane is "clear?!"

I guess you took this from Flexner, and I haven't read Flexner in years, but my own experience with oil-based poly is that if the color change from blond shellac is marked enough you feel you have to point it out, then calling poly clear in comparison seems downright bizarre. While blond shellac is not completely clear, I would say that it is considerably more neutral in terms of toning effect than any oil-based poly I've ever used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmmcintyre (talk • contribs) 07:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are many material called as Polyurethane. As long as they contain the urethane then they are called as Polyurethane. The oil Polyurethane actually not Poly urethane, it is refer to the oil finish or varnish. It has slightly brown yellow color. The modern polyurethane coating are mostly clear and available in many sheen, it is the "two component" poly urethane that used in wide range of coating especially for the wood coating and the automotive coating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarimustika (talk • contribs) 20:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

quantifying information

Can we have information conveyed by wikipedia articles that explains WHY, i.e. quantifies the function of the article subject? In the wikipedia article I get better information than in a google search on WHY I may want to finish a piece of furniture but it still does not answer the question what do these finishes do for the wood in a way that helps me calculate if it's worth finishing a piece of furniture. I'd like to say it will extend the life of the wood by 2x in scenario A for example. Or does it merely extend the lifespan by 10%? What need is this article serving if not helping us quantify/understand the value of the work we perform? Is our time/energy not so valuable? What does wood finishing accomplish for us? Can the five year old child reading wikipedia learn something valuable here, and perhaps gain a higher social/cultural expectation on the value/utility of information exchange? Rtdrury (talk) 15:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add category "wiping varnish" to chart

I'm just learning about finishing, and, having read a couple of the articles referred to by this article itself, have found that there's an important finish category missing from the chart: wiping varnish. Wiping varnish is varnish mixed with solvent; it's a whole product category. It's different and better than oil/varnish mixes according to one article. I don't feel qualified to add a row to the chart, but hopefully someone with the required experience will do. Frevi (talk) 08:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source it, add it. Write a whole article on it if you wish.

Maybe cover the gel varnishes (the thixotropic ones applied with a cloth rather than a brush) too? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]