What does this mean?

a few companies set out to make a faster/BETTER/cheaper shellac
replacement, not out of concern for a BETTER finish







"Patrick Olguin" wrote in message
m...
"Keith Carlson" pixalized:
http://www.popularwoodworking.com/fe...ea.asp?id=1206


The article states:
"Now shellac is rarely used as a finish except by high-end antique
refinishers (which ought to tell you something)."
I think that tells me that antique refinishers are trying to match the
original finish which, by definition, would be what was used something
like
100 years ago. Not that it's a superior finish.
It has it's place, but based on what I've read in the Flexner book, I
wouldn't use it on a table top unless that table was meant to be
show-only.

Keith, did you read the next sentence in that article? I did:

"Now shellac is rarely used as a finish except by high-end antique
refinishers (which ought to tell you something). This is terribly
unfortunate, because shellac still is one of the best finish choices
for most woodworking and refinishing projects."

I would take that to mean that PWW is attempting to inform me that it
would be terribly unfortunate for me to dismiss shellac as a high-end,
show-only finish.

Ya know, it's interesting sometimes when people quote a book, and then
cling to it like a Bible (I say this because someone used the term:
Bible, somewhere else in this thread. I dunno about other folks, but
I accept Biblical text on faith. Finishes? I prefer actual
real-world first hand experience. The best books are wonderful as
references, but they don't replace experience. My experiences with
shellac have been that it's a tough, ridiculously repairable finish.
The areas where it is clearly not suitable are applications where it
is exposed to extreme heat (above 150F), caustic chemicals -
particularly alkaline solutions (like say in a janitor's utility
closet), or harsh solvents like nail polish remover. It is still the
preferred finish for restorers of Arts&Crafts style bungalows, not so
much for it's faithfulness to tradition (which it is), but for the
unparalleled shine achievable with thin applications, the overall
pleasing result of various shellacs on architectural woodwork, and its
ease (and therefore low cost/impact) of repair.

There is a fantasy in wood finishing that the toughest most durable
finish is the best solution, but the reality is that there is a
trade-off. All finishes can and will be scratched. Period. Then the
question becomes one of maintenance. The notion that shellac, in most
applications, requires constant repair is bull**** (poppycock, Jeff).
And what's going to take more time? A minor touch-up now and then, or
a huge re-do, where the entire finish must be stripped to fix a
problem in one area?

Now, about book quotes, especially regarding the esteeemed Mr.
Flexner. First of all, there's a tendency to quote out of context
(like the above citing from PWW), and then there's the whole book
publishing process. Anyone who's been involved in producing a book
knows well the sometimes indiscriminant scythe of the editor.
Paragraphs are reworded, whole sections excised, photographs deleted.
For the majority of writers, it's a gut-wrenching experience. For the
real scoop, the best solution is to go directly to the source. And
that's just what I've done in this area (seeing as I used to have a
financial stake in collecting/dispensing accurate information on just
this subject).

Let's just say that Bob has had a lot more to say about shellac and
other finishes than what we've read in his book.

The bottom line is, shellac was greatly replaced not because of
technological advances in finishing, but primarily because shellac is
an agricultural commodity, subject to the same whims of market,
climate and global politics of any major import/export. Prices and
availability would sometimes vary significantly. Well, American
know-how and can-do'edness being what it is, a few companies set out
to make a faster/better/cheaper shellac replacement, not out of
concern for a better finish, but out of a desire to create/control an
industry by replacing a commodity with a chemically-synthesized
product, and then promoting the hell out of it. "What's that? You want
more? We can make more!!" And so it went.

And thus nitro cellulose lacquer was born. Not coincidentally, the
chem engineers at these various companies were seeking to duplicate or
at least approximate the properties exhibited by nature's ultimate
thermoplastic resin - shellac. They came up with a rather clear,
evaporative finish that rubbed-out well, was simple to apply, dried
quickly and so on. Heck, it was so good, it was almost as good as
shellac!! And so by the time there were tons of Philco radios being
turned out, they were doused with lacquer (it's even got lac in the
name). There were problems, however. The solvents for the different
kinds of lacquer were very nasty, and lacquer itself had some issues -
it required a significant build in order to achieve the gloss people
were used to when using shellac, it orange peeled if you looked at it
cross-eyed, it was difficult to brush and/or wipe, and after a decade
or so, it yellowed. But people muddled through with the synthetic
shellac anyhow.

And so that brings us to today, where we're looking for ways to
preserve the environment and our olfactory senses, not to mention
apply a reliable, durable, repairable finish - which translates to a
goodly number of people switching from lacquer to shellac.

I read one of the disadvantages Bob listed in the PWW article with
some interest. He's concerned about kitchen cabinets being subject to
too much water for shellac to be applicable. I could see that for
perhaps a sink base cabinet, but I wonder what the worry is? I mean,
the one kind of water you see a lot of in a kitchen is water vapor
from cooking, and that's *the* area where shellac exceeds all other
finishes in protection. Do people really splash that much water all
over their kitchen cabinets? On the counter top, sure (granite's a
good choice here), but I must be missing something. Either that or
there are people hosing down their kitchen cabinets daily.

O'Deen