Choice of finish for Saw Handles.

[planemaker]

http://www.woodsolutions.com.au/Articles/Resources/Timber-Finishes-Interior (http://www.woodsolutions.com.au/Articles/Resources/Timber-Finishes-Interior)

Wax and oils are much easier to apply, but they offer little protection over the surface of the handle wood.

As such, my personal preference is to use a shellac finish.

Stewie;

[rob streeper]

Hi Stewie,

Which kind or kinds of shellac do you prefer? I've done all of my saw work with Saram button-style purchased from http://www.shellacshack.com/. I've got to get some more, prices are down this year.

Cheers,
Rob

[planemaker]

Hi Rob. The following is the brand of shellac I use.

https://www.toolsforworkingwood.com/store/dept/TFS/item/MS-TF.XX


Stewie;

[rob streeper]

Hi Rob. The following is the brand of shellac I use.

https://www.toolsforworkingwood.com/store/dept/TFS/item/MS-TF.XX


Stewie;

Ouch! they sure are proud of that stuff. Shellac Shack and shellac.net are right around $30 + / lb.

[Luke Maddux]

I'm not a sawmaker but I am a bit of a saw enthusiast and collector. I occasionally restore older saws and, when I do, I use 3-5 coats of oil and then carnauba wax applied by hand and buffed using a lathe-mounted swansdown wheel.

I've never used shellac (in any application) but I'm interested in giving it a try.

[IanW]

I'm a long-time french-polisher, so I know what goes into a good shellac finish on a piece of furniture - a lot of hard work! But for small objects like saw handles, I can get as good an effect with a shellac-based product called 'Shellawax (http://www.ubeaut.com.au/shell.html)' (I don't suppose our sponsor will mind getting a plug :U). It's a mixture of wax & shellac with an emulsifying agent that makes the wax miscible with the alcohol solvent - nothing mysterious about it except that it works amazingly well. I started using it way back, on lathe-turned handles, just as a 'quick & dirty' method of putting some sort of finish on them, and was impressed not only by the quality of the finish, but how durable it is. So when I got serious about making saw handles I tried it on those. I rub in a few coats with a small piece of cloth formed into a pad, then buff it off with a cloth wheel to get the warmth required to bring up the polish. It's an easy finish that takes very little time, the effect is very tolerable and it's quite durable. The saw in front is my daily user dovetail saw which was made about 5 years ago, and the two behind it are newly finished: 350727

My handles get a waxing about every blue moon but that's it for maintenance. It may seem expensive for a little bottle of finish, but a small amount goes a very long way, so the cost per item is just a few cents. It works best on hard, fine-grained woods, but other than that, there are no problems that I've discovered, yet. :U

Cheers,

[planemaker]

Hi Ian. Does the Shellawax have a shelf life.

Stewie;

[IanW]

Hi Ian. Does the Shellawax have a shelf life.

Stewie;

Dunno, Stewie, I buy it in the small bottle, which lasts me anywhere from 6 months to a year, so I've never worried about it going off. I'll check the bottle tomorrow to see if t has a 'use-by' date....

Cheers,

[derekcohen]

I recommended Shellawax on another forum where Stewie posted the same data.

I've been using it on handles for years. Wipe it on and buff off on a mop on the drill press. It sets with friction heat. The finish is very much like a hand rubbed oil and wax, but very durable (and easy to repair, if needed). What I like is that it is clear and does not darken some woods as oil will do. It is scratch resistant compared to shellac.

The down side is that you must seal the bottles as it does dry out in time and cannot be rejuvenated in the bottle. I purchase small bottles rather than large ones.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[planemaker]

Thank you for the feedback Ian & Derek. I will stay with using shellac with my saw handle work.

regards Stewie;

[Luke Maddux]

While we're talking Shellawax, I also use it for these purposes. Tool handles and small turned items. I find that it looks and feels great, and I haven't had any problems with longevity. I also just had a fantastic experience with their customer service. Last night I had my bottle sitting next to the grinder. I swung the gouge I was sharpening around to grind the wings of the flute and nudged the bottle into the other wheel of the grinder, putting a hole in the bottle. Totally my fault. I emailed UBeaut about it, asking to buy (at my expense) a new, empty bottle. Not only are they going to replace it for free, but they're also covering the postage! I couldn't have asked for better customer service or a better product.

