# finishing quarter sawn white oak



## dan peterson (May 6, 2011)

I would like to get feedback from someone who had used dye to color quarter sawn white oak prior to putting on finish


----------



## Blur (Feb 1, 2011)

Could you give a bit more information on the project? Some of the considerations are universal, while others are more specific to the type of project and effect you are shooting for. First, dye fades in sunlight more readily than pigment does, so a topcoat with UV protectants isn't a bad idea, particularly if the finished project will be in a sunny area. Dye with no binder is fairly forgiving since you can use the solvent to reactivate the dye and wipe some off if you end up with a color darker than you intended. Most "binderless" dyes are sold as powders and you dissolve them yourself in the appropriate solvent. Most (though not all) the stuff you buy in liquid form contains a binder of some sort so this nifty trick doesn't work so well. 

You'll want to be a bit careful that the dye's binder (if it has one), is compatible with the top coat that you plan to use. For example, if you were to dissolve alcohol soluble dye in shellac for color and wanted to use polyurethane as a top coat you'd want to make sure you used a de-waxed shellac. Yeah, someone's going to come along now and ask me why you would do that in the first place, but alcohol based dye in shellac on a small project lets you move on to the next step faster, and doesn't raise grain the way water soluble dye does, and still doesn't require spray equipment. 

Anyway, let us know more about the project and I'm sure the people here can give you lots of advice. 

Cheers!


----------



## dan peterson (May 6, 2011)

Blur, thanks for the reply. At this point I am experimenting on a story stick using different shades of water soluable transtint dye. I am attempting to pop the rays to the ultimate level. Thus far I have used a coat of regular linseed oil as well as a coat of Formby's tung oil. I cannot see any difference between the two re: the rays. At this point, I want to maximize the rays as much as possible before going on the the finish. I've also raised the grain with water and sanded several times prior to applying the oil which has certainly smoothed the surface compared to not raising at all.

I have ruled out fuming as I've just not been able to locate any industrial ammonia. Based on what I have read, fuming is the ultimate in showing off the rays. At this point, the rays show very nicely from certain angles of light, but very little from others. Having never seen a top notch job of showing off quarter sawn white oak, I don't really know what to expect regarding the rays, as I don't have anything to compare to.


----------



## mr. jinchao (May 3, 2011)

I am also interested in this because I have some quarter sawn sycamore. The color would be lighter than the oak, but with the wood being quarter sawn, I can see how you would want the grain to pop.


----------



## Blur (Feb 1, 2011)

Cool, sounds like a job for my favorite grain popping method! Here it is: First, switch to an alcohol soluble dye and mix it with two pound cut shellac. You can mix it yourself, or buy it premixed under the name "sealcoat." Wipe the shellac/dye mix on your wood and let dry for a couple hours until it is fully dry (so it no longer feels cool, wet or tacky). This method has a couple advantages over the water based dye. First, shellac doesn't tend to raise the grain the way water based dye does, so it's less work. Second, it dries faster which lets you move on to the next step sooner. Third, the shellac seals the wood so it will take your top coat more evenly and with fewer problems than if you didn't seal the wood. Oak has larger pores which can produce a number of problems with finishing if they aren't filled or sealed with something (paste filler or shellac being common choices). 

Next, sand the dye back with 220 grit sandpaper fairly aggressively. The key here is the grain tends to soak up more of the dye than the rest of the wood so you're attempting to sand the dye pretty much completely off the rest of the wood and leave it only on the grain. This isn't actually too tough, you just have to spend the time, and if the project isn't too big, hand sanding gives me the best control. Next, finish the piece with a topcoat, preferable an oil/varnish mix (Formby's tung oil finish would be one since you've mentioned it). The oil/ varnish mix imparts a great warmth and luster to the wood, but because of it's high oil concentration it won't build to a thick finish well if that's what you're looking for. Use three or four coats of the oil/varnish blend and sand each one back with 320 grit before the next coat. If you want to build a thick finish, consider using a straight varnish instead as your top coat or even polyurethane if you want a really tough top coat (say for a kitchen table). Don't use a water based top coat for this, as waterbase tends to produce a more washed out look than oil or solvent based finishes and defeats the purpose. Good luck, and let me know how it works out!

