I have a couple of pipes that I would like to strip of the finish, and then restain and polish them. I have a buffer I use to polish pipes. Should I use it to remove the finish or hand sand it down?
Thanks for you help!
Removing the finish
Re: Removing the finish
I'd hand sand it. I don't know how succesful you'd be at removing the finish with a wheel.... and if you were I don't know how many wheels you'd go through due to filling one with "gunk" before you were finished. The wax on a pipe is annoying to break through with sand paper, you gunk it up real easy and stuff... If you don't mind the extra work, I'd recommend starting the sanding at around 400 grit and then move up to around 600 or 800.Hauser wrote:I have a couple of pipes that I would like to strip of the finish, and then restain and polish them. I have a buffer I use to polish pipes. Should I use it to remove the finish or hand sand it down?
Thanks for you help!
That's just what I'd do...
-
LexKY_Pipe
- Posts: 875
- Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2006 8:00 pm
- Location: Lexington, Kentucky USA
My vote is for sanding. I've rusticated a couple of old pipes for practice, and the finish is not deep at all. Like Ben said, sanding with 400 grit should take the finish off nicely, with subsequent sandings at 500, 600, to however fine you want to go to smooth the surface.
Removing the finish with power tools may change the shape of the pipe if you are not very careful, however, if you want to change the shape, power tool away.
Removing the finish with power tools may change the shape of the pipe if you are not very careful, however, if you want to change the shape, power tool away.
Sand my friend, SAND! :thumb:
Sorry for the melodrama.
I am right in with Marks. I did do quite a bit of practicing on "old, cheap pipe". When I am lucky, I have picked some up for a dollar or two. I strip them down with sand paper and then use them for practice sanding.
I have done this a couple of dozen times.......besides, who doesn't just love spending a few hours sanding!!!!! :think:
Brendhain
Sorry for the melodrama.
I am right in with Marks. I did do quite a bit of practicing on "old, cheap pipe". When I am lucky, I have picked some up for a dollar or two. I strip them down with sand paper and then use them for practice sanding.
I have done this a couple of dozen times.......besides, who doesn't just love spending a few hours sanding!!!!! :think:
Brendhain
-
alexanderfrese
- Posts: 317
- Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2006 8:00 pm
- Location: Bochum, Germany
- Contact:
mmh, first posting and already a tip.
Been reading, thinking and learning for quite a while from all your contributions in this forum now. But keeping back my thoughts means no discussion, no learning, no forthcoming at all. So let me take a careful step.
Sanding shure is is the thing, but as for the tools one might alter shapes (at least edges) as well. If this is all for practice, never mind, but starting with cheap pipes for restauration practice means you want to learn how to treat the more valuable ones. And you would not want to smooth the edges on an expensive estate. If I do – and I just started the whole thing with a bunch of crappy estates and some hobby blocks (just spoiled one yesterday, different story), I start with 600 paper. This will remove older coatings. Yes, you will have to use more paper, but it doesn't rip off the markings as fast as 400 does.
In fact, I only tend to roughen up the surface and then let the bowls sit in a bath of pure isopropylic alcohol (do you say so? Sorry, I'm from Germany…).
I started to use this procedure on some pipes showing a horrible spot from older tobaccos or even from sitting uncleaned on some dark hidden shelves for years. Rather than the grizzly's ass mentioned somewhere else, they gave me the idea that some pervert must have smoked his foot nails in there… The salt and alcohol method didn't work. It worked, the salt I poured from these pipes smelt as ugly as the stummels, but no progress seemed to be made.
With this bath I managed to get it out. And I noticed, that starting after 48 to 72 hours, it also poured the stain out of the wood. Eventually I use two baths. The first 48 hours for the spot which becomes a rather dark and stinky liquid rather soon, and a second one for the stain.
Some stummels became rather neutral in tone, some had various degrees of the darker stain left. The outcome is better, if the stummels are sanded before. I never left them soaking longer than 4 days in total. Maybe a longer time will even remove the dark stain residues which – as we know from the neverending contrast staining theme – did sink deeper into the wood.
