Replies

1. 
   SteveSchoene | Apr 23, 2006 02:59am | #1

   There is a better way.  Just reverse your procedure.  That is:  sand the surface to 220 grit.  Wipe off all the dust.  Then brush on a coat of 2lb. cut shellac.  When dry sand with 320 grit until there are shiny spots in the pores, but bare wood in between.  Wipe off the dust.  Apply another coat of shellac, let dry and sand again.  Repeat this process until you can sand out all the shiny spots without cutting through to the bare wood.  When complete you have filled all the pores with shellac and with a final top coat, will have a fully filled deep looking glow on the walnut. No opaque substance to cloud the finish.   

   
   

   ---

   Edited 4/22/2006 10:13 pm ET by SteveSchoene

1. 
   Chairwright | May 04, 2006 09:46pm | #2

   Steve:  Thanks for the tip.  I tried your method on the table leaves.  They ended up matching the table top exactly.  I did like the 2 lb shellac better than the sawdust and 1/4 lb shellac though.  One of my friends was lamenting the other day that sanding sealer doesn't have enough solids anymore.  If you make your own shellac from flakes, you can tell there is a lot of solids in a 2 lb cut and it works better than any other sanding sealer and/or pore filler I've used.  What I did was sand to P220, brush on a thick coat of 2 lb super blond shellac, sand down with P220 and observe the shiny shellac in the pores with the rest of the wood bare, brush on another coat of 2 lb shellac, sand down with 440 grit again to the point of not disturbing the shiny pores but otherwise bare, and then spayed on several coats of lacquer, wet-dry sanding with 600 and 1000 grit between each coat.  The whole thing ended up smooth as glass and looked great.  Thanks again.  Chairwright

1. 
   citrouille | May 05, 2006 07:00pm | #4

   Of course you could use the time proven technique of pumice stone and shellac.
   When you rub the wood, sprinkled with pumice stone, with a pad, (add a few drops of mineral oil for lubrication) the stone cuts the wood's hair and the mixture of shellac, pumice and wood fibers fills the pores.
   No sanding required, easier than one may think.C.

2. 
   jhounshell | May 05, 2006 11:06pm | #5

   Will you explain the math behind the #lb. cut, please? What is the difference between the 1/4 lb. and 2 lb.? (Just wanting to know the ratios).

1. 
   SteveSchoene | May 06, 2006 12:31am | #7

   The lb. cut gives the amount of shellac (dry flakes) in one gallon of denatured alcohol.  Jeff Jewitt's http://www.homesteadfinishing.com web site has an accurate chart showing how to convert one into another.  It's not important, except for repeatability with wash coats, that the concentration be very accurate.  If it seems to thick, add more alcohol. 

2. 
   forestgirl | May 05, 2006 06:27pm | #3

   Steve, I have printed out your procedure for future reference.  However, I have a feeling you've got waaaayyyyyy better close-up vision than I have.  One of the big frustrations with learning finishing at my age.....losing that close-up stuff.forestgirl -- you can take the girl out of the forest, but you can't take the forest out of the girl ;-) 

1. 
   SteveSchoene | May 05, 2006 11:41pm | #6

   My glasses are bifocals.  But the solution isn't so much new glasses but more light.  The more light you have the more the iris in your eye "stops down", which, as in a camera increases the depth of field.  A raking light, so it comes in at an angle also helps.   

1. 
   forestgirl | May 06, 2006 07:25pm | #8

   Yep, that "stepping down" is the concept behind the so-called bifocal contact lenses.

   I'm super-nearsighted, and am now moving to taking my contacts out when I finish.  I can see just about anything without the distance correction interfering.forestgirl -- you can take the girl out of the forest, but you can't take the forest out of the girl ;-)