PS: In the interest of full disclosure (and since I remember where I learned this particular method), it's taken from Marc Spagnuolo's blog www.thewoodwhisperer.com He's got some great videos on a variety of wood working related topics there and explains things in a clear and interesting manner that is great, especially if you're just learning the craft. worth checking out, though there are only a couple videos that deal with finishing specifically. Cheers!


----------



## dan peterson (May 6, 2011)

*dan from quarter sawn white oak*

Blur: Thanks for the added info. The piece I'm working on is a hall tree with seat and top mirror-fairly large. However, I do not mind the sanding as the final product is my only concern.

Regarding your suggestion, have you actually compared that process to what I've experimented with thusfar strictly from the standpoint of accentuating the rays? Also, after your sanding the grain, do you go back and apply any other colorant prior to adding finish coats? Finally, regarding my initial comments that from some angles the rays show well and from other they show little if at all. Do you think that is from the finish, or just the nature of the wood?

I do not have a source for any dyes in our area so everything must be mail ordered with pricy shipping costs. That is why my further questions regarding how much better this process will show off the rays. Thanks


----------



## Blur (Feb 1, 2011)

dan peterson said:


> Blur: Thanks for the added info. The piece I'm working on is a hall tree with seat and top mirror-fairly large. However, I do not mind the sanding as the final product is my only concern.


With a larger piece like that, you'll probably want to use a detail (vibro) sander rather than hand sanding, it would just take too long. I might stop short of using a RO sander as mine is a bit too powerful and I might over-sand. The key here is the visible rays of the grain are a bit thirstier than the rest of the wood and tend to absorb the dyed shellac a bit more deeply. This lets you sand the dye off the rest of the wood and leave it on the rays creating a greater contrast between the rays and the rest of the wood. It's this increased contrast that makes the grain POP.

Also, with a larger project like that you'll want to work in "sections" with the shellac as it dries much faster than the water base you've been using Try to do the whole thing at once and you'll end up with noticeable streaking potentially. Sounds like a really nice project!



dan peterson said:


> Regarding your suggestion, have you actually compared that process to what I've experimented with thusfar strictly from the standpoint of accentuating the rays? Also, after your sanding the grain, do you go back and apply any other colorant prior to adding finish coats? Finally, regarding my initial comments that from some angles the rays show well and from other they show little if at all. Do you think that is from the finish, or just the nature of the wood?


From what I can tell, and I may be misunderstanding your post, you've been raising the grain with water, sanding the grain flat, then applying the dye and then covering it over with a top coat, such as Formbys. If I've got this wrong let me know because it makes a difference. 

Assuming I understand your current process correctly, there's a couple very key differences. The major flaw with your current process is it's doing nothing to increase contrast between the rays in the oak and the rest of the wood. It is this contrast that makes the rays stand out or "pop." Currently you're coloring everything evenly which may actually reduce contrast as the color of the rest of the wood will come closer to that of the rays. 

In the process I'm recommending, you first color everything with a dye, then take advantage of the properties of the darker parts of the grain (the rays) that tend to soak up more dye than the rest of the wood. It's the same property that causes the grain to raise when you spray it with water, except you're using a colorant that won't raise the grain. 

When you spray wood with water, the wood absorbs it and water causes all wood to swell. Since the grain sucks up more of it, it tends to swell more than the rest of the wood, and bulge out, creating perceptible "cords" of grain. Solvent based dyes don't cause the wood to swell the way water does, but the grain still absorbs a bit more of it than the rest of the wood, so it gets deeper into the grain. 

