topic title revised - Stonecat
I have started refinishing a Harden rocker that had been painted brown. After stripping & sanding, I have applied a coat of stain to the back stretcher as a test. Would appreciate opinions on it as to period accuracy, color, appearance....also should the grains be this dark and so black? My wife says it makes the chair look 'dirty'?
Any advice/opinions/feedback would be most appreciated before i continue on this

I think you should give up now, crate the chair and send it to me as a complete loss

Seriously, it looks just fine. It's quite common for the pores to darken up under staining, and/or stay dark after stripping. There are several reasons I guess - some old shellac left in the pores, some old wax or plain ol dirt left in the pores, different density in the wood which soaks up and concentrates more stain, and maybe even original 'filler' that was intentionally worked in to the pores. Personally I like the look because of the contrast. Its perfectly legit - no worries.

haha, you had me there for a sec...thank goodness for the grins!
Looking at the stripped areas, do you think they need further stripping? And I have been using a scraper to lift the paint with methyl chloride and then a wire brush to try to get the rest of the paint out of the pores. Is a wire-brush ok? Stripping pads do not seem to do the job....

Hello Ken,
I totally concur with Stonecat, however if you think it is too dark you might use a conditioner on it before you stain any further as then the open pours will not accept as much of the imitation fumed look. Personally I like it as it is and by the time you apply the finish that is when the highlights will stand out.

Respectfully,

Ralph Jones

Can you elaborate on what exactly the fumed look is? I have seen a lot of mission oak chairs in the original finish, some light and some dark, but do not quite grasp what is meant by 'fumed' look. I had always thought 'fumed' was another term for the medullary rays...but that is not correct, is it? Is fumed instead the darkness in the pores that contrasts with the lighter stain elsewhere, or is the fumed look just the overall dark look in general?

fuming is a process by which the bare unfinished wood is exposed to high concentration of ammonia fumes. the fumes interact with the tannin in the wood causing it to darken. the darkness depends on the time the wood is exposed to the fumes and the amount of tannin in the wood. this has to be done in an airtight place to hold the gasses and to protect the worker, the fumes can be very toxic.

safety is one of the reasons that fuming is seldom done any more.

tones can range from a light tan or gray to black, depending on the exposure. shellac will futher color the wood giving the traditional warm color of the furniture.

sometimes fuming is used in conjuction with stains or dyes to get the final result.

Gus Stickley used fuming as a way to even up the colour so that the rays were the same colour as the rest of the wood. He said that the outline or pattern created by the 1/4 cut was the only aesthetic element needed. It was sort of his way to compete with the Golden Oak look I guess where the rays were highlighted with staining. Others tried different mixes of stains and fuming to get a mix of effects.

Thanks for the explanations on fuming, that makes much more sense now. Is it ok to use a wire brush in conjunction with the methyl chloride to try to get the rest of the paint out of the pores? I read you can use a brass wire brush, but i think mine is steel wire....

..just be gentle with her, she's a hundred years old...I don't think it matters between a steel brush and stripper...steel and other stuff that can oxidize or cause the steel to rust, can however be an issue because it will stain the wood, so don't use a steel brush or steel wool and vinegar for example - as an aside however you could try a home brew stain by soaking steel wool in vinegar and/or other rusty steel bits; I think the Roycrofters did something like this, they kept a big vat going with rusty junk soaking away and dipped in to it for staining their furniture

Ken-
I have found that many antique oak pieces have the dark pores and I have at times tried to get that look back after repairing a section of furniture with new wood or stripping a piece. I have used finely powdered charcoal from my wood stove rubbed into the grain (I made this up and really don't know what the long term consequences are - it looks right though - haven't ever done it on a nice piece). I think if you work to get every bit of the darkness out of the grain it will look too new. HOWEVER, if you do want to get all of the darkness out OR if you are stripping a painted piece (see the red chair restoration post) then I highly recommend Lightning Strip. It is a spray on stripper that is quite expensive compared to other strippers but extremely effective. I am currently using it to restore a Stickley Bros. rocker - just one coat does it (alcohol didn't work well at all - I think it may have had a varnish overcoat). You can get it online or any Do It Best center can order it for you if you ask. It saves about $15/gal because of hazardous products shipping....
good luck!

