Walt: Why not publish your recommendation for the B-80 to the list? I would be willing to bet there are people interested. This is Phono-L, not Phonolist.....
Rich On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 20:33:01 -0500, Walt wrote: >Hi Sean, >I must have seemed harsh. Howard's doesn't "restore" the finish - it >"obscures" it. Maybe "Howard's Destroy-A-Finish" is too harsh and "Howard's >Obscure-A-Finish" is better. But here is the point better and more caringly >made: >Think about why a finish often looks dull in the first place. There are many >factors, but assuming that it is not badly gouged or scraped, or has veneer >flapping in the wind, the culprit is usually oxidation and dirt. And that is >why people go after products like Howard's. Covering over dirt and >oxidation, at best, make the cabinet look unnatural, albeit it will look >much brighter for a little while. >A "Howard's treated" cabinet does not look anywhere near as good a properly >restored cabinet - I promise. I, too, have seen Howard's used and someone >even talked me into using it once or twice, but it falls way short of what >the cabinet can really be. It certainly does have the ability to make a >finish look like something that it really isn't, but it is not a substitute >for good cleaning or careful restoration. >Howard's is, to its credit, a polymer, which means that thankfully it does >not bind very well to the finish itself. I don't think you could harm the >finish with the Howard's (unless your rag is too coarse or dirty) but I can >almost guarantee that if you properly clean your cabinet that you would be >blown away with the results. Howard's, as well as other colorants out on the >market, certainly can create an appearance that looks better than a dirty >cabinet, but by cleaning your cabinet the right way (and it will take hours >and hours on a 10-50) you achieve something that is genuine. Howard's, as a >polymer, drags a film of plastic (sort of), across your cabinet and over all >the dirt and oxidation. It simply hides the dirt and defects partly because >it has tint, but also because it blocks light. It's like thinking to clean a >dirty hardwood floor by painting all of the dirt the same color as the wood. >I have a better recommendation for your B-80. Email me off-list if you are >interested. >Walt >-----Original Message----- >From: phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org [mailto:phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org] On >Behalf Of Sean Miller >Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 7:28 PM >To: 'Antique Phonograph List' >Subject: RE: [Phono-L] GOW finish >Howard's "Destroy-A-Finish"??? >Walt, I'm curious why you say that because I have had some very good luck >with Howard products (including that) on a few otherwise hopeless machines >I've owned (or still own - it brought my 10-50 back to life and it still >stuns me to remember the "before") >Can you share any specific experiences or reasons why not to use >"Destroy-A-Finish", please? I'd like to know if I could be harming mine >when I have used it in the past, plus I have an Edison B-80 that I've been >thinking would benefit in no other way but from a thorough once-over with >it... >Sean >-----Original Message----- >From: phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org [mailto:phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org] On >Behalf Of Walt >Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 7:05 PM >To: 'Antique Phonograph List' >Subject: RE: [Phono-L] GOW finish >For those machines that I refer to by personal experience, it is clearly the >case that the finish came as Golden Oak Waxed directly from the factory. The >data in "Look for the Dog" is referring to factory finishes (that is, how >they left the factory) and is an objective account based on actual >production records. >I don't know what you mean by "previously stripped." Are you asking if the >cabinet was originally finished with shellac which was then removed while it >was still in the factory (and before it was ever shipped)? If so, the answer >is, "definitely not." Aside from the technical impossibilities, I do not >believe that Victor's manufacturing process would have accommodated such an >expensive process for producing what is intended to be an economical finish. >The idea of stripping a cabinet at the factory only to then wax the stained >finish is radically counterproductive as I estimate it. >An old shellac/varnish finish can be removed, but it is impossible to remove >every trace of it - totally impossible. This is one of the ways I am able to >tell if a finish is original and even what the finish originally was if it >has been redone or coated at some later point. A minuscule amount of shellac >will always remain in some crease, open pore, nail hole, seam, etc. Once the >raw oak grain absorbs any of the shellac's resin by way of the denatured >alcohol, it leaves a fingerprint forever. Short of total cabinet disassembly >and sanding maybe 10% of every surface away, those forensic pieces of >Victrola DNA are there for good. >I guess I am a little stumped as to why people think it so odd for wood to >be merely finished with wax, because such a finish is often seen in >furniture of the period, generally. It is, in the bigger picture of >furniture finishes (which I am sure Eldridge Johnson's boys were plenty >skilled at - at least until about 1917 or so), not at all unusual. >I am well aware of the many "magical" chemical finishes like "Howard's >Destroy-A-Finish" and tinted waxes mentioned by Rich that are available on >the market, and it may well be the case that such an product was applied to >the machine you mentioned initially, but without at least seeing pictures of >the machine or preferably asking the seller some questions I couldn't be so >quick to suspect it as a boogered-finish. Knowing eBay? It might be ten >times worse than you think. But it may be legit. (Any luck finding that >auction number?) >Walt >-----Original Message----- >From: phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org [mailto:phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org] On >Behalf Of bkasindorf >Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 12:52 PM >To: Antique Phonograph List >Subject: Re: [Phono-L] GOW finish >Thanks, >But does this mean it was previously stripped and this kind of finish added >later? Did Victor ever ship a phono with this kind of finish from the >factory? >-Barry >On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 09:22:18 -0600, "Rich" <rich-m...@octoxol.com> wrote: >> Google is a wonderful invention. >> >> Try this, >> URL: >> >http://www.architecturals.net/restore/home.cfm?page=productdisplay&CategoryI >D=36&SubcategoryID=112&ProductID=2662&Start=1 >> >> Cut and paste back together as required. >> >> This is nothing more than colored wax... Your basic CRAPA-FINISH >> >> >> On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 6:41:52 -0800, bkasindorf wrote: >> >> >_______________________________________________ >Phono-L mailing list >Phono-L@oldcrank.org >Phono-L Archive >http://phono-l.oldcrank.org/archive/ >Phono-L RSS Feed >http://phono-l.oldcrank.org/feed/index.rss >Support Phono-L >http://www.cafepress.com/oldcrank >-- >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG Free Edition. >Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.28/604 - Release Date: 12/26/2006 > >_______________________________________________ >Phono-L mailing list >Phono-L@oldcrank.org >Phono-L Archive >http://phono-l.oldcrank.org/archive/ >Phono-L RSS Feed >http://phono-l.oldcrank.org/feed/index.rss >Support Phono-L >http://www.cafepress.com/oldcrank >_______________________________________________ >Phono-L mailing list >Phono-L@oldcrank.org >Phono-L Archive >http://phono-l.oldcrank.org/archive/ >Phono-L RSS Feed >http://phono-l.oldcrank.org/feed/index.rss >Support Phono-L >http://www.cafepress.com/oldcrank >-- >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG Free Edition. >Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.28/604 - Release Date: 12/26/2006 > >_______________________________________________ >Phono-L mailing list >Phono-L@oldcrank.org >Phono-L Archive >http://phono-l.oldcrank.org/archive/ >Phono-L RSS Feed >http://phono-l.oldcrank.org/feed/index.rss >Support Phono-L >http://www.cafepress.com/oldcrank
