Oil Based v. Water Based Dye

R

rchampagne

Well-known member
Hi all,
I'm just about done with a Queen Anne lowboy of tiger maple.  I'm considering dying the piece, then applying two or three coats of shellac.  I'm wondering what the relative pros and cons are for oil based v. water based dyes.  I'd rather not have to raise the grain, as I've spent a fair amount of time with my scraper getting the surface where I want it.  And I'd rather not have to sand the carved fan if I can avoid it.  I've read that waterbased dyes are easier to apply than alcohol based dyes, and that oil based dyes may be less colorfast than the water based.  I don't have much experience with dyes, so any advice would be much appreciated. 
Thanks,
Rob
 
Hello Rob, in my experience, I would say this? water based dyes are a newish way (compared to mineral (oil ) based dyes) then I would say? water will raise the grain more than a mineral dye. I  do use "Van Dyke Cristal"which is water based, and that dose raise the grain.
  As to fading? I think only time will tell?
on the oldest scale known to man?  blood is thicker than water, oil too is thicker than water.

                                                                Joseph Hemingway
                                                                  sharing the tricks of the trade
 
Rob,

I use only water base dyes as these will "pop" the curl in your TM.  Oil base stains will not do as good a job.  They will hide the grain as compared to water base.  Try sample pieces first to see for yourself but make sure you also apply shellac.

Don't be afraid to sand your carvings.  I do it all the time without any loss of crispness, just be carefull.  Use 180 grit or higher.  You probably need more than 3 coats of shellac for a good finish.  The shellac is much thinner than an oil finish.  Good luck!

Dennis Bork
Antiquity Period Designs, Ltd.
 
And I have a follow on question related to this topic.  I'm building a Shenandoah Valley long case clock in tiger maple and am about ready to apply the finish. I plan on using a water based dye to show the grain then seal it with BLO before the shellac is applied. So here's my question:

Should I raise the grain and do the final light sanding before or after applying the dye? Or both? I would anticipate that the dye will raise the grain, but would raising and sanding BEFORE adding the dye mitigate that?  Or should I just go to the dye straight away? The surface is hand-planed and scraped to exactly where I want it now.

Rick Yochim
 
 
Hello,

Lonnie Bird did a really detailed article in Fine Woodworking No 180, December 2005, on his system for finishing and antiquing curly maple with water based dyes, and I believe the basics are covered somewhere on his web site. As I recall he said the editors made a critical change to his article by stating that it is raw tung oil  that he uses, whereas he uses a Formby product. Since the article was written, Formby has brought out an alternative, and I so not know which of the two he would use/prefer.

Karl
 
Thanks for the replies all.  I recently re-read Lonnie Bird's article and was planning on following it.  I was just hoping to avoid raising the grain.  I looked at Lockwood dyes and some instructions I found indicated that the oil based dyes are used mainly to tint varnishes etc.  I guess I will go the water based route.  Thanks again,
Rob

 
"Should I raise the grain and do the final light sanding before or after applying the dye? Or both? I would anticipate that the dye will raise the grain, but would raising and sanding BEFORE adding the dye mitigate that?  Or should I just go to the dye straight away? The surface is hand-planed and scraped to exactly where I want it now."

Rick - If this is the case (you've a laboriously prepared surface and don't want to change it), I'd recommend raising the grain with a mist of (distilled !) water, then sanding it lightly before using the WB dye.  There's a limit to how much water will raise the grain, and once those fibers are leveled with further sanding/scraping, not much more will raise thereafter.  Having said that, you'll still get some grain-raising effect from a water-based dye.

One reason not to sand after the water-based dye is that when you sand afterwards, you'll pull quite a bit of color out of the portion of the grain that runs parallel with the surface, and not so much where the grain intersects with the surface in an end-grain fashion (i.e., the "curled" portion of the figure).  That's sometimes desirable, because you can get some neat contrast effects by dyeing with a dark aniline dye, followed by sanding, then dyeing with a lighter aniline dye in a different color.  But I would think if your goal was to mimic 200 year-old maple, you won't want that much contrast.