[planemaker]

http://www.aawforum.org/vbforum/showthread.php?11070-friction-polish-for-bowls-Mylands-Shellawax

http://www.academia.edu/4981557/Surface_treatments_of_wood_by_chemically_modified_shellac

http://www.thewoodworks.com.au/shop/consumable/shellac-hardener/hardener-to-formulate-hard-shellac-for-500ml?vmcchk=1

[rob streeper]

http://www.aawforum.org/vbforum/showthread.php?11070-friction-polish-for-bowls-Mylands-Shellawax

http://www.academia.edu/4981557/Surface_treatments_of_wood_by_chemically_modified_shellac

http://www.thewoodworks.com.au/shop/consumable/shellac-hardener/hardener-to-formulate-hard-shellac-for-500ml?vmcchk=1


Those look like pretty nasty reagents. High potential for neoantigen production (chemical allergens/MCS) and will likely be lung / skin / eye irritants.

[IanW]

Those look like pretty nasty reagents. High potential for neoantigen production (chemical allergens/MCS) and will likely be lung / skin / eye irritants.

Dunno, Rob, I looked up the msds for the compounds listed in the article linked to, and they are listed as toxicity category 3 or 4, which isn't all that serious (the higher the number, the lower the toxicity). As far as allergenic potential goes, someone, somewhere, will always react to a chemical that doesn't affect others, so prudence is always recommended - wear gloves and work in well-ventilated areas! Or wait until it's been around & well-used by others for 50 years without any nasty effects showing up..... :U

Cheers,

[planemaker]

Its doubtful there would be a need to add a shellac hardener for saw handles.

[rob streeper]

Dunno, Rob, I looked up the msds for the compounds listed in the article linked to, and they are listed as toxicity category 3 or 4, which isn't all that serious (the higher the number, the lower the toxicity). As far as allergenic potential goes, someone, somewhere, will always react to a chemical that doesn't affect others, so prudence is always recommended - wear gloves and work in well-ventilated areas! Or wait until it's been around & well-used by others for 50 years without any nasty effects showing up..... :U

Cheers,

Hi Ian,

I don't usually get wound up about safety but in this case, since I know from my work what the risks of these compounds are or may be, I'll give my perspective.

One of the linked compounds, Tren, is an akylamine and the tertiary nitrogen in the center is reminiscent of the quat salts. Alkylamines are not only irritants but they are also sensitizers. Quats are known human carcinogens so despite what the MSDS says I wouldn't touch it. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25164425, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22431256, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23433770

The other, Zama7, is an aziridine. Aziridines are alkylating agents and alkylating agents are chemically reactive. In contact with your body they react with biological molecules. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8649994, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1374653

Both are crosslinkers - which means that they are alkylating agents.

When alkylating agents react with DNA you incur the risks of genetic mutation and cell death. When alkylators react with proteins you get neoantigens. Native protein + reactive organic chemical = re-decorated and no longer native protein. Immune system 'sees' this non-native protein and decides to attack it. End result is you become sensitized or allergic to the chemical in question. This is why people become sensitive to epoxies or to or other allergens due to the proclivity of epoxies and acrylates to chemically react with your proteins. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23553564, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3885815, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25891194, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22500815

Another example of molecules of this type is toluene diissocyanate - formerly commonly used in automotive finishes and also a very nasty critter. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25558389, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11077012

Anything that acts as a crosslinker is therefore dangerous, especially if it is volatile enough so that you can breath it.

MSDS sheets are written by the producers of these chemicals. The producers have a strong economic motive to avoid telling you something is bad for you unless they have no other choice. Ever noticed how many times the word 'unknown' appears on MSDS sheets?

In dealing with such hazards it's useful to recall that nobody has ever proven, in the scientific sense of the word proof, that tobacco use has ever caused cancer in any individual. The epidemiological proof is irrefutable and that is why in lawsuits against the tobacco industry the state Medicaid actions have succeeded but many individuals have failed.

