[OP]
Member
One of the pleasures of attending Arrowmont this summer was looking at their gallery pieces by the greatest names in wood turning past and present. One of the things I noticed was that very few pieces were finished with anything other than some light wax. This made me wonder, how do you choose a finish for your pieces and does it fit the piece or, does it fight for attention. Any chance for some enlightened discussion here?
PS: I was absolutely amazed by the pieces by J-F Escoulen!
Member
Chris,
One answer might be that production turners are interested in speed. It is fast and easy to put a wax finish on, re: Richard Raffin, than to spend the time to get three or four coats of a shiny finish on, then polish, buff, etc. I think any of the "name" turners, who were offering high $$ pieces to a gallery might take the time to put on a shiny finish. Personally I choose a finish that is dependent on the use of the bowl.
Good, Fast, Cheap--Pick two.
[OP]
Member
Hi Cecil,
I certainly understand the logic you offer but, having been in many galleries and looked at a lot of professional turner's work for galleries, I've seen very few that were truly shiny (glass like finish). I've spoken to a few but, will wait to share their comments until later...
Member
One thing that attracts me to turning is the wood. Only thing I want to do to it is bring out the grain. On a personal level, I do not like shiny glossy. For me, they tend to distract from the wood.
My favorite finish is one that looks wet and I can feel the texture of the wood.
Burt
Contributor
Chris I have often wondered that to. Cindy Drozda told me she puts a gel poly on and then follows after a few minutes with a clear shoe polish wax. She buffs that after it has dried for a minute or two. I think a lot of them in galleries use simple finishes such as wax because they don't get handled much. Larry Hasiak told me he uses lacquer on all his because he said most of his stuff get handled a lot. He said waxes leave finger prints. Steve Russell also said he believes the same thing. If it is in galleries and not going to be handled a lot that wax is a excellent finish. I did a vase in just wax and buffed. After having friends or neighbors picking it up and looking at the piece I had to rebuff it because of finger prints all over it. My favorite finish is satin lacquer, Antique Oil or a Tung Oil. I really don't like shiney either. Just some thoughts.
Bernie
Never put off until tomorrow what you can do the day after tomorrow.
To succeed in life, you need three things: a wishbone, a backbone and a funnybone.
[OP]
Member
Hiya Bern,
Great insights and thanks for sharing your thoughts. This is exactly what I'm looking for. I don't want to change anyone's preference about finishes or how they work but, rather understand the logic behind the choices. I've found it striking that most "museum quality" pieces are often not finished at all...
Member
Some other ideas: duller finishes do tend to show off the grain more and allow for viewing from any angle without glare being a distraction. However, the wet-look super-shiny finish has its place as well--the glare can add contrast to reveal detail in darker woods (or dark-stained ones). Stuart Mortimer uses lacquer and polishes it to a high gloss and the pieces are simply stunning in person. So it really depends on your own preference.
I'll echo Cecil's last sentence. I try to choose the finish for where the piece will be located, if known.
P.s. I don't turn (yet, you evil trolls) but, please don't hold it against me.
"A hen is only an egg's way of making another egg".
– Samuel Butler
Member
I think it's personal taste. I've seen some pieces by Neal Addy with no finish, sanded to about 12 gazillion grit that look better than some I've done with mulitiple attemps to oil, lacquer, wax and otherwise shine up. There's a certain beauty in wood that comes from the wood itself and you just have to play around with it to see what makes is pop out the best. But in a thread a while back about finishing Travis Stinson made a point that has stuck with me. He said it doesn't matter what finish you use if you don't spend the time sanding first. He said you sand until you think it's perfect and then sand some more. Once you've done that I think any finish from flat to shiney will look good.
Member
I am of the personal opinion of little finish big results. Sand to your hearts content, and then more till your back and fingers ache. I personally sand 120,150,220,400,600,1200 0000 steel wood, buffing compund. I get such a shine just from the sanding that there is little more a high gloss finish could provide. I find the glare from finishes detracts from some pieces. Although they do have their place sometimes. Again PERSONAL OPINION HERE
Be a mentor, it's so much more fun throwing someone else into the vortex, than swirling it alone!
In Memoriam
I just now noticed this thread and thought I'd bump it with a comment I heard someone make this weekend:
Display two pieces side by side in a store, one with a high gloss finish and the other satin. The gloss will sell first, every time.
I don't have any strong reaction to that, but I kinda sorta think I agree.
BTW, the statement was made as a comment on the perspectives of an "average Joe" or "average Jane," NOT the perspective of a fellow woodturner whose experience and knowledge will cause him/her to look closely at things the average person would not take into account.
Last edited by Mark Pruitt; 07-16-2007 at 2:43 PM.
Member
From my shop for those L'sOML:
Wife wants nothing more than wax or no more than one coat of wipeon poly.
Daughter and daughter in law want high gloss.
In the store shiny sells more times than low gloss.
Stoppy
Member
Show and tell time at our club shows that most members use a shiny, lacquer finish that, to my eyes, looks less than attractive. If I have a pretty piece of wood I will just buff it with the Beall buffer using the carnuba wax that came with the kit. I want to see the wood, not the finish.
Dick Durbin
Tallahassee
Member
Chris this is a good topic. It is interesting to read the responses.
In my opinion the wood species, the figure of the grain, and the shape/thickness of the form all blend together to make a "finished piece". The "surface finish" the artist chooses for the piece is not in addition to these but should be a natural part of what the artist is trying to convey.
Different types of finishes enhance or subtle certain aspects of any turning and when done correctly you know instantly that the chosen finish is right.
Just my 2Cents.
Trying to eliminate sandpaper - one curly shaving at a time.
[OP]
Member
I'm glad that folks are enjoying discussing this topic. I have spoken with several professional turners, and by that I mean people whom make their living entirely through their turning efforts and found that very few ever finish a piece to high gloss. One of the reasons offered by one professional was that high gloss finished distract from the form and execution of the piece. Kind of the quote was "you want them to notice the wood not the finish." Another said they do use a high gloss finish but, rarely and usually on pieces where the wood tends to lack a distinctive grain definition.
I still haven't figured where I stand in this discussion. Some woods seem to lend themselves well to a high gloss finish while others clearly don't. Hmmm, what is art?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
