I am kind of new to woodworking and am building furniture for our
family room. I am building a TV stand and end tables out of red oak.
I am very close to Amish country in Ohio and found out that they use
catalytic varnish for the top coat finish. I can't seem to find
catalytic varnish sold in local woodworking stores as it seems to be a
commercial product. Can anyone tell me a comparable finish to use for
the DIY wood worker or a source for catalytic varnish? Since the
tables are being used in the family room they need to be resistant to
water and other liquids when setting or spilling glasses or cups of
beverages on the tables. Thanks in advance for your help.

shellac. Water resistant. I would imagine the Amish use this as well.


"Brian Turner" wrote in message
om...
I am kind of new to woodworking and am building furniture for our
family room. I am building a TV stand and end tables out of red oak.
I am very close to Amish country in Ohio and found out that they use
catalytic varnish for the top coat finish. I can't seem to find
catalytic varnish sold in local woodworking stores as it seems to be a
commercial product. Can anyone tell me a comparable finish to use for
the DIY wood worker or a source for catalytic varnish? Since the
tables are being used in the family room they need to be resistant to
water and other liquids when setting or spilling glasses or cups of
beverages on the tables. Thanks in advance for your help.

For the uses you are describing I don't see any reason to complicate things
by worrying about exotic finishes. If you really feel you need lots of
protection just get an off the shelf polyurethane varnish. It will do the
job just fine.

--
Mike G.

Heirloom Woods
www.heirloom-woods.net
"Brian Turner" wrote in message
om...
I am kind of new to woodworking and am building furniture for our
family room. I am building a TV stand and end tables out of red oak.
I am very close to Amish country in Ohio and found out that they use
catalytic varnish for the top coat finish. I can't seem to find
catalytic varnish sold in local woodworking stores as it seems to be a
commercial product. Can anyone tell me a comparable finish to use for
the DIY wood worker or a source for catalytic varnish? Since the
tables are being used in the family room they need to be resistant to
water and other liquids when setting or spilling glasses or cups of
beverages on the tables. Thanks in advance for your help.

perhaps you meant "conversion varnish"? It's available at Sherwin
Williams, for one. But don't buy it unless you like working with
hazardous materials. It's got some real nasty chemicals in it.

Instead, IF you have any HVLP you can get good results with Enduro water
borne lacquer or poly. You have to order it via 1-800 or look up
Compliant Spray Systems. You can also get a catalyzer that makes the
finish more durable, which could be added when spraying the top. As a
matter of fact they suggest that you only add the cat. to the final
coat. I bought some cat. but haven't needed to use it yet. The poly
goes on beautifully with HVLP. Dries fast. Must be sanded between
coats for adhesion according to the mfg. I haven't taken any chances
and recoated without sanding...

dave

Brian Turner wrote:
I am kind of new to woodworking and am building furniture for our
family room. I am building a TV stand and end tables out of red oak.
I am very close to Amish country in Ohio and found out that they use
catalytic varnish for the top coat finish. I can't seem to find
catalytic varnish sold in local woodworking stores as it seems to be a
commercial product. Can anyone tell me a comparable finish to use for
the DIY wood worker or a source for catalytic varnish? Since the
tables are being used in the family room they need to be resistant to
water and other liquids when setting or spilling glasses or cups of
beverages on the tables. Thanks in advance for your help.

Varnish isn't a very good protectant for dings, especially if you have kids.
I vote for polyurethane over plain wood conditioner.


"Mike G" wrote in message
...
For the uses you are describing I don't see any reason to complicate
things
by worrying about exotic finishes. If you really feel you need lots of
protection just get an off the shelf polyurethane varnish. It will do the
job just fine.

--
Mike G.

Heirloom Woods
www.heirloom-woods.net
"Brian Turner" wrote in message
om...
I am kind of new to woodworking and am building furniture for our
family room. I am building a TV stand and end tables out of red oak.
I am very close to Amish country in Ohio and found out that they use
catalytic varnish for the top coat finish. I can't seem to find
catalytic varnish sold in local woodworking stores as it seems to be a
commercial product. Can anyone tell me a comparable finish to use for
the DIY wood worker or a source for catalytic varnish? Since the
tables are being used in the family room they need to be resistant to
water and other liquids when setting or spilling glasses or cups of
beverages on the tables. Thanks in advance for your help.

Not to be a smarty pants Wilson but, polyurethane is a type of VARNISH.



"Wilson" wrote in message
. com...
Varnish isn't a very good protectant for dings, especially if you have
kids.
I vote for polyurethane over plain wood conditioner.


"Mike G" wrote in message
...
For the uses you are describing I don't see any reason to complicate
things
by worrying about exotic finishes. If you really feel you need lots of
protection just get an off the shelf polyurethane varnish. It will do
the
job just fine.

--
Mike G.

Heirloom Woods
www.heirloom-woods.net
"Brian Turner" wrote in message
om...
I am kind of new to woodworking and am building furniture for our
family room. I am building a TV stand and end tables out of red oak.
I am very close to Amish country in Ohio and found out that they use
catalytic varnish for the top coat finish. I can't seem to find
catalytic varnish sold in local woodworking stores as it seems to be a
commercial product. Can anyone tell me a comparable finish to use for
the DIY wood worker or a source for catalytic varnish? Since the
tables are being used in the family room they need to be resistant to
water and other liquids when setting or spilling glasses or cups of
beverages on the tables. Thanks in advance for your help.

From what I have read, shellac is not known for its water resistance
properties.

And is it the best finish for a table top with regard to durability?????


"js" wrote in message
...
shellac. Water resistant. I would imagine the Amish use this as well.


"Brian Turner" wrote in message
om...
I am kind of new to woodworking and am building furniture for our
family room. I am building a TV stand and end tables out of red oak.
I am very close to Amish country in Ohio and found out that they use
catalytic varnish for the top coat finish. I can't seem to find
catalytic varnish sold in local woodworking stores as it seems to be a
commercial product. Can anyone tell me a comparable finish to use for
the DIY wood worker or a source for catalytic varnish? Since the
tables are being used in the family room they need to be resistant to
water and other liquids when setting or spilling glasses or cups of
beverages on the tables. Thanks in advance for your help.

had to re-read. I thought he meant lacquer.