The above being the case, you can sand the colorant out of the rest of the wood but still leave a substantial amount in the grain, causing the increased contrast. Effectively the grain has been dyed darker and the rest of the wood has not. Once the dye has been sanded back, don't re-dye the wood as it will tend to reduce the contrast you're looking for. If you want to color the rest of the wood, do it in the next step by adding the appropriate dye to your top coat. If you're using an oil/varnish mix (like formby's) as your top coat any oil soluble dye will work as will all those that dissolve in glycol ether (which are always sold in liquid form). It's a good idea to use a lighter color in the top coat and a darker color directly on the wood. By tinting the top coat, the effect can be more subtle (if you make it that way) and still add some interest to the rest of the wood while not muddying that contrast you've worked so hard to create. Glazing would be another option, but I'm not even going to get into that at this point, as it's more complicated than you probably want to get into. 

As for the rays being more visible at some angles than others, that's just the nature of the wood. Popping the grain will make them more noticeable at all angles (they'll be darker than they are now) but it's possible you may still get a little of this effect.



dan peterson said:


> I do not have a source for any dyes in our area so everything must be mail ordered with pricy shipping costs. That is why my further questions regarding how much better this process will show off the rays. Thanks


That's rough. The good news about most dyes other than "NGR" (so called non grain raising dyes, that still raise the grain a bit!) is they're usually available in powdered form, making them light, cheap to ship and giving them a very long shelf life so long as you store them properly. Having some solvent based dyes around is useful anyway, they're a good tool to have in your finishing arsenal. You won't use everything in one project most likely, but the more you use them, the more comfortable you become with them and the more you'll like them and be able to create unique effects.

I don't mind the questions at all, I've asked plenty myself. Most my background in finishing started in the auto industry oddly, but it gave me a good base to work from when I started re-finishing projects for fun. Oddly, I've done more finishing than original wood-working. I bother the guys on this forum for joinery and tool advice all the time! There's a few old hands at this game like cabinet man who know all the parts of this game well, but most of us are stronger in one area than another it seems to me. 

If you don't get the results you want with this method, there is another technique I use, but I don't like it as much as I feel it gives me less natural looking results and doesn't do as good a job usually popping the grain. However, the whole reason I have it is sometimes it works better. It's essentially the opposite of what we're doing here where you intentionally raise the grain with water, then bleach the wood, then sand the grain back leaving the rest of the wood lighter than the grain. 

Once again, the process increases contrast, but this has the potential to backfire big time and actually reduce contrast if it's handled wrong so it's never my go-to method. There's a couple times when I wanted ultimate poppage and combined the two, but found the results to look rather unnatural, and was somewhat disappointed with it. Hope this all helps! Be well!


----------



## dan peterson (May 6, 2011)

blur: Thanks for your patience with all my detailed questions. Yes, I believe you have my current detail correct but will briefly review: using a story stick, I've sanded, then raised grain and re-sanded several times with straight water, then applied transtint water soluable dye. After drying, I applied Formbys tung oil, but no further coats of anything.

I am ready to try your process on another piece using a mix of alcohol soluable dye and shellac. I do have some Zinsser bulls eye amber shellac on hand, but have ordered some shellac chips. What exactly is the benefit of mixing from the chips vs. using the pre-mixed shellac?

I guess I will just have to experiment on the sanding to see what you mean. At this point, I have a hard time grasping the idea that sanding as you suggest will still leave enough of the mix on the rays only. It sounds like you are saying that the sanding will remove most all of the dye-shellac mix on the non-rays portion of the wood, but leave it on the rays. Tell me if I am misunderstanding any of the detail. Thanks again Blur.


----------



## Blur (Feb 1, 2011)

Hey again Dan. As a quick point of fact, when you raise the grain with water and sand it back, you only need to do it once. If done correctly (this being the key point here), repeating the process won't improve results. The key is to only sand back the grain until it is level with the rest of the wood and no more. As soon as the surface is smooth, stop. Go any further and you have to start the process over again. Once you've sanded raised grain level with the rest of the wood, you've cut off the over-swollen grain cords and they won't raise above the rest of the wood if wetted again. The key is to saturate the wood sufficiently in the first place so that the cords of the grain swell as much as they can, and then sand only as much as necessary to level the grain with the rest of the wood.