DDT and the other chlorinated pesticides were also considered 'safe', but now we know better.

As Stewie pointed out, for saw handles shellac is perfectly adequate as it is, crosslinking is not only unneeded but dangerous with these compounds.

Cheers,
Rob

[IanW]

Hi Ian,

I don't usually get wound up about safety but in this case, since I know from my work what the risks of these compounds are or may be, I'll give my perspective.
....

Rob, I also have a bit of experience in pathology & toxicology & I don't disagree with anything you've said. I did advise prudence!

A wise man once said something like: "All things are poison and nothing is without poison, only the dose permits something not to be poisonous."
Every day of our lives we are exposed to potential toxins, from those with a straight pharmacological action to potential carcinogens. Fortunately, our bodies have evolved some petty sophisticated mechanisms to deal with most of it, so as long as we are only exposed to levels that can be handled by the system, or any damage repaired (& we have a pretty good DNA repair toolkit, too!), all is well. This is not to say we shouldn't exercise due care at all times, just making the point that a single or occasional exposure to even known carcinogens doesn't necessarily condemn you to death.

So I've been comfortable enough using the cross-linking shellac where it is appropriate (with gloves!) but I agree with you & Stewie that you probably don't need it on saw handles.... :U

Cheers,

[rob streeper]

Hi Ian, I agree. I see problems like this as being perhaps more serious than the average person does. In the case of Zama7, the aziridine group is the reactive center. For those who don't know the aziridine groups are the triangles with N in them at the ends of the arms of the molecule.350976

There is a cancer drug that also has aziridine groups, it's called thio-tepa.350977

Thio-tepa is a nasty critter. I'd be very afraid of using any Zama7 containing product.
I'm posting all of this as a warning to the less chemically inclined. Those of you who know my postings here also know that I will do and work with things that others consider dangerous. Zama7 is, for me, way too dangerous. I wouldn't even let it in my house.

Pharmacologists divide the things in the world into three basic categories food, drugs and poison. Anything that isn't food is poison depending on the dosage.
Cheers,
Rob

[Bushmiller]

I think that Ian made good points in:

1. Advising caution and prudence in dealing with all these things

2. Ensuring our levels of exposure are minimal, which in a hobbiest arena is quite likely.

3. Adding the rider of providing you are not allergic or super sensitive to anything in particular.

Of course if you are allergic to peanuts, they are toxic, although not carcinogenic.

I recall a debate at work with our chemist who proudly claimed we do not have any carcinogenic substances on site.

One of mu colleagues immediately said "Yes we do!" Immediate and predictable reaction was "Oh no we don't."
"Yes we do."
"OK what is it."
"Petroleum products. Look up the MSD." Chemist looked it up and then no more was said :) ."

Any of you good folks ever put petrol (gasoline, essence etc) in your motor vehicle?

My colleague was at a considerable advantage over our poor chemist as he had worked as an operator at an oil refinery before working for us.

My point is that we are constantly subjected to potentially toxic substances in our every day lives. The question is whether that is enough to kill us or make us sick. Another classic example is flouride in toothpaste (a controversial issue, which I am not going into) which in sufficient dosage would be lethal.

Regards
Paul

[Bushmiller]

http://www.woodsolutions.com.au/Articles/Resources/Timber-Finishes-Interior (http://www.woodsolutions.com.au/Articles/Resources/Timber-Finishes-Interior)

Wax and oils are much easier to apply, but they offer little protection over the surface of the handle wood.

As such, my personal preference is to use a shellac finish.

Stewie;

I have quite a dilemma over finishing handles. In the past I have stated that I have used varnish, but I have gone away from that in recent times.

I have done the oil and shellac (hard) road, the oil and wax road. I have tried Ubeaut's new rubbing oil, and I am about to try the Shellawax technique.

I suspect I will go back to oil and hard shellac, but am trying to keep an open mind. One point that I think Derek made is that some processes do darken the timber. With apple wood and old handles, I am quite happy for that to happen, but other timbers I wish to retain something close to original colouring.