Oh, and I use a brass bristle brush - softest I can find. Don't scrub too hard.

Thanks Steve. I am using 100% methalyne chloride, which i think is what lightning strip is...
I do have one concern that perhaps someone can answer. Because i have been using a wirebrush, i think i have inadvertantly removed most of the original paste filler along with the paint. Could that be why there was so much uneveness in the test area i stained? And should i apply a black paste filler or any paste filler before refinishing?

Yes, that is the active ingredient or maybe the only ingredient in lightning strip. What brand are you using? Just wondering if it is cheaper.

I am not sure what you mean by paste filler. Today, many sanding sealers are used to fill wood grain and make wood feel smoother but that was not usually done a hundred years ago. Do you mean paste wax? That should have all come off with the stripper. What you may be seeing is the softer part of the wood come out from the grain with the brush. I have had that experience. It causes the wood grain to feel much more rough but it should not affect the evenness of the stain. There are commercial wood conditioners available for encouraging more even stain applications but I believe those are usually used for softer woods, not oak. When you use the stripper be sure to rinse the piece entirely and thoroughly and then allow it to totally dry before trying the stain.

I read in the Pegged Joint that back in the day, they used wood filler if they wanted a shinier finish. My concern was that after using the wire brush and digging too deep, that in removing the paint i also removed the filler. I am not concerned about a shiney finish...but I Am not sure what will happen if I leave it as is vs using WOOD FILLER paste...if there are any other consequences..will it look bad? Also I read that Stickley would use a black paste wax AFTER applying the finish in order to get the antique patina effect. WOuld doing this after the finish accomplish the same thing so far as filling in the crevices? Instead of using a wood filler before the finish?

No, the black paste wax will not fill the crevices. However, I do totally understand your concern. When I restored the red chair I posted about earlier, the brushing dug out groves in the grain that are in fact still there. You can feel them if you run your finger nail across the grain but I don't think it is a big deal. I will take a close up of the grain tomorrow if I think about it. I used a black paste wax after applying 3 coats of 2lb cut amber shellac. I think that is the traditional finish. Stonecat?

EDIT - COPY and PASTE into one topic

ken
Member
Posted 05-22-06 01:46 PM
Ok, i have stripped and stripped and stripped this rocker trying to get the last vestiges of brown paint off. I am not sure...is this bare enough or do I need to continue stripping more? Also, i have been told that i should not have used a wire-brush. But I already did, so now the wood is pretty rough where the brush went in between the grains. So should i do anything before staining? Should i sand it before staining?

picture attached at bottom


Posts: 22 | Registered: 04-11-06

don szymanksy
Member
Posted 05-22-06 02:10 PM
yes, i would definitely sand. at least to 180 or 200. once you stain and shellac, should be very smooth to the touch.
Posts: 467 | Registered: 03-03-05

wabash
Member
Posted 05-22-06 03:13 PM
i would say that chair is well stripped and agree that you should sand. using a wire brush in any stripping job is fine as long as the finish in the crevices has been softened enough by the stripper. if not you just abrade the rest of the surface with the bristles. i have found burlap to be an adequate alternative to the brush and there is less possibility of overdoing it, at some point you aquire a feel for using a wire brush
Posts: 189 | Location: Smithers B.C. | Registered: 05-25-05

Ralph Jones
Member
Posted 05-22-06 04:44 PM
Hello Ken,
As already stated the wire brush will damage the good woods as well as to dig the crevasses even deeper. I always use a #3 imitation steel wool by the 3-M company for all my stripping of lacquer, varnish and oil, however stripping paint requires a paint remover style stripper, then wash it down with denatured alcohol. Allow to dry or evaporate and then sand , sand and more sanding. Then to fill the pores use a slurry of Wunderfil from rockler.

The chair as it stands at this moment is ready to sand from 80 grit down to 150 on all flat surfaces and 200 on any edge grain so the stain will not be darker on the open grain of the board ends.