As to the other point of my grain popping process you've pretty much grasped it. The physics of it work like this: The rays or heavy grain (dark grain) soaks up liquid more readily than the rest of the wood surrounding it, much the way end grain sucks up a finish more readily than long grain. When that liquid is water, the fact that it sucks up more than the surrounding wood causes it to swell more than the surrounding wood (as water causes all wood to swell), and bulge above the rest of the wood. If instead that liquid is dyed shellac, which does not raise the grain, the dye simply penetrates more deeply into the rays than it does the surrounding wood. This allows you to sand the wood back, entirely removing the dye from the surrounding wood, but leaving it in the rays. The rays are now dyed and the surrounding wood is it's natural color thus increasing the contrast between the two and creating the pop we all love. 

About shellac: First it's important to note that if you plan to put a polyurethane top coat on the piece you MUST use dewaxed shellac. Poly doesn't bond well to waxed shellac and this will cause problems with your finish down the road. It does bond to dewaxed shellac just fine however. There are a few benefits in mixing your own shellac vs. the pre-mix. First, it's fresher, and I've personally noticed I tend to get better results with recently mixed shellac rather than stuff that's been in the can god only knows how long. 

Second, and perhaps most importantly, mixing yourself gives you complete control over the cut of the shellac. The cut is the ratio of shellac flakes (in pounds) to denatured alcohol (in gallons). For most work, a two pound cut is desirable as a top coat. Use a one pound cut as a wash coat to get wood that tends to blotch when finished (such as most soft woods or maple or cherry) to take color evenly. Just coat the wood with a one pound cut of shellac and let it dry completely before applying your colorant. Use a three pound cut to seal in problems with wood. For example if you're finishing cocobolo, a rather oily wood, you'll have a hard time finishing it, especially with any oil or varnish finish (varnish is based on oil). Sealing the wood with shellac first can go a long way toward solving that problem. Most shellac sold premixed is about a three pound cut, which isn't terribly useful in most cases. "Seal-coat" is roughly a two pound cut. Most shellac sold in rattle-cans is about a one pound cut. 

Third, when you mix your own shellac, you choose what type of flakes to use based on the results you're looking for, rather than being at the mercy of whatever the manufacturer happened to put in the can. I guess you could boil it down to the fact you get much greater control over the end product when you mix your own. 

The process you've gone through so far isn't going to do much to pop the grain as it's applying the dye equally to the grain's rays and the surrounding wood. Putting Fromby's on top seals the wood (as the top coat should), and adds a little warmth to the color, but still does nothing to increase the contrast. No increase in contrast equals no pop. 

Try the above process I've described let me know how it goes. If you're still not getting the results you want, well, I have a nuclear option, but I don't want to put it out there lest some poor sod think it's the way grain should be popped. It's basically the quadratic equation of grain effects. It will get you where you want to go, but it is by far the longest route there, has more steps than any other route, is very tedious, and frankly will cost much more as it requires much more in materials. But, if all else fails (it shouldn't) we'll go there, god help us both.

Let me know how things work out for you! Cheers!


----------



## dan peterson (May 6, 2011)

blur: again, thanks a bunch. I'll start today and let you know the results. dan


----------



## dan peterson (May 6, 2011)

blur: what is the mix ratio you use for the dye-shellac mixture?


----------



## Blur (Feb 1, 2011)

Dan: I don't have a specific ratio. The manufacturer will give you a guideline on the package, that's a good starting place. The more dye you mix in the darker the color will be (up to a point anyway). If you're using trans tint dyes, about one oz dye per quart is a good starting place. If that's too dark add more shellac, if it's too light, add dye. 

Most dry dyes recommend one half oz per quart (there are exceptions), same adjustments apply. Use some scrap wood to test your ratios and decide what looks best to you. This is more of an art than a science, you have to get in and do some trial and error. Fortunately, your initial product can be adjusted so you don't waste a boatload of money throwing out each batch you're dissatisfied with. 

BIG CAVEAT HERE: It's important to be aware that the final color of your dye will be closer to what it looks like when it is wet than when it is dry. When the dye drys it will be lighter and seem more washed out, but once you apply a topcoat to it, it gets that wet look back again. I'd suggest going whole hog on your scrap wood and apply the dye, let it dry then apply a top coat to it to see what exactly your final results will be. 

Cheers Dan! I really hope you get the results you're looking for after all the work you're putting into this!


----------



## tomb (Mar 8, 2011)

I know I am way late to the party in this one, but I have had very good results using Watco danish oil. I use the natural color but there are also other colors to choose from. 
The danish oil was suggested to me when I was working with quartersawn white oak and wanted to POP the figure. Works great and is wipe on easy!:thumbsup:
Nice thing about danish oil is it soaks into the grain and dries, then you can add poly to build surface protection. A great one two punch without a lot of fuss or $! Good luck with your projects if you havnt already finished them.


----------



## dan peterson (May 6, 2011)

Blur, Well here is the first update. Used the alcohol dye-shellac mix. Let dry overnight. Then sanded using 220. Then applied a coat of Formbys.

It appears the rays are showing to a somewhat greater detail. However, the sanding appeared to have taken away almost all the dye color. It sounded in your earlier message that you sanded quite aggressively-I take that to mean sanding everything down to bare wood-except that the rays soak it up to a greater extent. So at this point, one of my questions would be how to sand down an adequate amount and still maintain the color of the wood that you desire. I have some Watco danish oil in both natural and fruitwood. I have applied a coat of the fruitwood over the formbys to see if it would darken the wood but it does very, very little.

What am I doing wrong if anything? Again, Thanks Blur


----------



## Blur (Feb 1, 2011)

Hey Dan, 

I think there are two issues here. First, and foremost it sounds like you may be sanding too much. You only want to sand until you have cut the dye off the portions of the wood that soak it up the least and then stop. If you sand everything back to bare wood, the effect is defeated. The densest parts of the wood will come out of dye first as the dye doesn't penetrate as deeply into them. "Fairly" aggressively, not so much so that you sand back all the dye. That would be just staring over. 

Second, this is on me, I just realize quartersawn oak acts pretty much the opposite of figured maple. The rays are the densest part of the wood in quartersawn oak and will come out of the dye faster than the earlywood or latewood (which create the grain) as it will absorb less. My apologies, when I read your problem I had to go to Flexner's book to try to figure out what may be going wrong beyond just potentially oversanding. The good news is this doesn't change the process at all, just the fact that when sanding you'll sand until the rays come out of dye and move on as oppose to sanding until the grain comes out of dye. Either way it's the increase in contrast between the figure (the tiger stripe rays) and the rest of the grain that creates the visual impact your looking for. 

If you still can't get the effect you're looking for after changing up your sanding, try going to dye mixed with straight alcohol rather than shellac. The dye will penetrate deeper into the wood this way, and you can experiment multiple coats to darken the wood further to get the effect you're looking for. I don't use this as a first line of attack since the dye can potentially go deep enough that it's a complete pain to sand back, but it may be worth trying since you're in the experimental phase using the story stick.

Cheers!


----------



## MS Sportsman (Mar 12, 2010)

I didn't read all that, but from somewhere around the beginning I think you can use transtint in anything water or oil. You can mix it in the shellac or put it on with dna. I'm making a simple mission coat rack and have been thinking about using the transtint in dna followed by shellac. I'll read the rest of this when I get a little more time.