"stoutman" .@. wrote in message news:wXSOb.86934$nt4.134107@attbi_s51...
Not to be a smarty pants Wilson but, polyurethane is a type of VARNISH.



"Wilson" wrote in message
. com...
Varnish isn't a very good protectant for dings, especially if you have
kids.
I vote for polyurethane over plain wood conditioner.


"Mike G" wrote in message
...
For the uses you are describing I don't see any reason to complicate
things
by worrying about exotic finishes. If you really feel you need lots of
protection just get an off the shelf polyurethane varnish. It will do
the
job just fine.

--
Mike G.

Heirloom Woods
www.heirloom-woods.net
"Brian Turner" wrote in message
om...
I am kind of new to woodworking and am building furniture for our
family room. I am building a TV stand and end tables out of red
oak.
I am very close to Amish country in Ohio and found out that they use
catalytic varnish for the top coat finish. I can't seem to find
catalytic varnish sold in local woodworking stores as it seems to be
a
commercial product. Can anyone tell me a comparable finish to use
for
the DIY wood worker or a source for catalytic varnish? Since the
tables are being used in the family room they need to be resistant
to
water and other liquids when setting or spilling glasses or cups of
beverages on the tables. Thanks in advance for your help.

Shellac is extremely water resistant. and yes, its durable, and easy to
repair.


"stoutman" .@. wrote in message news:h7TOb.84599$sv6.199376@attbi_s52...
From what I have read, shellac is not known for its water resistance
properties.

And is it the best finish for a table top with regard to durability?????


"js" wrote in message
...
shellac. Water resistant. I would imagine the Amish use this as well.


"Brian Turner" wrote in message
om...
I am kind of new to woodworking and am building furniture for our
family room. I am building a TV stand and end tables out of red oak.
I am very close to Amish country in Ohio and found out that they use
catalytic varnish for the top coat finish. I can't seem to find
catalytic varnish sold in local woodworking stores as it seems to be a
commercial product. Can anyone tell me a comparable finish to use for
the DIY wood worker or a source for catalytic varnish? Since the
tables are being used in the family room they need to be resistant to
water and other liquids when setting or spilling glasses or cups of
beverages on the tables. Thanks in advance for your help.

I have Never used shellac, but I have read about it.

In Understanding Wood Finishes (my finishing Bible) by Flexner, he says that
"shellac is probably best known for its limited resistance to water,
alcohol, heat, and alkalis..."

Damaged by alcoholic beverages, heat will soften it...

"Because of shellac's POOR resistance to water, alcohol heat, and alkali,
its NOT the best finish for tabletops or other surfaces that are subject to
frequent use. But can be used almost everywhere else."

Again, I have never used shellac, this is what Flexner has written (a well
respected finisher).




"js" wrote in message
...
Shellac is extremely water resistant. and yes, its durable, and easy to
repair.


"stoutman" .@. wrote in message news:h7TOb.84599$sv6.199376@attbi_s52...
From what I have read, shellac is not known for its water resistance
properties.

And is it the best finish for a table top with regard to durability?????


"js" wrote in message
...
shellac. Water resistant. I would imagine the Amish use this as well.


"Brian Turner" wrote in message
om...
I am kind of new to woodworking and am building furniture for our
family room. I am building a TV stand and end tables out of red
oak.
I am very close to Amish country in Ohio and found out that they use
catalytic varnish for the top coat finish. I can't seem to find
catalytic varnish sold in local woodworking stores as it seems to be
a
commercial product. Can anyone tell me a comparable finish to use
for
the DIY wood worker or a source for catalytic varnish? Since the
tables are being used in the family room they need to be resistant
to
water and other liquids when setting or spilling glasses or cups of
beverages on the tables. Thanks in advance for your help.

read up on it here. Alcohol will soften it if its strong enough, but how
often you going to have alcohol greater than 50% on a table? and it isn't
"use it on kitchen counters water resistant, but more than suitable for what
you want to use it for. what do you think they used before varnish and poly?
..

http://www.popularwoodworking.com/fe...ea.asp?id=1206


"js" wrote in message
...
Shellac is extremely water resistant. and yes, its durable, and easy to
repair.


"stoutman" .@. wrote in message news:h7TOb.84599$sv6.199376@attbi_s52...
From what I have read, shellac is not known for its water resistance
properties.

And is it the best finish for a table top with regard to durability?????


"js" wrote in message
...
shellac. Water resistant. I would imagine the Amish use this as well.


"Brian Turner" wrote in message
om...
I am kind of new to woodworking and am building furniture for our
family room. I am building a TV stand and end tables out of red
oak.
I am very close to Amish country in Ohio and found out that they use
catalytic varnish for the top coat finish. I can't seem to find
catalytic varnish sold in local woodworking stores as it seems to be
a
commercial product. Can anyone tell me a comparable finish to use
for
the DIY wood worker or a source for catalytic varnish? Since the
tables are being used in the family room they need to be resistant
to
water and other liquids when setting or spilling glasses or cups of
beverages on the tables. Thanks in advance for your help.

what do you think they used before varnish and poly?

I also don't use candles to light my house, I use some of them new fancy
light bulbs.


Many improvements have been made in clear coat finishes. They used shellac
back then because they didn't have the choices we have today. Why not use
what's best for a particular application? Table tops can take a hech of a
beating. Shellac as a Top Coat is not as durable as some other finishes
(polyurethane). However, as you mentioned, shellac is easier to repair.
But I would rather spend my time doing other things then constantly
repairing finishes.




"js" wrote in message
...
read up on it here. Alcohol will soften it if its strong enough, but how
often you going to have alcohol greater than 50% on a table? and it isn't
"use it on kitchen counters water resistant, but more than suitable for
what
you want to use it for. what do you think they used before varnish and
poly?
.

http://www.popularwoodworking.com/fe...ea.asp?id=1206


"js" wrote in message
...
Shellac is extremely water resistant. and yes, its durable, and easy
to
repair.


