Ever have the feeling that something's just plain wrong? I was turning a
piece today where I had to go up hill to go down grain, and I must have put
the gouge in the wrong place ten times after pausing the lathe. Just gives
you the creeps to be cutting up hill from the center of a bowl to the rim.
Or from the rim toward the center on the back side.

Was pretty lucky, actually. It was a fully parted-off bowl with what was
once a 2" mortise on the back, and no pillar in the front, as I normally dry
my things. Just out of effective reach for the 1" jaws, but the 2" wouldn't
fit after a concentric dry. Ended up turning a mandrel like they did in the
old days, wedging into the recess, cut a really shallow groove to grip with
the Power-Grip jaws in the face, got enough to hold, and was able to do the
recess on the bottom without losing it.

Worst part of it is, it just looks ugly. No color in the raw, and oil
doesn't seem to have done much for it. At least it was a learning
experience, if not a creative one.

Still feels weird to cut in reverse, though.

George:

I don't have the same problem... I typically cut from the bottom of the
bowl to the rim, that way I'm not cutting against the grain on end grain
bowls (grain is parallel with the bed of the lathe). Also do a lot of
cutting from the rim down to the center on the back, again, the cutting
is "downhill". As much of my turning is end grain (norfolk pine, milo
and other hawaiian woods) it just seems natural to do it this way. Of
course, if you were taught differently, and more comfortable the other
way, then do what makes sense to you.

--Rick

George wrote:
Ever have the feeling that something's just plain wrong? I was turning a
piece today where I had to go up hill to go down grain, and I must have put
the gouge in the wrong place ten times after pausing the lathe. Just gives
you the creeps to be cutting up hill from the center of a bowl to the rim.
Or from the rim toward the center on the back side.

Was pretty lucky, actually. It was a fully parted-off bowl with what was
once a 2" mortise on the back, and no pillar in the front, as I normally dry
my things. Just out of effective reach for the 1" jaws, but the 2" wouldn't
fit after a concentric dry. Ended up turning a mandrel like they did in the
old days, wedging into the recess, cut a really shallow groove to grip with
the Power-Grip jaws in the face, got enough to hold, and was able to do the
recess on the bottom without losing it.

Worst part of it is, it just looks ugly. No color in the raw, and oil
doesn't seem to have done much for it. At least it was a learning
experience, if not a creative one.

Still feels weird to cut in reverse, though.

if the wood is uninteresting, decorate it with carving, paint, heat,
or whatever - you may like the result

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 17:07:07 -0500, "George" George@least wrote:

Ever have the feeling that something's just plain wrong? I was turning a
piece today where I had to go up hill to go down grain, and I must have put
the gouge in the wrong place ten times after pausing the lathe. Just gives
you the creeps to be cutting up hill from the center of a bowl to the rim.
Or from the rim toward the center on the back side.

Was pretty lucky, actually. It was a fully parted-off bowl with what was
once a 2" mortise on the back, and no pillar in the front, as I normally dry
my things. Just out of effective reach for the 1" jaws, but the 2" wouldn't
fit after a concentric dry. Ended up turning a mandrel like they did in the
old days, wedging into the recess, cut a really shallow groove to grip with
the Power-Grip jaws in the face, got enough to hold, and was able to do the
recess on the bottom without losing it.

Worst part of it is, it just looks ugly. No color in the raw, and oil
doesn't seem to have done much for it. At least it was a learning
experience, if not a creative one.

Still feels weird to cut in reverse, though.

Bill

www.wbnoble.com

to contact me, do not reply to this message,
instead correct this address and use it

will iam_ b_ No ble at msn daught com
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

Hey Guys-

I'm going to break with the standard school of thought here, and point
out that a guy *could* use stain on a bowl... I've had a few hunks
of mystery wood that were really bland and disappointing that came to
life with some judicious staining. I know it's off the track for the
current popular view that a turning can only be treated with oil, wax,
or some combination of the two, but it's good to remember that there
are a whole stable of products that actually work pretty well on the
finishing shelves. I'll grant you that a person shouldn't take a nice
piece of cherry or lacewood and slap a walnut stain on it for lack of
foresight, but a bit of good fruitwood stain on something dull like
boxwood can reveal some hidden grain and character that would
otherwise go unappreciated.

I don't mean to get on a soapbox here (for those of you who don't
know, that means I'm climbing on it now), especially as a relatively
novice turner, but I do a lot of finishing at work- windows, trim,
cabinets, doors, etc. and not once, not even one single time, has a
customer requested that thier project be treated with a quick rubdown
of linseed oil alone or anything even similar. They want their stuff
colored and armored, so when the kids set a can of soda on the table,
they can wipe it off with a wet sponge and don't have to worry.