Respectfully,

Ralph Jones

http://hometown.aol.com/ralj7/index.htm
Posts: 684 | Location: London, Ohio | Registered: 12-21-04

ken
Member
Posted 05-22-06 06:36 PM
Can anyone tell me the pros or cons at this point of the project (i am almost done sanding, sanded with 80, 150, 220) of using a wood filler paste before i stain? Also, I have read that Stickley used a black paste wax after the finish, in order to get the black antique patina look in the grain. How would applying this after the finish differ from using a wood filler before the finish?
Posts: 22 | Registered: 04-11-06

Steve06
Member
Posted 05-22-06 10:53 PM
We should really be keeping this all in one post.

The wood filler would be totally different in that it would be below the finish and might cause the wood to take the stain a bit different. I would skip the wood filler and use the wax at the end. I don't think a little roughness across the grain is a big deal.
Posts: 46 | Registered: 01-23-06

<Ken>
Posted 05-23-06 03:52 AM
Ok, so from the pics above, specifically the closeups, you do not think the crevices are too deep?


Steve06
Member
Posted 05-23-06 07:54 AM
I think it is a personal opinion thing. I wouldn't fill the crevices because I try to avoid adding products that were not added 100 yrs ago. Of course, you have a different situation here in that you have done something that wasn't done then either. If you think the crevices are too deep and would rather have the surface more smooth, try using the filler, if not, leave it. I haven't used the filler Ralph described but I have a feeling you could run into some color consistency problems.

The closeups look about as rough as what the red arm chair looked like before I sanded and finished it. The roughness is diminished after sanding and adding the finish but you can still feel the crevices. I don't think it is a problem. The paste wax will not fill the crevices unless you cake it on - and you don't want to do that.

..and the 2nd pic...

First thing to say here is..nice rocker, very nice proportions and feel to it.

Next, none of us probably knows how exactly Harden finished their chairs back in the day. There is good ducumentation from Gus Stickley and maybe others, but maybe Harden did something different - who knows. Nonetheless, educated assumptions leads to the standard shellac and wax scenario. Dark wax maybe but maybe not, however given the passage of time any wax worked into the pores will darken up, so a dark wax for restoration is a good choice. In turn, like Steve says, maybe a coat of wax doesn't fill the pores but if a chair gets repeatedly waxed over 100 years, the pores will fill and they will darken; I think this is a given and is part of the patina that develops over time. So, to fill or not to fill. I personally don't bother. If the grain gets raised and the pores dug out by stripping and then you do some decent sanding, I would think that's enough, and in fact would bring the wood back to essentially how it came from the original mill, so faithful in that regard. So then, even if they used some sort of filler at Harden, back in the day, I still wouldn't bother now because a little shellac and a little wax worked into the pores starts to fill them back up, and gives it the right colour, and in theory over time the pores fill even more. Final consideration, even if the wood has a little ripple or uneven grain, pores, whatever, this can also happen over time through humidity, expansion/contraction, temperature changes, and so on, that naturally affect wood, and since you don't necessarilly seal all surfaces of all pieces, a certain degree of 'movement' is expected.

ok, then just sand and sand until the grooves are minimal is preferable than using wood filler?
I did sand quite a bit already and the grooves are still somewhat deep in areas, but will go ahead and go the sand route sense that seems the lesser of the two evils. Should i use 80 gtiy until the grooves are small, and then go to the 150 and 220 again?

My advice at this point - never buy painted furniture

If you use 80 you will definately have to use a couple finer grades after to get the scratch pattern out.

At some point I think you'll just have to satisfy yourself that its done and ready for stain.

"One small step for refinishers everywhere, one giant leap for Ken"

ok, i took the leap.....not sure if I should have though, lol...
Honest opinions please....are the grooves really bad, or is it just me unable to be objective? I did the back and thought it came out ok (or did it?), but then i started on the front, and then stopped as the grooves just seem to be crying out for help..or is it just me?
Pics below. The closeups are of the front.