pipemakersforum.com

See if you can get a thinner cut of shellac. The hardware store usually sells Zissner in, I believe, 5# cut. You can find 2# cut (much thinner) at a woodworking store or the internet. That will put on a much thinner layer that is more easy to blend. I use 0000 steel wool between coats to smooth out any thicker patches. I usually do one coat per day and let it sit to dry in between. Like Sasquatch says you can add stain to the shellac if you so choose, although that gives a different look in the end.

As a caveat I've never done this on pipes but have done it on plenty of different wooden tools with odd shapes over the years. You can build up a very nice thickness over time that really shines.

I would suggest that if you want to continue to apply shellac by hand, don't use a pipe cleaner. They make a mess. Get yourself some good brushes from an art supply store. Also, shellac in a can is generally too thick. It needs to be cut almost 1:1 with denatured alcohol. It also has all kinds of tasty stabilizers that extend it's shelf life from months to years. I used to use canned. I don't anymore. I mix my own. That way you have complete control over your finish.

The streaks will not disappear during application unless you spray. You have to build multiple layers and then level the streaks out by sanding (wet or dry). Then you have to polish the surface by hand or by buffing. Its faster than finishing furniture due to size, but the prolific amount of curves make it difficult to do right on a pipe.

You also don't need to sand between layers of shellac. It is one finish that doesn't require mechanical adhesion except at the base layer where it attaches to the medium. Urethanes and other coalescing finishes do require sanding between layers of application. Think of shellac as a continually thickening piece of paper and coalescing finishes as multiple sheets of paper.

andrew wrote:You also don't need to sand between layers of shellac. It is one finish that doesn't require mechanical adhesion except at the base layer where it attaches to the medium. Urethanes and other coalescing finishes do require sanding between layers of application. Think of shellac as a continually thickening piece of paper and coalescing finishes as multiple sheets of paper.

You are quite correct that you don't have to sand in between and that each layer will bond to the previous - one of shellac's many wonderful qualities.

However...

While everything I've ever read says you don't have to sand between, everything I've done suggests that it produces a higher quality finish. I suspect it's because I'm not doing the traditional large flat piece of wood with a "wax on - wax off" technique, but things with lots of curves and rounds. I just go with what works best for me.

I'm just wondering why you would want to put more than one layer on?
The purpose for me is not to get a "lacquered" sheen to the pipe, but only as a medium to set the stain.

I'm not disagreeing with your experience. Finishing pipes is different than finishing other wood products. I do both furniture and pipes. Some things translate well to finishing pipes, some don't, some need modification. This is a case where doing a traditional rubbed out finishing technique won't work. Nearly every finishing method common to woodworking needs to be modified to work with pipes. That's what I'm trying to explain. If you don't believe me, fine. I'm trying to make sure someone doesn't spend time on something that will not pay dividends.

If you are putting shellac on thick enough to sand in between each layer you are putting it on too thick. I don't use shellac on furniture. I use it on pipes. If you sand in between each layer on a pipe it will drive you crazy. It needs to be built up to a number of layers, then sanded back with very high grits of paper (1500+), then polished (dealers choice here). Polishing will need to take place a day or two later.

My thumbs are tired and I need a snickers.

Charl wrote:I'm just wondering why you would want to put more than one layer on?

Other people may have a different purpose in mind.

Charl wrote:The purpose for me is not to get a "lacquered" sheen to the pipe, but only as a medium to set the stain.

2# shellac is often sold as a one-coat pore-sealer to do exactly what you're looking for. It's a great theory but I've never had it work quite so easily in practice. When I've tried I had to really saturate the wood and let it dry for a lot longer than normal before applying the shellac. Sort of a sacrificial layer of stain on top that would get taken off with the wiping.

andrew wrote:I'm not disagreeing with your experience. Finishing pipes is different than finishing other wood products. I do both furniture and pipes. Some things translate well to finishing pipes, some don't, some need modification. This is a case where doing a traditional rubbed out finishing technique won't work. Nearly every finishing method common to woodworking needs to be modified to work with pipes. That's what I'm trying to explain. If you don't believe me, fine. I'm trying to make sure someone doesn't spend time on something that will not pay dividends.

If you are putting shellac on thick enough to sand in between each layer you are putting it on too thick. I don't use shellac on furniture. I use it on pipes. If you sand in between each layer on a pipe it will drive you crazy. It needs to be built up to a number of layers, then sanded back with very high grits of paper (1500+), then polished (dealers choice here). Polishing will need to take place a day or two later.

I do believe you, I was trying to say something similar - that the "airplane landing and take off" of french polishing doesn't work with pipes or other small items. My biggest experience with shellac is in restoring wooden hand woodworking tools, which has been much closer to my (more limited) experience using shellac on pipes. I don't do much furniture finishing.

Obviously there are many ways to skin a cat as this thread shows. Charl can't understand why someone would want more than one coat, and here you're talking about what must amount to a significant number of coats (enough to drive someone crazy if they were to sand in between each). Different strokes for different folks.

To me it's sanding to a point and anything finer is polishing. From 1000 up is polishing without using buffing wheels. I take it out to 3000 and man does that look good. I however have a lot of time on my hands.

Sent from my HTC0P3P7 using Tapatalk

Bosaiya wrote:As a caveat I've never done this on pipes...

So why are you disagreeing with a pipe maker who does one of the best smooth finishes on the planet? Lars Ivarsson stopped at his table at Chicago last year and was impressed. That's saying something.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but Andrew has proved his meddle with hard work and determination resulting in an extraordinary finish on pipes. I'd just like to see what you're saying put into action, if you're going to claim that your inexperience with pipes is just as good as Andrew's comparatively vast experience with pipes.

Bosaiya wrote:...I was trying to say something similar - that the "airplane landing and take off" of french polishing doesn't work with pipes or other small items.

Actually, many pipemakers have very good success using a French polish on pipes. The process is a little different from traditional French polishing but it works and nets great results.

d.huber wrote: So why are you disagreeing with a pipe maker who does one of the best smooth finishes on the planet? Lars Ivarsson stopped at his table at Chicago last year and was impressed. That's saying something.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but Andrew has proved his mettle with hard work and determination resulting in an extraordinary finish on pipes. I'd just like to see what you're saying put into action, if you're going to claim that your inexperience with pipes is just as good as Andrew's comparatively vast experience with pipes.

D'Huber is D'man, here. I've spoken at some length with Andrew about his process, and the iterative experimentation performed would test the patience of a 14th century scriptorium monk. Given that he's an engineer who knows how to approach such things (he didn't just throw unsound ideas at a wall to see what stuck), it wasn't inefficiency that took so long, either.

This is another of those "read it on the Internet" versus first-hand expertise instances that pop up here from time to time (and that I love so much ), I think.

d.huber wrote:

Bosaiya wrote:As a caveat I've never done this on pipes...

So why are you disagreeing with a pipe maker who does one of the best smooth finishes on the planet? Lars Ivarsson stopped at his table at Chicago last year and was impressed. That's saying something.

I'm offering up a different perspective based on my shellac experience in general. I'm not disagreeing with anyone, if he gets good results then more power to him. But there are several ways to apply shellac as all of the different opinions on this thread clearly show.

What I'm seeing is that there are several people with different viewpoints in this thread: one coat vs many, for example, some using a thick cut from a can vs others homebrewing their own from flake; some suggesting applying with pipe cleaners vs brush. I don't see unanimous agreement on any of them.

Bosaiya wrote:What I'm seeing is that there are several people with different viewpoints in this thread: one coat vs many, for example, some using a thick cut from a can vs others homebrewing their own from flake; some suggesting applying with pipe cleaners vs brush. I don't see unanimous agreement on any of them.

Ah! Yes, that is certainly the case. Thanks for clarifying.

I quit using shellac several years ago, (four or five), not because I don't like the look of a shellac-ed pipe but because I could never get the application of shellac correctly. I have tried all the 'tried and true' methods in this thread, both pre-packaged and mixed. Sometimes they worked and sometimes they didn't. So I gave it up. I have found that extra time buffering will make a pipe look just as good. Instead of 30 minutes of buffering, I may take a couple of hours before the pipe takes on a shellac-ed look.

So far I have had no problems with customers. I tell them up front that I don't use shellac and while my pipes look as good as with shellac the finish will not last as long as shellac does. When one of my pipes is smoked on a regular basis it will start to look like a smoked pipe. I have found that the majority of people actually like a pipe with no finish except buffering and wax. Most people who buy pipes still are under the 'myth' that a pipe must breathe if it is to smoke correctly. Most still feel that shellac interferes. bob gilbert

Ask a hundred pipemakers and get a hundred answers.
Didn't you know?!