It's a nice effect to simply bring out the beauty of a hardwood burl
or some bird's eye or curly figure with a deep oil finish, but let's
face it- not everything that comes off every lathe is a work of art,
and sometimes the artful will of nature can use a little help.

Here's an example-

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 17:07:07 -0500, "George" George@least wrote:

Worst part of it is, it just looks ugly. No color in the raw, and oil
doesn't seem to have done much for it. At least it was a learning
experience, if not a creative one.

Not to pick on you, George, but why couldn't that be a creative
experience? If something has the grain character of a sheet of paper
when you've got it sanded and on that lathe, who is going to come and
slap your wrists if you stain it, paint it, burn it with a torch or
otherwise break with convention? It doesn't have to be practice or
firewood, it can still be art.

I could be wrong in most cases, but I've got a sneaking feeling that I
have had the experience that has led to this status quo- the first
couple of times I did a woodworking project of any kind, I didn't know
anything at all about the finishing process, and very little about
wood in general. I started out with SPF lumber- because it was cheap,
and I knew where to get it. It was hard coaxing even a square cut for
a simple butt joint out of my tools because my hands didn't yet know
the way, and after struggling to get something that looked
half-decent, I figured slapping on a coat of stain was the easy part
to finish it up.

Boy was I wrong. After all my hard work, my projects were blotchy
messes. I had to paint all those first projects to cover up the
shoddy finish, and for a long time, oil was the only thing I was
willing to risk. I carried that over from the flat work right onto
the lathe, and I've got a bevy of bland little bowls and other
trinkets that really could have used some help that I didn't have the
courage to give them. I didn't know about sanding sealer, washcoats,
stain v. dye penetration or any of that stuff, I just knew I messed
something up, and got spooked.

But being forced to work with finishes of all sorts for customers who
don't give a darn about the nobility of the wood or the hidden beauty
of an elusive figure- but just want the new trim or side table to
match the stuff that's already there made me get over that, and I feel
that the knowledge gleaned from that experience has helped my work
improve, without any mystical karmic rebutte for my use of impure
methods.

I know this is a long winded rant, but I've seen thread after thread
about food-safe finishes, whether walnut oil or peanut oil or danish
oil or paste wax is the proper finish, and even threads about how some
wood is just trash because the oil doesn't do much for it. Add to
that the occasional comment about how customer/friend/family member X
had the audacity to wash a bowl in the sink or dishwasher rather than
gently massaging it with the proper oil on a lint-free cloth to clean
it, and destroyed it in the doing, and I begin to wonder. Have we so
enshrined the use of simple oils that it has become holy writ that a
true turner shall use neither laquer nor polyurethane nor stain nor
varnish lest he (or she) be reviled amongst all good men, and cast out
to wander the word forsaken?

I can't be the only guy that thinks it's kind of funny that a group of
people who love crazy glue and epoxy, dishsoap and microwaves in the
commission of thier craft, and will make their own tools out of
anything from a used spoon to a ground down piston become such purists
right at the penultimate moment. Is it fear- or am I missing
something? Personally, when I think about eating out of a bowl I like
the idea of a layer of inert plastic between my food and some wood
that is mildly toxic (and some of them are...) or just bad-tasting
with some glue on it! And as a bonus, that sucker can go right in the
sink with the rest of the dishes when I'm finished.

Anyhow, I don't intend to cast scorn on anyone, or trash anyone's
favorite method- and I mean that, truly. Any specific methods or
products mentioned are just examples, not gospel. I've just been
wondering about this for a while, and figured it could make a decent
discussion. May have been due to turning weeping willow burl all day-
it's a striking wood and fun to turn, but I have to say quite frankly
that is smells a bit like ****, and I couldn't see letting my food
touch the stuff without a nice shiny coat of poly over it!

As always, YMMV.

"Prometheus" wrote in message
...

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 17:07:07 -0500, "George" George@least wrote:

Worst part of it is, it just looks ugly. No color in the raw, and oil
doesn't seem to have done much for it. At least it was a learning
experience, if not a creative one.

Not to pick on you, George, but why couldn't that be a creative
experience? If something has the grain character of a sheet of paper
when you've got it sanded and on that lathe, who is going to come and
slap your wrists if you stain it, paint it, burn it with a torch or
otherwise break with convention? It doesn't have to be practice or
firewood, it can still be art.


Because the creativity on this was in the first turning. Wasn't enough wood
left for me to make anything but minor changes. Score one for the 1 inch
"rule" folks. Takes longer to dry than 1/2", but allows some re-styling.