----------



## dan peterson (May 6, 2011)

MS sportsman: Here is what I have concluded after a month or so of various experimenting: bear in mind I am no expert, but experimenting to get something I am pleased with. I am ready to actually start finishing this piece: I will use transtint dye (dark vintage maple) with denatured alcohol. I've tried water which gives the same color, but the dna does not raise the grain as much. I tried mixing shellac with the dye but it did not give me the look I was after. After drying, I put on a coat of stain, rubbing it strongly in and then wiping off the excess. The stain I used was a much darker shade (fruitwood) than the dye. This gave me a look I was after and accentuated the rays in the wood quite nicely. After the stain was dried, I put on a coat of Watco danish oil (natural) shade. Nobody but you can decide on the exact color you like. I have mixed a couple shades of dye to attempt to get the exact color I wanted (and my wife too since this piece is for her!) I cannot emphasize this enough: do your experimenting on a practice piece of the same type wood that is on your piece. I have put many, many hours of work on this piece and did not want to be disappointed in the finish, thus did my experimenting on the practice piece. I believe I ran it thru the planner several times taking the old colorant off and preparing it for a new sample. I didn't even sand the last experimental piece before applying the dye. It is not necessary as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Cablesj (Mar 25, 2016)

I have been trying to pop the qrtr sawn white oak rays now for many months. I'm not satisfied yet! I've had varied results—sometimes great, sometimes no contrast—and before I tell you what I've tried I want to say that a lot of it has to do, I conclude, with the particular piece of qrt sawn oak. I buy at one or two different lumber stores. The quality of the white oak differs greatly from piece to piece even in the same stacks. Some has a gray look, others very light. Some come out golden when dyed, others have that gray cast, some come out brown. Some boards when dyed have vivid flecks showing in any light, others are disappointing or even don't show at all. When you first put on Transtint dye you'll be thrilled at the pop. But when it dries you see nothing but a dull, depressing effect. When a finish like ArmR Seal poly (that I like a lot) is wiped on, the wood comes alive again, gets darker and richer and you MAY have good pop. But it depends on the board. I find that if the oak board looks very contrasty when you buy it---and if the rays are larger, it seems to produce better contrast results. When you Transtint-dye rift-sawn oak you'll at first see a pop of the smaller rays. But in my experience, that's the last time you'll ever see such a contrast in rift. OK, so what i've done is added Transtint to denatured alcohol (I never tried water). I once tried pretreating the boards with Old Masters grain filler, as suggested by the youtube video by Woodworkers Source, but that stuff is gray and disgusting. They should make it brown at least! Didn't care for the look. When people suggest using gel stain after dying they intend for the gel to get into the little grain dashes which, by contrast, adds more darkening to the grain pores and therefore makes the flecks/rays APPEAR brighter. But it doesn't always work well. So, back to what I've tried. I transtint/alcohol the wood once, let it dry (it dries quickly because of the alcohol), then I fine-sand the surface with 200 or 320 cheating a little by hitting the rays a little more, if they're large enough. Then I Tint it again, and sand again. The problem as one person said, is that when you sand, the tint comes off! Right, that's why I tint and sand a second time. I theorize that by fine-sanding the surface you tighten the pores of the rays and prevent the dye from coloring them. But I'm frustrated because, where's the science? There Must Be a way to do this but I suspect the Wood Whisperer (who explains too much trivia that you don't need to know) and Jeff Jewett (who explains too little) don't really seem to know it. Now there's something called Seal a Cell but I can't get an explanation of what it actually does or why you'd use it. It would seem that if you seal the cells of the oak early in the process you can't really proceed with getting a pop, because you've sealed the regular grain and the figured grain making them both plastic-covered and no longer permeable. I've never tried fuming oak with ammonia. From the bad quality vids I've seen on Youtube it appears as if the fumes really gray-darken the wood, as if it's been left in the rain and gotten that gray mold on it, which is okay if you're doing a dark mission finish, but I prefer "golden oak." One thing I'm going to try next is making my initial tinting much darker than the color I want finally to achieve. Then when I sand to "get the dye off the rays" (which gets it out of the rest of the wood, too—Transtint doesn't absorb into wood so well, it mostly just lies on top), then maybe my final color will be the one I want. So I go back to my original statement that I think it has to do with wood selection; with identifying boards that pop better than the rest and selecting those. Forgive my curmudgeoning, I'm hoping for answers, folks! Thanks! PS, if I can get a photo to attach below, you'll see a project I'm doing where some of the oak pops and the crown moulding---also qrt-swn oak, doesn't very well. Yet the ceiling "beams" came out very contrasty, though the same tint mixture turned the boards quite brown.


