Replies

1. 
   roc | Dec 13, 2011 06:53pm | #1

   Doesn't matter for your project

   As I recall, correct me if I am wrong, you wanted the finish to be down in the wood and the wood to look fresh and rich as if wiped with water but the water has soaked in and none is beaded on the surface.  Not a wet look but a rich saturated color of walnut.

   Yes ?

   Do not worry about gloss at all if you follow the advice of people here who are talking "in the wood" finishes.

   Do a few tests on scrap to verify and use several coats to find out how long it takes to get a finish built up TOO MUCH to where it does turn into an on the surface finish and then don't use that many coats on your project.

   Very VERY subtly the tung oil with NO drier should have more clarity.  It maybe able to soak into the cells of the wood a tiny bit further and have more clarity when cured.  WHEN THE LIGHT IS JUST RIGHT YOU CAN SEE DOWN INTO THE CELLS and structure of the wood and even though it is not reflecting a glare of light up at you it is making the wood transparent so it looks as if you can see down into it  1/4.  Probably less but that is the way it appears if you get it right ( and the wood is capable of the effect ).

   This little test table has Malloof made up with none polymerized tung oil (no added driers ) and it has the finish you are after and the depth that I am talking about.

   The "shine" on the surface if any is the same as it would be when I just planed it.  The last photos are wood that is just planed and there is no finish at all on them.  If that is too much shine see the comments in the other thread about steel wool, scotch bright pads and wax to make the surface look "flat" as in flat black.  Realize this will hurt the depth.  By the way some walnut has no depth so it is a mute point. 

   Would I be able to tell if I had used tung oil with driers in it. Maybe.

   Would the other people looking at it at my house be able to tell the difference ?

   Certainly not.

   
2. 
   woodworker417 | Dec 13, 2011 08:24pm | #2

   Thanks for the comments... the polymerized tung oil i was looking at -- sutherland & wells -- has no driers, it is polymerized through a heating process.  thanks for the photos and the advice.  sounds like i should stick with pure tung oil... i also read today that the oil/varnish ratio can have a significant impact on how much depth and color is pulled out of the wood, the more resin, the less depth....

1. 
   roc | Dec 14, 2011 01:08am | #3

   the more resin, the less depth....

   That jives with my experiments.

   I found lacquer alone on bubinga to be singularly boring.  That was a surprise.  Same with shellac.  Some of the various colors washed out or disappeared.

   A finish that was mostly oils and then top that with something harder worked well color and depth wise.  That meant a finish on top of the table though.

   Tung oil / heating process . . .

   Hmmm

   Sounds like the tung oil version of "boiled" linseed oil ( which isn't boiled at all )

   Stand oil linseed oil on the other hand sits for ever exposed to sun light but then that isn't the same either.

   Do you have a link ?  I am curious.

3. 
   woodworker417 | Dec 14, 2011 09:08am | #4

   Here's a link

   http://www.sutherlandwelles.com/tung-oil/why/

   By the way, do you think that naphtha with 4 0 sw should remove the existing Cabot oil varnish blend, which appears to have been applied fairly thinly?  If not, what process would you recommend?  Thanks

1. 
   roc | Dec 17, 2011 02:01am | #10

   Thanks for the link

   My first impression is that their product is no different than the other REAL tung oils that are not  "pure".  As I recall this is the same process others , including "boiled" linseed oil makers, use to make an oil finish that dries quicker than "pure" oils.  Heated but not boiled and some type of drier catalist added.

   I quote :

    "reducing the need for additional chemical dryers.  The driers that are used in the formulations have been researched and found to be of the lowest toxicity available"

   end quote

   I applaud their attention to detail and making a product that may be easier on the finisher and the environment.

   I think the final finish is going to be about the same as the old stuff.

   What do the people here with much much more experience than I think ?  Revolutionary results or just basic tung oil finish ?

   The "water proof " claim gave me a chuckle.  Basically unless the wood is encased in epoxy resin all the way around . . .

   she ain'gonna be water proof.

1. 
   roc | Dec 18, 2011 01:11am | #11

   A couple of photos I came across

   See the blacks ?

   and the golds ?

   Those were not there with the lacquer or shellac

   I had to use oils to bring those out.  I know, built up finish, but still instructive what a little experimentation can do.  I wish I could show you the deep red veins down in the depths but there is no way I can photograph it with my iPhone.  No sheet, red veins just like if it had fine capillaries with blood flowing through the table.

   
4. 
   bones | Dec 14, 2011 09:47am | #5

   if you don't want home made consider ....