Rick and Rob -

One alternative is to exposure your pieces to sunlight for 2 or 3 days before you choose to dye it.  I wrote an article about this for last year's Period American Furniture.  Doing this before applying a dye may allow you to use a little less concentrated dye, which is easier to work with.  Or you may choose to just use the sun exposure over a 2 or 3 week period followed by BLO and wax.  It doesn't leave the surface quite as dark as one would see on a colonial piece, but it's also fool proof - no lap marks or drips.

One other thought - I've had considerable success mimicking old tiger maple by applying either tung or linseed oil to pop the grain, followed by light wipedown with a dilute solution of alcohol-based dye (several days after the BLO treatment to allow it to dry), followed by a very light brush coat of un-tinted shellac, and followed up with a couple of coats of amber-tinted shellac.
 
I find it best to lightly sand (180 and/or220 grit), wet and re-sand again all surfaces to be stained.  Lightly sanding all the surfaces makes the wood better accept the dye uniformly.  Sometimes you have to sand, wet and re-sand 2 and even 3 times before all the wiskers are finally knocked down. 

Dennis Bork
Antiquity Period Designs, Ltd.
 
I'll chime in on this as I work a lot with tiger maple and have been fiddling with finishes for years to get the look I am after. First, I'd have to ask the question what do you want? Are you looking for a period looking finish on tiger maple or a consistant finish? The reason I ask is that if you have a chance to examine period pieces (we have a lot of this floating around Ohio), you will find they land in two catagories. One catagory is an effect where the original wood was stained to give the effect of something a bit more like a striped country cousin to mahogany. There is a pretty descent example in the the Grandma Moses Museum in Benninton Vermont of a Dunlap school highboy. The thing most notable about these period stained pieces is that the color tone is NOT unifirm. Different tones are obviously because of wear but other spots show ligher or darker due to Maple not taking stain consistantly or different final finishes treatments due to planing, scraping, etc. The second catagory of original finshes I see even more frequently is simply a shelac type finish with no colorant other than the oxidation on the wood surface and the gradual patina in the finish itself. What is notable about those finishes are how often the tiger grain is severely washboarded, often the grain effect is from a very rough surface with lots of dirt and crud worked into the valleys, which collectors of antiques see as the unmistakable badge of original handwork. I have built a few pieces for collectors who desired that I try to duplicate this washboard surface. I can get something sort of close with a scraper getting it to chatter but my sense is that this washboard effect is the result of the grain reacting over hundreds of years. That all being said I like a handplaned surface on most of my work in tyger and resort to scrapers to get a final finish on curved surfaces like mouldings. If you take some care with a good sharp smooth plane you will get a burnished surface right off the plane. I have found that the grain will not raise off a good hand planed surface but it will from a scraped or sanded surface. I pre raise the grain on scraped surfaces(mouldings) but don't bother with the planed surfaces. My finishes are not free from inconsistancies, just like the originals. I use a water based aniline dye usually in a weak amber tone and work up to the shade I'm after. I then top off with a thin oil varnish topcoat but I have been experimenting with just straight shellac and am moving in that direction. Hope this helps, Tiger can be a challenging wood to finish with lots of surprises(usually pleasant) along the way. Good luck.

George Walker
 
George,
Thanks for sharing your experience.  To answer your first question, I suppose I am looking for a finish that looks darker than just a clear top coat, but I'm hoping not to muddle the figure in the process.  I own an antique tiger maple chest of drawers, and the color is an amberish red/brown with light and dark stripes where the wood is figured.  The figure does not appear to have any depth, however.  I've not seen enough antique pieces to have an opinion on whether this is just a result of the particular finish on the piece (this in not a museum piece, and I'd guess it has been uprofessionally refinished at some point) or whether this is simply the result of aging.  Having read Lonnie Bird's article and seen pictures of his pieces, I guess this is the look I am aiming for. 

I was having good results from the hand plane and have used the scraper to blend out any tear out left from the planer, which is minimal.  The top, upper leg posts, drawer fronts, and apron all have a scraped finish.  The legs and carving have been sanded.  My plan is to wet the piece tonight (or whenever I get some free time) and then take a look at it the next day.  I have a packet of Lockwood dark amber maple dye that I am hoping to use. 

Thanks again,
Rob
 
Rob,
I'm curious to see your results. I'm currently working on a tiger maple jewelry box, and have pondered how to achieve an effective, aged look. My next project will be a QA lowboy -- also in tiger maple -- so I hope you can post some photographs of your progress...
Allan
 
Paint/glaze it red, Allan.  I think there's very little evidence of naturally finished high style tiger maple furniture (or any maple).  They used the figure of maple to look like figured mahogany.  Remember- these folks liked dark furniture.

Adam
 
Allan,
I'll get my camera out if it would be helpful.  I think I'll try to raise the grain tomorrow night.  Maybe a coat of dye Saturday night.  Is it bad if the water freezes before the piece can dry?  It will probably take me a while to get any photos posted, so be patient. 

Adam, what about pieces from NH and PA?  I believe I saw a tiger maple highboy or chest on chest from NH that had been built for the governor.  It had an unusual decorative element on the top of it, not sure how to describe it... I'm sure someone here knows exactly what I'm talking about.  Maybe this would fall into a more country or provincial category.
Rob
 
First I want to say that I have found this thread extremely valuable in that the different answers to Rob's basic question - and my follow on,  and the wealth of experience shared have forced me to think a little more deeply about both the effect I want to achieve and the processes to employ to get there. Thanks Rob for letting me jump in. 

So, my conclusions. I re read the Lonnie Bird article and the approach seems to be a good one. But, I have come to the point of solving a bit of philosophical dilema I've had about how I want this clock to look. That is: to antique it or not? I've decided that I want a consistent finish and not try to make it look "old before it's time". Thus I'm not going to try and age it in any way but let time do it's thing instead. My kids and grandkids will get to enjoy the Patina. And yes I know the old guys making the originals did things in the finishing to achieve all kinds of different effects or spice up a dull (or cheap) primary wood, but I choose not to do that on this piece.

Thanks George, dkeller and Dennis for the suggestions. As I've put a lot of time and effort in planing and scraping, when I prewet it will be a very light misting only. I have good, sharp smoothing planes so I got the flat stock smooth enough to reflect a raking light during assembly so I think I should be ok. Planetracks and chipout (the price to pay with tiger) were removed with scrapers.  I handcut the moldings except for the large base and waist cove moldings so there are some healthy but discreet toolmarks. On those big cove molds I had to soak the grain twice and aggressively sand and scrape to get it to lie down. It is a little more rough to the touch than the flat panels.

Anyway, my finishing scheme will be to very lightly mist the piece then break any nubs or fuzz with either 320 grit or white 3M scothbrite pad, then apply the water based dye. Any grain raising caused by the dye will get knocked down with the 3M pad. Then BLO, ample drying time, finished off with 1 1/2 pd. cut shellac (3 coats). I have a test piece that I'll use to get the color right, but I'm leaning toward a darker hue.  That said, the piece is going to be two toned becasue some of the tiger I used is not of that whitish cream color that looks so good (to me anyway) but is more of a oatmeal color so I purposely used that stuff in the floating panel in the base and the fluted qtr. columns. The contrast ought to be interesting. What's not to like about tiger maple?

Anyway, thanks again for the reasoned advice and thanks too for your patience reading this long post.

Rick Yochim
     
 
Rick,
I am glad you find this post useful.  I certainly feel I have benefitted from everyone's advice.  An update:  I raised the grain with a wet cloth the other night.  The resulting surface wasn't too bad.  Some light sanding with 400 grit and the surface was pretty smooth.  I then mixed up a batch of dye.  I had some Lockwood Dark Amber Early American Maple on hand, so I used that.  The ratio was roughly 1/2 oz to 2 pints water.  I tested a few scraps by dipping them in the container.  They looked okay, maybe a bit dark, so I diluted it a bit more. 

Then, with my fingers crossed, I applied the dye with a brush.  This went fairly well.  I let the piece dry over night.  When I saw the piece in the morning I was a little worried.  Mr. Bird's article did not mention that a dry, dyed piece looks awful.  It looked like the dye had been much too diluted and that the result was going to be awful (one of those surprises George mentioned).  Wondering if I was making a good decision, I applied some BLO on one of the back leg posts. 

Much to my relief, the surface lost that dull, washed out look, and the figure and grain became defined.  The actual piece was lighter than the test scraps. I decided to give the piece another coat of dye after sanding it again.  This time the piece just about matched the test scrap. 

When I find some more time, I'll post some pictures of the process.  I guess one thing I learned is to apply the dye to the test scraps the same way it will be applied to the actual piece.  In hindsight, this seems like common sense.  Clearly it would have given me a better indication of what the color was actually going to be.  Just another of those many little things you learn by doing, I guess. 

The next step is to oil the piece.  Then I'll apply the shellac, which I'm hoping will give the surface some warmth and a more amber color, as well as some gloss. 
Rob
 
Rich,
Would you make up a test piece and just shellac it with out the oil for a comparison? I have tried this on the same board and done a section with and without BLO. I couldn't see any difference. I am trying to find out if this application of BLO is really worthwhile or just an added extra step. If others have tried this side by side comparison and can see a difference chime in.
 
Mike,

Can do. 

My test scrap is a piece of 4/4 smoothed and highly figured stuff about 5" wide and 12" long. I'll run a very shallow saw kerf vertically down the middle to create 2 sections for the test. One side will have my final color (once I figure that out - will use the other side of the scrap for that) with BLO then garnet shellac; and the other side without the BLO... just the garnet shellac over the dye stain. Will report back what I see in the way of any differences. Of course the truest of tests would be to use untinted shellac but I'm not going to mix any of that up as Im not using it on this piece. Maybe next time. Unfortuntely I don't have a digital camera to shoot pics so I will have to post a verbal reply.

Now 'm guessing here, but I think that the darker I go on the dye stain the less pronounced will be the difference between the oiled and non-oiled treatments after the shellac's applied. That will be an assumption going in anyway.     

And Rob, did you use distilled water? It's purer (less contaminants than tap water) and what I'm using for both the wetting and the dye stain dilution. May not make much of a difference but at this point, and with all the work I've put into my piece, I figure it's worth it to make a short trip to the store to pick up a jug or two.

Cheers all,

Rick 
 
One thing which should be remembered here,
A BLO finish, darkens in time? so if your sample is not new, (ie: one coat/ one coat) better remember this rule? BLO will darken in daylight, so your correct match will end up darker.
althougth its  a gradual darkening process it will end up darker.  Where as most other manufactured Finnish, bleach in sunlight.
               
                                                    Joseph hemingway
 
Rick,
Didn't have distilled water on hand, but I used municipal water filtered through a Brita (sp?) jug. 

And to follow up on Mike's question, anybody have an opinion on "tung oil," the kind Mr. Bird uses in the article (which I understand is basically a mix of oil and varnish, or wiping varnish) v. BLO? 
Rob
 
I guess some experimenting is in order, I usually don't raise the grain before finishing. I figure any grain raised after applying the water based dye, followed by BLO, then shellac would be knocked down by the steel wool used to give the shellac a satin sheen? Does the presanded surface feel any smoother?

Also d keller I found your artical in the American Period Furniture journal very interesting. I bought a 100 watt metal halide area security light from home depot. It is the single ended (ie light bulb style) light that unfortunately has UV coatings on the bulb. It does darken mahogany but takes days and days of exposure to get the affect. Do the more expensive  double ended aquarium lights work faster?

Thanks,

George 
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top