Stain is something I've left because in the cross-grain orientation it
absorbs heavily into the end and not the face grain. Looks unnatural, of
course, but even worse, the particulate nature of the pigment also takes
clarity out of the grain where it's not black.

I burn the edges of firewood splits, turn odd shapes and anything I like,
from mushrooms through goblets, boxes, bowls and ornaments for fun, even
turn almost every day.

Sometimes you just end up with crap. If it wasn't unusual to see an
end-grain bowl entire, this would have hit the furnace which was its
original destination.

"Rick Frazier" wrote in message
news:4HoUf.3673$4N1.2950@trnddc06...
George:

I don't have the same problem... I typically cut from the bottom of the
bowl to the rim, that way I'm not cutting against the grain on end grain
bowls (grain is parallel with the bed of the lathe). Also do a lot of
cutting from the rim down to the center on the back, again, the cutting is
"downhill". As much of my turning is end grain (norfolk pine, milo and
other hawaiian woods) it just seems natural to do it this way.

It's the only way to avoid problems in that orientation unless the wood is
particularly dense. As I normally cut with grain perpendicular to the bed,
it just creeped me out. Do something a thousand times then change - well,
it's unnatural.

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 23:43:47 -0800, "William B Noble (don't reply to this
address)" wrote:

if the wood is uninteresting, decorate it with carving, paint, heat,
or whatever - you may like the result

Unless it's cherry, then paint it with latex.. *g*

Mac

https://home.comcast.net/~mac.davis
https://home.comcast.net/~mac.davis/wood_stuff.htm

On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 01:45:14 -0600, Prometheus wrote:


I turn some pretty bland wood and I usually wet sand with natural Danish oil...
If I'm sanding something kind of "blah", I'll wet sand it with the cherry or
walnut Danish Oil to give it a little color and bring out any character..

Hey Guys-

I'm going to break with the standard school of thought here, and point
out that a guy *could* use stain on a bowl... I've had a few hunks
of mystery wood that were really bland and disappointing that came to
life with some judicious staining. I know it's off the track for the
current popular view that a turning can only be treated with oil, wax,
or some combination of the two, but it's good to remember that there
are a whole stable of products that actually work pretty well on the
finishing shelves. I'll grant you that a person shouldn't take a nice
piece of cherry or lacewood and slap a walnut stain on it for lack of
foresight, but a bit of good fruitwood stain on something dull like
boxwood can reveal some hidden grain and character that would
otherwise go unappreciated.

I don't mean to get on a soapbox here (for those of you who don't
know, that means I'm climbing on it now), especially as a relatively
novice turner, but I do a lot of finishing at work- windows, trim,
cabinets, doors, etc. and not once, not even one single time, has a
customer requested that thier project be treated with a quick rubdown
of linseed oil alone or anything even similar. They want their stuff
colored and armored, so when the kids set a can of soda on the table,
they can wipe it off with a wet sponge and don't have to worry.

It's a nice effect to simply bring out the beauty of a hardwood burl
or some bird's eye or curly figure with a deep oil finish, but let's
face it- not everything that comes off every lathe is a work of art,
and sometimes the artful will of nature can use a little help.

Here's an example-

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 17:07:07 -0500, "George" George@least wrote:

Worst part of it is, it just looks ugly. No color in the raw, and oil
doesn't seem to have done much for it. At least it was a learning
experience, if not a creative one.

Not to pick on you, George, but why couldn't that be a creative
experience? If something has the grain character of a sheet of paper
when you've got it sanded and on that lathe, who is going to come and
slap your wrists if you stain it, paint it, burn it with a torch or
otherwise break with convention? It doesn't have to be practice or
firewood, it can still be art.

I could be wrong in most cases, but I've got a sneaking feeling that I
have had the experience that has led to this status quo- the first
couple of times I did a woodworking project of any kind, I didn't know
anything at all about the finishing process, and very little about
wood in general. I started out with SPF lumber- because it was cheap,
and I knew where to get it. It was hard coaxing even a square cut for
a simple butt joint out of my tools because my hands didn't yet know
the way, and after struggling to get something that looked
half-decent, I figured slapping on a coat of stain was the easy part
to finish it up.

Boy was I wrong. After all my hard work, my projects were blotchy
messes. I had to paint all those first projects to cover up the
shoddy finish, and for a long time, oil was the only thing I was
willing to risk. I carried that over from the flat work right onto
the lathe, and I've got a bevy of bland little bowls and other
trinkets that really could have used some help that I didn't have the
courage to give them. I didn't know about sanding sealer, washcoats,
stain v. dye penetration or any of that stuff, I just knew I messed
something up, and got spooked.