In days gone by the saw makers seemed to use varnish quite extensively.

Regards
Paul

[rob streeper]

I think that Ian made good points in:

1. Advising caution and prudence in dealing with all these things

2. Ensuring our levels of exposure are minimal, which in a hobbiest arena is quite likely.

3. Adding the rider of providing you are not allergic or super sensitive to anything in particular.

Of course if you are allergic to peanuts, they are toxic, although not carcinogenic.

I recall a debate at work with our chemist who proudly claimed we do not have any carcinogenic substances on site.

One of mu colleagues immediately said "Yes we do!" Immediate and predictable reaction was "Oh no we don't."
"Yes we do."
"OK what is it."
"Petroleum products. Look up the MSD." Chemist looked it up and then no more was said :) ."

Any of you good folks ever put petrol (gasoline, essence etc) in your motor vehicle?

My colleague was at a considerable advantage over our poor chemist as he had worked as an operator at an oil refinery before working for us.

My point is that we are constantly subjected to potentially toxic substances in our every day lives. The question is whether that is enough to kill us or make us sick. Another classic example is flouride in toothpaste (a controversial issue, which I am not going into) which in sufficient dosage would be lethal.

Regards
Paul

Hi Paul,

I'm criticizing neither you nor Ian. My purpose is to point out to the non-specialists on the board that these compounds are special hazards and that relying on MSDS's can be dangerous as they contain at best only known and well proven hazards.
PPE is extremely important but it is not a panacea. Early in my career I thought that gloves, lab-coat, apron and eye protection were entirely sufficient to protect me from the dangerous chemicals I routinely handled until I started working with radioactive chemicals. These experiences opened my eyes to the fact that despite the best protection and most cautious handling chemicals manage to spread themselves far and wide.
The chemicals referred to above are, in my professional opinion, quite dangerous. I'm not trying to scold, only to warn.

Cheers,
Rob

[IanW]

Getting back to finishing, I think it's really a matter of personal taste. I should have stated that I only use Shellawax on new handles, and I carefully select woods that I think will respond to it in the way I like to see. For restoring old handles, I might go after an 'original' look, or something that would give the handle a bit of an aged look, depending on what I thought appropriate. My own 'user' (pre-WW2) Disston handles got 'cleaned' by rubbing them down with 0000 steel wool soaked in some dilute 'Scandinavian' oil. They were already darkened with age, so I wasn't worried that the linseed base of the stuff I used would change them noticeably. After they dried, I buffed them up with more 0000 steel wool & wax, and they looked like nice & clean, but well-used handles, complete with a few stains..

Though speaking of 'original' finishes, I'm not sure I could bring myself to dip handles in thick goop the way many seem to have been done from the 1950's on.. :o I guess I simply wouldn't bother with the horrible things, anyway, they have no redeeming features. I would just replace them with something I could imagine holding in my hand. Paul, I think you are quite right, there seems to have been a variety of techniques used over the years, which I'll bet were dictated as much by cost, & how easily & quickly they could be applied by semi-skilled workers, as any other criteria such as archival-standard durability..... :;

Cheers,

[rob streeper]

Getting back to finishing, I think it's really a matter of personal taste. I should have stated that I only use Shellawax on new handles, and I carefully select woods that I think will respond to it in the way I like to see. For restoring old handles, I might go after an 'original' look, or something that would give the handle a bit of an aged look, depending on what I thought appropriate. My own 'user' (pre-WW2) Disston handles got 'cleaned' by rubbing them down with 0000 steel wool soaked in some dilute 'Scandinavian' oil. They were already darkened with age, so I wasn't worried that the linseed base of the stuff I used would change them noticeably. After they dried, I buffed them up with more 0000 steel wool & wax, and they looked like nice & clean, but well-used handles, complete with a few stains..

Though speaking of 'original' finishes, I'm not sure I could bring myself to dip handles in thick goop the way many seem to have been done from the 1950's on.. :o I guess I simply wouldn't bother with the horrible things, anyway, they have no redeeming features. I would just replace them with something I could imagine holding in my hand. Paul, I think you are quite right, there seems to have been a variety of techniques used over the years, which I'll bet were dictated as much by cost, & how easily & quickly they could be applied by semi-skilled workers, as any other criteria such as archival-standard durability..... :;

Cheers,


What is the orange varnish used on Disston handles, anybody know? It crackles in a way reminiscent of nitrocellulose / cellulose acetate but I've never read anything concerning it's composition.

