How would you handle this?

[copgib 15]

I need some wood refinishing advise if possible. I have a 12' X 12' deck with no railing, just a flat deck. It is pressure treated wood that had been stained with a Thompson's light shade of stain. I cleaned the deck with F18 and then sprayed it with oxy. I went back yesterday to look at it and I noticed a couple spots that I didn't see earlier that where small but seem to still have alittle of the old stain on the wood. Tomorrow, Monday I am suppose to seal the deck since it has dryed out. How would you handle this? Should I sand the few spots that I missed or just go ahead with staining? Customer requested I put Thompsons water seal back on the deck. I am putting on a clear stain. Any help would be appreciated. Hugh

[Beth n Rod 1,279]

Coverage rate is marginal relative to the grits you have mentioned above. My whole premise is that we are talking about outdoor structures, not indoor where the temperature and humidity levels do not fluctuate to the degree found in the outdoor environment.

Rough sawn wood is not the issue. I am referring to decking material which was the basis of a members question. Tried and true does apply because rough sawn wood is the lazy mans answer to getting longevity from paint. Sanded wood brings in a whole new scope of techniques and requires attention that you and I obviously employ. I feel yours is radically different in respect to the use of grit and the purpose of each. I come from the 'old school' of practices and you seem to be looking to reinvent the wheel in some way. I admit that technology is changing but when I read the manufacturers label and see consistently that 60-80 grit is the highest recommended for use in outdoor applications, I fail to see your point for finely sanded wood (anything above 80 grit) with todays technology viable.

In the "old" days they were using lead based paints and Shellac. Various oils were used to gain penetration of stains that were applied before the varnish or shellac finish. For outdoor wood, they used to dip wood with Kreosote to keep it from decaying. This was used in telephone/telegraph poles, railroad ties, water tower timbers and so on. This was consistent with the "technology" of the time. We have come along way with the technology we use today but the wood is still the same. We know more about wood now than then.

Grit factors still remain a contingency. I guess that may never change as wood still acts the same now as it did then regardless of species. Permeability (not to be confused with penetration) is a stronger factor in some of the imported species but this is overcome with solvents and binders which help to create the basis of chemical bonding.

Rod!~

[MMI Enterprises 289]

You can hear what you want to hear Rod.. Fact is your context/use of 'tried and true' seemed limited to 'sanding grit' and I only chose to elaborate on it by useing the word 'all' and to make attempt to point out what seems fact to me. (see post #25...you were responding to Ricks statement of grit).. And that for sure is that there is always much exageration between the two different states of rough and sanded...(edit- sorry should say too much absorbtion exageration speak between grits.. see the test link below to see the use of 'tried and true' being a dismal failure...)

Have no idea why you constantly try and twist what I say into that I am pushing for some big modern way of doing things. I goto 80-120 normally and don't believe I said or was pushing otherwise.

And man if I am so radical and you so 'old school' what are you doing in pushing all the wet tech/one coat/ disregard old school ways of first oiling then sealing that you so eliquently just pointed out.. I don't at all get you sometimes.

What do you mean in saying something about a premise for arguement when we verged from the main topic long ago?.

We sure are radically different in how we interprit what some else is saying...lol :)

Sanded wood brings in a whole new scope of techniques and requires attention that you and I obviously employ. I feel yours is radically different in respect to the use of grit and the purpose of each

How so?. I believe it makes it smoother #1 and makes it look better by making the color even and highlighting grain.. that is radically different?.

Your view (or argue) is what?

Recognize in respect to outdoor wood care (AND THIS THREAD) that I am really talking about the grit differences that we would actually choose from or end at. You know full well we are talking about differences in ending at 60 or 80 or maybe 100 or so and that my test thread I took liberty to go way higher for sake of the absorbtion claims/exagerations.

Coverage rate is marginal relative to the grits you have mentioned above.

What should this also mean or say to people?..does it also say the absorbtion differences are also marginal in respect to ending at 60 or 80 or 100? This was along the lines of my last post.

Rough sawn wood is not the issue.

If I am interprited as saying such then reinterprit and realize I simply applied roughsawn wood as a main cause for exageration of covergae or absorbtion differences. It's plain to see that once yer into sanded wood things are different. http://www.thegrimescene.com/forums/wood-cleaning-restoration-decks-fences-etc/12745-sanding-grit-stain-test-redwood.html .. but not so different.

I admit that technology is changing but when I read the manufacturers label and see consistently that 60-80 grit is the highest recommended for use in outdoor applications, I fail to see your point for finely sanded wood (anything above 80 grit) with todays technology viable.

If you fail to see then perhaps you should feel the wood..

Saying anything above 80 is abit subjectve. Consider some would have it at 40 or 60..others at 120, others maybe more below 220. But hey what do you think them manu's relying on there when they say 60-80 is the highest?.. They know their product doesn't penetrate and they need to grip/bond to roughness. BUT that again, is a durability issue more related to top film forming coatings....We all know absorbtion is something different and my original posts in this thread was not about durability persay. Only when Ken fairly decided to elaborate more past my first post did we all start to go there... I for one am not limited to consider or discuss a topic such as absorbtion discretely. Some others just luv to throw wrenches and get into things of durability as the end all be all which is somewhat rediculous in a wood care world that caters to or even counts on remaintence staining ever couple/few years anyways.