Thinner for filler stain

[calvin]

My project Grady-White is ready for some color..I have decided on z-spar filler stains...which thinners are the best to use..z-spar t-10 t-11 ect. or is turps or paint thinner ok?

[pcford]

Use what the can says.

I used paint thinner with Interlux and it did not dry.

Always use proper thinner.

[JimConlin]

I've used ordinary paint thinner with these stains with satisfactory results. I suspect that it's the first coat of varnish that really locks 'em in.

[pcford]

I've used ordinary paint thinner with these stains with satisfactory results. I suspect that it's the first coat of varnish that really locks 'em in.

That's what I thought 'til I used plain paint thinner. What difference would it make right? Made a big mess. Stain would not go off.

It is a very foolish economy to not use the proper thinner.

[David G]

I'm afraid Mr. Ford is right. Sometimes the logical solvent works fine. Sometimes - esp. w/marine products - only the recommended (and sometimes proprietary) solvent will do. I know nothing about the technical details of chemistry. What I know from hard lessons is that the chemistry has to be right.

If you don't follow the recommendations, you're rolling the dice. Feeling Lucky?

[JimConlin]

I'm perplexed. Could it be that there are variations in paint thinner?

[Lew Barrett]

I think it's more likely there are variations in stains. Even staining takes some care, the more so on wood that has seen some prior use, I think.

[David G]

I think it's more likely there are variations in stains. Even staining takes some care, the more so on wood that has seen some prior use, I think.

True. And there are variations in paint thinner.

However, the bigger issue is the chemistry of the z-spar product the OP is planning on using - and its compatibility with other products. In this case, he's specifically asking about a solvent for the stain.

Generally speaking, the more mass-market, consumer-oriented a product is (minwax, et. al.) the more foolproof they try and make it. The more specialized a finishing product is, the more likely it will be to be finicky: tightly engineered to achieve some specific requirements. This leads to less tolerance for mixing in of solvents that aren't to spec, or mixing of brands/types of coating products.

One recent example: from spraying water-based lacquers, I've gotten to like using shellac as a sanding sealer. Imparts some depth & warmth under an otherwise sorta lifeless topcoat. Sands easily. Tougher than your typical sanding sealer. Shellac also makes a good substrate for most all finishes, and a great barrier between finishes.

However... I've been experimenting with products from a new mfgr - Chemcraft. Their tech folks don't recommend spraying their pre-catalyzed lacquer over shellac. I suspect it's just because they don't have experience with it, and are just erring on the cautious side. In limited use, I've had no problems. I will be somewhat careful till I've had more chance to play with it, cause it could come back to bite me later. For me, having to redo the finish on a clients job could eat up the profits from several jobs. For you, having to redo would be a huge waste of time. Lots of messy, frustrating work, which is backtracking instead of moving the project forward. Their acid-activated post-catalyzed lacquer, BTW, ate the shellac for lunch. Alligatoring all over the place. Total mess. Won't try that combo again.

The conclusion I've developed over the years is that - unless you've got first-hand experience, or enough technical chemistry savvy and access to sometimes closely held formulation information... If you don't follow the recommendations of the mfgr, you are simply guessing - and rolling the dice on the success of the project.

You can test your guesses by doing finish samples. Use same products and processes that the final product will see. Same substrate (or as close as you can come). Same stain applied the same way. Same solvents in the same proportions. Same sealers. Same topcoats. Same application methods.

If you do all that, and are pleased with the results you might try your newly developed finish schedule on the actual boat (or other finished product) and hope that the Gods smile in the same way.

[AndreasJordahlRhude]

I use Z-Spar filler stains on the Thompson boats I have restored. I have ONLY used Z-Spar T-10 thinner. I have not even attempted to use any other thinners for the reasons others have pointed out in this thread.

I have a photocopy of a letter form Glen Grady of Grady-White Boats dated May 24, 1962 regarding the finishes they used at the factory. Here's what it says: mahogany stain is Woolsey number A1D3. Varnish is Woolsey number A14C. White side paint is Starline gloss white by Pettit. Red copper anti-fouling bottom paint is Woolsey.

Hope this helps.

Andreas

[calvin]

Is woolsey stains still available? If not which would be the best match?

[pcford]

Woolsey was purchased by Petit some time ago. As was Z-spar. The latter was a good stain. Woolsey paints, in general, were not so good.

I should be absolutely no problem for a good paint store to mix up filler stain to approximate the original stain. If it is not perfect, who is to know?