After that, and some days of letting them dry, one can easily work or practice every step of finishing a stummel. There is only one problem so far: Fillings seem to react to this procedure differently than the briar - they shrink and sink back into the wood, which is rather nasty. I am watching some test stummels, if this is a reversible process, but I fear, it's not. I would certainly not try this on stummels containing other materials than briar (bamboo, shank extensions, etc.).
I smoked some of those. Some are fine, some not. So I think, there is no basic negative impact on the quality of a pipe by this procedure. Even if there are remains of the alcohol, they should be highly volatile and disappear rather sooner than later. I hope, the bad ones will develop at least some smoking quality. Might as well be, since I removed every bit of cake, so there is some amount of re-breaking in to be done.
I would shurely like to hear some comments on that process. Besides the time it takes it seems a quite easy way. I am a bit worried though, that the straight way doesn't necessarily leed to the best result. Some chemix out there might tell me, what the alcohol really does…
Greetings from Germany
Alex
Been reading, thinking and learning for quite a while from all your contributions in this forum now. But keeping back my thoughts means no discussion, no learning, no forthcoming at all. So let me take a careful step.
Sanding shure is is the thing, but as for the tools one might alter shapes (at least edges) as well. If this is all for practice, never mind, but starting with cheap pipes for restauration practice means you want to learn how to treat the more valuable ones. And you would not want to smooth the edges on an expensive estate. If I do – and I just started the whole thing with a bunch of crappy estates and some hobby blocks (just spoiled one yesterday, different story), I start with 600 paper. This will remove older coatings. Yes, you will have to use more paper, but it doesn't rip off the markings as fast as 400 does.
In fact, I only tend to roughen up the surface and then let the bowls sit in a bath of pure isopropylic alcohol (do you say so? Sorry, I'm from Germany…).
I started to use this procedure on some pipes showing a horrible spot from older tobaccos or even from sitting uncleaned on some dark hidden shelves for years. Rather than the grizzly's ass mentioned somewhere else, they gave me the idea that some pervert must have smoked his foot nails in there… The salt and alcohol method didn't work. It worked, the salt I poured from these pipes smelt as ugly as the stummels, but no progress seemed to be made.
With this bath I managed to get it out. And I noticed, that starting after 48 to 72 hours, it also poured the stain out of the wood. Eventually I use two baths. The first 48 hours for the spot which becomes a rather dark and stinky liquid rather soon, and a second one for the stain.
Some stummels became rather neutral in tone, some had various degrees of the darker stain left. The outcome is better, if the stummels are sanded before. I never left them soaking longer than 4 days in total. Maybe a longer time will even remove the dark stain residues which – as we know from the neverending contrast staining theme – did sink deeper into the wood.
After that, and some days of letting them dry, one can easily work or practice every step of finishing a stummel. There is only one problem so far: Fillings seem to react to this procedure differently than the briar - they shrink and sink back into the wood, which is rather nasty. I am watching some test stummels, if this is a reversible process, but I fear, it's not. I would certainly not try this on stummels containing other materials than briar (bamboo, shank extensions, etc.).
I smoked some of those. Some are fine, some not. So I think, there is no basic negative impact on the quality of a pipe by this procedure. Even if there are remains of the alcohol, they should be highly volatile and disappear rather sooner than later. I hope, the bad ones will develop at least some smoking quality. Might as well be, since I removed every bit of cake, so there is some amount of re-breaking in to be done.
I would shurely like to hear some comments on that process. Besides the time it takes it seems a quite easy way. I am a bit worried though, that the straight way doesn't necessarily leed to the best result. Some chemix out there might tell me, what the alcohol really does…
Greetings from Germany
Alex
-
alexanderfrese
- Posts: 317
- Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2006 8:00 pm
- Location: Bochum, Germany
- Contact:
Nick, nevermind.