But being forced to work with finishes of all sorts for customers who
don't give a darn about the nobility of the wood or the hidden beauty
of an elusive figure- but just want the new trim or side table to
match the stuff that's already there made me get over that, and I feel
that the knowledge gleaned from that experience has helped my work
improve, without any mystical karmic rebutte for my use of impure
methods.

I know this is a long winded rant, but I've seen thread after thread
about food-safe finishes, whether walnut oil or peanut oil or danish
oil or paste wax is the proper finish, and even threads about how some
wood is just trash because the oil doesn't do much for it. Add to
that the occasional comment about how customer/friend/family member X
had the audacity to wash a bowl in the sink or dishwasher rather than
gently massaging it with the proper oil on a lint-free cloth to clean
it, and destroyed it in the doing, and I begin to wonder. Have we so
enshrined the use of simple oils that it has become holy writ that a
true turner shall use neither laquer nor polyurethane nor stain nor
varnish lest he (or she) be reviled amongst all good men, and cast out
to wander the word forsaken?

I can't be the only guy that thinks it's kind of funny that a group of
people who love crazy glue and epoxy, dishsoap and microwaves in the
commission of thier craft, and will make their own tools out of
anything from a used spoon to a ground down piston become such purists
right at the penultimate moment. Is it fear- or am I missing
something? Personally, when I think about eating out of a bowl I like
the idea of a layer of inert plastic between my food and some wood
that is mildly toxic (and some of them are...) or just bad-tasting
with some glue on it! And as a bonus, that sucker can go right in the
sink with the rest of the dishes when I'm finished.

Anyhow, I don't intend to cast scorn on anyone, or trash anyone's
favorite method- and I mean that, truly. Any specific methods or
products mentioned are just examples, not gospel. I've just been
wondering about this for a while, and figured it could make a decent
discussion. May have been due to turning weeping willow burl all day-
it's a striking wood and fun to turn, but I have to say quite frankly
that is smells a bit like ****, and I couldn't see letting my food
touch the stuff without a nice shiny coat of poly over it!

As always, YMMV.

Mac

https://home.comcast.net/~mac.davis
https://home.comcast.net/~mac.davis/wood_stuff.htm

mac davis wrote:

Unless it's cherry, then paint it with latex.. *g*

I almost fell out of my chair on this one. Nice shot!

I DARE you to post that on rec.woodworking. You would start a 1000
reply thread that would curse you and your family to the fires of Hell.

Personally though, I am still cleaning the coffee off my monitor.

Robert

On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 06:33:15 -0500, "George" George@least wrote:


"Prometheus" wrote in message
.. .

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 17:07:07 -0500, "George" George@least wrote:

Worst part of it is, it just looks ugly. No color in the raw, and oil
doesn't seem to have done much for it. At least it was a learning
experience, if not a creative one.

Not to pick on you, George, but why couldn't that be a creative
experience? If something has the grain character of a sheet of paper
when you've got it sanded and on that lathe, who is going to come and
slap your wrists if you stain it, paint it, burn it with a torch or
otherwise break with convention? It doesn't have to be practice or
firewood, it can still be art.


Because the creativity on this was in the first turning. Wasn't enough wood
left for me to make anything but minor changes. Score one for the 1 inch
"rule" folks. Takes longer to dry than 1/2", but allows some re-styling.

There certainly is something to that, especially when making a
functional vessel you don't want to poke holes in. I guess my thought
was more that a stain or pyrographed detail could do a lot for it
(sight unseen, of course) and doesn't necessarily require a structural
change in the piece.

Stain is something I've left because in the cross-grain orientation it
absorbs heavily into the end and not the face grain. Looks unnatural, of
course, but even worse, the particulate nature of the pigment also takes
clarity out of the grain where it's not black.

Ahh, here's the nub of what I was getting to. I've been wondering if
that was the reason for the oil & wax school of thought. You know, a
1/2 pound cut of shellac over the piece before staining will even that
out, if you ever feel like trying it again. Staining is nerve
wracking to learn, for sure- just my idle curiousity at work when I
was wondering if the easiest method got accepted as the "right" way to
do it because of that.

I burn the edges of firewood splits, turn odd shapes and anything I like,
from mushrooms through goblets, boxes, bowls and ornaments for fun, even
turn almost every day.

I know, and that's likely the case with most of us- I just notice a
strong trend (stronger in the Wreck than here) towards the idea that
anything but an ancient food-safe oil is bad news. The whole deal is
sort of tounge-in-cheek, as I've been guilty myself of falling into
the same groove of thinking of the "right" and "wrong" ways of
finishing things. I'm just playing devil's advocate, and figured I'd
put in a plug for staining and polyurethane, as they are so often
villified.

Sometimes you just end up with crap. If it wasn't unusual to see an
end-grain bowl entire, this would have hit the furnace which was its
original destination.

True enough- I turn almost all green wood, and I like to run the lathe
sort of fast, so I've had more than my share of things explode when
they dry out at 2000+ rpm. And I've made junk too- I doubt anyone is
able to avoid that, it's hard to tell if something new will look nice
or not until it's finished.

"Prometheus" wrote in message
...

I know, and that's likely the case with most of us- I just notice a
strong trend (stronger in the Wreck than here) towards the idea that
anything but an ancient food-safe oil is bad news. The whole deal is
sort of tounge-in-cheek, as I've been guilty myself of falling into
the same groove of thinking of the "right" and "wrong" ways of
finishing things. I'm just playing devil's advocate, and figured I'd
put in a plug for staining and polyurethane, as they are so often
villified.


What you said!?!?!?!?!

Shame on you. We know that polyurethane is the spit of the devil over on
the rec. I use it all the time. Got the second coat of it on the duckling
in passing after visiting a friend in the hospital this afternoon. Still
ugly, but I have to remember that, save my excellent taste in women - she
keeps telling me that - I am not the Lady Astor of the woodworking set.
What I like is simply what I like.

Maybe I'll take a picture of him if I dig out the camera tomorrow. My day
with the daughter for breakfast and shopping, but I'll do some wood later
on.

"mac davis" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 01:45:14 -0600, Prometheus
wrote:


I turn some pretty bland wood and I usually wet sand with natural Danish
oil...
If I'm sanding something kind of "blah", I'll wet sand it with the cherry
or
walnut Danish Oil to give it a little color and bring out any character..
======================
Mac,
What advantage do you get by wet sanding with the oil rather than sanding
first and then applying the oil? Is there some noticable difference in the
final appearance or just a time and step saver? The Danish oil I use (Watco)
instructs "flooding" the surface and allowing to sit for 30 minutes, then
reapplying for another 15 minutes before drying all oil off the piece. This
allows 45 minutes for max penetration. Seems to me that wet sanding wouldn't
allow this much time for penetration. Plus, on pourous woods, like oak and
walnut, the sanding slurry acts as a sealer/filler that can fill and dull
the color. Do you compensate for this, or do you not find it a problem?

Ken Moon
Webberville, TX.

"Prometheus" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 06:33:15 -0500, "George" George@least wrote:


"Prometheus" wrote in message
. ..
SNIP..........
Ahh, here's the nub of what I was getting to. I've been wondering if
that was the reason for the oil & wax school of thought. You know, a
1/2 pound cut of shellac over the piece before staining will even that
out, if you ever feel like trying it again. Staining is nerve
wracking to learn, for sure- just my idle curiousity at work when I
was wondering if the easiest method got accepted as the "right" way to
do it because of that.
SNIP.............
===================
This is something I've commented on before, but never got a definitive
answer; when you use shellac or any sanding sealer, BEFORE staining or
applying an oil, you eliminate wood penetration. It seems to me that a lot
of the "pop" that comes from an oil treatment is lost because you're
treating the sealer and not the wood. I've used stains and colored Danish
oils mixed into other finishes to stain and finish in one step (just did a
Danish oil and poly mix yesterday to quick finish a manzanita root project).
Do you find a lack of color and contrast in projects where you seal first,
then stain versus the other way?

Ken Moon
Webberville, TX.

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 18:10:38 GMT, "Ken Moon"
wrote:


"Prometheus" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 06:33:15 -0500, "George" George@least wrote:


"Prometheus" wrote in message
...
SNIP..........
Ahh, here's the nub of what I was getting to. I've been wondering if
that was the reason for the oil & wax school of thought. You know, a
1/2 pound cut of shellac over the piece before staining will even that
out, if you ever feel like trying it again. Staining is nerve
wracking to learn, for sure- just my idle curiousity at work when I
was wondering if the easiest method got accepted as the "right" way to
do it because of that.
SNIP.............
===================
This is something I've commented on before, but never got a definitive
answer; when you use shellac or any sanding sealer, BEFORE staining or
applying an oil, you eliminate wood penetration. It seems to me that a lot
of the "pop" that comes from an oil treatment is lost because you're
treating the sealer and not the wood. I've used stains and colored Danish
oils mixed into other finishes to stain and finish in one step (just did a
Danish oil and poly mix yesterday to quick finish a manzanita root project).
Do you find a lack of color and contrast in projects where you seal first,
then stain versus the other way?

Since I opened Pandora's Box, I'll be sure to answer you as
definatively as I know how-

I've stained several hundred lineal feet of pine trim, as well as a
dozen or better pine and birch doors using the 1/2lb. cut of shellac
washcoat method. There is also the commercial "sanding sealer" and
mineral oil method, but all the above mentioned were time sensitive,
so the shellac was the way to go (think twenty minutes dry time as
opposed to twenty hours)

What I found in all cases was that the washcoat did in fact even out
the stain penetration, and prevented the blotchy look that often
occurs with pine and birch. It slows the absorbtion of the stain into
the open grain, and leaves a more uniform final result. The downside
of this is that it changes the method you have to use to apply the
stain. Normally, you apply for 5-15 minutes, and then wipe off, but
with the washcoat, you need to apply it sparingly with an almost dry
brush and allow to dry without wiping. In the case of laquer as a
final clear-coat, you need to apply a second washcoat of 1/2lb.
shellac to eliminate the possiblity of scaling when you spray it (at
least with Sherwin Williams oil-based stains- the laquer seems to eat
them.) Polyureathane, Shellac, or Deft seem to be okay without the
second washcoat.

The lack of colors is to be expected, as the washcoat is minimizing
the stain absorption in the porous areas of the wood, but I've found
that the contrast is minimally affected. The wash coat doesn't block
the stain, it just fills the large pores a little to even the color,
and you'll find that the dense areas (the grain lines) respond
virutually the same as on an untreated timber. I have used this
method on standard trim pieces and bland turnings, so I cannot comment
on something with (for example) a bird's eye figure that is best
emphasized with an oil or natural stain. But on bland wood, it does
bring out the sometimes less-than-visible grain patterns.

The grain can be obscured- but this has only happened to me in one
case, when I was matching an existing color, and had to have the paint
store increase the standard amount of pigment in a semi-transparent
stain by a factor of eight. In that case, the stain I had to match
had been painted on without wiping the first time, so obscuring the
grain was the name of the game anyhow.

What you lose in immediate "pop" is regained when you apply the
clearcoat, at least IMHO. Overall, the method works well for me, and
the customer has always seemed to be very happy with the end result.
As noted in my first post, this may not make for high art, but it can
add some visual punch to a piece that needs a little help bring it to
life.

Hope this helps- If I forgot anything, I'll be happy to fill in the
gaps.

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 17:56:15 GMT, "Ken Moon" wrote:


"mac davis" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 01:45:14 -0600, Prometheus
wrote:


I turn some pretty bland wood and I usually wet sand with natural Danish
oil...
If I'm sanding something kind of "blah", I'll wet sand it with the cherry
or
walnut Danish Oil to give it a little color and bring out any character..
======================
Mac,
What advantage do you get by wet sanding with the oil rather than sanding
first and then applying the oil? Is there some noticable difference in the
final appearance or just a time and step saver? The Danish oil I use (Watco)
instructs "flooding" the surface and allowing to sit for 30 minutes, then
reapplying for another 15 minutes before drying all oil off the piece. This
allows 45 minutes for max penetration. Seems to me that wet sanding wouldn't
allow this much time for penetration. Plus, on pourous woods, like oak and
walnut, the sanding slurry acts as a sealer/filler that can fill and dull
the color. Do you compensate for this, or do you not find it a problem?

Ken Moon
Webberville, TX.

Ken.. I used to use mineral oil to wet sand stuff, went to Danish when I was
told that mineral oil isn't a finish.. *g*
Basically, the oil keeps the dust out of the air, flows some of the sawdust to
flow away from the paper and provides a little cooling...
I usually start with the oil about 1/2 way "through the grits"...

I use the directions you mentioned in flat work, but not usually with turning...

I apply oil and let it soak in for a few minutes, then wipe the excess off, then
sand until the oil is almost gone... that's usually when I change grits,
anyway..

Before each new grit, I lightly apply oil, wipe it of with lathe running, and
reapply to sand... I feel that this way I'm getting most of the last grit and
any "dirty" oil off the wood and preparing the wood for the next grit..

When the sanding is complete, I oil and wipe off a few more times to sort of
float any particles or whatever off, then brush on a heavy coat and let it sit
for a while..
I could flood it with the oil and it will hardly absorb any, as I've pretty
saturated it while sanding..

I set it aside for a few days and then buff..

I've bone dry and wet on pretty much identical things from the same wood and
just seem to get a smoother feel and deeper glow when buffed on the wet sanded
ones.. YWMV
Mac

https://home.comcast.net/~mac.davis
https://home.comcast.net/~mac.davis/wood_stuff.htm

"Prometheus" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 18:10:38 GMT, "Ken Moon"
wrote:


"Prometheus" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 06:33:15 -0500, "George" George@least wrote:


"Prometheus" wrote in message
m...
SNIP..........
Ahh, here's the nub of what I was getting to. I've been wondering if
that was the reason for the oil & wax school of thought. You know, a
1/2 pound cut of shellac over the piece before staining will even that
out, if you ever feel like trying it again. Staining is nerve
wracking to learn, for sure- just my idle curiousity at work when I
was wondering if the easiest method got accepted as the "right" way to
do it because of that.
SNIP.............
===================
This is something I've commented on before, but never got a definitive
answer; when you use shellac or any sanding sealer, BEFORE staining or
applying an oil, you eliminate wood penetration. It seems to me that a lot
of the "pop" that comes from an oil treatment is lost because you're
treating the sealer and not the wood. I've used stains and colored Danish
oils mixed into other finishes to stain and finish in one step (just did a
Danish oil and poly mix yesterday to quick finish a manzanita root
project).
Do you find a lack of color and contrast in projects where you seal first,
then stain versus the other way?

Since I opened Pandora's Box, I'll be sure to answer you as
definatively as I know how-

I've stained several hundred lineal feet of pine trim, as well as a
dozen or better pine and birch doors using the 1/2lb. cut of shellac
washcoat method. There is also the commercial "sanding sealer" and
mineral oil method, but all the above mentioned were time sensitive,
so the shellac was the way to go (think twenty minutes dry time as
opposed to twenty hours)

What I found in all cases was that the washcoat did in fact even out
the stain penetration, and prevented the blotchy look that often
occurs with pine and birch. It slows the absorbtion of the stain into
the open grain, and leaves a more uniform final result. The downside
of this is that it changes the method you have to use to apply the
stain. Normally, you apply for 5-15 minutes, and then wipe off, but
with the washcoat, you need to apply it sparingly with an almost dry
brush and allow to dry without wiping. In the case of laquer as a
final clear-coat, you need to apply a second washcoat of 1/2lb.
shellac to eliminate the possiblity of scaling when you spray it (at
least with Sherwin Williams oil-based stains- the laquer seems to eat
them.) Polyureathane, Shellac, or Deft seem to be okay without the
second washcoat.

The lack of colors is to be expected, as the washcoat is minimizing
the stain absorption in the porous areas of the wood, but I've found
that the contrast is minimally affected. The wash coat doesn't block
the stain, it just fills the large pores a little to even the color,
and you'll find that the dense areas (the grain lines) respond
virutually the same as on an untreated timber. I have used this
method on standard trim pieces and bland turnings, so I cannot comment
on something with (for example) a bird's eye figure that is best
emphasized with an oil or natural stain. But on bland wood, it does
bring out the sometimes less-than-visible grain patterns.

The grain can be obscured- but this has only happened to me in one
case, when I was matching an existing color, and had to have the paint
store increase the standard amount of pigment in a semi-transparent
stain by a factor of eight. In that case, the stain I had to match
had been painted on without wiping the first time, so obscuring the
grain was the name of the game anyhow.

What you lose in immediate "pop" is regained when you apply the
clearcoat, at least IMHO. Overall, the method works well for me, and
the customer has always seemed to be very happy with the end result.
As noted in my first post, this may not make for high art, but it can
add some visual punch to a piece that needs a little help bring it to
life.

Hope this helps- If I forgot anything, I'll be happy to fill in the
gaps.
====================

Thanks for the extended reply. This method is somewhat at odds with the
"traditional" way I've always used, so it is interesting to hear other
methods that also work. I had always thought of staining over sealer as
coloring the sealer instead of the wood. I'll keep this stashed away in
memory for the next "difficult" wood.

Ken

"mac davis" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 17:56:15 GMT, "Ken Moon"
wrote:


"mac davis" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 01:45:14 -0600, Prometheus
wrote:


I turn some pretty bland wood and I usually wet sand with natural Danish
oil...
If I'm sanding something kind of "blah", I'll wet sand it with the
cherry
or
walnut Danish Oil to give it a little color and bring out any
character..
======================
Mac,
What advantage do you get by wet sanding with the oil rather than sanding
first and then applying the oil? Is there some noticable difference in the
final appearance or just a time and step saver? The Danish oil I use
(Watco)
instructs "flooding" the surface and allowing to sit for 30 minutes, then
reapplying for another 15 minutes before drying all oil off the piece.
This
allows 45 minutes for max penetration. Seems to me that wet sanding
wouldn't
allow this much time for penetration. Plus, on pourous woods, like oak and
walnut, the sanding slurry acts as a sealer/filler that can fill and dull
the color. Do you compensate for this, or do you not find it a problem?

Ken Moon
Webberville, TX.

Ken.. I used to use mineral oil to wet sand stuff, went to Danish when I
was
told that mineral oil isn't a finish.. *g*
Basically, the oil keeps the dust out of the air, flows some of the
sawdust to
flow away from the paper and provides a little cooling...
I usually start with the oil about 1/2 way "through the grits"...

I use the directions you mentioned in flat work, but not usually with
turning...

I apply oil and let it soak in for a few minutes, then wipe the excess
off, then
sand until the oil is almost gone... that's usually when I change grits,
anyway..

Before each new grit, I lightly apply oil, wipe it of with lathe running,
and
reapply to sand... I feel that this way I'm getting most of the last grit
and
any "dirty" oil off the wood and preparing the wood for the next grit..

When the sanding is complete, I oil and wipe off a few more times to sort
of
float any particles or whatever off, then brush on a heavy coat and let it
sit
for a while..
I could flood it with the oil and it will hardly absorb any, as I've
pretty
saturated it while sanding..

I set it aside for a few days and then buff..

I've bone dry and wet on pretty much identical things from the same wood
and
just seem to get a smoother feel and deeper glow when buffed on the wet
sanded
ones.. YWMV
Mac
======================

Thanks Mac,
That sounds like the way I used to sand lacquer on cars. Water sanding down
to 1000 or so seemed to make the surface better for the final coat. That wet
down that you do between grits would take care of the slurry that concerned
me. I'll have to try that.

Ken

On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 03:09:28 GMT, "Ken Moon" wrote:

Thanks Mac,
That sounds like the way I used to sand lacquer on cars. Water sanding down
to 1000 or so seemed to make the surface better for the final coat. That wet
down that you do between grits would take care of the slurry that concerned
me. I'll have to try that.

Ken

Exactly, ken.. me too.. lol

Before I started turning pens this month, I thought I'd seen the last of any
grit higher than 800... some of these folks sand pens to 2,500.. sheesh!

I bought a pen sandpaper assortment online and am running out of 800 &
1,000grits.... they're the 2 LOWEST it came with..
Mac

https://home.comcast.net/~mac.davis
https://home.comcast.net/~mac.davis/wood_stuff.htm

"mac davis" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 03:09:28 GMT, "Ken Moon"
wrote:

Thanks Mac,
That sounds like the way I used to sand lacquer on cars. Water sanding
down
to 1000 or so seemed to make the surface better for the final coat. That
wet
down that you do between grits would take care of the slurry that
concerned
me. I'll have to try that.

Ken

Exactly, ken.. me too.. lol

Before I started turning pens this month, I thought I'd seen the last of
any
grit higher than 800... some of these folks sand pens to 2,500.. sheesh!

I bought a pen sandpaper assortment online and am running out of 800 &
1,000grits.... they're the 2 LOWEST it came with..
Mac
===================

Mac,
Most auto parts places that carry body repair supplies will carry high grit
wet/dry papers, but most are black. If you're doing light colored woods,
they may not be your best bet.

Ken

On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 22:36:13 GMT, "Ken Moon" wrote:


Mac,
Most auto parts places that carry body repair supplies will carry high grit
wet/dry papers, but most are black. If you're doing light colored woods,
they may not be your best bet.

Ken


Must be a better grade of paper or something, then?
These were from Pens of Color and "made" (cut?) for pen work...
Some are black, some gray.. they don't seem to leave any color on light wood or
Corian, used wet or dry..
Mac

https://home.comcast.net/~mac.davis
https://home.comcast.net/~mac.davis/wood_stuff.htm

"mac davis" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 22:36:13 GMT, "Ken Moon"
wrote:


Mac,
Most auto parts places that carry body repair supplies will carry high
grit
wet/dry papers, but most are black. If you're doing light colored woods,
they may not be your best bet.

Ken


Must be a better grade of paper or something, then?
These were from Pens of Color and "made" (cut?) for pen work...
Some are black, some gray.. they don't seem to leave any color on light
wood or
Corian, used wet or dry..
Mac
==============

I've never experienced problems with the black wet/dry, but I've heard of
some people having problems with porous grain woods that were light colored.
I'd try it with which ever type wood you are using. If there's a problem,
then you should be able to clean it out by applying additional water and
burnishing with a paper towel.

Ken