Is 3D grain finish authentic?

[Lone Wolf]

My finishing process that I have developed over the years results in a glass-smooth satin sheen that gives the grain a 3D appearance.  When viewed straight on, you can see into the grain as if it were three-dimensional.  When viewed from different angles, the finish makes the wood look darker or lighter almost like the stain is changing.  I am very happy with it and the layperson is often impressed, but I wonder if this is unique to my finish or if most non-factory finishes result like this?
Is this 3D appearance historically correct, or were original guns finished with more of a constant and surficial appearance?  Most originals I have seen (not very many) are far worn from their original appearance.

[Enfield]

Well I achieved the "same" effect with True Oil on my Maple stock. Maybe you can show us some Pictures? I guess the effect can be achieved by many Oils?

[Jim Kibler]

People like vibrant curly maple now and I would think in the period as well.  I will say that beginners tend to put a great deal of emphasis on amount of curl, vividness etc.  Experienced builders will often be happy with plainer wood and commonly obscure some of the curl with finishing methods.

[Lone Wolf]

Well I achieved the "same" effect with True Oil on my Maple stock. Maybe you can show us some Pictures? I guess the effect can be achieved by many Oils?

I'd post some pictures but digital photography doesn't capture the 3D effect very well.  You're probably right in that most hand-applied oil finishes will achieve the same effect.  I don't think my finish process is too unique, but just wondered if it's how originals would have looked 200 years ago.  Maybe I'm just too used to modern factory finishes, but it seems that walnut stocks in particular are often just dark brown without much vividness, whereas my finish on walnut is just as dynamic as on curly maple.

[john bohan]

Lone Wolf I think if you like it then thats ok. I have seen this 3d look on some of the guns I finished and loved it.

[smart dog]

Hi Lone Wolf,
The gun makers in the 18th and early 19th centuries were not hobbyists.  They were trained tradesmen and in America many worked in the trade to earn enough to buy land and farm or another more profitable and less arduous business.  In Europe and England, stock finishing was a separate trade and they probably took more time to achieve some finer and nuanced aesthetic qualities but the key was moving the work out the door.  They had methods like aqua fortis and alkanet root to bring out figure in maple and walnut but beyond that, they probably did not care about creating 3D effects or layering color, etc.  Moreover, they certainly did not want any finishes that took months to apply and cure particularly when they had very primitive indoor environmental controls. They wanted the finish to dry fairly fast, fill the grain quickly, and protect the stock so they could get it out the door and get paid.  The idea of spending weeks and months hand rubbing oil into a stock is a modern one.

dave

dave

[BPJake]

People like vibrant curly maple now and I would think in the period as well.  I will say that beginners tend to put a great deal of emphasis on amount of curl, vividness etc.  Experienced builders will often be happy with plainer wood and commonly obscure some of the curl with finishing methods.

Hi Jim, good morning.
I see myself in that comment, I'm one of the beginners who has orders in with you for extra fancy rifles. I can tell you what the reason is for me: In a sea of my ordinary, utilitarian possessions, all of which are fine and perfectly adequate, I want one thing that is presentation grade fit for a President or King, and having held one of your rifles that will do the trick.

I shoot a Lyman GPH, it's nice enough, perfectly functional and not aesthetically offensive, but a vibrant extra fancy maple American longrifle, particularly graceful ones like a PA or mountain rifle are among the most beautiful things in the world, and I want one bad. And I'm going to length of building 2, just so I'm sure to have 1 that is what I want... it's a bit of an obsession.

After I have one I won't need one anymore, so as you foretell I will probably choose a plain stock for next project and focus on making something else about it unique, like learning to do the severe aging and distressing that some show on this forum, things that I wouldn't dream of doing to an extra fancy.

I'm learning so much here and from your and other members posts and vids, thanks so much. I go back to the shadows now until I have something new to say.

[BPJake]

Hi Lone Wolf,
The gun makers in the 18th and early 19th centuries were not hobbyists.  They were trained tradesmen and in America many worked in the trade to earn enough to buy land and farm or another more profitable and less arduous business.  In Europe and England, stock finishing was a separate trade and they probably took more time to achieve some finer and nuanced aesthetic qualities but the key was moving the work out the door.  They had methods like aqua fortis and alkanet root to bring out figure in maple and walnut but beyond that, they probably did not care about creating 3D effects or layering color, etc.  Moreover, they certainly did not want any finishes that took months to apply and cure particularly when they had very primitive indoor environmental controls. They wanted the finish to dry fairly fast, fill the grain quickly, and protect the stock so they could get it out the door and get paid.  The idea of spending weeks and months hand rubbing oil into a stock is a modern one.

dave

dave

I have read Mr. Kettenburg's Brown Oil Varnish recipe, is something like that what would have been commonly used?

[Lone Wolf]

Hi Lone Wolf,
The gun makers in the 18th and early 19th centuries were not hobbyists.  They were trained tradesmen and in America many worked in the trade to earn enough to buy land and farm or another more profitable and less arduous business.  In Europe and England, stock finishing was a separate trade and they probably took more time to achieve some finer and nuanced aesthetic qualities but the key was moving the work out the door.  They had methods like aqua fortis and alkanet root to bring out figure in maple and walnut but beyond that, they probably did not care about creating 3D effects or layering color, etc.  Moreover, they certainly did not want any finishes that took months to apply and cure particularly when they had very primitive indoor environmental controls. They wanted the finish to dry fairly fast, fill the grain quickly, and protect the stock so they could get it out the door and get paid.  The idea of spending weeks and months hand rubbing oil into a stock is a modern one.

dave

dave

Hi smart dog, thank you for your reply.  I'm not sure where you got the idea that I spend weeks and months on my finishes.  My whole process can be completed in about a week, even less with the benefit of warming sunshine to speed the curing process.  I'm not sure how long 18th century treatments took, but I can't imagine it was much faster.  The only products that I know of that take weeks or months to cure are BLO and raw tongue oil, neither of which I use. (Aside: I used raw unpolymerized tongue oil on a stock I refinished probably close to 15 years ago, and it is still gummy to this day.  Lesson learned!)

There is always the balance between achieving perfection and results that are economical. Since I do not build guns for a living, it can indeed be easy to get caught up striving for the perfection where the last 20% of the job takes 80% of the effort. Sometimes many aspects of gun building take me longer than they should, but that is often because I am notorious for doing things like clumsily scratching my stock or barrel against the work bench just after the final coat has been applied and causing damage that sets me back a few steps

All that said, my original question wasn't how long the 18th century process took so perhaps a better way to state the question would be this:  Did the finishes used by the original masters result in similar results as products that many of us use today that often give dynamic hues and vividly accentuate the grain, or do modern finishes tend to be lot different than what one might have expected 200 years ago?

[smart dog]

Hi,
I understood your question very well.  The answer is they probably did not do anything extra to bring out "3D" shimmer in wood.  If it happened using their normal methods, great.  If it did not, they did not worry about it.  It is hard to tell on many originals what the finish looked like because 200 years of UV light and discoloring finish tend to obscure it.  Get a couple of KRA CDs with photos of original guns.  Some will look to have deep color and others not so much.  On none of the originals I have examined in the hand was the finish glass smooth except for several percussion period English guns.   All the guns below have finishes showing shimmering color that changes at different angles.  They are all finished with Sutherland-Welles polymerized tung oil, which dries fast and can soak in or be built up depending on my objectives..









dave

[Lone Wolf]

Thanks for posting those pictures, smart dog.  I'd say that luster is pretty close to what mine look like.  If I had a way to take good pictures that would do it justice, I'd post a couple, but it seems my phone camera is still using 18th century technology.