I'm still hoping there will be no reply stating I am intoxicating myself with these so-cured pipes more than I do on a regular pipesmoking basis.
Maybe the classic Ethanol would be better, but it's considerable more expensive.
I forgot to mention that I repeatedly wipe out the bowls and brush the inside of the shanks with a small hard (non-metal) brush. Impossible to believe, what smear comes out of the shanks even from pipes looking rather well-cared for. Not to mention those from people thinking a pipe cleaner is only there to make those furry little animals for their grandchildren…
Maybe this treatment does some other damage to briar qualities. So please don't hold me responsible…
I still believe there will be hardly some added substance(s) left rather than swept away. Will there be something swept out, that should be left in the briar? Any ideas?
Alex
I'm still hoping there will be no reply stating I am intoxicating myself with these so-cured pipes more than I do on a regular pipesmoking basis.
Maybe the classic Ethanol would be better, but it's considerable more expensive.
I forgot to mention that I repeatedly wipe out the bowls and brush the inside of the shanks with a small hard (non-metal) brush. Impossible to believe, what smear comes out of the shanks even from pipes looking rather well-cared for. Not to mention those from people thinking a pipe cleaner is only there to make those furry little animals for their grandchildren…
Maybe this treatment does some other damage to briar qualities. So please don't hold me responsible…
I still believe there will be hardly some added substance(s) left rather than swept away. Will there be something swept out, that should be left in the briar? Any ideas?
Alex
The sanding process I described is only used when I want to practice staining techniques before I try them on a pipe that I make. I use it for gaining knowledge and skill without the expense of ruining a good pipe. So, I won't be doing that on any high grades I might acquire!! 8O
That said, I think that your suggestion might just save me a whole lot of time and effort from sanding in the future. I could stain a pipe then soak it to remove the stain, stain then soak, over and over again; without having to sand them for hours! I will have to try that.
As for using the technique on a "good pipe", I would think that soaking the pipe in alcohol, or anything else, would cause the grain to rise. Just a bit of water will do it, where as, a bit of alcohol will not do much. That said, I would think that soaking it for a long period in "a lot " of alcohol would do quite a bit of grain raising. Have you noticed any?
Does the wood turn darker after you soaked it? I would be concerned with the tars and gunk that you desolve out of the bowl, and into the alcohol, might discolor the exterior of the bowl. Have you noticed any of that? Perhaps, that is why you soak it twice??
Neat and useful idea, just the same!!
Brendhain
That said, I think that your suggestion might just save me a whole lot of time and effort from sanding in the future. I could stain a pipe then soak it to remove the stain, stain then soak, over and over again; without having to sand them for hours! I will have to try that.
As for using the technique on a "good pipe", I would think that soaking the pipe in alcohol, or anything else, would cause the grain to rise. Just a bit of water will do it, where as, a bit of alcohol will not do much. That said, I would think that soaking it for a long period in "a lot " of alcohol would do quite a bit of grain raising. Have you noticed any?
Does the wood turn darker after you soaked it? I would be concerned with the tars and gunk that you desolve out of the bowl, and into the alcohol, might discolor the exterior of the bowl. Have you noticed any of that? Perhaps, that is why you soak it twice??
Neat and useful idea, just the same!!
Brendhain
-
alexanderfrese
- Posts: 317
- Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2006 8:00 pm
- Location: Bochum, Germany
- Contact:
I did not think about using this method for a multilayer staining process yet. This brings in a variety of factors differing from an estate treatment:
When staining from scratch (i.e. fresh formed briar), how long does the stain have time to settle? From what (little) I know about staining, it does a bit more to wood than bringing in colour pigments into substances. But I may be wrong. Anybody else please step in for this.
There still might be a time window though when a stummel treated that way has the stain removed from the harder wood where it has not sunk in that far, and not from the softer parts. Any tests would be at least very time consuming. Maybe I will give it a try.
