# Arm-r seal walnut. How many coats to fill grain?



## toddbeaulieu (Mar 5, 2010)

Hello all!

I am in the final stages of edge grain walnut counter tops. I'm 5 coats. I fell like I'm almost there, but you know it can be, coat after coat and still getting the dimples on the grain. Do you think I should be almost there? Or, should I stop now and buff it down with liquid compound?

Thank you!










UPDATE: I'm not yet convinced that the dimples seen in the photo are related to grain. Thinking it might just be how the finish is drying, but just in case, I ended up picking up some filler and applying it last night, followed by another coat. I'll check it out tonight to see what it's looking like now. If it doesn't settle down after one more coat I'll try polishing it.


----------



## toddbeaulieu (Mar 5, 2010)

Well, change of plans. I was trying to get the perfect, flawless, mirror finish and just had too many struggles with that. Ten coats in (trying to knock down peaks and filling valleys) I finally made a fatal mistake of rushing it. I applied a coat before the previous was fully dried and it crinkled within minutes. Ruined. So I scraped them all down by hand and stared over. Ugh.

The new approach is to embrace the rustic side. I scraped irregularities and even left some scraper chatter marks. I'm doing gloss base coats with a satin top coat. Supposedly looks better that way, versus all satin. So once again, I'm left unconvinced of the capabilities of fillers, or at least of my skill level and technique using them.


----------



## Johnny_Yuma (Nov 29, 2009)

Arm-r-seal is not a grain filler. Applying extra coats in an attempt to fill the grain is a recipe for disaster! Arm-r-seal recommends three coats. Stick with that in the future.

Next time seal the wood, then apply grain filler, then topcoat. Make sure to read and follow the directions on the filler! Everyone is a little different.


----------



## toddbeaulieu (Mar 5, 2010)

Interesting Drew. I hadn't heard that 3-coat recommendation. Great to know! Yeah, I thought I could eventually overpower it!


----------



## rwyoung (Nov 22, 2008)

GF recommends a MINIMUM of 3 coats. But getting crazy with the # coats is a recipe for disaster.

https://generalfinishes.com/retail-products/oil-based-top-coats/arm-r-seal-urethane-topcoat#.V_arHPkrJhE

Unless I missed it in their tech doc (https://generalfinishes.com/sites/default/files/file_downloads/Tech-Data-GF-Arm-R-Seal-050311.pdf) there isn't a maximum coating limit. Some information can be gleaned from their 1MDFT (minimum dry film thickness, usually given in mils) comment. I think the average sort of wet mil thickness would be 3-4 to achieve a 1 mil dry.

Anyway, you can do some grain filling by wet sanding with this product after the first couple of coats. Instead of using water or MS to lubricate some wet-dry paper, use a little of the finish and work up a goopy slurry which can be forced down into the grain. Won't be a 100% fill on most things but can help a bit. And can also fall into the fallacy of "if some is good, more is better" so don't over do it.

And build coats with gloss then finish with satin or semi-gloss if you want to tone it down a bit. Generally has a cleaner looking appearance.


----------



## Johnny_Yuma (Nov 29, 2009)

> GF recommends a MINIMUM of 3 coats.
> - rwyoung


It says right on the can "Three coats are recommended".

I've used a lot of different finishes in a lot of different ways through the years. One thing I have learned is adding more coats than recommended usually ends with a headache!


----------



## mlipps (May 8, 2015)

If you look at the site, GF says minimum of three coats. Arm-R-Seal (ARM)is not a grain filler. Use a filler than put on the finish. I just put on 5 coats of ARM (wipe on) if came out great (see the book cases in my projects).

Good luck in the refinishing.


----------



## rwyoung (Nov 22, 2008)

> GF recommends a MINIMUM of 3 coats.
> - rwyoung
> 
> It says right on the can "Three coats are recommended".
> ...


Um, yes, RECOMMENDED, not required as I wrote. Well documented on the label AND in literature available from GF on their web site or sales displays. Information found in the SDS and technical data sheets will be more in-depth than what can be found on the side of a can.

The word "minimum" appears in the further documentation. Due to variation in application method/technique/thinning, etc. they are allowing for the possibility that an additional coat may be needed to reach a total finished 3mil thickness (3 coats of 1mil each, the 1mil coming from the coverage recommendations found in the technical documents).

There are no guarantees of success implied by GF in their instructions. They are in the business of selling finish. Success is implied to come from three coats but they (or any manufacturer) is happy to sell you an extra can so you can get four.


----------



## toddbeaulieu (Mar 5, 2010)

This thread has helped me quite a bit. I appreciate the debate and input from all. Because of this I realized that I was applying WAY TOO MUCH FINISH and I will continue to experiment and get better with arm-r-seal.

I switched to satin, scraped the entire thing for a rustic appearance and went with three coats. MUCH HAPPIER!

Please see my counter top project for the final result if interested.

http://lumberjocks.com/projects/273114


----------



## TonyTheOK (11 mo ago)

I have the answer to the original question, how many coats of armor seal does it take to fill Walnut pores. I just finished doing this. The short version is 28 coats. I am a few years late to the discussion, but I'm answering this for the sake of anyone else like me who was researching this specific topic. Here is the long version:

First of all, based on previous posts, a lot of people probably don't understand why anyone would do this or what is going on here. In my case, I had a walnut slab that I turned into a 6' accent table. I used a smoothing plane rather than sandpaper to bring it to the point of finishing. There was a ton of figure and chatoyance that would not have come through if I had used sandpaper. So traditional methods of filling pores, which would entail slathering on a mix then sanding it down, would not be okay. The whole point is to keep sandpaper from touching the wood, which would negate the beauty that came from using the smoothing plane. In this situation the goal is to layer on many coats of finish, sanding in between, but never sanding down to the point that the Sandpaper touches wood. You are only sandingng the built up layers of finish (the "hills"), while the finish fills the pores (the "valleys").

In the first 15 or so coats, I would describe the coats as thick, and I sanded with 320-400 after every 3 coats (note, inbetween the other coats I used a gray scratch pad). After that, I would describe the coats as moderate, and again sand after every three coats. The last three or four coats I would described as thin. Also, for the last 8 or so coats I was cutting the armor seal about 8% with mineral spirits to help level it out and guarantee no bubbles by slowing down the cure time. If I had it to do over again, I would not have done any "thick" coats. The thick coats speed things along a little bit, but introduce too much room for unpopped bubbles, and in my case I was wiping the coats on and when you are doing thick coats it's easy to accidentally have extra thick spots that need extra sanding to level out.

The end result is great, exactly what I was aiming for. A glass smooth finish, no pores coming through, and the wood itself has the beauty of being prepped with a smoothing plane rather than sandpaper. There are a few embedded bubbles though, which probably wouldn't be there if I didn't do the heavy coats. I could sand the few of them out if I wanted, but the risk- reward isn't worth it to me, because I'm afraid to accidentally touch the wood with sandpaper. So for anyone reading this considering filling pores with armorseal, I would recommend doing moderate coats at most, or cutting the armor seal with mineral spirits right from the beginning. That may well yield true perfection.


----------



## therealSteveN (Oct 29, 2016)

Apply 3 coats. Additional coats will not improve durability.


----------



## TonyTheOK (11 mo ago)

One correction to my post: after every three coats, when I was sanding down the hills, I was going from 220-400 grit, not 320-400.


----------



## redlee (Apr 11, 2016)

> Arm-r-seal is not a grain filler. Applying extra coats in an attempt to fill the grain is a recipe for disaster! Arm-r-seal recommends three coats. Stick with that in the future.
> 
> Next time seal the wood, then apply grain filler, then topcoat. Make sure to read and follow the directions on the filler! Everyone is a little different.
> 
> - Drew


Yes !


----------



## Tony_S (Dec 16, 2009)

> 28 coats.
> 
> - TonyTheOK


 lol!


----------



## bilyo (May 20, 2015)

Some years ago, when you could still get natural resin varnish, I did this with an old mahogany table top. Although, it did not take 28 coats. It took perhaps 5-6 coats sanding each almost down to the wood. The finished result was a glass smooth surface with no grain dimples. More recently, I did the same using an oil based poly. Same result. I have read that this is a very old method of getting a smooth finish. It is referred to as a "piano" finish".


----------



## OSU55 (Dec 14, 2012)

Tony I have to correct you - wood can be sanded and the chatoyance will come through just fine. Look at my projects, all were sanded to some level. Its a function of the finish gloss, film thickness and grit sanded up to.

No need for 28 coats to fill the grain. As mentioned in an earlier post, wet sanding with the finish, ars in this case, I use minwax poly (they are the same thing regardless of opinions otherwise), can do it. Can start with bare wood, no need for sealer coats. I do it with flat work and turnings. Thin the finish 1:1. Sand the dry surface to create significant dust, flood the surface, make a goop, sand a bit, as starts to gel, use a spreader (I use plastic ones for body filler) to force into pores, then wipe a bit across the grain. Dont rub it all off. Let dry, do it again. May take 2-4 coats to get it level. These coats are not adding film thickness, they are to fill all the spots. Once happy its fully filled/level, do finish coats however you do them.

