Official Luthiers Forum!
http://www.luthiersforum.com/forum/

Damar Instead of Shellac
http://www.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10101&t=37489		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Darryl Young [ Mon Aug 20, 2012 1:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Damar Instead of Shellac
Over a year ago we had a discussion on how best to "pop the grain" of the wood with our finishes (esp. when using a water based finish). In that thread, Andy Gamble mentioned how well Damar brings out the grain and still works well as a sealer. Since that discussion I've wanted to try it.

I ordered the Singapore Damar a while back but haven't had a chance to use it till this past weekend. I mixed up a 2lb cut of Damar with tupentine and sprayed it on the soundboard of the 00 I'm building to protect it from dust etc. while scraping/leveling the sides and help prevent tearout while routing the binding channels. I sanded to 220g then sprayed a single coat of the Damar. Only downside was it took 2 days to completely dry. I might try using mineral spirits as the solvent next time to see if that speeds up the drying. Now that it is dry it has sort of a matte finish.

I was really interested to see how well it set off this silky Lutz spruce I bought from Shane. I think it looks nice! What do you think?

Image
Author:  Alexandru Marian [ Mon Aug 20, 2012 1:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Damar Instead of Shellac
With that kind of silk who gives a ...with what is finished? :D Sorry couldn't help myself. I am curious about how it will hold to player wear (friction, heat, sweat)
Author:  Alex Kleon [ Mon Aug 20, 2012 1:21 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Damar Instead of Shellac
I think you are right, it does look very nice! Mineral spirits will quicken drying time, while turps. does the opposite. You could try using a drop of Japan Drier if it is still too slow, but try it on a test piece first.

Alex
Author:  Darryl Young [ Mon Aug 20, 2012 1:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Damar Instead of Shellac
Alex, I will use a finish over this so it's purpose is for sealing/protecting/popping-the grain and the outside finish will hopefully take the abuse. Did I mention this is one of Shane's "second" tops and was cheap? It had a small knot in it which I located in the soundhole.

Unsure if I will use it on the mahogany or not.
Author:  Tom West [ Mon Aug 20, 2012 2:42 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Damar Instead of Shellac
Darryl: With that knot located in the middle of the soundhole it's hardly noticeable.....................!! The knot that is...............!! One beautiful looking top. Congrats.
Tom
Author:  Greg B [ Mon Aug 20, 2012 3:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Damar Instead of Shellac
That looks great to me. It pops better than shellac. I used it once for a dulcimer, mostly because I had some mixed up and ready to go.

Turpentine may actually be helpful here, as the longer dry time could allow deeper penetration into the grain.

FWIW, I find damar to take around a month to fully dry. If the topcoat will be oil based varnish, I'd still give it a couple or three days. For lacquer or anything else, it'd be a good idea to wait a couple weeks IMO.
Author:  cphanna [ Mon Aug 20, 2012 4:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Damar Instead of Shellac
Hey, Darryl,

Damar varnish was once the finish of choice for sealing and protecting oil paintings, and is still used by many, many artists and conservators. You mentioned that your damar left a subtle matte finish. I am not familiar with what you were using, but for future experimentation purposes you can buy it in matte and gloss versions. One conservator I know mixes them 50/50 before re-coating a cleaned oil painting. As to the drying time, I think I'd give it several extra days after it feels dry.

Please do follow up and let us know how it works for you under a finish.

Patrick
Author:  meddlingfool [ Mon Aug 20, 2012 5:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Damar Instead of Shellac
It'd be interesting to see a side by side comparison with the offcuts...
Author:  James Orr [ Mon Aug 20, 2012 5:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Damar Instead of Shellac
meddlingfool wrote:
It'd be interesting to see a side by side comparison with the offcuts...


I did a test on both a maple top and an orphaned quilted mahogany back set. I compared damar, Bullseye, Z-poxy, straight lacquer, and vinyl sealer. I may or may not still have the mahogany piece, but the damar, Bullseye, and vinyl sealer pretty much looked identical to me.
Author:  CharlieT [ Tue Aug 21, 2012 12:36 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Damar Instead of Shellac
Darryl Young wrote:
Did I mention this is one of Shane's "second" tops and was cheap?

It's such a shame that Shane's low grade tops are off quarter and have no medullary rays. laughing6-hehe

Sure looks nice, Darryl! [:Y:]
Author:  Darryl Young [ Tue Aug 21, 2012 12:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Damar Instead of Shellac
James Orr wrote:
meddlingfool wrote:
It'd be interesting to see a side by side comparison with the offcuts...


I did a test on both a maple top and an orphaned quilted mahogany back set. I compared damar, Bullseye, Z-poxy, straight lacquer, and vinyl sealer. I may or may not still have the mahogany piece, but the damar, Bullseye, and vinyl sealer pretty much looked identical to me.


James, back in the old thread you had mentioned filling pores on the sapele with epoxy and applying this stuff over the epoxy. Do you recall if that is what you did? I only ask as it seems what is in contact with the bare wood makes the most difference as far as visually enhancing the grain so epoxy under these may sort of "normalize" the results.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/