In my considerable small experience, i have the feeling that sanding back a stain gives me direct control of the extent I bring out the contrast. I am not too much into staining techniques, I have only tried stains not made for pipe staining, but I never had to sand them back for hours – at least not on one stummel. Maybe the original pipe stains are somewhat more "sticky", i don't know.
But since the process mentioned takes days, it might save some of those numb feelings in your fingers after a sanding session, but time?
As for the treatment of estates:
I have not noticed any rising of the grain. I did not really look for it, since all those »rehearsal« pipes went into further sanding and surface treatment steps, but there is one hint left: I hardly noticed any influence on the stem fit. If any, I found them to be a bit more loose, but only to the slightest amount. So there is no swelling of the wood, rather a minimal shrinking. But maybe it's only because all of the dirt is removed?
I did not notice any discolouration of the bowls. Almost all were just getting lighter by loosing the stain colour. They surely loose a lot of gunk, since the first bath turns into something reddish-dark-brown ugly-looking and smelling rather quick. The second bath ist just to give them a chance to "clear out" after the first alcohol bath. The second liquid darkens much slower. If the first one seems too dirty for me, I use the second as first, get rid of the first, fill it up with clear alc and use it as second.
Some (two of about 35 bowls, if I remember it correct) showed some white overlay remains after the process, a bit like water remains in a kettle (just don't know the word in English). But they were easy to wipe or to brush off.
They usually don't get as light-coloured as new fresh-sanded briar. This might as well be due to different briar or other colour-influence on these pipes I don't know yet.
I still find it a rather brutal treatment, although I am not unsatisfied. But I don't know if I would use it on a stummel I worked my heart out to give it the shape I want.
Alex
When staining from scratch (i.e. fresh formed briar), how long does the stain have time to settle? From what (little) I know about staining, it does a bit more to wood than bringing in colour pigments into substances. But I may be wrong. Anybody else please step in for this.
There still might be a time window though when a stummel treated that way has the stain removed from the harder wood where it has not sunk in that far, and not from the softer parts. Any tests would be at least very time consuming. Maybe I will give it a try.
In my considerable small experience, i have the feeling that sanding back a stain gives me direct control of the extent I bring out the contrast. I am not too much into staining techniques, I have only tried stains not made for pipe staining, but I never had to sand them back for hours – at least not on one stummel. Maybe the original pipe stains are somewhat more "sticky", i don't know.
But since the process mentioned takes days, it might save some of those numb feelings in your fingers after a sanding session, but time?
As for the treatment of estates:
I have not noticed any rising of the grain. I did not really look for it, since all those »rehearsal« pipes went into further sanding and surface treatment steps, but there is one hint left: I hardly noticed any influence on the stem fit. If any, I found them to be a bit more loose, but only to the slightest amount. So there is no swelling of the wood, rather a minimal shrinking. But maybe it's only because all of the dirt is removed?
I did not notice any discolouration of the bowls. Almost all were just getting lighter by loosing the stain colour. They surely loose a lot of gunk, since the first bath turns into something reddish-dark-brown ugly-looking and smelling rather quick. The second bath ist just to give them a chance to "clear out" after the first alcohol bath. The second liquid darkens much slower. If the first one seems too dirty for me, I use the second as first, get rid of the first, fill it up with clear alc and use it as second.
Some (two of about 35 bowls, if I remember it correct) showed some white overlay remains after the process, a bit like water remains in a kettle (just don't know the word in English). But they were easy to wipe or to brush off.
They usually don't get as light-coloured as new fresh-sanded briar. This might as well be due to different briar or other colour-influence on these pipes I don't know yet.
I still find it a rather brutal treatment, although I am not unsatisfied. But I don't know if I would use it on a stummel I worked my heart out to give it the shape I want.
Alex
-
alexanderfrese
- Posts: 317
- Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2006 8:00 pm
- Location: Bochum, Germany
- Contact:
Just to make it sure, and as a warning:
There is some shrinking of the wood and visibly on any pit fillings. Two other estates have had the alcohol-treatment.
The stems becom slightly more loose. They have been to a normal tight fit before, and have a very light fit after the bathing. Not seriously. Will surely tighten up when the pipe is smoked.
One of them was a Peterson’s with a bowl I thought was free of fillings. After three days laying in the alcohol, there ar two tiny ones showing, since they sunk back into the wood. A no go for refreshing estates. Hmmm.
There is definitely no rising of the grain.
I wish someone could tell me more about what might happen within the wood. Something must be taken out. Not only the gunk. Could it be, the alcohol dehydrates materials to some extent? Still Ideas, anybody?
I will test those two bowls letting them have some steam treatment. I don't want to let go on that procedure, since it includes sterilizing, de-stinking (strong anti-crossover effect!) and destaining (to some extent).
Alex
There is some shrinking of the wood and visibly on any pit fillings. Two other estates have had the alcohol-treatment.
The stems becom slightly more loose. They have been to a normal tight fit before, and have a very light fit after the bathing. Not seriously. Will surely tighten up when the pipe is smoked.
One of them was a Peterson’s with a bowl I thought was free of fillings. After three days laying in the alcohol, there ar two tiny ones showing, since they sunk back into the wood. A no go for refreshing estates. Hmmm.
There is definitely no rising of the grain.
I wish someone could tell me more about what might happen within the wood. Something must be taken out. Not only the gunk. Could it be, the alcohol dehydrates materials to some extent? Still Ideas, anybody?
I will test those two bowls letting them have some steam treatment. I don't want to let go on that procedure, since it includes sterilizing, de-stinking (strong anti-crossover effect!) and destaining (to some extent).
Alex
Last edited by alexanderfrese on Tue Apr 05, 2005 2:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
alexanderfrese
- Posts: 317
- Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2006 8:00 pm
- Location: Bochum, Germany
- Contact:
Some further outcome:
Treated one of the mortises for the lightly loose stem fit with some careful steam puffs from an iron. Worked fine so far. Not really a new procedure. Humidity leads to expansion of the wood. Question is, how long will this effect hold? If the alcohol treatment reduces wood humidity beyond it's natural (depending on humidity in environment) value, it should regain it this way and keep it.
I fumbled with the sunken fills as well. I used the method that helped me out with some stummels that deperately wanted to fly from the buffing wheel: A wet tissue, a hot soldering iron. Pressing the hot tip of the Iron to the marking left from the floor the stummel finally had landed on – the wet tissue in between – does not only repair those pits, it also raises the sunken pit fills described above. In most cases the surface becomes even. On the Pete, they had sunk in very deep, so it didn't succeed. I noticed earlier, that the sinking of pit fills was considerably deeper with Petes than with other pipes. Maybe they use a filling material very sensitive to loss of humidity? BTW: Can someone tell me, which sort of filling material is used in industrial pipe production?
Alex
Treated one of the mortises for the lightly loose stem fit with some careful steam puffs from an iron. Worked fine so far. Not really a new procedure. Humidity leads to expansion of the wood. Question is, how long will this effect hold? If the alcohol treatment reduces wood humidity beyond it's natural (depending on humidity in environment) value, it should regain it this way and keep it.
I fumbled with the sunken fills as well. I used the method that helped me out with some stummels that deperately wanted to fly from the buffing wheel: A wet tissue, a hot soldering iron. Pressing the hot tip of the Iron to the marking left from the floor the stummel finally had landed on – the wet tissue in between – does not only repair those pits, it also raises the sunken pit fills described above. In most cases the surface becomes even. On the Pete, they had sunk in very deep, so it didn't succeed. I noticed earlier, that the sinking of pit fills was considerably deeper with Petes than with other pipes. Maybe they use a filling material very sensitive to loss of humidity? BTW: Can someone tell me, which sort of filling material is used in industrial pipe production?
Alex