I had second thoughts about even posting a reply here but this is getting to the point of being utterly embarrassing already.
All this talk of “historically correct” or “period correct” then total disregard of history in favor of sales hype and/or modern myth/misconception.
“Teak oil” is nothing more than a marketing term – it means “oil used on Teak wood” not that the oil comes from Teak wood. Teak is naturally resistant to environmental exposure but, as with other environmental resistant woods, it will not survive indefinitely on its own and therefore requires routine maintenance and thus is origin of “Teak oil” – oil used to maintain Teak wood. A bit of historical fact investigation will quickly reveal that Chinawood oil (a/k/a Tung oil) is the original “Teak oil” and digging a little further, one will find that Tung oil was available in the colonies but it wasn’t used because of the excessive cost. Plenty of historical proof exists to support the fact that business in the colonial days was no different than business of today – cost was, and still is, a major manufacturing concern and businesses cut corners back in the day just the same as they still do today. Gun & furniture makers would not pay the price serious professional artistic painters were willing to pay for the premium Chinawood oil. Linseed oil, being readily available from domestic sources, was far cheaper than Chinawood oil, however, gun makers were not stupid, many were very much aware of the fact that Linseed oil did not perform as well as Chinawood oil and such is why they took to using pine tar under or within the Linseed oil ... likely picked up from the boatmakers who were constantly in search of better performance – ever hear the term “tar heels” and wonder where it came from? History answers all questions if anyone bothers to take the time to look and/or accept the facts without twisting them into myth because of business or personal bias. How much historical fact is lost when one ignores the fact that other oils, Sunflower, Safflower and Hemp to name a few, were also in-use in the colonial period. Is it so easy to dismiss the connection between Roman history that was influenced by input from all areas of the Roman empire as well as the surrounding regions and the effect those influences had throughout the whole of Europe? Is it so easy to also dismiss Egyptian, African, Middle Eastern and Asian history which all influenced European and colonial history? Are we willing to dismiss the Norwegian history as well even though it is such that gave rise to the Tar Heels of the American colonies? The world has not remain stagnant and if one attempts to claim that the knowledge of one people or region did not affect or influence others then such is attempting to claim history never happened. How does explain technology and the associated products were known of from Europe to Asia and even across much of the Northmen territories if not for the existence of trade caravans? If one were to believe such isolationist nonsense, then one must argue that the longrifle would never have come about because the knowledge of gun powder would never had made it from Asia to Europe.
Much ado is often made about the furniture makers yet history shows they were more concerned about how quickly they could get something finished and out the door for the lowest cost than worrying about the durability of the finish. Thus, the birth of the beeswax/Linseed oil blend; why use straight Linseed when one could simply add a some oil to the much cheaper beeswax and wipe a finish on and get the work out the door much faster? Yep, it was all about the money ... surprise, surprise, surprise. And, just in case anyone is wondering, the modern myths about the water/moisture resistance of bees and other waxes, the facts about waxes were well known many centuries before the advent of the longrifle or any other gun for that matter ... yep, that’s that whole history thing showing it’s ugly head again because the failures of waxes to produce water-proof/resistant finishes was known back to at least the 4th or 5th century B.C.
No offense Doc but I’m glad you referenced wiki-agenda/wiki-myth and someone else referenced “ehow-not-to” - one will note that much of the alleged “information” (and I use that term with the extreme limits of looseness) is either agenda-driven or worthless stuff that isn’t even worthy of being called “bull manure”. One must take the sources of alleged “information” into account before accepting the validity of it. How many times can one find references to water and moisture protection yet the suppliers of said information are associated with the production of competitive products – that’s not to discount the worthlessness of alleged independent studies where the conductors of said studies are skewed by their funding source and/or utterly ignorant to the facts. Reference two such studies conducted by so-called “centers of learning and education” where the alleged “Tung oil” used in the studies was not “pure Tung oil” but rather a “manufactured semi-synthetic wiping varnish” containing only a small amount of cheap low-grade solvent-extracted Tung oil. Dig a little more and you’ll find some true independent studies that are conducted properly and in those you’ll find that Tung oil rates far higher in moisture resistance than most manufactured finish products including full & semi synthetic. Is there any wonder why a fellow who designs and builds custom sailing vessels with price tags starting around $15 million sources certified pure Tung oil and does the thermal processing in-house? Does anyone ever wonder why a particular “oil gun stock finish” product sold at most retailers contains “less than 3% modified Linseed oil” and greater than 96% petroleum distillates and synthetics. How about the product labeled as “Spar Oil Varnish” that contains “Stoddard solvent, petroleum distillates, synthetic resin” ... where’s the “oil” part of the “Spar Oil”?
About the myths and misconceptions about where oils come from and how they’re extracted ...
“Cold pressed” is no longer a valid grading term for natural oil and hasn’t been for more than about 80 years. Traditionally the term was used to identify higher grades of oil that were not extracted using heat or steam. In modern times the highest grade oil is “First-press” or the first-pressing as subsequent pressings and solvent-extraction of the lower grades of oil. In modern times, most all extraction processes are done without heat or “cold” and such is why “cold pressed” is no longer a valid description for any oil. Solvent-extraction typically follows the first-pressing and produces the lowest grade of oil, the process is used because it's the fastest and cheapest extraction method. One will also note that any certified oil will be supplied with a certificate of test results for the given batch being shipped, if the oil you’re buying does not come with the testing certificate, you have no idea what you’re getting – secondary note, you’re not going to find certified oil at any common retail outlet, certified oil is only available from a limited number of premium product suppliers and you’re probably going to get sticker-shock when you see the prices.
The traditional method of extracting nut/seed oils was to crack or chop the fruit then extract the oil using a wooden driven wedge press. As time progressed, driven wedge presses were replaced with single-stroke screw presses, the resultant waste from both processes was then heated, boiled or steamed to extract most of the remaining oil but thermal extraction processes were being phased out before WWII and have ceased following WWII. Modern mass-production processing utilizes continuous feed extrusion screw presses and/or centrifugal turbine extractors although it is still possible to obtain premium oil extracted via the traditional wedge/single-stroke screw press methods. Contrary to the completely incorrect statements, Teak oil does NOT come from Teak trees! Ignorance of such magnitude would suggest Danish oil comes from Danishes
or perhaps from Dane’s?
Considering such stupid statements, would anyone care to make the claim that colored chicken eggs come from the backside of the Easter Bunny?
Oh, and BTW, how about doing some research before you reach for that can of Turpentine in the big box or hardware store because you may be surprised to find out that it doesn’t contain any real Turpentine.
Mark
