Hi, everyone,
I’m planning to spray Target Finishing’s waterborne lacquer (on all surfaces other than the top)and their urethane (on the top, for added durability) on a cherry dresser I’m building. I was wondering if anyone knows if the cherry will darken in time, as it would if finished in oil-based urethane?
Your insight is greatly appreciated!
Cheers,
Planeround in Ottawa
Edited 3/7/2007 8:04 pm ET by Planearound
Replies
Plane,
Cherry will always darken with exposure to air and light. Depending on how much light it gets, most of the darkening occurs in days to weeks after being worked (sanded, scraped, etc) and finished. Then it continues to darken gradually for years. No matter how it is finished.
BTW, why are you concerned that the lacquer finish won't be durable enough for a dresser top surface? Properly applied and finished, it should be more attractive than the urethane and durable easily beyond that which is expected for a dresser.
Rich
Urethane typically adds abrasion resistence more than it enhances other properties, and it generally takes away from the clarity. (All these finishes are basically acyrlics so they are all going to have chemical and heat resistence similar to oil based lacquer more than to oil based varnish, urethane or not.)
The problem for finishing cherry is that unless you add a little amber dye you may get an overly cold looking finish. In my opinion, cherry really benefits from the warming effect of oil or other ambering finish.
The cherry will still darken over time, but the finish won't change color like an oil based varnish would do. If you don't want the darkening, choose red birch and finish naturally, or pick alder or soft maple and dye them to the color you want.
Planearound,
What Steve said. With emphasis on 2 points. If you are going to use a waterborne finish on cherry (I wouldn't), you are definitely going to need to use something to warm up the color. I would try BLO and garnet shellac under the waterborne. Then again I would do the same thing under an oil-base finish. It just wouldn't be so essential under the oil-base.
Secondly, I don't think that you should bother with the urethane. It is basically the same as the acrylic with a little urethane resin added. The loss of clarity alone would seem to me to offset the slight improvement in abrasion resistance.
Rob
Rob,
What is BLO? I should mention that I was kicking around the idea of shooting some of Fuhr's "natural" stain, which is actually a stain that imparts some warmth (read: oil-based finish's darkening effect) on the wood before topcoating it. As regards Target Finishing's urethane, which I've used very successfully on a number of pieces, I wasn't able to discern any loss of clarity on pieces I've previously finished... but to date, on no cherry. Further, based on my personal experience, urethane finishes are considerably more durable than lacquer - and I've used Fuhr, Target Finishing and Chemcraft's waterborne products. I think I'd better contact Target Finishing to see what, if any recommendations they may have, as I don't want to blow this job.Planeround in Ottawa
blo=boiled linseed oil
you won't blow the finish per se. it's just that working with cherry is a different experience. i did everything in poly until i began to learn more and work with different woods. it seems that many woodworkers begin to change their thoughts and perceptions over what is needed in a good finish as their experience develops. a dresser for instance will not likely need protection from water, but may well need abrasion resistence. oil as a finish is easily repairable. poly and varnish not so much so. shellac is very tough and can be applied right over an oil finish. it can also be rubbed out beautifully.
cherry responds very well initially to oils and the oil will not slow the darkening of the cherry, which is the beauty of that wood to me. still, cherry will darken under all finishes, just not as rapidly.
Planearound,
BLO is Boiled linseed oil. It does wonders for the depth and grain of most all woods. I don't have time to look up the MSDS sheets for the finishes you are using at this time. But in general what waterborne finish manufacturers refer to as polyurethane varnish or poly whatever is an acrylic finish with a little urethane added. They seem to try to equate their finishes with something that wood finishers are more familiar with. Just like waterborne laquer isn't really a laquer, it is an acrylic finish.
Rob
As several have already explained, Cherry will darken over time with or without a finish.
For either this job or for future reference you might want to pick up the latest issue of Wood magazine. On page 63 is a section illustrating how glued up Cherry heartwood headboards that matched perfectly in 2001 have darkened at different rates to a quite different and not nearly as attractive look today. Their strong suggestion for avoiding this is to try to use Cherry wood from the same board or at least from the same tree.
I would use a garnet or even dark garnet shellac as a first coat and then use the Target coatings lacquer on all surfaces. The Target Coatings lacquer over the shellac looks a lot like good old oil based varnish when rubbed out to satin.
Ron Brese
Yes Ron.....you've got the ticket!
I do what you do IF I use waterbased.
By the way, ANY waterbased finish will be more translucent than ANY oil finish. Previous advice has suggested that urethane equates with less clarity. This is true only for oil based products. The target H2O product with urethane added will still be more clear than any oil based finish. The closest for clarity would be super blond lacquer. This is commonly called "water white" nitrocellulouse lacquer.
I love cherry! It's all I work with. I only stain it if I have to and then only the sap wood. Generally I avoid the sap wood when I cut the pieces and get good results. Recently re-did the entire kitchen in cherry.