Its really just using native sanding dust to create the goop vs a purchased pore filler. Its the same "how to" as those products. I dont mean to make it sound simple and easy, it takes some practice, but the same is true for purchased grain filler.


----------



## Axis39 (Jul 3, 2019)

Many finishes will continue to shrink, years after being 'cured'. So, even if you have done the bazillion layers thing, the grain may show up in a couple of years.

That's part fo the beauty of most grain fillers. They usually have a good concentration of solids in the mix.


----------



## OSU55 (Dec 14, 2012)

> Many finishes will continue to shrink, years after being cured . So, even if you have done the bazillion layers thing, the grain may show up in a couple of years.
> 
> That s part fo the beauty of most grain fillers. They usually have a good concentration of solids in the mix.
> 
> - Axis39


Very true. After filling the grain as described above its best to let it sit at elevated temp for several weeks to help prevent the "grain ghosting".


----------



## TonyTheOK (11 mo ago)

OSU55, you're absolutely right - chatoyance does come through on pieces that were sanded. In this case though, the figure and chatoyance looked better (albeit just slightly) on the slab that I handplaned vs. a cutoff piece I sanded, and I wanted to preserve that. I actually took a cutoff from the slab and sanded it to 400 grit, then when I started applying finish to the tabletop I also applied it to the cutoff for the first few coats. My thought process was, if there's no difference in the look, I'll purchase a dedicated grain filler (or use a sanding slurry as you described very well) and skip all the extra work of using the finish to fill valleys/pores while being careful not to sand the finish down to the wood. That would have been much easier. But I did notice that the chatoyance and figure came through slightly better in the handplaned piece, and I was in no rush, so I figured what the heck, I'll take the time to do the long method and preserve the better look acquired with the smoothing plane.

For those who discussed it, I'm somewhat skeptical of the cured finish shrinking years later to the extent of ruining the finish, namely because this methodology (using finish to gradually fill pores) has been around for a very long time. If it was fatally flawed, that would have been discovered many decades ago. I understand the concept of grain ghosting happening earlier on in the process, I had no issues with that though - it probably helped that I finished this piece over the course of about a year (again, I was in no rush), so there was lots of time between coats. Plus the slab had years to acclimate indoors and definitely reach EMC before I ever even started working with it, so there was no wood movement causing issues that could mistakenly be blamed on the finish.

I can say from experience this methodology works great though, if you have the patience to do it (and do it right), and if your unique circumstances dictate that you don't want to use one of the quicker/easier grain filling methodologies (like what bilyo and OSU55 detailed, which are preferred methods in most cases). For 99.9% of people it's probably not worth the time/effort, and it's not something I'll be doing routinely myself! Hell, this whole topic is irrelevant to the vast majority of woodworkers (the only ones this is relevant for are those using smoothing planes rather than sandpaper AND looking to fill pores without hurting the handplaned surface). Not many people will ever find themselves in that category! But regardless, this was definitely fun to try out, and I love the end result. And it's cool that I can come back here a year after reading this post and not seeing an answer to the question, and I can now not only answer the original question, but also detail what I did and how I did it so others can learn from both my successes and my mistakes. In some cases this might help someone get 100% perfection, or (more often, I bet) in other cases it will provide deterrence with my warning about how much work they're in for if they try to do this!


----------



## SMP (Aug 29, 2018)

> 28 coats.
> 
> - TonyTheOK
> 
> ...


----------



## OSU55 (Dec 14, 2012)

*"For those who discussed it, I'm somewhat skeptical of the cured finish shrinking years later to the extent of ruining the finish"
*
It doesnt ruin the finish, it still protects well, and can be barely perceptible such that most people probably wont notice. The important part is giving time for the the finish to cure out, which you did.

Worth mentioning for filling grain on open wood like oak, ash, somewhat with walnut, using the sanding technique or grain filler (not clear filler, it can present other issues) - I have made those surfaces so flat that they look fake like formica. Close grain wood with slight defects to fill look ok.

I have done my own tests for chatoyance, planed/scraped vs sanded. Depends on the grit sanded to, but I dont see a difference. Part of what you perceive as more chatoyance is likely due to the slight concavities left in the surface by a smoothing plane edge, differences in surface roughness here vs there, and other slight imperfections from hand planing. For a "hand tooled" look I would not do a fully filled finish, but one that leaves pores and tooling marks open. Glad you like your finished product, you earned it!


----------



## toddbeaulieu (Mar 5, 2010)

Super interesting conversation. It's making me think about my next finishing technique.


----------



## Tony_S (Dec 16, 2009)

> 28 coats.
> 
> - TonyTheOK
> 
> ...


Troo Dat!!


----------