"stoutman" .@. wrote in message
news:h7TOb.84599$sv6.199376@attbi_s52...
From what I have read, shellac is not known for its water resistance
properties.

And is it the best finish for a table top with regard to
durability?????


"js" wrote in message
...
shellac. Water resistant. I would imagine the Amish use this as
well.


"Brian Turner" wrote in message
om...
I am kind of new to woodworking and am building furniture for our
family room. I am building a TV stand and end tables out of red
oak.
I am very close to Amish country in Ohio and found out that they
use
catalytic varnish for the top coat finish. I can't seem to find
catalytic varnish sold in local woodworking stores as it seems to
be
a
commercial product. Can anyone tell me a comparable finish to use
for
the DIY wood worker or a source for catalytic varnish? Since the
tables are being used in the family room they need to be resistant
to
water and other liquids when setting or spilling glasses or cups
of
beverages on the tables. Thanks in advance for your help.

"stoutman" .@. writes:

[...]

Many improvements have been made in clear coat finishes. They used shellac
back then because they didn't have the choices we have today. Why not use
what's best for a particular application? Table tops can take a hech of a
beating. Shellac as a Top Coat is not as durable as some other finishes
(polyurethane). However, as you mentioned, shellac is easier to repair.
But I would rather spend my time doing other things then constantly
repairing finishes.

.... or use a "natural" and robust finish, like wax. My parents have a
maple kitchen table wich was waxed once, about 15 years ago, and
although it's not spared anything looks as good as new. The only stain
that seems to be paermanent was caused by a mushroom, which let it's
spores fall onto the table, giving an interesting pattern, because it
traced the mushrooms gills.
--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23

You have to admire a German physicist who also likes woodworking!

Cheers.


"Juergen Hannappel" wrote in message
...
"stoutman" .@. writes:

[...]

Many improvements have been made in clear coat finishes. They used
shellac
back then because they didn't have the choices we have today. Why not
use
what's best for a particular application? Table tops can take a hech of
a
beating. Shellac as a Top Coat is not as durable as some other finishes
(polyurethane). However, as you mentioned, shellac is easier to repair.
But I would rather spend my time doing other things then constantly
repairing finishes.

... or use a "natural" and robust finish, like wax. My parents have a
maple kitchen table wich was waxed once, about 15 years ago, and
although it's not spared anything looks as good as new. The only stain
that seems to be paermanent was caused by a mushroom, which let it's
spores fall onto the table, giving an interesting pattern, because it
traced the mushrooms gills.
--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 16:37:30 GMT, "js"
wrote:

Shellac is extremely water resistant. and yes, its durable, and easy to
repair.


SNIP

Flexner, in his book Understanding Wood Finishing, says "Because of
shellac's POOR resistance to water, alcohol, heat and alkali, it's not
the best finish for tabletops or other surfaces that are subject to
frequent use."

I'd vote for a polyurethane finish which has highest resistance to
water damage and most duraable finish altho v hard to repair - usually
requires stripping/sanding if top gets really messed up.

Bay Area Dave wrote in message . com...
perhaps you meant "conversion varnish"? It's available at Sherwin
Williams, for one. But don't buy it unless you like working with
hazardous materials. It's got some real nasty chemicals in it.

Instead, IF you have any HVLP you can get good results with Enduro water
borne lacquer or poly. You have to order it via 1-800 or look up
Compliant Spray Systems. You can also get a catalyzer that makes the
finish more durable, which could be added when spraying the top. As a
matter of fact they suggest that you only add the cat. to the final
coat. I bought some cat. but haven't needed to use it yet. The poly
goes on beautifully with HVLP. Dries fast. Must be sanded between
coats for adhesion according to the mfg. I haven't taken any chances
and recoated without sanding...

dave

Brian Turner wrote:
I am kind of new to woodworking and am building furniture for our
family room. I am building a TV stand and end tables out of red oak.
I am very close to Amish country in Ohio and found out that they use
catalytic varnish for the top coat finish. I can't seem to find
catalytic varnish sold in local woodworking stores as it seems to be a
commercial product. Can anyone tell me a comparable finish to use for
the DIY wood worker or a source for catalytic varnish? Since the
tables are being used in the family room they need to be resistant to
water and other liquids when setting or spilling glasses or cups of
beverages on the tables. Thanks in advance for your help.


You could use Bartley's Gel Varnish. I've had very good luck with it
on dining room tables including my own. It is easy to apply and does
not raise the grain so requires very little, if any, sanding between
coats. I normally sand the surface to 400 grit and then apply the
first coat. After that I do a lite touch between each coat with 600
grit. I suggest a minimum of four coats and even six in high use
areas.

Bill Benitez

http://woodworkdoctor.com

shellac prevents water vapor from penetrating the wood, but it is NOT
"water resistant"

dave

js wrote:

Shellac is extremely water resistant. and yes, its durable, and easy to
repair.


"stoutman" .@. wrote in message news:h7TOb.84599$sv6.199376@attbi_s52...

From what I have read, shellac is not known for its water resistance
properties.

And is it the best finish for a table top with regard to durability?????


"js" wrote in message
...

shellac. Water resistant. I would imagine the Amish use this as well.


"Brian Turner" wrote in message
e.com...

I am kind of new to woodworking and am building furniture for our
family room. I am building a TV stand and end tables out of red oak.
I am very close to Amish country in Ohio and found out that they use
catalytic varnish for the top coat finish. I can't seem to find
catalytic varnish sold in local woodworking stores as it seems to be a
commercial product. Can anyone tell me a comparable finish to use for
the DIY wood worker or a source for catalytic varnish? Since the
tables are being used in the family room they need to be resistant to
water and other liquids when setting or spilling glasses or cups of
beverages on the tables. Thanks in advance for your help.

On 19 Jan 2004 05:19:54 -0800, (Brian Turner)
wrote:

I can't seem to find catalytic varnish sold in local woodworking stores

Of course it's there, it's extremely common. So common in fact that
the "catalysed" part isn't normally mentioned. The only time we do
regularly talk about "catalysed varnish" is when it's not
pre-catalysed (as most of them are) but it's something like
acid-catalysed floor varnish that needs to be mixed immediately before
use.

Get a copy of Flexner, or Google this ng. for more finishing
information than you can shake a stick at.
--
Die Gotterspammerung - Junkmail of the Gods

"js" wrote in message
...
read up on it here. Alcohol will soften it if its strong enough, but how
often you going to have alcohol greater than 50% on a table? and it isn't
"use it on kitchen counters water resistant, but more than suitable for
what
you want to use it for. what do you think they used before varnish and
poly?
.

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.

Just to satisfy my curiosity. Where did you find Bob Flexner discussing
catalyzed varnish?

--
Mike G.

Heirloom Woods
www.heirloom-woods.net
"Andy Dingley" wrote in message
...
On 19 Jan 2004 05:19:54 -0800, (Brian Turner)
wrote:

I can't seem to find catalytic varnish sold in local woodworking stores

Of course it's there, it's extremely common. So common in fact that
the "catalysed" part isn't normally mentioned. The only time we do
regularly talk about "catalysed varnish" is when it's not
pre-catalysed (as most of them are) but it's something like
acid-catalysed floor varnish that needs to be mixed immediately before
use.

Get a copy of Flexner, or Google this ng. for more finishing
information than you can shake a stick at.
--
Die Gotterspammerung - Junkmail of the Gods

Thanks everyone for your input. I think I am going to go with a
polyurethane finish. This is one finish that I'm used to using. I
may put 4 - 6 coats on the end table tops just to add some extra
protection.


(Brian Turner) wrote in message . com...
I am kind of new to woodworking and am building furniture for our
family room. I am building a TV stand and end tables out of red oak.
I am very close to Amish country in Ohio and found out that they use
catalytic varnish for the top coat finish. I can't seem to find
catalytic varnish sold in local woodworking stores as it seems to be a
commercial product. Can anyone tell me a comparable finish to use for
the DIY wood worker or a source for catalytic varnish? Since the
tables are being used in the family room they need to be resistant to
water and other liquids when setting or spilling glasses or cups of
beverages on the tables. Thanks in advance for your help.

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 10:30:42 -0500, "Mike G"
wrote:

Just to satisfy my curiosity. Where did you find Bob Flexner discussing
catalyzed varnish?

Not sure I did - it's just the best "all-in-one" finishing book.

"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

On 21 Jan 2004 17:16:33 -0800, (Patrick Olguin)
wrote:

snip of shellacky hagiography (yeah, I know the term is broadly
abused)

Damned fine post, as usual, O'Deener.

But hell, ain't nitro lacquer an agriculturally based commodity in
some sense. It's based on cotton. If the South had come up with
nitro lacquer, they mighta gone places, back in the day.

I like nitro lacquer. I know it's nasty and kills yer brain but it's
a pretty predictable finish, once ya get used to it.

The only thing that I can see in shellacky's favor is the tactile
quality. I can polish up a properly cured nitro finish that is more
clear than the most blonde of blonde shellacs but I can't get the
feel.

(must be dat low molecular weight thing)

I think that shellacky is a better wipe on finish than nitro, even
when when you use the right solvents to slow down the drying.

I think that nitro has greater clarity.

The interesting thing for a nitro user to fess up to is that the water
based stuff is even more clear than nitro - but it looks too clear -
go figure.

I can't even adequately explain the above sentence but nitro has just
the proper ambering, to my eye.

I reckon it's what yer used to looking at and for.

If I didn't have a lot of money tied up in explosion proof fans and
such, I'd be more ready to be a shellacky guy but, having spent my
professional life trying to get **** out the door in the fastest and
bestest way possible, I'd have to go with nitro as my finsih of choice
for fine furnishings.

I know, this is a religious issue; most perfeshunnul cabinet guys have
long since switched to finishes other than either shellacky or nitro -
maybe I just like nitro because I'm on the third standard deviation of
the learning curve.




Thomas J. Watson-Cabinetmaker (ret)
Real Email is: tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet
Website: http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1

It's good having you back. Very eloquently put.

Take care
Mike

--
Mike G.

Heirloom Woods
www.heirloom-woods.net
"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

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.

You forgot about the most abundant solvent on the planet, water. Not very
resistant to water. And my favorite solvent, ethanol.

Do you still think shellac is the best solvent for a table top? Lets think
about how table tops are treated. Beverage spillage, water rings, heat
damage due to coffee/tea mugs with no coaster. There are other finishes
(varnish) that are more resistant to these conditions. Why not use them on
a table top which will be better able to stand up to these conditions?

If you go back to the original post, Brian was concerned about protecting
the table from spillage from beverages. Do you think shellac is the finish
of choice for this job? The table he was finishing is going in a family
room which tend to be "high use" tables. Still wanna tell him shellac is
the best finish for this job?

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.

They also have the same "fantasy" about finishes in the automobile industry.
Funny. All finishes can be scratched, true. But the key is, to what
extend and how easily? Which finish is most resistant to scratches? Is it
shellac? The OP was concerned about spillage and that it "needed to be
resistant to water". Still say shellac?

the overall pleasing result of various shellacs on architectural woodwork,
and its
ease (and therefore low cost/impact) of repair.

I thought this thread was about end tables.

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.

Flexner specifically says that shellac IS NOT THE BEST FINISH FOR TABLE
TOPS. Do you think that was an editing error? Unless the editor through
that sentence in on his own accord, which I doubt.

For the real scoop, the best solution is to go directly to the source.

You know Bob and have correspondence with him?

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.

Ok lets assume that. What if he had more bad things to say about it?

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.

