Wet sand paint

@Jim Delany   Thanks.  @Peter Martin I saw that but wanted real world experience with the product.  Thanks

Wet sanding is designed to overcome some of the problems that one might want to delay sanding for.  Namely gumming up the paper and making the process futile.  As long as the surface has cured long enough to allow wetting it will normally work fine.

As always with finishing questions, asking on the internet is fine, but normally in the same time frame one could have run a sample, which is almost always more useful.  So if you had a piece of scrap, you work the finish left in your brush onto, or just tried your preferred approach out on the underside of the table, you will get more reliable information than questions, even to the paint techs, will reveal.

Mike L wrote:

Well I painted some cabinets the other day inside.  When I got done with them, there are some rough spots that I would like to wet sand a bit to smooth out.  I figure I will have to wait until the paint cures completely, so thirty days or so.

I am using Target coatings water based enamel.    DO I have to wait the 30 days or can I do it sooner?  

Thanks

Personal experience here - target makes a clear that chemically cures supposedly around 48 hours. I used it on a couple of guitars and wet sanded at about 10 hours without too much issue. obviously, the surface is still reactive to water, but you let it dry some before you move on, and it gives you the opportunity if you burn through or sand through something, you will get a chemical cure with additional layers of finish and no witness line. 

I'd not only say you don't have to wait that long, I'd say it's in your interest to do it before the chemical cure completes. one of the nice side benefits of curing WB finish is you can intentionally operate within the dry but not cured window in case you need to add new coats after a surprise.

(edited to add later - this wet sanding a 10 hour or day old finish isn't a dicey experience - it doesn't go gummy or change the way it looks. If it's a concern with paint, it's worth asking them. i used clear gloss with that, so anything that woudl've gone sideways would've been very easily observable).

Jim DeLaney, Austintown, Ohio wrote:

I haven't used any of their pigmented products, but have used a lot of their EM8000cv conversion varnish.  When I asked, they recommended waiting a week before sanding/buffing.

It'd be interesting to pick their brains a little further beyond that. i don't, admittedly, ask much further once I find something that works, but a week gets you clear of their 120 hour estimate for chemical cure. And I get why they might want to do it. 

it'd be a rough go on guitars, though. 

Separately, when i started woodworking, I probably got stew mac "lacquer" (which I hear at the time was just a target WB) as the first WB finish I ever bought. I have bought target's products infrequently because I don't use WB much, but the very first can I had bought never had any special treatment and lasted at least 15 years being poorly treated. the last of it I placed in a jar and finished off last year, so maybe the right number of years is more like 18 or 19 years. 

I was shocked that it lasted that long, and every bit of it I ever used, whether it was a poor man's glue on paper labels on plane handle patterns (it's super dandy for that - find a shape, print it to scale, use the WB finish as a glue and then if it's a little dry, just brush the actual paper and it soaks in)....all of it always worked well. 

i hope they never change a thing about the EM6000, and I only haven't tried any of the other iterations because I don't spray often enough. 

I like that they use a silane crosslinker instead of diisocyanate, too.

Has anyone used their additional cross-linker?

Mark Mandell wrote:

Has anyone used their additional cross-linker?

I have used CL100, I think that's what it's called. the SDS will identify it as an organosilane crosslinker or something of that sort. 

It works great. the one part finish that I use (EM6000) is sort of similar to acrylic anything you've ever used that's clear, it has good clarity, isn't terribly hard and probably has good toughness. It also sands really easily. 

The crosslinker makes it monstrously harder and more resistant to abrasion, which I guess one would expect. I have used the CL on book cases in the past and on my kitchen cabinets. the result is good /usable. i doubt the finish is as durable as something like solvent conversion varnish (haven't used) but you can spray it in a garage with the crosslinker and not have anyone screaming like you would with lacquer or conversion varnish, and it's far harder than the can type alone. 

The crosslinker in my experience has much less shelf life than the finish itself, and over a couple of years, my container experienced sucking in and shrink presumably the same thing you will have happen with ethanol or turpentine goes through plastic containers and dissipates into the environment. 

Short story long, if you want the basic finish to be the same thing but quite a bit harder and more abrasion resistant, the crosslinker works well and I don't recall anything different about application. Probably deserves an extra level of respect cleaning out the gun, though (with CL added vs. not)

Thanks David,

I've got a gallon of General's Enduro Clear gloss Poly that try I might (thinning, exteender, etc) would simply not level out, AKA Major Orange peel.  Since Enduro has been my go-to top-coat for close to 15 years, I tried every which way to contact General about the problem.  Turns out they removed any means to contact them (no phone, email, web links, etc.).  Apparently they've removed the exhaust fans from the executive restroom.
I was an early adopter of Jeff Weiss's (Target) PSL waterborne lacquer with its 100% burn-in quality as I was doing rubbed-out finishes.  I had moved to General's Enduro because it was more tolerant of the dewaxed shellac I use as part of my finish routine, and gave an 85% gloss off-the-gun..  PSL had a tendency to cold-check when applied over anything but a very thin shellac application.

When no contact with General was possible, I called Jeff about my problem.  Without commenting on General's product or incommunitive marketing practices, he suggested using his EM coatings, including the cross-linker, for table tops.

Thanks for the response

BTW, if anyone here likes orange peel finishes, I've got a nearly full gallon of Enduro Clear Gloss Poly that's free for pickup here in NJ.  If no takers, it goes to the next haz-mat  collection day in my county

You will probably find like me that the crosslinked EM product isn't really quite like a solvent finish, but it's easy. 

If there is any lack of even-ness in the finish, it doesn't take much to abrade it off, and something's gotta be done with any bits or nibs that end up on the surface, anyway. it's all quick, and easy the way it should be. 

I would say that the EM6000 at least would be unsuitable alone for a table top even though it looks great - unless the table top was like a side table that wouldn't see much traffic. The crosslinker bridges the gap well. 

I've experimented with making varnish in the last couple of years and applied quite a bit of it. it's a superb finish, but not remotely close to easy given its crosslinking and who knows how it makes decisions on which way to pull and what way to go. I have some good ideas about it now, but to varnish a table top with legitimate hard varnish would take 10 times as long as the EM. 

Curious, and maybe you can help me figure it out - the target products mention compatibility with shellac and how much. I've never considered doing anything but putting EM on top of shellac. Are people actually mixing shellac in as a flattener with the WB finishes? I'm excluding the WB shellac products and sealers at this point - they may be better now, but I didn't care for them a decade ago.

David Weaver wrote:

Are people actually mixing shellac in as a flattener with the WB finishes? I'm excluding the WB shellac products and sealers at this point - they may be better now, but I didn't care for them a decade ago.

Never even heard about such a process.  I have heard about (but never tried it) mixing and oil like Waterlox  or Watco with a water borne finish.  Of course there are any number of "oil modified' waterbased coatings.  Benny makes one that I've used called "Advanced" and Cabots make a exterior stain that has held up very well on my cedar plank house.  Both are water cleanup.

Don't see how a high gloss resin like shellac would work as a flatting agent for a waterborne finish.
As I mentioned, Target has had cold-checking issues going on over heavier coatings of shellac.  My finish routine is Waterlox sealer, then dewaxed shellac, then top coat with waterborne clear.  I get a lot of light off the finish film to show off the color and grain.

 

Mark Mandell wrote:

David Weaver wrote:

Are people actually mixing shellac in as a flattener with the WB finishes? I'm excluding the WB shellac products and sealers at this point - they may be better now, but I didn't care for them a decade ago.

Never even heard about such a process.  I have heard about (but never tried it) mixing and oil like Waterlox  or Watco with a water borne finish.  Of course there are any number of "oil modified' waterbased coatings.  Benny makes one that I've used called "Advanced" and Cabots make a exterior stain that has held up very well on my cedar plank house.  Both are water cleanup.

Don't see how a high gloss resin like shellac would work as a flatting agent for a waterborne finish.
As I mentioned, Target has had cold-checking issues going on over heavier coatings of shellac.  My finish routine is Waterlox sealer, then dewaxed shellac, then top coat with waterborne clear.  I get a lot of light off the finish film to show off the color and grain.

 

I think the idea here that shellac and WB acrylic or whatever WB polymer isn't that either is flat, but rather than they don't reflect light the same way uniformly and could make something that looks like an out of solution varnish.

But I may have also just misunderstood what target's data sheets mean when they talk about compatibility with shellac. Including puzzling over why they want the shellac to be a 1 lb cut.

David Weaver wrote:

Mark Mandell wrote:

David Weaver wrote:

Are people actually mixing shellac in as a flattener with the WB finishes? I'm excluding the WB shellac products and sealers at this point - they may be better now, but I didn't care for them a decade ago.

Never even heard about such a process.  I have heard about (but never tried it) mixing and oil like Waterlox  or Watco with a water borne finish.  Of course there are any number of "oil modified' waterbased coatings.  Benny makes one that I've used called "Advanced" and Cabots make a exterior stain that has held up very well on my cedar plank house.  Both are water cleanup.

Don't see how a high gloss resin like shellac would work as a flatting agent for a waterborne finish.
As I mentioned, Target has had cold-checking issues going on over heavier coatings of shellac.  My finish routine is Waterlox sealer, then dewaxed shellac, then top coat with waterborne clear.  I get a lot of light off the finish film to show off the color and grain.

 

I think the idea here that shellac and WB acrylic or whatever WB polymer isn't that either is flat, but rather than they don't reflect light the same way uniformly and could make something that looks like an out of solution varnish.

But I may have also just misunderstood what target's data sheets mean when they talk about compatibility with shellac. Including puzzling over why they want the shellac to be a 1 lb cut.

Puzzle no more.  Jeff Weiss (Target's boss) told me years ago that too heavy a coat (including the "cut") fostered cold checking under his finishes,  Had that happen to me when using his PSL wb lacquer on some cherry.  Had to sand the effected parts back to raw wood and then redo the finish as Jeff suggested..  They took to recommending 1 lb. cut shellac to solve the cold-checking problem.