|
Posted by Jack on January 10, 2007, 8:58 am
Father Haskell wrote:
> mm wrote:
> > What was the typical furniture finish in the 1930's, 40's?
>
> Nitro lacquer, possibly. Manufacturers took to it rapidly at about
> that time, due to its reliabilty, looks, quick dry, sprayability, and
> abilty to fuse level to previous coats without sanding between coats.
>
> Cobwebbed lacquer means it was formulated to cure hard, which
> it did, but at the expense of longevity.
>
> Spot solvent test on an inconspicous area:
>
> Lacquer thinner or any of its constituents will dissolve lacquer.
> Alcohol will dissolve shellac.
> No common solvent will disolve varnish or oil.
Laquer thinner does a good job of disolving varnish in my book, Plus a
lot of other things.
>
> > I have a phonograph, about 14x14x7" whose finish was in very good
> > shape, until a leaking roof splattered water onto the wood cabinet.
> > Now it's sort of a set of parallel, very thin triangles (an eighth
> > inch or so), with good finish in half of the triangles, and in between
> > places where the finish is gone, and dull, plain wood shows. The
> > finish is like a thin layer of some coating. It's not linseed oil or
> > something that just soaks in.
> >
> > I would like to repair the finish of course, and I'm hoping you can
> > advise me.
> >
> > Would this be the shellac I've heard about, in which new shellac
> > repairs the old shellac, by sort of melting into it and they redry,
> > reharden together? That would be great, but I thought if that were
> > the case, there would be white stains where the original shellac got
> > wet, but there are none. If it is as easy as just brushing on new
> > shellac, that would be great, but I'm willing to do a lot more work
> > also if that's what it takes.
> >
> >
> > My mother got this maybe around 1930, maybe later. It has a tone arm
> > that weighs 8 oz. to a pound, uses steel needles that are guaranteed
> > to play 10 records, and is actually a rather cheap model, I think, in
> > that it has no amplifier or speaker. It only has a 2 or 3 tube
> > transmitter, that broadcasts on 540 or 1610** and can be listened to
> > via an AM radio. But it works fine. And that actually has the
> > advantage that one can iirc listen to radios all over the house, with
> > only one record player. Well I'm not sure I ever did that, because the
> > records are done so quickly there is barely time to get to another
> > part of the house. But if there were more than one person home, and
> > it transmitted far enough, that would be an advantage. :)
> >
> >
> > **I forget what the frequency is. It's on a piece of paper in the
> > record player, and it's not hard to just tune the radio until you find
> > it. That's how I found it in the first place. My mother had lost
> > interest. Although we have a bunch of 78 rpm records, including a few
> > Caruso, John McCormick, etc., some recorded only on one side, and flat
> > on the other side. I don't think they are worth much money --
> > certainly all the good ones have been rerecorded already from other
> > people's 78's -- but it doesn't matter I have no desire to sell any of
> > this until after I die.
> >
> > Thanks.
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap