Old cedar issues

[PressurePros 248]

Let me preface by saying, I hate cedar. Rick Petry, you can have all of my cedar decks. My question to the wood pros that have been doing decks for awhile.

When do you call it quits when applying sealer? Scenario: 25 year old cedar porch.. neglected.. strip solid.. replace some boards.. sand. Applied one coat of sealer and let soak in (this was hand brushed board by board as per customer request). After deck was complete, I had guys go back and brush in a second coat. First one was heavy, second was lighter but still heavy enough to have the entire deck wet looking when we drove away. Customer calls and is generally happy but of course is wondering why the knots are showing much lighter. There is definitely a point of diminishing return where any more coats are just going to form a film.

How do you handle the issue? What do you say to the customer

[JFife 14]

I'm tired and incoherent enough that I'd be willing to give you $200 for that amp!

[JFife 14]

I'm interested in your theory.....let's put it on hold for a couple days. In the meantime, I'll be arming myself with information to battle you WoodTux Bandits. It's about time someone puts an end to this film-forming nonsense, and I intend for that person to be me [twirling six-shooters]:) I'm actually gonna be outa town till Friday/Sat. so I'm gonna have to sober up Diamond Jim for some action.:)

[seymore 90]

have to sober up Diamond Jim for some action.:)

Good luck getting that done Jon the wine making season has just begun!!

You have a better chance making up with Willow or maby cleaning and staining her house yourself in person! :D

[Greg R 82]

I'm interested in your theory.....let's put it on hold for a couple days. In the meantime, I'll be arming myself with information to battle you WoodTux Bandits. It's about time someone puts an end to this film-forming nonsense, and I intend for that person to be me [twirling six-shooters]:) I'm actually gonna be outa town till Friday/Sat. so I'm gonna have to sober up Diamond Jim for some action.:)

I Gotcher' back Jon :) I see a dual comin'

[James 624]

Ken there is a difference between The solids and drying and non drying oils. The lack of understanding products and how they are used is the point. ABR is thicker than RS. You reduce WTW to get penitration on IPE'. Your full on contradictions and don't know it ?

[PressurePros 248]

James before you start making assumptions, let me make a post and then you can help me bring me up to your level of wisdom.

[James 624]

I don't deal in assumptions. The first deck I oil was with Wolmans. It looked like I put Min Wax on an old deck. Looked terible. Then I used ABR on the same deck. Molasses comming out of a can. The difference is Solids. I brought this up in another thread and on other boards many many many time's before. One product doesn't make a woodcare pro. Understanding what wood needs and how to achieve those results does.

[plainpainter 217]

James - would you consider ABR on newer decks, or it's not necessary?

[RPetry 564]

I believe Jon Fife is correct. % of solid content in semi-transparent stains include the oils(s), resins, mildewcides, pigments, etc. that are left behind after the VOC content of the stain has evaporated. Pigments are only one factor in measured solid content.

Speaking of pigments, I have been told that Ready Seal uses transoxide pigments finely ground for 48 hours. As you do not have to stir the stain, seems that all the ingredients are held in suspension for a very long time. I think the idea is that this allows the pigments to get deeper into the wood, using the parafinnic oil as the carrier.

Are transoxides inferior pigments? I thought clay pigments took that dubious honor.

[James 624]

ABR has different products that you can use on newer wood with less solids. But you can use the thick stuff at more coverage per sqft. It stay's oily for along time.

[James 624]

I'm on my way to quote a job in need of allot of solids ( 40 gallons).

[PressurePros 248]

I don't want to disparage any product or stand in one camp or the other. I agree with James. The right tool for the job. The technical explaination for Ready Seal being 95% solids may be plausible by definition. The problem is, like knowing any one single stat and basing an opinion on it, you can formulate (or perpetuate) misconception. More important (to me) is not the definition of a solid versus a VOC or a skewed content percentage, its what the remaining "solids" do to protect the wood. Transoxide pigmentation is good, definitely preferable for UV protection over clay pigmentation. The real question is what percentage of the remaining solids is represented by the pigmentation. That is where using an all assumpive definition of the solids content in a non drying oil can be equally skewed to make it sound ineffective.

If we agree that pigmentation is important for sealer longevity then it would stand to reason that higher concentrations of pigmentation (to a point of diminishing return) is preferable. Yes?

Well if you have two single gallons of sealer with 5% pigmentation (based on volume) and one gallon is non drying oil and 95% non VOC and the other is 65% non VOC then your final ratio of pigmentation to solid becomes:

non drying oil: 1:19 (one part pigment to 19 parts solids)

other product: 1:13 (one part pigment to 13 parts solid)

Looking at those numbers it looks like the lower percentage solids sealer is going to provide more UV protection per gallon. Am I missing something. Sort of "contradicts" your recommndation of using a higher solid content sealer to solve the original issue I asked about in this post, Jim. The non drying, 95% solids product has lousy one coat coverage. Will anyone argue that?

Jon, any product that cures is a film former from Sikkens SRD to TWP to Wood Tux to 99% of what's out there. Its just a matter of where that film forms (how deep in the wood). I could care less if someone likes Wood Tux, hates it or otherwise. I don't sell it, I don't use it exclusively but I will tell you, it is not a film forming sealer like a solid stain. There seems to be this misconception and its an ill gotten one based upon rhetoric. Trust me... it is not what you are thinking it is. If you insist it is, Jon, then you have posted many pictures of film forming sealers used on your projects.

Let's go back to another reason that I have a problem with a product claiming it has 95% solids and leading people to believe it is some how superior.. My question is..what remains to protect the wood? The remaining 95% solids in a non drying oil has nothing to lock pigmentation or fungicide in place. It begins its degradation from day one. Plotted on a chart its slope to failure is rapid as all the stuff that makes a sealer a good product (water repellency, UV protection and mold growth inhibitors) begins almost immediately leaching out.

The final factor in claiming how great a non drying oil is cost. They are way too expensive. I am not sure what type of business others run but using a product that offers coverage at 75 s/f per gallon and needs to be applied twice in a week to look even and really protect the wood would put me out of the deck restoration business.

I am not against parafinnic products. I think the moisturizing effects are very beneficial to dried out wood. I am just a little irked at the condescension of some that have a few tidbits of knowlege and use it to disparage the opinions or products of others. We all use what we like. But we should also be open minded and teachable.

Jim, I have nothing against you but you should reread some of your posts before you click send. Many times you crack me up and I love reading your posts. Other times I'm not sure how to take you.

[JFife 14]

I don't want to disparage any product or stand in one camp or the other. I agree with James. The right tool for the job. The technical explaination for Ready Seal being 95% solids may be plausible by definition. The problem is, like knowing any one single stat and basing an opinion on it, you can formulate (or perpetuate) misconception. More important (to me) is not the definition of a solid versus a VOC or a skewed content percentage, its what the remaining "solids" do to protect the wood. Transoxide pigmentation is good, definitely preferable for UV protection over clay pigmentation. The real question is what percentage of the remaining solids is represented by the pigmentation. That is where using an all assumpive definition of the solids content in a non drying oil can be equally skewed to make it sound ineffective.

If we agree that pigmentation is important for sealer longevity then it would stand to reason that higher concentrations of pigmentation (to a point of diminishing return) is preferable. Yes?

Wouldn't necessarily agree. More pigment may not give the appearance a company is going for with it's product. None of us (assumption) are qualified to answer this. I'm sure we can all come up with a hundred examples to disprove a blanket assumption like this.

Well if you have two single gallons of sealer with 5% pigmentation (based on volume) and one gallon is non drying oil and 95% non VOC and the other is 65% non VOC then your final ratio of pigmentation to solid becomes:

non drying oil: 1:19 (one part pigment to 19 parts solids)

other product: 1:13 (one part pigment to 13 parts solid)

Looking at those numbers it looks like the lower percentage solids sealer is going to provide more UV protection per gallon. Am I missing something. Sort of "contradicts" your recommndation of using a higher solid content sealer to solve the original issue I asked about in this post, Jim. The non drying, 95% solids product has lousy one coat coverage. Will anyone argue that?

Good point. Referencing the situation described, I too would say I'd want a higher "solid" product to use....but by my very definition, that isn't clear. What I would really mean is, I want a thicker product that is going to stay up closer to the surface.....like WTW, which I think you said goes down 5mils or something, which is shallow penetration. But on porous surfaces, that is what the doctor ordered if you want a good look at the surface. I suppose this is also what Diamond was getting at.

Jon, any product that cures is a film former from Sikkens SRD to TWP to Wood Tux to 99% of what's out there. Its just a matter of where that film forms (how deep in the wood). I could care less if someone likes Wood Tux, hates it or otherwise. I don't sell it, I don't use it exclusively but I will tell you, it is not a film forming sealer like a solid stain. There seems to be this misconception and its an ill gotten one based upon rhetoric. Trust me... it is not what you are thinking it is. If you insist it is, Jon, then you have posted many pictures of film forming sealers used on your projects.

I used filmformers all the time.....don't have a problem with them. Very functional in many situations IMO. Like Diamond Jim says, "the right product for the right job." The only reason I heckle WTW fans about it being a filmer is because you guys all deny that it is, :) There is no "right" product for everything.....sometimes I use waterbase acrylics on homes and decks, sometimes Sikkens, sometimes RS. For someone that wants the most economical and servicable treatment, I recommend RS. Some want different looks. Some don't like the smell of oil.

Let's go back to another reason that I have a problem with a product claiming it has 95% solids and leading people to believe it is some how superior.. My question is..what remains to protect the wood? The remaining 95% solids in a non drying oil has nothing to lock pigmentation or fungicide in place. It begins its degradation from day one. Plotted on a chart its slope to failure is rapid as all the stuff that makes a sealer a good product (water repellency, UV protection and mold growth inhibitors) begins almost immediately leaching out.

LOL, does WTW get better over time?? I'm aware of very few services or materials that can be bought that don't begin depreciating the moment they are purchased. From the day you leave the job, your project begins its decline, no matter what it is. We can debate the rapidity of the decline; but that happens no matter.

The final factor in claiming how great a non drying oil is cost. They are way too expensive. I am not sure what type of business others run but using a product that offers coverage at 75 s/f per gallon and needs to be applied twice in a week to look even and really protect the wood would put me out of the deck restoration business.

You are using my example which is extreme. The person that told me this said to expect 7 yrs. before needing to re-treat.....and my one yr. old horizontal samples lead me to believe that is a possibility. And Ken, this isn't a battle against non-drying, etc....this is against Readyseal. Can you name another non-drying oil stain?? I'll help....it's for sale on your website. It applies differently, doesn't use transoxide pigments, gets different coverage, and has a lot of other differences than RS. But unless Tom Baker adds something besides spirits to it to make it different than TWP200, it is a true non-drying product. It has some benefits which I mentioned, but isn't as lap-proof, rain-proof, etc.

I am not against parafinnic products. I think the moisturizing effects are very beneficial to dried out wood. I am just a little irked at the condescension of some that have a few tidbits of knowlege and use it to disparage the opinions or products of others. We all use what we like. But we should also be open minded and teachable.

The only reason this is even an issue is because this is WTW's platform for doing business, and it is kinda thrown out in front of a bunch of people for that reason. Since this is where it markets it's products, there is going to be a lot of discussion of it. You can probably check any search engine or other bbs and not find any mention of WTW not attached to your, Celeste, or Beth's name. Everyone posts everything about WTW on here.....so it is going to be challenged. Some aren't open minded. Some are stubborn. Any publicity is good publicity.

Jim, I have nothing against you but you should reread some of your posts before you click send. Many times you crack me up and I love reading your posts. Other times I'm not sure how to take you.

(Jim, disregard that request. Drink your wine and continue posting as usual. You are my evening entertainment whenever you take the time to post:)) Ken, if you want to hone your psychoanalysis skills, try making sense of some of Ron ********** posts. He makes Diamond look like George F. Will:) Good debate, I'll check in later or tomorrow,

[RPetry 564]

Ken,

Take it easy. The point Jon and I were trying to make is that all stain % solid content is measured the same way as non VOC material left over. Has very little to do with the amount of pigment. BTW, RS , from interpreting the MSDS sheet is ~85%, not 95%. I do not believe that anyone has stated or those that look into these things ever stated that higher solid content is better. Its just the amount of stuff that stays in the wood. A simple standard measurement.

I do not think you will get true values on the amount of pigment from most stain manufacturers. I assume this is proprietary information that most will not divulge.

There is no question that for a proper and correct initial application, stain costs using RS will be much higher than WTW or many other types of stains. You also have to wait on dry wood. However, the ease and speed of product application save on labor. With the wet wood factor of WTW, Flood, and other stains, I would have the give the nod on overall costs for initial treatment to the "wet wood" stains. But the point I have tried to make in the past is that maintenance is so much cheaper, both in prep and staining cost to the business and to the customer. You have to admit, this is a labor first business. Stain is cheap compared to labor.

I am not sure what type of business others run but using a product that offers coverage at 75 s/f per gallon and needs to be applied twice in a week to look even and really protect the wood would put me out of the deck restoration business.

I correspond periodically with a gentleman that retired this summer. He just sold the last of 28 separate wood restoration companies throughout the U.S. These 28 locations have all been using RS for a number of years. As far as I know, all 28 are still in business. RS has been producing stain since maybe '92 or '94. I believe they are still producing product to the market.

[PressurePros 248]

Jon you can do better. I don't really have many points to contend.

"blanket assumption"

Read the line again. For sealer longevity you need higher pigmentation content. Thats not a fact? I also mentioned something about diminishing return (aesthetically speaking you obviously don't want an overly opaque sealer but it would stil hold true that an opaque sealer would offer longer life). Almost every customer would love to have a sealer that is a slight tint beyond the wood's natural appearance. They just don't last. You also have to apply twice as much READY SEAL (happy?) to get even coverage. The 75/sf and two different applications has been mentioned by numerous contractors, not just yourself. I have also experienced the same coverage rate with it.

Everything declines, yes. Weak arguement. The rate at which it declines is exactly what is in question. Though you glided over that issue as an aside. Nice try, Fife.

Contrary to your cynical outlook, the fact that I sell Baker's to homeowner's has no bearing in this entire arguement. If it did, I'd be smarter to keep my mouth shut because I would have, by your definition of Baker's, disparaged my own product line. Baker's does cure by the way.

Again, Russell can fight his own arguements. If some people like the products and speak of them why would that bother you? I made much more money this year using WTW when it was appropriate. Other contractors may like the idea of making money when it gets rainy so we share our experiences. Don't let it bother you so much.

You know I love ya, Jon, but you didn't think I was gonna take this one sitting down did ya?

[PressurePros 248]

Rick, I am contending Jim's point and trying to make people (new guys especially) understand some theory behind sealer. I am not excited, nervous, chain smoking or banging my head against the wall. I enjoy debate and there is much to be learned from it. I hope to take away some information from this post that I didn't know previously. In print stuff sounds harsh, especially if you are just trying to contend facts. I imagine this will go back and forth for a bit with some feelings hurt and some egos flaring.

Its better than reading the same old.. 'newbie here, what pressure washer should I buy' stuff.

[RPetry 564]

Ken,

Ok, gottcha. BTW, with RS maintenance, you don't need a pressure washer! Ok, Ok, couldn't help myself! Ed would be proud. Lets all learn something and try to have a bit of fun.

I'm off for the shore to get the last of the fluke in the morning. Check back tomorrow night.

[JFife 14]

Jon you can do better. I don't really have many points to contend.

"blanket assumption"

Read the line again. For sealer longevity you need higher pigmentation content. Thats not a fact? I also mentioned something about diminishing return (aesthetically speaking you obviously don't want an overly opaque sealer but it would stil hold true that an opaque sealer would offer longer life). Almost every customer would love to have a sealer that is a slight tint beyond the wood's natural appearance. They just don't last. You also have to apply twice as much READY SEAL (happy?) to get even coverage. The 75/sf and two different applications has been mentioned by numerous contractors, not just yourself. I have also experienced the same coverage rate with it.

That is open to salesmanship. "Our sealer requires twice as much due to it's viscosity allowing it to penetrate further into the wood and preserve it, blah blah." Regarding pigment content, a high pigment product may look good at the surface, but be providing absolutely no protection at all. Typical is latex stains, and heavily-bodied oil stains. Just cause something looks decent, doesn't mean it is performing a function.

Everything declines, yes. Weak arguement. The rate at which it declines is exactly what is in question. Though you glided over that issue as an aside. Nice try, Fife.

I'd debate this, but you've essentially proposed a WTW vs. RS battle, and you cannot prove that WTW lasts longer than one year. Why?? It hasn't existed longer than that. This argument is moot based on lack of evidence from the Film Party.

Contrary to your cynical outlook, the fact that I sell Baker's to homeowner's has no bearing in this entire arguement. If it did, I'd be smarter to keep my mouth shut because I would have, by your definition of Baker's, disparaged my own product line. Baker's does cure by the way.

Like I said, "unless Tom does something (besides spirits) to it". Besides that, it doesn't cure any differently than RS (i'm speaking of TWP200 specifically). Completely non-drying.

Again, Russell can fight his own arguements. If some people like the products and speak of them why would that bother you? I made much more money this year using WTW when it was appropriate. Other contractors may like the idea of making money when it gets rainy so we share our experiences. Don't let it bother you so much.

I seem bothered? I'm not. Glad you made more money. Cut it 30:1 with water, you'll make even more.:)

You know I love ya, Jon, but you didn't think I was gonna take this one sitting down did ya?

From where I stand, I thought you were taking it bending over:)LOL

[PressurePros 248]

LOL.. you *******!

[James 624]

I think Ken has allot of time to become a good woody mastur bator! Or become the best!!

Ken the info you give out is good for my biz. I hope the competition soaks it up. Great resolve?