By the way, Waterlox products are very dark oils and actually look better on dark woods than boiled linseed oil. It is a superior product too. An excellent choice for a sealer before target products.
Don
Don,
I think you are confusing clarity with color. Sure waterborne (BTW they are waterborne, not waterbase. Water is just the vehicle used to transport the finish.) finish does not add color to the wood. That is what this discussion is about, waterborne finish leaving woods like cherry and walnut with a very cold, austere look.
Clarity, on the other hand, is about the finish not obscuring or filtering the grain and figure of the wood. If urethane resin in an oil-base varnish clouds the finish why wouldn't urethane resin in a water-borne acrylic do the same thing? If you are looking for a finish that excels in clarity, you can't beat shellac. It doesn't matter if it is ultra-blonde or dark garnet shellac. It is still going to have excellent clarity. That is one of the reasons that shellac is such a wonderful finish and does such a great job of bringing out the figure of wood. It lays down so tight to the wood that it does a superior job of light refraction.
Rob
Rob, According to Bob Flexner in his book "Understanding Wood Finishing", page 171, water-based is the term he uses most. I'll quote part of what he says there, "What is commonly called water-based finish, or water base, or waterborne, is really a solvent-based finish made with acrylic and polyurethane resins that are dispersed in water - borne in water, if you will. Calling it water base distinguishes it from solvent-based finishes - shellac, lacquer, and varnish - which don't use water. A true water-based finish would be impractical for use on household objects, because it would redissolve in water." I'm not sure how much experience you have with finishing, but I know that I have one heck of a lot less than Bob Flexner, and if he prefers the term "water-based", then I guess that I do, too. It appears that others do, too. As regards the question of whether or not water-based finishes are clearer than oil, perhaps hard and fast rules may not be applicable as there's been so much innovation in the area of water-based finishes these past few years. Take for instance the recent article in Fine Woodworking, where the author went on to say that water-based finishes are as good or better than their oil-based counterparts, which as he stated, couldn't be honestly stated a decade or less previously. The reasons I am using water-based materials increasingly more all the time is: 1) they are explosion-proof and I can thus spray them in my basement workshop; 2) they have considerably less effect on my spouse, who by the way is extremely sensitive to the smell of oil-based products; and 3) they're more environmentally friendly. That's reason enough for me to cause me to search for ways to use them on my projects. Thanks, everyone, for your ideas; please keep them coming!Planeround in Ottawa
Edited 3/8/2007 9:01 pm ET by Planearound
Planearound,
If you take what Mr. Flexner says in that paragraph to be an endorsement of the term waterbase then so be it. That isn't how I read it, but to each his own.
I don't know for sure what you mean when you say clear in relation to a finish. If you mean visual clarity as opposed to clear in color, then I don't recall comparing the clarity of oil-base to waterborne finishes as a group. I did say that oil-base poly has less clarity than varnish made with other resins. I also said that if polyurethane clouds an oil-base varnish then it stands to reason that it would do the same to any finish that starts out with a higher clarity before the addition of urethane. Including a waterborne acrylic with urethane added. Which is what your using when you use a waterborne poly.
As far as the FWW article you mentioned, Chris Minick is not what I would consider the final word in finishing. He certainly doesn't hold an equal position with the likes of Flexner and Jeff Jewwit.
Your first two reasons for using waterborne finishes are compelling. The last one I would consider questionable. Especially considering the volume of finish that you likely use. If you were buying your finishing supplies by the pallet, you switching to waterbornes may have an effect on the environment. I am not trying to discourage the use of waterborne finish, but I am going to use the best finish I can for each project. There are pros and cons with every finishing decision. That is why we don't all use the same product for every project. But on the project you are currently doing, MY personal choice would be BLO, followed by garnet shellac, followed by convincing the spouse to go visit family for the weekend while I applied a few coats of alkyd or phenolic resin varnish.
Rob
P.S. Type the words waterbase and waterborne into your computer and run a spellcheck. There will be no hit on waterborne but waterbase will come up. One of its suggested alternatives will be waterborne. Interesting.
(Oops. I meant to reply to planearound, not Rob A.)
Water-based and water-borne is a semantics thing hardly worth arguing about. Rob and Rich are correct in that the technically correct term is in fact water-borne. But water-based is not incorrect.... it's just a laymen's term for the same thing, as Flexner notes. The fact that spell check doesn't seem to recognize "water-borne" illustrates exactly why "water-based" is used. It's easily understood by everyone, whereas it's usually only going to be nerdy, esoteric finishers like me who are going to recognize and understand the technically correct term.
Flexner, like Jewitt and others, are deliberately trying to communicate as effectively as possible. Their books aren't written for master finishers. So they're going to use whatever terminology is going to be the most effective at the very point of the book - educating. And really it's not a big deal. What difference does it make what it is called as long as you've learned how to apply it correctly? None as far as I can tell.
Much ado about nothing.
Edited 3/9/2007 12:42 pm by Kevin
I agree.
But I also detest the concept of "dumbing down" a concept, because that's the way one assures the widest audience.
