Re: Finishing: favourites, alternatives
Sam Simpson
>Hi Y'all,
Derek, I can certainly understand your reluctance to go further with a project when your diligence with hand tools have delivered you to such a satisfying place. I'm a furniture maker and a finisher. And I have learned to approach the problem from different angles, there is certainly no one approach that is right for all occasions.
At the outset of my career I was taught that wood needed to be protected from it's users. What you have been doing so far achieves that goal, and there would be nothing wrong with continuing down that road. Sometimes even less is required of a finish. Objects of art that will never be handled often require finishes that will enhance the appearance of the wood, and protect it from deterioration, but nothing more.
We are too often bombarded by thoughts of those finishes that are designed to capture a "look," these are finishes that use stain and hard surfaces to emulate something that exists on other pieces. Today's new mahogany for instance doesn't look very good, but an old chair made of old mahogany that has matured by being used over the years looks great. So we develop finishes to emulate the mature look of the wood. Professional furniture makers need to get pretty good at these types of finishes, but if you are making furniture of your own design and for your own use, it is not necessary to do anything that delivers you to a point you don't like.
Probably what you should be thinking about in terms of finishing, is matching the finish hardness to the hardness of the wood surface. This will provide the best long term protection. And for utility pieces, a bed certainly is that, you should consider upkeep. Such things as cleaning, and the eventual reapplication of finish. Will your finish provide for this?
As far as the individual or small shop is concerned, nothing much has changed about finishing in over 300 years. All of these new fangled plastic finishes where not invented because the old finishes where no good. The deficiencies that where found in the old finishes that spawned the invention of new products has more to do with time and application. What the furniture manufacturer wants is a repairable finish that is lightning fast to apply, dries and cures instantly so it can be stacked in a truck and shipped right off the end of the assembly line. That is what has driven the finishing manufacturers. And you shouldn't feel bad if you don't want to buy into that stuff.
Personally, if you buy a piece of my furniture it is going to come with a combination finish of nitrocellulose lacquer under-layers (to provide a quick build of the colour matrix) and French polished surface, (to provide a surface off of which the light reflects most pleasingly) unless you give me good reason not to. I also prefer to use wax as a final coating, and in cases of extreme conditions will even use auto waxes.
Finishes are all about utility and appearance. Even on the very finest inlaid satinwood museum pieces, the finish is still all about utility. Take for instance a box that has had that beautiful burnished look that you describe, so that the chatoyance shimmers in the light. Left unfinished it will quickly revert back to having a flat appearance that does not shimmer. This is because the moisture that is all around us will lift and cleave the grain, the light will bleach it out and if no care at all is taken of it, it will soon look like drift wood.
So your only question is, am I protecting what I see, or am I trying for a look that I don't yet see? Either way, there are finishing answers.
Regards Sam Simpson.