   I'll be the first to admit that playing chemist was never my thing, so when my brother turned me on to Waterlox and I used it I've been a fan.  I work mostly in cherry and I like a non plastic look in my finishes.   I use the satin with the satin sealer.  You do need to be diligent and let dry as reccomended, but the finish is nice.  I've used it on cherry and bubinga.   It calls for wiping or brushing, but I prefer to spray with hvlp.  

   Here is a link to a couple pieces using this product.  Both turned out well one of the wine cabinets were for me and one for a client.  

   http://www.flickr.com//photos/22447246@N06/sets/72157626974447275/show/

   here is more info on Waterlox. 

   http://www.waterlox.com/assets/pdfs/woodworking-guide-FINAL.pdf

5. 
   HowardAcheson | Dec 14, 2011 05:12pm | #6

   Over Thinking

   Let me suggest you may be overthinking this.  As I suggested earlier, for an in-the-wood finish that will be the least amber, pure tung oil, a light alkyd/soya oil varnish like Pratt&Lambert 38 and mineral spirits is the best you can do. 

   Test it out with the 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 proportions and see how it looks on your test piece.  If you want more in-the-wood than what you first see, increase the proportion of mineral spirits.  For a more glossy look, increase the proportion of varnish.

   Your testing process should answer all the questions you have.

1. 
   woodworker417 | Dec 14, 2011 06:03pm | #7

   I am sure your right... But I have started testing on scrap, so I think I'm headed in the right direction....  Is there any concern that the flattening agent in the satin varnish will negatively impact the finish.... Of course, it keeps the gloss down, but at the same time do the flatteners "obscure" the wood at all?   I image not, but just wanted to check... Thx t

1. 
   HowardAcheson | Dec 16, 2011 04:52pm | #8

   Flattening agents are silica (microscopic size).  They are optically clear so do not reduce the clearity of the finish.  They just scatter the refraction and reflection of the light.

6. 
   roc | Dec 17, 2011 01:27am | #9

   naphtha with 4 0 sw

   Well the naphtha would remove any wax that happened to get put on , or, heaven forbid, Pledge or lemon oil like junk. Naphtha should take off most of the mineral oil ( which is what the "lemon oil " usually is.

   As far as the varnish and drying oils . . . nope nope.  The 4 0 sw or scotch bright pad should take off enough to improve adhesion, I think, but do what others here tell you in that department.  I have not used Cabots and as I understand it a finish should be stripped before refinishing a piece of furniture.  Especially when another finish is used instead of the original.  Shellac and maybe Lacquer being the possible exceptions.

   ONE THING YOU HAVE ON YOUR SIDE IS IF THE CABOTS IS FAIRLY FRESH, LESS THAN A YEAR OLD OR SO, THEN ADHESION TO IT IS GOING TO BE MUCH BETTER THAN IF THE CHAIR WERE TEN YEARS OR FIFTY YEARS OLD.

   As I recall they said if the resins are higher quality then adhesion shouldn't be a problem if you are adding more of the same to it.  But if there was poly varnish involved then the adhesion of something on top of it is going to be a problem.

   This is where Maloof uses the linseed. tungoil and beeswax as the yearly or twice yearly additional coating.  This has worked well for me though there was 1/3 poly varnish in the base coat.  Maloof calls this base coat a "primer", for the durability it provides , but the yearly stuff with the bees wax is his in the wood "finish".

   How is that for waffling all around the bush and back ?

   Sorry.  I am just telling you what little I have picked up.

7. 
   Don01 | Dec 20, 2011 08:40am | #12

   I like to use Lee Valley un polymerized tung oil. Thinned to out to at least 50% or more for the first five or six applications then move to full strength if necessary. Takes time but worth it. I have some of the polymerized, but don't find any real advantage to it.

   if water may be a problem, I use Waterlox original, thin it out to at least 50% wet sand in many coats and rub rub rub.

   I am a believer in getting the first 2 or 3 applications on thin, for adhesion and or penetration.

   Don

8. 
   jaginthedu | Mar 20, 2020 01:03am | #13

   I'm putting a Polymerized Tung Oil finish sold by Lee Valley on a hardwood tabletop, much like teak wood, locally called agrat or sal. After three coats and drying time of 18 hrs between each coat, Im still getting the grain rising up like the hairs on my neck after seeing this and rubbing my hand across the surface. I've tried 400 grit resanding between coats and #0 steel wool and it still occurs, what can I do? Should I go for more coats and hope to fill the grain or what?