In the United States we live in an age of "dumbing down" knowledge and praising every student, no matter how poorly he or she actually performs or behaves. These are terribly misguided concepts which have, and will continue, to reap consequences detrimental to society.
My 2c rant, which few will appreciate. Maybe I need to dumb it down.
Rich
This is neither the time nor the correct forum for this... but, I submit that the problem in our schools is not "dumbing down" nearly as much as it is the abject failure to teach students how to critically think their way through a problem or issue. Our entire educational system is predicated upon forcing students to memorize data points and then regurgitate them upon demand. But memorization does not necessarily equal comprehension. So we've raised generations of Americans who are adept at spitting out complex concepts without necessarily understanding those concepts or why concept A is more legitimate than concept B. Which is, IMHO, at the root of why we keep electing dishonest politicians. Far too many of us refuse to question whether the trite phrases or campaign promises mean anything. The whole Iraq/WMD thing seems to me to illustrate this most succinctly.
Yeah. But you're right, this is not the place for this discussion and we shouldn't go any further in this part of the forum.
Rich
Planearound,I like the modern water-borne finishes too, but you are being a bit childish with the "waterbased/water-borne" thing. Seems like you're sticking your tongue out at Rob and saying "Nyahhh, nyahhh, Flexner says it's water BASED, so there!"It's water-BORNE, but so what?As far as your preference for these materials due to the lack of oil solvent smell, don't be deceived by their seemingly benign nature. When you spray these chemicals, you are still filling the air with many dangerous compounds that will cause serious respiratory problems if inhaled (by you in the spray booth, or others should the aerosol get into other parts of your house) and possibly skin and eye problems.Rich
Rich, I guess there's no sense in becoming pedantic over the water-based/waterborne/waterbase/whatever term, is there? In my response to Rob's assertation that waterborne was the correct term, I was attempting to point out that many people - including someone who is largely considered an expert in the field of finishes - were using other terms to correctly describe them. Sorry if my comments offended anyone, as that clearly wasn't my intention. These forums are far too valuable to us as a community to allow such trivia to get in the way of their true value - sharing information, advice and, yes, even opinions. Regarding the amount of HAPS and VOCs, etc., that water-based finishes give off, you're certainly correct in stating that they aren't benign. They are, however, considerably less hazardous (according to the MSDS sheets I've looked at) than their oil-based brethren and that's why I worded my statement the way I did. I should mention that I take every reasonable precaution, from the time I open the tin to when I dispose of any residue, to guard myself, others and the environment from harm.Planeround in Ottawa
Edited 3/9/2007 12:50 am ET by Planearound
I used the Target coatings on a recent project; two desks made of baltic birch with lots of figured cherry trim. I'm extremely pleased with the Target products, they were a dream to work with. Since I spray in my basement I had been looking for a water based line of products in order to avoid harsh fumes.
You're going to need a basecoat under the lacquer (it's not imperative, just a good idea) so you can start out with Target's wb shellac. If you want to add a little more color to the cherry they sell amber, garnet and golden red besides blonde. I did test swatches with blonde and golden red on cherry. Both were very nice but I decided to go with blonde. No real reason; on my next project I'll likely use the red as it looked very nice.
http://www.targetcoatings.com/sealer_ox_shellac.html
The first coat of shellac looks kind of yucky. Second coat much better. Third coat is gorgeous! You can't use their shellac as a finish coat because it's water soluble so even after it's dry water can damage the surface. However it's ideal for use under their lacquer. BTW, I wouldn't worry about poly on the top of the dresser. Lacquer all around should be fine.
Disclaimer: I'm no finishing expert. I did a ton of research on this product before spending my money and spent some time on Target's online forums. Just thought I'd share my experience.
One more thing, if you do end up using BLO or any other oil you'd need to let it dry for a long time before coating with Target lacquer. Two to four weeks or more. If you need confirmation of this go ask on the Target forum. The owners of the company regularly reply to all posts.
Good luck,
Michael
A few things I can tell you about finishing cherry using a product such as Fuhrs or a water based clear coat on cherry, it will not darken as with a solvent based finish. I used it in a kitchen with skylights and it changed color slightly but still looked very bland.
Moving on 15 years later (now) I have a bar to do in figured cherry.
In the past month or so I’ve tried 30 plus variations of stain , shellac ,
Oil , Etc. ( garnet or ruby shellac does not work) The one product I found to pop the figure in cherry is old masters wiping stain. Cherry mixed 4:1 with red mahogany. The red mahogany adds just a little brown. The question now that I have popped that figure do I spray with a solvent based finish, let it darken and possibly lose the figure? In this case I’m going with water based from Colorama in San Diego. ESC coatings. Their product in semi gloss lays out like glass. Not a problem using over a solvent wiping stain. The cherry retains the color I’ve achieved and it will hold the color without darkening.
30 years of trial and never giving up until a solution is achieved is the only way to succeed.
Photo is of just wiping stain without clear coat.
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled