• It's time to cast your vote in the January 2025 Turning Challenge. (click here for details)
  • Conversations are now Direct Messages (click here for details)
  • Congratulations to Alan Weinberg for "Elm Burl Bowl" being selected as Turning of the Week for January 27, 2025 (click here for details)
  • Welcome new registering member. Your username must be your real First and Last name (for example: John Doe). "Screen names" and "handles" are not allowed and your registration will be deleted if you don't use your real name. Also, do not use all caps nor all lower case.

oils + waxes or synthetics?

Sergio Villa

Sergio Villa

Joined
Apr 13, 2013
Messages
269
Likes
2
Location
Ct
hello everybody. I have a question/problem I'll like to discuss. I see a lot of turned wood finished with synthetic products such as polyuretanes, etc and other artificial products. I personally, although not a very expert turner, like more natural choices such as oils (boiled linseed or walnut) and bee and carnauba wax. The reason of my preference is simple. The natural finishes I mentioned are totally safe on the turner and the final user and, very important to me they allow aging of the wood and the build up of a patina with time that synthetics will never get. Synthetics in my opinion are for the short period whereas natural oil and waxes are forever and improve with time.
Furthermore synthetics tend to give an innatural mirror polish that really bother my eyes. This is perhaps because I like so much american period furniture that have never seen polys.
What is your opinion on this?
 
So what are your thoughts on Shellac? Been around for centuries? Lacquer and varnish, again, been around for a long, long time, not as long as shellac but ...
Then there is the maintenance issue with oils. Can be time consuming and in this age of go, go, go is something people don't want to bother with. Especially if it's a gift and then you tell them they will have to recoat it and buff it out ever so often.
 
Not sure how long you want them to last but my dining room table I built 25 years ago. Used many coats of wipe on poly. It still looks great and was used for everything from grading papers and building projects for my wifes science classes to eating of course.
As far as being food safe, it's just plastic. We eat off that stuff fairly often. Every been to a picnic and used plastic forks on styrofoam plates and cups. Not an issue in my book.
What is an issue if it's a bowl is repairability or the finish chipping (which or course looks terrible). For that reason oil finishes are good. For tables I now prefer Lacquer because it is easily repairable where Polyeurethane isn't. My table has held up well but I suspect in 50 or 100 years not so well and will have to be stripped and refinished. If it was lacquer it could easily cleaned and refinished without removing the previous lacquer.
 
my preferences are the oil, wax & shellac type of finishes on turnings that sit on shelves. on furniture i go with a good varnish. On eating bowls, I prefer just oil.
 
Sergio,
It's all in what you plan for your work.
Most of my work is designed to sell. I will sell 90% of my work with gloss finishes. Most of it is gloss poly for people like shiny objects, that's a fact even though I prefer a soft finish like oils, selling is just the opposite.
I enjoy having people ga ga over my finishes so that's my goal.
Oils take time every sin months or so to replenish and other people won't take the time to do that. Gary
 
OK , I forgot to mention shellac, which with a little of oil and alcohol is the base of french polish which reaches a mirror finish. I indeed use shellac a lot.

As far as sell-ability, it is too bed that people like kitsch. But I understand the point.

25 years? that is absolutely nothing in term of time. Period american furniture was made in the 1600-1700 period, not to mention italian or other european furniture. Furthermore, a table may still look good after 25 years of polyurethane but I'm talking of "patina of time" which is like aging with a good wine. It makes the difference. One can of course eat with coca cola bat there is the difference. Food also has its role in what one drinks.

I've seen bowls sold for $30,000 and made with a manual lathe in the 1700'. Fantastic, for shape and size and...patina. Still perfectly usable. Then if one want to really see beautiful stuff made of wood, just have to go to Metropolitan Museum or other museums unless can spend thousands of dollars for a candle stand or a tea table or a tea caddy. All turned things by the way. There is a lot to learn from the older, I mean older, masters. And they never used poly.

I read threads on woodturning and art. Well finish is important in art, but art as to last centuries otherwise is just craft, which is perfectly fine but, in my opinion is not art.

But sell-ability is a point. A pragmatic point but still a point.

Thank you for your opinions.
 
Last edited:
Not sure of what you are calling Patina. Many woods will change color and get what we often call Patina, with or without finish and the type of finish doesn't matter. Most of these woods change due to UV light and in my experience no finish will stop this.
Cherry, Box Elder, Osage Orange, Padauk, Purple Heart, come to mind. They change pretty dramatically but other woods change slower and less dramatic but still change.
 
patina is mainly used for metals. For wood I intend that "feeling" that older furniture or other wood utensils emanate after years of use and exposure to skin oils and air. Cherry and mahogany acquire a beautiful patina and a depth of color given by oxidation. I imagine that cherry covered with polyurethanes will just show the alligatoring of the synthetic skin.
But I realize that I may be wrong.
 
Patina is a term used a lot in the antique industry to describe the finished surface of furniture.
Many pieces lose a lot of value when the owners strip and refinish pieces.

Iris a combination of wood color, finish color, and accumulations of waxes and dirt.
 
Last edited:
I am always amazed on Antiques Roadshow how much value they put on old finishes. Surely that piece with cracked and worn finish would look better in your house with a restored finish. I wouldn't have a piece in my house that looks like some of the ones they rave over. Is this all just hype? Do you have to sell the darn piece at Southbys to make it worth that much?
Can you imagine having a party at your house. Of for god's sake don't put your drink on that old ragged piece of furniture. You might change the value of my antique. They said it was worth $15K. Of course it was given to me by my Aunt so I'll never sell it. So then of course it has no value because they aren't going to put it on the market and really find out. :)
 
I would like to show with a couple of pictures what I mean by wood patina.
The first is a finial of the back post of a late 1600 chair. You can see that where the hands touched the posts to move the chair the patina built up. The rest of the post would use a little cleaning but this is another matter.
The second is a reproduction of a chair done thirty years ago. The patina is just starting to build on the hand rest of the front post.
The third is a late nineteen century burl bowl with just the beauty of the wood and a little patina on the rim where the hands touched the bowls. About fourteen inches in diameter and probably black ash.
No worms, or cracked paint or other signs of side road antiques.
 
But bowls would never develop the type of patina that is on the 2 post. That's years of hand oils being rubbed into them on a daily basis. The patina on the usual piece is oxidation through the finish into the wood. And there are 2 different types of patina with furniture. The patina of the wood and the patina of the finish. Curators will re-amalgamate the finish to do repairs. Basic dissolve just enough of the original finish to do the repair of the finish. Shellac and lacquers are the easiest. Varnish takes a little more skill and practice. The patina of the wood is much harder to destroy. Sanding, planing, bleaching, etc. You can mimic wood patina through several different chemical processes too.
 
Hate to say it but it can be simulates with steel wool and various other techniques. I do it all the time when duplicating parts for antique clocks for a friend. Using different finishes and different techniques to abrade the finishes you can come extremely close to duplicating the look of antiques.
 
Quite a few years ago there was an article in a magazine about a guy who purposely made a chair to fool the experts. They all agreed without a doubt this chair was made 100 years or so ago and quoted why. If I remember correctly they even X-rayed the chair.
He came forward afterword to reveal the hoax. It was very interesting reading.
 
Sergio Villa said:
Period american furniture was made in the 1600-1700 period, not to mention italian or other european furniture.
Click to expand...

To be accurate and pick nits, this (^) time-frame in N. American history would be part of the colonial period.

There is a lot to learn from the older, I mean older, masters. And they never used poly.
Click to expand...

Ahhh, BUT, would they if it were available? I believe they would use whichever product yields the best results for the effort and time required. Heck, they would probably have used catalyzed finishes! (Imagine Rembrandt creating digital collages with airbrushed elements...)

But sell-ability is a point. A pragmatic point but still a point.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that the museum pieces that are considered art today were not created as art but pieces of furniture sold as a means of income. It is primarily through happenstance and favored pathways through time that these pieces were preserved. A huge percentage of works did not survive to present day, not because they were not of comparable skill, creative vision, and beautiful finish but, because of use, abuse, and natural destruction.

The makers of the past were producing work that would sell. They used techniques, tools, and finishes that were affordable for their operation and produced finished pieces that the clientele was willing to pay for. I fully believe that these same makers would use all of the conveniences and technical and chemical knowledge of modern time if they were alive today. We tend to romanticize the past, and by extension, imprison those people with the technologies and knowledge by which they were constrained. In other words, under different (modern) circumstances, would you expect them to only use the hand tools and finish materials known 200 years ago?
 
Last edited:
Sorry, but what has this to do with patina of time?
What has this to do with the fact that plastic will not resist the test of time?
What has this to do with the beauty (some people may not like it of course) of natural patina and why many artisans try to reproduce it with steel wool and other means, just obtaining an "old look" and not patina?

I see that while many turners use plastics, other use natural oils and waxes with excellent results. The latter work will produce a natural patina that will increase their beauty. The other will chip and crack, like many old and new work that was painted and finish with oil and/or shellack (very easy to renew).

What old masters would have used if they had the means would have been probably the choice of the client and not theirs and here come the sell-ability factor. But time is often a good judge.
 
Not sure what patina of time is. I grew up in the antique business and furniture restoration business. Seems you really just have an issue with the "plastics" because you will get finish patina and wood patina with lacquers, varnishes, and most waterborne finishes.
All finishes have their place. Craftsman if the past simply used what they had available. The price for a true colonial item with original finish is simply because it has survived that long with it. 99.9% of bowls that were made then were for use, not art. In today's era most are made for art and not for use.
Wonder why you don't see any FBE bowls 100 years old with the red? Because UV inhibitors weren't around. Now, with the UV Acrylic finishes you might. Everything has it's place, learn to accept them all.
 
I forgot to mention:
Think about French Polish: Would they have spent the time to get that gloss back then if they had the options of some of the high gloss acrylic finishes of today? And would they have applied by hand if they had the HVLP units of today? Technology and advancement is a good thing.
 
Great discussion.
I tend to use oils, wax, shellawax, turners polish. I don't use the more modern acrylics, ca finish etc. The two I use most are a beeswax and mineral oil mix or tung oil. I use finishes as I think the use will dictate and these finishes can simply be reapplied without stripping. My school of thought is these durable attractive finishes that are easy to maintain have been around a very long time because of these qualities. I don't expect modern finishes will withstand that kind of a test. Yes they go on fast but there is certainly going to be a trade off. For me the selection of finish and application is a part of the process and really for me that is a part of the relationship I have with everything I create. :cool:
 
That "aged" patina will not happen on 99% of what turners make these days either, just because the modern creations are not handled, used, washed dried, soiled, cleaned again, re-oiled and so on. Even a modern utilitarian bowl is never going to have the same aged look as a Colonial age bowl because that piece would have been used every day and then allowed to "bake in" with the hand oils, dirt and wood oils...over a period of 200+ years!

I prefer a multi coat of tung oil, buffed and waxed. It's soft sheen/glow really appeals to me. But to my non woodturning family/friends, they prefer the higher gloss, poly coated items.

I have seen an old "master" furniture repair man create chair repairs with an "aged patina". The repairs on the antique chairs where invisible to the naked eye. He used several oils and an old leather belt that he ran back and forth over the wood, burnishing it. Of course he applied other finishes like shellac in his process, but non the less, it was aged and looked exactly like the other chair parts.
 
Brian McInturff said:
I forgot to mention:
Think about French Polish: Would they have spent the time to get that gloss back then if they had the options of some of the high gloss acrylic finishes of today? And would they have applied by hand if they had the HVLP units of today? Technology and advancement is a good thing.
Click to expand...

Maybe not. Back in the stone age the USAF decided that they would hire out the job of floor maintenance to civilians. Since the civilians paid by the hour, they looked to reduce hours, and so acrylic wax was applied to the floors. At Minot AFB, this contract lasted around 30 days before the detail airmen returned to the extremely inefficient water-emulsion wax, after stripping the acrylic.

Seems it wasn't the shine, it was the buff marks that counted.

FWIW, lacquer of other sort has a pretty long history as well. http://www.urushi-kobo.com/history.html
 
Last edited:
After having read the various post, I have a better focus on my concept.
Decoration with various mediums has been done forever and in this case there was always problems with decay, fading, chipping etc. Patina does not embellish it as the example of the Sistine Chappell shows very well. In this case the "patina" created by the smoke of the candles and oil lamps covered/ruined the colors and had to be removed with a marvelous work of restoration that, by the way, was contested by some experts which preferred the soot to the bright colors of Buonarroti that appeared after the restoration. This restoration wanted to bring back the original painting and is totally different from the concept of making something new to look old.
The things, in my opinion change when one makes something to show the pure beauty of a piece of wood. In this case the plastic shine of certain finishes appears unnatural at least to me and even prevail over the beauty of the wood and prevents the build up of a patina as shown in my previous pictures. Natural oils and waxes "blend" more gently into the wood and become part of it improving its beauty, aging with it and allowing the patina to enrich it.
French polish, which was mainly done in highly decorated furniture and showed the richness of the piece but if well done it blends in the wood in a different way than synthetics and brings up the chatoyancy of the mahogany or other woods. It became a fashion when labor was cheap and probably overdone.
 
Sergio, after reading all of the various posts for the past several days, I got the impression that you might be mixing two separate subjects as much of your discussion had to do with restoration and/or aging on very old wood. While that is a worthwhile topic, I don't see that as a driver in pointing my finishing methods in any particular direction. As already mentioned, things were finished in a certain way in days past because the methods used were what was the state of the art at he time or the materials that were available. There is certainly nothing wrong with liking the way that wood ages, I think the charm of old pieces has more to do with the provenance than what has happened to the surface. The effects of time serve to document the history of a piece, but the proud original owner back then might have been dismayed if it started out looking several hundred years old.

Back on the subject of what finish to use today as opposed to what was used once upon a time here is my two cents worth. It's pretty simple -- I use whatever I think works best for the particular piece. For instance, if I made a Christmas tree ornament with the globe dyed a bright color, oil and or wax would be a terrible finish. If I made a rolling pin for the kitchen then I might use mineral oil because it continues to soak into the wood until it reaches steady state conditions (uniform throughout) and I would also pick a wood like maple rather than something like red oak. On bowls, I have used various oils, shellac, lacquer, and varnish as well as no finish on some of my mesquite bowls where I polish the wood until it shines as much as any gloss lacquer finish, but without darkening the wood. I don't pretend that any of my turnings will be around for centuries (or even decades), but if so, future conservators and archeologists will already have the knowledge of how to restore ancient twenty-first century artifacts. :D I especially like using dyes to enhance the chatoyance of highly figured maple. Clear gloss lacquer is about the only finish today that helps to bring out the the effect. I ceretainly would not put shellac or a darkening oil or wax or polyurethane varnish or any water based finish over the dye for various compatibility reasons.

One final thought is that I see beeswax as about the worst finish possible. My opinion is not a majority view, but it is just my personal perspective. It is a popular finish especially for treenware and many turners use it. To me it is too soft and perhaps even a bit gummy inviting dirt and dust to become partners with it. I don't do kitchen utensils, but if I did, I might consider using it for a few things. Occasionally I will use carnauba wax which is hard and much more durable, but still not nearly as durable s a film finish.

If you are interested in my advice, I would say to not limit yourself to one or two materials because of what was once used. We have not yet reached the imagined perfect finish that everybody will proclaim to be the ultimate in perfection.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top