How is it you know this? Is this a fact, a myth, your opinion? I thought
their goal was to make a better finish (improved marketability, eh?). It's
easier to push a better product over an inferior one, no?









"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

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

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 02:41:04 GMT, "stoutman" .@. wrote:

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.

You forgot about the most abundant solvent on the planet, water. Not very
resistant to water. And my favorite solvent, ethanol.

Dewaxed shellac is more resistant to water than nitro lacquer. Your
favorite solvent is prolly applied to the surface in concentrations
that will not bother the shellacky. you should lay offa that ethanol,
BTW.

Do you still think shellac is the best solvent for a table top? Lets think
about how table tops are treated. Beverage spillage, water rings, heat
damage due to coffee/tea mugs with no coaster. There are other finishes
(varnish) that are more resistant to these conditions. Why not use them on
a table top which will be better able to stand up to these conditions?

Mostly because they are ugly as ****.

If you go back to the original post, Brian was concerned about protecting
the table from spillage from beverages. Do you think shellac is the finish
of choice for this job? The table he was finishing is going in a family
room which tend to be "high use" tables. Still wanna tell him shellac is
the best finish for this job?

Ever tried to tune up a damaged poly finish? Does the concept of
witnes lines have any resonance with you?

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.

They also have the same "fantasy" about finishes in the automobile industry.
Funny. All finishes can be scratched, true. But the key is, to what
extend and how easily? Which finish is most resistant to scratches? Is it
shellac? The OP was concerned about spillage and that it "needed to be
resistant to water". Still say shellac?

See Supra.

the overall pleasing result of various shellacs on architectural woodwork,
and its
ease (and therefore low cost/impact) of repair.

I thought this thread was about end tables.

I thought this thread was about the proper finish for end tables.

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.

Flexner specifically says that shellac IS NOT THE BEST FINISH FOR TABLE
TOPS. Do you think that was an editing error? Unless the editor through
that sentence in on his own accord, which I doubt.

Flexner also says that he is talking about the shellac that is most
readily available to people in Borgs. Dewaxed shellac (available from
places where wooddorkers buy stuff) has a totally different profile of
water and vapor resistance than the usuallly found shellac that
contains high wax content.

For the real scoop, the best solution is to go directly to the source.

And read carefully.

You know Bob and have correspondence with him?

Yeah, he did. Don't that just skortch yer jeans?


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.

Ok lets assume that. What if he had more bad things to say about it?

Oh, Lordy - this is why the debate club has closed auditions.

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.

How is it you know this? Is this a fact, a myth, your opinion? I thought
their goal was to make a better finish (improved marketability, eh?). It's
easier to push a better product over an inferior one, no?

Control of resources is a business standard and switching from a
volatile market of agriculturally based resources to that of a
predictable synthetic nature is logically - good practice.


Bring your A game next time, Stoutman.


Thomas J. Watson-Cabinetmaker (ret)
Real Email is: tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet
Website: http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1

Mostly because they are ugly as ****.

This is your opinion.

I thought this thread was about the proper finish for end tables.

yep, it is. And it wouldn't be shellaccyy.

Yeah, he did. Don't that just skortch yer jeans?

a little.

Oh, Lordy - this is why the debate club has closed auditions.

This is a debate?

Control of resources is a business standard and switching from a
volatile market of agriculturally based resources to that of a
predictable synthetic nature is logically - good practice.

Agreed.

Bring your A game next time, Stoutman

Yeah, because you obviously did. (sarcasm)

I still wouldn't put crapashellacky on an end table that gets high use. But
that's just me being logical.




"Tom Watson" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 02:41:04 GMT, "stoutman" .@. wrote:

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.

You forgot about the most abundant solvent on the planet, water. Not
very
resistant to water. And my favorite solvent, ethanol.

Dewaxed shellac is more resistant to water than nitro lacquer. Your
favorite solvent is prolly applied to the surface in concentrations
that will not bother the shellacky. you should lay offa that ethanol,
BTW.

Do you still think shellac is the best solvent for a table top? Lets
think
about how table tops are treated. Beverage spillage, water rings, heat
damage due to coffee/tea mugs with no coaster. There are other finishes
(varnish) that are more resistant to these conditions. Why not use them
on
a table top which will be better able to stand up to these conditions?

Mostly because they are ugly as ****.

If you go back to the original post, Brian was concerned about protecting
the table from spillage from beverages. Do you think shellac is the
finish
of choice for this job? The table he was finishing is going in a family
room which tend to be "high use" tables. Still wanna tell him shellac is
the best finish for this job?

Ever tried to tune up a damaged poly finish? Does the concept of
witnes lines have any resonance with you?

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.

They also have the same "fantasy" about finishes in the automobile
industry.
Funny. All finishes can be scratched, true. But the key is, to what
extend and how easily? Which finish is most resistant to scratches? Is
it
shellac? The OP was concerned about spillage and that it "needed to be
resistant to water". Still say shellac?

See Supra.

the overall pleasing result of various shellacs on architectural
woodwork,
and its
ease (and therefore low cost/impact) of repair.

I thought this thread was about end tables.

I thought this thread was about the proper finish for end tables.

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.

Flexner specifically says that shellac IS NOT THE BEST FINISH FOR TABLE
TOPS. Do you think that was an editing error? Unless the editor through
that sentence in on his own accord, which I doubt.

Flexner also says that he is talking about the shellac that is most
readily available to people in Borgs. Dewaxed shellac (available from
places where wooddorkers buy stuff) has a totally different profile of
water and vapor resistance than the usuallly found shellac that
contains high wax content.

For the real scoop, the best solution is to go directly to the source.

And read carefully.

You know Bob and have correspondence with him?

Yeah, he did. Don't that just skortch yer jeans?


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.

Ok lets assume that. What if he had more bad things to say about it?

Oh, Lordy - this is why the debate club has closed auditions.

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.

How is it you know this? Is this a fact, a myth, your opinion? I
thought
their goal was to make a better finish (improved marketability, eh?).
It's
easier to push a better product over an inferior one, no?

Control of resources is a business standard and switching from a
volatile market of agriculturally based resources to that of a
predictable synthetic nature is logically - good practice.


Bring your A game next time, Stoutman.


Thomas J. Watson-Cabinetmaker (ret)
Real Email is: tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet
Website: http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 03:36:54 GMT, "stoutman" .@. wrote:

Mostly because they are ugly as ****.

This is your opinion.

Yabutt, I was a cabintemaker fer a bunch o'years. Don't that count as
bein' a perfesshunul witness, or sumpthin'

I thought this thread was about the proper finish for end tables.

yep, it is. And it wouldn't be shellaccyy.

I've some Italian-American friends in South Philly whose Grandmas keep
clear plastic on the furniture. Sure, it protects the furniture - but
it makes it damned uncomfortable to be with. They keep that plastic
wrap that comes on the lampshades, too. I don't like that look much.
We're talking about the demographic that hangs velvet Elvis paintings
in their house (more like Sinatra and Frank Rizzo in the specific
reference) and I'd like to steer clear of that in my wooddorking.

Yeah, he did. Don't that just skortch yer jeans?

a little.

Ya know, O'Deen sold that bug**** perfeshunally fer a while and he
talked to lotsa folks. He's right smart about it.

Oh, Lordy - this is why the debate club has closed auditions.

This is a debate?

Well, it sorta is - in a funky sense.

Control of resources is a business standard and switching from a
volatile market of agriculturally based resources to that of a
predictable synthetic nature is logically - good practice.

Agreed.

Bring your A game next time, Stoutman

Yeah, because you obviously did. (sarcasm)

I'll admit - that was a cheap shot on my part. I'm a'beggin yer
forgiveness.

I still wouldn't put crapashellacky on an end table that gets high use. But
that's just me being logical.

There's other things that can be done. I'd personally put glass tops
on the sunsabitches - but I guess that violates almost every prejudice
I've expressed in the above (what is that **** about "consistency is
the hobgoblin of small minds"?)

Have a good one, stoutman. Hope I didn't **** ya off.




Thomas J. Watson-Cabinetmaker (ret)
Real Email is: tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet
Website: http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1

Have a good one, stoutman. Hope I didn't **** ya off.

No. Ya didn't. It's all in good fun.

I don't claim to know everything about finishes, hell I just started this
wooddorking stuff a year and a half ago. I have just read a lot of negative
things about shelackky. I am reluctant to use it on "high use" items based
on what I have read.

I need to go change my jeans. They are a little skortched

Cheers!



"Tom Watson" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 03:36:54 GMT, "stoutman" .@. wrote:

Mostly because they are ugly as ****.

This is your opinion.

Yabutt, I was a cabintemaker fer a bunch o'years. Don't that count as
bein' a perfesshunul witness, or sumpthin'

I thought this thread was about the proper finish for end tables.

yep, it is. And it wouldn't be shellaccyy.

I've some Italian-American friends in South Philly whose Grandmas keep
clear plastic on the furniture. Sure, it protects the furniture - but
it makes it damned uncomfortable to be with. They keep that plastic
wrap that comes on the lampshades, too. I don't like that look much.
We're talking about the demographic that hangs velvet Elvis paintings
in their house (more like Sinatra and Frank Rizzo in the specific
reference) and I'd like to steer clear of that in my wooddorking.

Yeah, he did. Don't that just skortch yer jeans?

a little.

Ya know, O'Deen sold that bug**** perfeshunally fer a while and he
talked to lotsa folks. He's right smart about it.

Oh, Lordy - this is why the debate club has closed auditions.

This is a debate?

Well, it sorta is - in a funky sense.

Control of resources is a business standard and switching from a
volatile market of agriculturally based resources to that of a
predictable synthetic nature is logically - good practice.

Agreed.

Bring your A game next time, Stoutman

Yeah, because you obviously did. (sarcasm)

I'll admit - that was a cheap shot on my part. I'm a'beggin yer
forgiveness.

I still wouldn't put crapashellacky on an end table that gets high use.
But
that's just me being logical.

There's other things that can be done. I'd personally put glass tops
on the sunsabitches - but I guess that violates almost every prejudice
I've expressed in the above (what is that **** about "consistency is
the hobgoblin of small minds"?)

Have a good one, stoutman. Hope I didn't **** ya off.




Thomas J. Watson-Cabinetmaker (ret)
Real Email is: tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet
Website: http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 22:51:24 -0500, Tom Watson
brought forth from the murky depths:

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 03:36:54 GMT, "stoutman" .@. wrote:

There's other things that can be done. I'd personally put glass tops

There are.


on the sunsabitches - but I guess that violates almost every prejudice
I've expressed in the above (what is that **** about "consistency is
the hobgoblin of small minds"?)

The actual quote is "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of
little minds." Emerson (responsible for boobulous beach games in
LoCal?) said that. I just finished "Influence: The Psychology
of Persuasion" and Cialdini referred to this line as part of the
"click/whir" function of our minds.

Kinda like reacting to a .@. troll, wot?

Engaged.


----------------------------------------------------------------
"Let's sing praise to Aphrodite || www.diversify.com
She may seem a little flighty, || Full Service Websites
but she wears a green gauze nighty, || PHP Applications
And she's good enough for me." || SQL Database Development

Hey weirdo.

What the hell are you talking about?

Are you from Oz?



"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 22:51:24 -0500, Tom Watson
brought forth from the murky depths:

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 03:36:54 GMT, "stoutman" .@. wrote:

There's other things that can be done. I'd personally put glass tops

There are.


on the sunsabitches - but I guess that violates almost every prejudice
I've expressed in the above (what is that **** about "consistency is
the hobgoblin of small minds"?)

The actual quote is "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of
little minds." Emerson (responsible for boobulous beach games in
LoCal?) said that. I just finished "Influence: The Psychology
of Persuasion" and Cialdini referred to this line as part of the
"click/whir" function of our minds.

Kinda like reacting to a .@. troll, wot?

Engaged.


----------------------------------------------------------------
"Let's sing praise to Aphrodite || www.diversify.com
She may seem a little flighty, || Full Service Websites
but she wears a green gauze nighty, || PHP Applications
And she's good enough for me." || SQL Database Development

Ah the expert speaks again from his whole year and a half of experience.

While you are imparting to Tom and Odeen all the things they don't know
about shellac, which your vast experience has given privy too, why don't you
tell them how there is no such thing as a sense of depth and a 3D effect
from figured wood if you have a properly rubbed out finish.

I'm sure they would appreciate the knowledge you can pass on to them.

--
Mike G.

Heirloom Woods
www.heirloom-woods.net
"stoutman" .@. wrote in message news:sXHPb.101955$nt4.314737@attbi_s51...
Have a good one, stoutman. Hope I didn't **** ya off.

No. Ya didn't. It's all in good fun.

I don't claim to know everything about finishes, hell I just started this
wooddorking stuff a year and a half ago. I have just read a lot of
negative
things about shelackky. I am reluctant to use it on "high use" items
based
on what I have read.

Ah, come on Mike.

Do you really wanna keep embarrassing yourself this way?

Hey everyone! Mike here thinks you can't put a gloss on a finish by rubbing
out.







Mike G" wrote in message
...
Ah the expert speaks again from his whole year and a half of experience.

While you are imparting to Tom and Odeen all the things they don't know
about shellac, which your vast experience has given privy too, why don't
you
tell them how there is no such thing as a sense of depth and a 3D effect
from figured wood if you have a properly rubbed out finish.

I'm sure they would appreciate the knowledge you can pass on to them.

--
Mike G.

Heirloom Woods
www.heirloom-woods.net
"stoutman" .@. wrote in message
news:sXHPb.101955$nt4.314737@attbi_s51...
Have a good one, stoutman. Hope I didn't **** ya off.

No. Ya didn't. It's all in good fun.

I don't claim to know everything about finishes, hell I just started
this
wooddorking stuff a year and a half ago. I have just read a lot of
negative
things about shelackky. I am reluctant to use it on "high use" items
based
on what I have read.

That's right expert. I consider gloss a glare off of the surface of a finish
rather then the penetration and depth and also 3D effect you get by rubbing
out. But then again you are the expert with such vast experience...........

Read Odeen"s post about experts who have "read" something. It's tailored for
you.

--
Mike G.

Heirloom Woods
www.heirloom-woods.net
"stoutman" .@. wrote in message news:8xSPb.101532$sv6.442904@attbi_s52...
Ah, come on Mike.

Do you really wanna keep embarrassing yourself this way?

Hey everyone! Mike here thinks you can't put a gloss on a finish by
rubbing
out.







Mike G" wrote in message
...
Ah the expert speaks again from his whole year and a half of experience.

While you are imparting to Tom and Odeen all the things they don't know
about shellac, which your vast experience has given privy too, why don't
you
tell them how there is no such thing as a sense of depth and a 3D effect
from figured wood if you have a properly rubbed out finish.

I'm sure they would appreciate the knowledge you can pass on to them.

--
Mike G.

Heirloom Woods
www.heirloom-woods.net
"stoutman" .@. wrote in message
news:sXHPb.101955$nt4.314737@attbi_s51...
Have a good one, stoutman. Hope I didn't **** ya off.

No. Ya didn't. It's all in good fun.

I don't claim to know everything about finishes, hell I just started
this
wooddorking stuff a year and a half ago. I have just read a lot of
negative
things about shelackky. I am reluctant to use it on "high use" items
based
on what I have read.

Mike why are you getting upset? You may wanna consider increasing your
dosage of whatever antidepressant your on.

I never said I was an expert, however I did say I disagree with you.

You said if you want a gloss on a finish don't rub out. Do you really
believe this? You may be alone on this one Mike.

I consider gloss a glare off of the surface of a finish.

Really? Because what I have read from your posts you consider glare the
reflection off of wood grain.

"reflective gloss of a newly applied finish then refine it so the light
passes through the surface and reflects off the wood"

WHAT?


"Mike G" wrote in message
...
That's right expert. I consider gloss a glare off of the surface of a
finish
rather then the penetration and depth and also 3D effect you get by
rubbing
out. But then again you are the expert with such vast
experience...........

Read Odeen"s post about experts who have "read" something. It's tailored
for
you.

--
Mike G.

Heirloom Woods
www.heirloom-woods.net
"stoutman" .@. wrote in message
news:8xSPb.101532$sv6.442904@attbi_s52...
Ah, come on Mike.

Do you really wanna keep embarrassing yourself this way?

Hey everyone! Mike here thinks you can't put a gloss on a finish by
rubbing
out.







Mike G" wrote in message
...
Ah the expert speaks again from his whole year and a half of
experience.

While you are imparting to Tom and Odeen all the things they don't
know
about shellac, which your vast experience has given privy too, why
don't
you
tell them how there is no such thing as a sense of depth and a 3D
effect
from figured wood if you have a properly rubbed out finish.

I'm sure they would appreciate the knowledge you can pass on to them.

--
Mike G.

Heirloom Woods
www.heirloom-woods.net
"stoutman" .@. wrote in message
news:sXHPb.101955$nt4.314737@attbi_s51...
Have a good one, stoutman. Hope I didn't **** ya off.

No. Ya didn't. It's all in good fun.

I don't claim to know everything about finishes, hell I just started
this
wooddorking stuff a year and a half ago. I have just read a lot of
negative
things about shelackky. I am reluctant to use it on "high use"
items
based
on what I have read.

Mike,

I don't know here you having been buying your wood, but the wood I buy isn't
very reflective.

What is that your using "mirrorwood" ?




"Mike G" wrote in message
...
That's right expert. I consider gloss a glare off of the surface of a
finish
rather then the penetration and depth and also 3D effect you get by
rubbing
out. But then again you are the expert with such vast
experience...........

Read Odeen"s post about experts who have "read" something. It's tailored
for
you.

--
Mike G.

Heirloom Woods
www.heirloom-woods.net
"stoutman" .@. wrote in message
news:8xSPb.101532$sv6.442904@attbi_s52...
Ah, come on Mike.

Do you really wanna keep embarrassing yourself this way?

Hey everyone! Mike here thinks you can't put a gloss on a finish by
rubbing
out.







Mike G" wrote in message
...
Ah the expert speaks again from his whole year and a half of
experience.

While you are imparting to Tom and Odeen all the things they don't
know
about shellac, which your vast experience has given privy too, why
don't
you
tell them how there is no such thing as a sense of depth and a 3D
effect
from figured wood if you have a properly rubbed out finish.

I'm sure they would appreciate the knowledge you can pass on to them.

--
Mike G.

Heirloom Woods
www.heirloom-woods.net
"stoutman" .@. wrote in message
news:sXHPb.101955$nt4.314737@attbi_s51...
Have a good one, stoutman. Hope I didn't **** ya off.

No. Ya didn't. It's all in good fun.

I don't claim to know everything about finishes, hell I just started
this
wooddorking stuff a year and a half ago. I have just read a lot of
negative
things about shelackky. I am reluctant to use it on "high use"
items
based
on what I have read.

Do I look like a polecat and sound like a chick? I read that piece of ****
book too.


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 22:51:24 -0500, Tom Watson
brought forth from the murky depths:

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 03:36:54 GMT, "stoutman" .@. wrote:

There's other things that can be done. I'd personally put glass tops

There are.


on the sunsabitches - but I guess that violates almost every prejudice
I've expressed in the above (what is that **** about "consistency is
the hobgoblin of small minds"?)

The actual quote is "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of
little minds." Emerson (responsible for boobulous beach games in
LoCal?) said that. I just finished "Influence: The Psychology
of Persuasion" and Cialdini referred to this line as part of the
"click/whir" function of our minds.

Kinda like reacting to a .@. troll, wot?

Engaged.


----------------------------------------------------------------
"Let's sing praise to Aphrodite || www.diversify.com
She may seem a little flighty, || Full Service Websites
but she wears a green gauze nighty, || PHP Applications
And she's good enough for me." || SQL Database Development

"stoutman" .@. wrote in message news:sXHPb.101955$nt4.314737@attbi_s51...

I don't claim to know everything about finishes, hell I just started this
wooddorking stuff a year and a half ago. I have just read a lot of negative
things about shelackky. I am reluctant to use it on "high use" items based
on what I have read.

There's an inherent danger in armchair woodworking (or armchair
anything for that matter). While arming (pun intended) oneself with
as much information as possible before plunging madly into some sort
of endeavor is a good idea, eliminating a viable solution (for any
kind of problem), based merely on what you've read seems to be on the
close-minded end of things. Believe 3/4 of what you see, 1/2 of what
you read and 1/4 of what you hear. I dunno who said that.

As for shellac's supposed vulnerability to water - did you know
buttonlac (shellac that's prepared in a rather unusual way - it's
wrapped up in cloth and literally roasted over a fire; the molten lac
is subsequently squeezed out in fat drops and allowed to cool on steel
plate, forming a button-like glob of resin) is the preferred finish
for the hulls of wooden whitewater canoes? The reason is because the
buttonlac is quite hard, is resistant to (cold) water, is easily
renewed and slips over rocks and boulders like you can't believe. If
an oak end table is getting heavier use than the hull of a whitewater
canoe, then well, there are some serious issues going on in that
living room.

As for my analysis on the whys and wherefores of shellac's replacement
finishes, it is based on conversations/correspondence with many pros
in the finishing field, including exporters of shellac, finish
manufacturig reps, published authors (like Bob Flexner and Jeff Jewitt
to name a few), and my own observations of the industry. I'm a bit
reluctant to quote people directly, as I was not conducting interviews
and so I don't have their permission. So, while these opinions are my
own, they are not baseless.

Spraying to all fields - Watsoni and I have had many off-line
conversations, and so he and I go back a bit of a ways. He knows my
druthers on lacquer, having sprayed/polished/breathed my own fair
share while toiling in automotive spray booths. I used to use lacquer
on woodDorking projects as well, and I can't argue any of Tom's points
on it's ease of spraying, clarity and ability to take a high polish.
I do, however object to that plasticky look/feel one typically sees on
such otherwise fine articles of woodworking known as guitars. I think
once you've seen a french polished guitar (or ukelele), there's no
going back to lacquer. For some astounding work in shellacked
instruments, check this site:

http://www.ukuleles.com (The owner/build is a former customer)

Lastly, a sanity check on "high-use" furniture. Without sounding
condescending, it seems on so many fronts we want to have it all. In
the case of dining/kitchen tables, there has evolved this expectation
that one ought to be able to achieve a french-polish-like finish, and
still be able to glue model airplanes, change the baby, pull ear mites
from the cat, refinish an old radio, cook a small pig on a spit, serve
dinner on rustic stoneware, strip the finish off an old jewelry box
and feed the family on that one magically finishes surface, all
without consequence.

I (and I'm not alone, or companies like www.tablepads.com wouldn't
exist) employ table clothes, coasters and trivets to protect the
table's finish. This is only briefly, during mealtime. The rest of
the day, the dining table is displayed in all it's wonderful glory
(such as it is). Minor water spills, provided they're wiped up within
a day or two are gone without a trace. Yes, I said a day or two. If
you can't get to a spill withing a couple days, you are a slacker and
deserve a damaged finish. A spilled alcoholic drink?
Hahahahahahaahahahaha. Way too dillute to bother shellac, unless you
judiciously refresh the spill for a few days. What kind of craziness
would that be? I mean fer chrissakes people are still refinishing
their floors with shellac, and we're worried about end tables getting
too hard use?

Shellac - it's the only finish that's a combination dessert topping,
floor wax and hairspray... and it's certainly good enough, if not the
best choice, for casual end tables. That's my story and I'm sticking
to it.

O'Deen