The difference stripping shellac does

[Darrmann39]

I'm in the process of restoring this 1926 West minister New Haven banjo. Here's just a peek on what just taking the badly alligatored and darkened shellac off yet to reseal.

 

[Schatznut]

Excellent results! How did you go about stripping the old finish?

 

[Darrmann39]

Excellent results! How did you go about stripping the old finish?

Denatured alcohol and 0000 steel wool and a lot of scrubbing, electric toothbrush for the corners. Lots of rags. Amazing what it originally looked like.

 

[tracerjack]

I think the beautiful wood grain that is hidden under blackened shellac should be exposed by stripping the old shellac. It seems reasonable to me that the black is from years and years of pollution trapped in the shellac. I don't see any point in keeping that 'original'.

 

[Schatznut]

I think the beautiful wood grain that is hidden under blackened shellac should be exposed by stripping the old shellac. It seems reasonable to me that the black is from years and years of pollution trapped in the shellac. I don't see any point in keeping that 'original'.

Roger that! The grain of the wood adds another dimension of beauty.

 

[Darrmann39]

Roger that! The grain of the wood adds another dimension of beauty.

I was a finish carpenter before I got into clocks. And I appreciate beautiful wood. Can't stand darkened alligatored shellac.
Here's the finished clock

 

[Thomas Sanguigni]

Is the movement a triple plate New Haven? Nice work!

 

[Darrmann39]

Is the movement a triple plate New Haven? Nice work!

Yes it is. West minister

 

[Schatznut]

My grandfather was a cabinetmaker, and although I don't have the skills, I did learn an appreciation for fine cabinetry and beautiful finishes. You've definitely got it right. And the presentation plaque adds to its provenance.

 

[tracerjack]

Here’s another example of the beauty hidden under old, blackened shellac.

 

[RickNB]

Interesting. There is so much debate in the arena of antique furniture about what is appropriate. In serious antique furniture circles it is sacrilege to remove an original finish. In the clock world not so much. I have a background in museum-quality furniture restoration/preservation, and in that milieu we would not polish brasses to a like-new shine because it was "like new". In the world of old clocks it seems brasses are often shined up, cases stripped of their original finish etc. and it is considered good practice.

 

[Darrmann39]

Interesting. There is so much debate in the arena of antique furniture about what is appropriate. In serious antique furniture circles it is sacrilege to remove an original finish. In the clock world not so much. I have a background in museum-quality furniture restoration/preservation, and in that milieu we would not polish brasses to a like-new shine because it was "like new". In the world of old clocks it seems brasses are often shined up, cases stripped of their original finish etc. and it is considered good practice.

Oh I'm sure there's the same sentiment here both ways. I'm sure what I did some hate. I'm finding the people I'm selling to want them like that. I have one guy that had bought 3 of my clocks and wants more but won't buy them unless they look shiny and new as you put it.
I tend to buy ones that to others are trash as I'm a finish carpenter and love woodworking and because of an injury can't work now so got into clocks. It's impossible in most cases when you have to rebuild the whole case as in glue it back together and such not to then refinish the outside.
Polished brass will get plenty of people who say no.
I also grew up in a body shop. We wouldn't leave an antique car looking like crap because it was old and original. We Polished it and made it look new. So I guess I grew up doing that haha. I can't help it.

 

[tracerjack]

Antique furniture is admired for its original finish, most likely because the items are usually well cared for. Their finish is simply aged. For clocks, I think the difference is because they so often suffer from extreme neglect, usually found in an attic or barn, covered in filth. There really isn't anything to be admired about dirt, peeled finish and black brass. Clocks that have been well cared for are usually not refinished or highly polished. Like furniture, they are admired for their original finish. But, I am still of the opinion, that polishing brass, like silver would have been done on a regular basis if the clock were still in a home.

 

[Darrmann39]

Antique furniture is admired for its original finish, most likely because the items are usually well cared for. Their finish is simply aged. For clocks, I think the difference is because they so often suffer from extreme neglect, usually found in an attic or barn, covered in filth. There really isn't anything to be admired about dirt, peeled finish and black brass. Clocks that have been well cared for are usually not refinished or highly polished. Like furniture, they are admired for their original finish. But, I am still of the opinion, that polishing brass, like silver would have been done on a regular basis if the clock were still in a home.

Totally agree

 

[Schatznut]

I completely agree with TJ and Darrmann. If the original finish of the wooden clock cases I work on was salvageable, I'd do so, but some of them weren't very good quality to begin with, and the ravages of time and environment and neglect have taken their toll to the point where the only answer is to remove and replace the finish. So that's what I do.

My sweet spot is torsion pendulum clocks, which have lots and lots of brass. I have to repair more damage to the brass by people that don't understand that it was protected from the factory with a lacquer finish, and they get out the Brasso or some other heavily ammoniated gunk, smear it on and wonder why it doesn't brighten things up. Then they don't remove all the polish and there it festers - for 20 or 30 or 40 years until I get it. By then, it's a corroded, green-tinged, blackened mess. There's no alternative but to strip the lacquer and refinish the brass. If it originally had a brushed finish, I replicate the brushed finish. If it was originally polished, I polish it until it gleams.

I also have a fair number of clocks that have been loved and well-maintained. Those I leave in their original condition. Watching some of those old warriors soldier on, still telling time after 75 or a hundred years, makes me smile.

I either leave it alone or do it up completely - not halfway in between.

I'm a car nut also. I know a couple of guys that own a Paige Detroit that they bought from the family of the original owners. The sales contract stipulates that they can repair it and maintain it in its original condition (which is excellent, by the way, especially considering it's over 90 years old) but they cannot restore it. On the other hand, one of the guys also owns a Paige Daytona that he has done up to Pebble Beach standards. Both cars look exactly right, each in their own way.