----------



## RandyReed (Jul 30, 2014)

Cablesj said:


> I have been trying to pop the qrtr sawn white oak rays now for many months. I'm not satisfied yet! I've had varied results—sometimes great, sometimes no contrast—and before I tell you what I've tried I want to say that a lot of it has to do, I conclude, with the particular piece of qrt sawn oak. I buy at one or two different lumber stores. The quality of the white oak differs greatly from piece to piece even in the same stacks. Some has a gray look, others very light. Some come out golden when dyed, others have that gray cast, some come out brown. Some boards when dyed have vivid flecks showing in any light, others are disappointing or even don't show at all. When you first put on Transtint dye you'll be thrilled at the pop. But when it dries you see nothing but a dull, depressing effect. When a finish like ArmR Seal poly (that I like a lot) is wiped on, the wood comes alive again, gets darker and richer and you MAY have good pop. But it depends on the board. I find that if the oak board looks very contrasty when you buy it---and if the rays are larger, it seems to produce better contrast results. When you Transtint-dye rift-sawn oak you'll at first see a pop of the smaller rays. But in my experience, that's the last time you'll ever see such a contrast in rift. OK, so what i've done is added Transtint to denatured alcohol (I never tried water). I once tried pretreating the boards with Old Masters grain filler, as suggested by the youtube video by Woodworkers Source, but that stuff is gray and disgusting. They should make it brown at least! Didn't care for the look. When people suggest using gel stain after dying they intend for the gel to get into the little grain dashes which, by contrast, adds more darkening to the grain pores and therefore makes the flecks/rays APPEAR brighter. But it doesn't always work well. So, back to what I've tried. I transtint/alcohol the wood once, let it dry (it dries quickly because of the alcohol), then I fine-sand the surface with 200 or 320 cheating a little by hitting the rays a little more, if they're large enough. Then I Tint it again, and sand again. The problem as one person said, is that when you sand, the tint comes off! Right, that's why I tint and sand a second time. I theorize that by fine-sanding the surface you tighten the pores of the rays and prevent the dye from coloring them. But I'm frustrated because, where's the science? There Must Be a way to do this but I suspect the Wood Whisperer (who explains too much trivia that you don't need to know) and Jeff Jewett (who explains too little) don't really seem to know it. Now there's something called Seal a Cell but I can't get an explanation of what it actually does or why you'd use it. It would seem that if you seal the cells of the oak early in the process you can't really proceed with getting a pop, because you've sealed the regular grain and the figured grain making them both plastic-covered and no longer permeable. I've never tried fuming oak with ammonia. From the bad quality vids I've seen on Youtube it appears as if the fumes really gray-darken the wood, as if it's been left in the rain and gotten that gray mold on it, which is okay if you're doing a dark mission finish, *but I prefer "golden oak."* One thing I'm going to try next is making my initial tinting much darker than the color I want finally to achieve. Then when I sand to "get the dye off the rays" (which gets it out of the rest of the wood, too—Transtint doesn't absorb into wood so well, it mostly just lies on top), then maybe my final color will be the one I want. So I go back to my original statement that I think it has to do with wood selection; with identifying boards that pop better than the rest and selecting those. Forgive my curmudgeoning, I'm hoping for answers, folks! Thanks! PS, if I can get a photo to attach below, you'll see a project I'm doing where some of the oak pops and the crown moulding---also qrt-swn oak, doesn't very well. Yet the ceiling "beams" came out very contrasty, though the same tint mixture turned the boards quite brown.


Golden Oak formulas:
Trans Tint:
3/4 part medium Brown
3 parts Water
1 part Amber

General Finishes:
1 part Light Brown
1/2 part water

If you are looking for more contrast, apply a washcoat, (which is simply a reduced solids sealer) when the golden oak dye stain has dried. Scuff lightly with 320 grit paper, then apply a van **** wipe stain and wipe clean. This will color the grain. When dry, apply a sealer and then a topcoat of your choice.

As always, do this on spare wood samples until you get the look you want before finishing out your project.


----------