[D.W.]

What is the orange varnish used on Disston handles, anybody know? It crackles in a way reminiscent of nitrocellulose / cellulose acetate but I've never read anything concerning it's composition.

That would be my guess (nitro lacquer). Anything else that would've tolerated some exposure to moisture probably would've taken too long to dry.

[D.W.]

Rob, I also have a bit of experience in pathology & toxicology & I don't disagree with anything you've said. I did advise prudence!

A wise man once said something like: "All things are poison and nothing is without poison, only the dose permits something not to be poisonous."
Every day of our lives we are exposed to potential toxins, from those with a straight pharmacological action to potential carcinogens. Fortunately, our bodies have evolved some petty sophisticated mechanisms to deal with most of it, so as long as we are only exposed to levels that can be handled by the system, or any damage repaired (& we have a pretty good DNA repair toolkit, too!), all is well. This is not to say we shouldn't exercise due care at all times, just making the point that a single or occasional exposure to even known carcinogens doesn't necessarily condemn you to death.

So I've been comfortable enough using the cross-linking shellac where it is appropriate (with gloves!) but I agree with you & Stewie that you probably don't need it on saw handles.... :U

Cheers,

I like to tell my wife (as an actuary) that the probability is very low that she is going to correctly worry about the factors that cause her demise. The probability is, however, very high that she will spend a lot of time worrying and cause a negative impact on her life and interactions with people if she worries that everything is deadly or at least a cause for morbidity. (needless to say, she doesn't like to hear that).

Especially annoying when the topic of worry changes several times a year (she and her mother put a lot of stake in the quacky stuff that Dr. Oz peddles, which is puzzling given that his conventional medical practice is apparently stellar).

I go so far as ian does, if my exposure is not a regular basis and significant amount, I'm satisfied with gloves. (if something really stinks or I'm spraying finish, I do wear an OV respirator).

One of my other favorite things to say to my wife since DNA damage is such a hot topic is that she's aiming to keep her DNA from every taking any damage, but it's likely the things she's doing to prevent it are making a small fraction of difference vs. the things that she can't do or doesn't know about. (she doesn't like to hear that either).

Both MIL and FIL have had Cancer, but MIL is still more worried about the bugaboos that Dr. Oz talks about.

(I have two definite rules, though. The latter is that I will absolutely not eat plutonium no matter what - the first is that I won't take opiates by prescription, or any illegal hard drugs for that matter. I guess I have a third one, and that is I refuse to worry about mortality or morbidity, but I do plan for it financially - it's guaranteed to happen sooner or later, but worrying has no effect on that).

[rob streeper]

Genomic damage is actually the lesser of the two evils I described above. Much more problematic is the perturbation of immunological functions.
Cancers that arise from genomic damage or mutations constitute the minority of cases. Well known examples include the Philadelphia chromosome and BRCA1/2. Much more problematic are the adult onset cancers that are associated with systemic immunological derangements. Dioxin, for instance, doesn't cause much in the way of genetic mutation but it is a potent carcinogen acting both through the aryl hydrocarbon receptor and by altering immune functions. One outcome of dioxin exposure is diabetes, an immunological problem.
Thus it pays to be very careful with so-called 'safe' materials.

[rob streeper]

That would be my guess (nitro lacquer). Anything else that would've tolerated some exposure to moisture probably would've taken too long to dry.


I'm going to put an FTIR analysis of some scrapings on my long-term to-do list.

[rob streeper]

That would be my guess (nitro lacquer). Anything else that would've tolerated some exposure to moisture probably would've taken too long to dry.

Over here: http://www.woodworkforums.com/showthread.php?t=186145&p=1878925#post1878925 is a posting that has a Spear & Jackson catalog and reference is made in the Spearior 88 item description to 'cellulosed' finish. Nitrocellulose lacquers are available, though not very cheap but not too expensive. It seems that they're used in finishing musical instruments.