Good thing I'm not into antique furniture. I'd probably poke the bear just for grins to see what kind of reaction I could get.

 

[S_Owsley]

The banjo came out nice. Call me old fashioned, but I expect the finish on a fine old clock to have the grain filled with wood filler, multiple coats of shellac, sanded between coats and hand rubbed to an even sheen at the end. Or similar treatment with lacquer. It's not Danish furniture, after all. Another pet peeve, not using an appropriate color stain or the refinisher accidentally rounding edges with sandpaper.

 

[Jim DuBois]

Original surfaces and the preservation of them is one of my rants. Many many clocks get stripped/skinned/poorly refinished and generally abused while the intent is to make them "right" or "like they were when they were originally made." Many clocks have been destroyed value-wise by these well-meaning folks. There are certainly clocks that have to be refinished, but that is often not a process well understood or well done by a lot of folks. Many of our clocks were originally finished with shellac and many of them had a near piano finish when new. But that refinishing process includes the filling of all the pores in the wood, clean sharp edges on corners, clean in the various recesses, stained wood when originally stained, artificially grained when done so originally, painted when originally painted, gessoed gold-leafed details when gold-leafed originally, on and on. More is lost in the so-called refinishing than many people realize.

We see entirely too many examples of previously painted and stenciled splats and columns, previously artificially grained surfaces, painted or gesso and gold-leafed, stained to match parts, all of which now have a polyurethane finish or something similar. Details are lost along with originality and the original personality of a piece.

Here is a classic example of more and less sympathetic treatment of very similar clocks. The clock on the right has been fairly well done, but all signs of the old shellac has been removed via a normal shellac striping process. The clock on the left has a mostly original shellac finish. It was very dirty and had lost all sort of figure in the wood and so forth. It was cleaned using waterless hand cleaner and carefully rubbing with old tee-shirt material. It has a better look IMO than the skinned version. More depth, more color, more original but still presentable and acceptable to most of us. The stripped clock looks pretty good until it is co

mpared to the "just cleaned" version.

 

[tracerjack]

Well, it must be in the eye of the beholder, because I find both clocks pleasing in their appearance. They both look well cared for, and I can see the grain in both along with a smooth finish. I agree with you that many clocks are stripped when they needn't be. And they shouldn't look new, since they aren't. But I think the cases presented in this thread deserved to look better than they did, which cleaning, so matter how vigorous would not have resulted in a "well cared for" look. When wood has been well finished, I can't resist running my fingers along the beautiful grain, feeling the smooth finish. When I don't want to touch it, I know the finish needs to be redone. It does seem strange to me that some objects are always restored to near new look, regardless of the owner, such as cars. Furniture is always left in its original state. Clocks seem to fall somewhere in the middle, in that it depends entirely on how the owner wants it to look.

 

[Darrmann39]

Well, it must be in the eye of the beholder, because I find both clocks pleasing in their appearance. They both look well cared for, and I can see the grain in both along with a smooth finish. I agree with you that many clocks are stripped when they needn't be. And they shouldn't look new, since they aren't. But I think the cases presented in this thread deserved to look better than they did, which cleaning, so matter how vigorous would not have resulted in a "well cared for" look. When wood has been well finished, I can't resist running my fingers along the beautiful grain, feeling the smooth finish. When I don't want to touch it, I know the finish needs to be redone. It does seem strange to me that some objects are always restored to near new look, regardless of the owner, such as cars. Furniture is always left in its original state. Clocks seem to fall somewhere in the middle, in that it depends entirely on how the owner wants it to look.

Agreed here's a better pic of the terrible alligatored finish. The other pics really didn't do justice to how bad this clock looked. Definitely not well cared for.
Also some of the repair work like totally putting back together the doors which had all the mitered loose made me go this route.
I have many clocks that I haven't and won't touch besides superficial cleaning but to tell you the truth as a carpenter i love bringing one back to life like this.

 

[Schatznut]

Darrmann, I apologize if what follows amounts to hijacking your thread. I could start a new one but the subject and the people that seem to be looking at it are right on point and just in time...

I'm attaching three photos of a Juba tambour clock, circa 1950-ish, I'm getting ready to restore. I want to seek the counsel of those monitoring this thread. The wood is in perfect condition but the finish is in sad shape - it's checked everywhere and there are numerous places where it has flaked off, exposing the wood underneath.

Following the Hippocratic Oath, I want to do the least possible to restore it, to minimize the possibility of making things worse instead of better. Is it too far gone and I should go ahead and take off the old shellac, or should I try to save it? If I try to save it and that turns out not to work, what is the risk that I will damage the wood underneath while trying to do so?

I don't know what the veneer is, but it looks like red mahogany, which is very soft.

All viewpoints and perspectives are welcome.

 

[Thomas Sanguigni]

Jim, is one of the clocks walnut and the other mahogany? Even though they are the same clock they are not the same wood. I do believe they both look nice.

 

[Thomas Sanguigni]

Shatznut, I'd put that clock through the refinish process. No matter how much cleaning it gets will not make it any prettier.

 

[Darrmann39]

Shatznut, I'd put that clock through the refinish process. No matter how much cleaning it gets will not make it any prettier.

I agree

 

[Jim DuBois]

Jim, is one of the clocks walnut and the other mahogany? Even though they are the same clock they are not the same wood. I do believe they both look nice.

They are both made of mahogany. I own them both but will be selling the one with little or no original finish on it. I have never seen one of these in other than mahogany. A couple exists with curly/figured/birdseye maple trim. But the rest of the case is mahogany. Here are a few more, also mahogany also. Not mine.