[D.W.]

Over here: http://www.woodworkforums.com/showthread.php?t=186145&p=1878925#post1878925 is a posting that has a Spear & Jackson catalog and reference is made in the Spearior 88 item description to 'cellulosed' finish. Nitrocellulose lacquers are available, though not very cheap. It seems that they're used in finishing musical instruments.

Yes, still common in musical instruments, especially guitars and banjos. I have some on hand, but haven't sprayed it yet, but I also have a couple of stringed instruments with it. Some of the smaller makers who have been making instruments for a long time won't move to the new plastic water based finishes (or whatever you'd call all of those various acrylic finishes).

In guitars, it gets that same crazing over time - or if a guitar gets really really cold, it can craze like that all in a day.

I'm sure someone good with modern finishes could tone a finish to look like nitro, and I have some well made guitars that have acrylic on them that don't have coldness, but that look is standard with nitro without any additional work. It burns together well, builds well and rubs out with no witness lines.

Not sure when instruments switched from varnish to lacquer, but I don't have any instruments old enough to know because old instruments require care and repair, even if you don't play them. ultimately all acoustic instruments do, I guess.

Anyway, nitro is nice. the crazing on the saw handles looks familiar, though a little more severe on some handles, probably because of their exposure to changing temperatures.

(I've never heard of any way to apply it other than spray it, though google could prove otherwise if anyone has successfully done anything else with it).

[planemaker]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3olCH1mbsGg

[rob streeper]

Yes, still common in musical instruments, especially guitars and banjos. I have some on hand, but haven't sprayed it yet, but I also have a couple of stringed instruments with it. Some of the smaller makers who have been making instruments for a long time won't move to the new plastic water based finishes (or whatever you'd call all of those various acrylic finishes).

In guitars, it gets that same crazing over time - or if a guitar gets really really cold, it can craze like that all in a day.

I'm sure someone good with modern finishes could tone a finish to look like nitro, and I have some well made guitars that have acrylic on them that don't have coldness, but that look is standard with nitro without any additional work. It burns together well, builds well and rubs out with no witness lines.

Not sure when instruments switched from varnish to lacquer, but I don't have any instruments old enough to know because old instruments require care and repair, even if you don't play them. ultimately all acoustic instruments do, I guess.

Anyway, nitro is nice. the crazing on the saw handles looks familiar, though a little more severe on some handles, probably because of their exposure to changing temperatures.

(I've never heard of any way to apply it other than spray it, though google could prove otherwise if anyone has successfully done anything else with it).

I think I may give it a shot. I've got some pretty good SATA airbrushing equipment that should be just the right size for saw handle finishing.

[rob streeper]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3olCH1mbsGg

http://www.lmii.com/cardinal-lacquer-musical-instrument-coatings

http://www.lmii.com/products/finishing/finishes/cardinal-spray-lacquer

Not too bad price-wise.

[D.W.]

I think I may give it a shot. I've got some pretty good SATA airbrushing equipment that should be just the right size for saw handle finishing.

Let us know how it turns out. Just like everything else, there's a gaggle of lacquers out there. There are instrument lacquers that are a bit more flexible and soft, and furniture lacquers (though maybe they are harder to get than instrument lacquers) that are harder and more scratch resistant, but less ding resistant.

Hopefully whatever you try will come with instructions. I know when I've gotten nitro guitars, the makers have waited a bit before rubbing out the lacquer and a few days before they'll put them in a case and mail them. (maybe it was more than a few days, I can't remember exactly). Presume it finishes to dry fairly quickly but continues to harden after that. Don't know, though. You can test it for us. I think it looks great, looks like shellac but much more durable.

[rob streeper]

Let us know how it turns out. Just like everything else, there's a gaggle of lacquers out there. There are instrument lacquers that are a bit more flexible and soft, and furniture lacquers (though maybe they are harder to get than instrument lacquers) that are harder and more scratch resistant, but less ding resistant.

Hopefully whatever you try will come with instructions. I know when I've gotten nitro guitars, the makers have waited a bit before rubbing out the lacquer and a few days before they'll put them in a case and mail them. (maybe it was more than a few days, I can't remember exactly). Presume it finishes to dry fairly quickly but continues to harden after that. Don't know, though. You can test it for us. I think it looks great, looks like shellac but much more durable.

I've read online that the hardening times are a week to ten days depending on ambient conditions.

[planemaker]

When using shellac on my saw handles I normally apply a total of 6 coats. The 1st coat is sanded back to 150g. The 2nd coat is sanded back to 220g. The 3rd coat is sanded back to 400g. By that stage I expect most of the grain to be filled within the wood surface. The flat faces on the handle I flat sanded over glass, while the the rest of the handle is done by hand using strips of sand paper. (flat sand the flat faces of the handle before the edge profiles)). I give these 1st 3 shellac coats about an hour between each coat. The remaining 3 coats of shellac are designated to add some depth of coverage over the handle wood surface. These are given 24 hrs time delay between each coat. Each coat is then lightly abrading using a fine grade sanding pad. http://www.thesandpaperman.com.au/grey-748-bear-tex-pad.html The light abrading insures the next coat of shellac will adhere effectively to the previous coat. After the final coat has been lightly abraded, the shellac surface is given 5 days to further harden. The shellac surface is then lightly rubbed back using a cut and polish paste wax then hand buffed with a clean rag to a shine. http://www.ubeaut.com.au/eee.htm. The final step is to buff the surface to an even higher shine using a power mop that's fitted to a pedestal drill. http://www.ubeaut.com.au/sdmops.htm

Stewie;

[rob streeper]

When using shellac on my saw handles I normally apply a total of 6 coats. The 1st coat is sanded back to 150g. The 2nd coat is sanded back to 220g. The 3rd coat is sanded back to 400g. By that stage I expect most of the grain to be filled within the wood surface. The flat faces on the handle I flat sanded over glass, while the the rest of the handle is done by hand using strips of sand paper. (flat sand the flat faces of the handle before the edge profiles)). I give these 1st 3 shellac coats about an hour between each coat. The remaining 3 coats of shellac are designated to add some depth of coverage over the handle wood surface. These are given 24 hrs time delay between each coat. Each coat is then lightly abrading using a fine grade sanding pad. http://www.thesandpaperman.com.au/grey-748-bear-tex-pad.html The light abrading insures the next coat of shellac will adhere effectively to the previous coat. After the final coat has been lightly abraded, the shellac surface is given 5 days to further harden. The shellac surface is then lightly rubbed back using a cut and polish paste wax then hand buffed with a clean rag to a shine. http://www.ubeaut.com.au/eee.htm. The final step is to buff the surface to an even higher shine using a power mop that's fitted to a pedestal drill. http://www.ubeaut.com.au/sdmops.htm

Stewie;

I've tried the 3M Perfect It series polishing compounds. They work pretty well and are less abrasive than is the old-style canned automotive finish buffing compound.

[planemaker]

To show more clearly the benefit of sanding the flat faces of the handle before moving on to sanding the side profiles, I found this old photo.

Stewie;

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/DSC_0044_zpssr5qgqzh.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/DSC_0044_zpssr5qgqzh.jpg.html)

[D.W.]

To show more clearly the benefit of sanding the flat faces of the handle before moving on to sanding the side profiles, I found this old photo.

Stewie;

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/DSC_0044_zpssr5qgqzh.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/DSC_0044_zpssr5qgqzh.jpg.html)

Definitely the proper order. Unless the curves are faired *perfectly* from edge to sanding depth, sanding the flat facet on last will leave some slightly wonky transition lines.

[D.W.]

http://www.lmii.com/cardinal-lacquer-musical-instrument-coatings

http://www.lmii.com/products/finishing/finishes/cardinal-spray-lacquer

Not too bad price-wise.

that's about where I'd expect it to be. 10 years ago, behlen nitro was about $15 a quart.

Since that's instrument lacquer, it should be a little softer when dried than furniture lacquer (which probably won't make a difference, but I'd think it'd be a good difference if anything).