# Does polyurethane get a bad rap?



## CharlieM1958 (Nov 7, 2006)

I was reading a comment on another thread this morning, one we've all seen some version of a thousand times, about someone disliking poly because it looks like plastic. It started me thinking about whether this is a fair criticism, or maybe just a bias based on how poly gets used sometimes.

Granted, some folks think every project should be finished with globs of high-gloss poly, and the result is not always pretty. Some projects are just better if you leave the natural texture of the would exposed to the eyes and hands. But if you're going to put some sort of topcoat on a piece, is there really that much aesthetic difference between, say, a glossy *lacquer* finish and a glossy *poly* finish?

There are many factors that go into choosing a topcoat: ease of application, durability, water resistance, to name a few. But purely from the standpoint of appearance, is "plastic-looking" a valid criticism of poly, or is it more about *how* a finish is applied rather than *which* finish is applied?

I'll go pop some popcorn and wait for the fireworks to start.


----------



## BillWhite (Jul 23, 2007)

Pass the popcorn. I'm waitin' with ya.
Bill


----------



## splintergroup (Jan 20, 2015)

In my opinion, it's all application. I like poly for many reasons (durability being prime), but I do despise the 'plastic' look. When I use poly, I kill the gloss by finishing with 0000 steel wool and a scrub with brown paper. I only use the 'gloss' poly (versus the satin) since the satin has the dulling additive which can eventually obscure the wood.

As to the difference between a glossy poly and lacquer, consider that the lacquer in the end is a single layer of finish if applied properly. Each coat of lacquer 'melts' into the previous coat. Poly doesn't do that. After extensive sanding to get a flawless, flat surface, the poly has the ghost rings present where the strata of each finish layer is visible, the lacquer doesn't.

This is a discussion that could go on forever!


----------



## Jeremy78 (Oct 22, 2015)

I think poly has its place and uses. Durability is a big plus to it. I am a "close to the wood" type guy. I love the oil finishes, specifically Danish oil with Shellac over it. I use poly if I have to have the durability factor. Otherwise I avoid it.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

I think it all depends what you want the end result to look like. One or two thin application can show the texture. Several application puts the wood "under glass" or plastic if it not gloss. There is a way to do a french polish with poly as well. I put several coats of it on my wood kitchen counter top 24 years or so ago and it is still holding up. Same with my walnut dining room table. It has made it past 3 children being born and raised and at this point it could use a fresh coat.
It all depends what the function of the object to be covered is going to be. I certainly would not have used lacquer
with five females in the house using nail polish and such.


----------



## wapakfred (Jul 29, 2011)

Not in my opinion, there is no polyanything in my shop and it deserves every curse word aimed at it. Besides the look, it has problems with adhesion…hence the sanding between coats for tooth. As much as I hate it, there are times when it's the right finish for the job: like floors, where it's abrasion/scratch resistance is worth it's weight in gold. But generally, there are much nicer varnishes to use, the popularity of the resin is due to 2 things (IMHO): Norm's never ending " a coat of POLY", and 2 it's low cost (that's the manufacturer's draw). Just my opinion; but that's what you were asking, right?


----------



## CharlieM1958 (Nov 7, 2006)

Good comments and opinions, guys… keep 'em coming.


----------



## splintergroup (Jan 20, 2015)

> Good comments and opinions, guys… keep em coming.
> 
> - CharlieM1958


...as he pokes the ant hill with a stick….


----------



## nashley (Nov 25, 2014)

Just a neat little fact about finishes…

I went on a tour of the Gibson (electric) guitar factory here in Nashville about a year ago and saw some pretty amazing stuff. Our tour guide was the guy in charge of selecting, storing, and maintaining all of the hardwood that was used for making the guitars. He also dealt with grain orientation of glue ups and such. He is very knowledgeable and there's no doubt he knows the physical properties of wood and how it reacts to its change in environment (temp, humidity etc.). He is basically the wood guru there at Gibson. During the tour through the finishing section of the plant, he also went into a lot of detail as to the reason for selecting the type of finish that they use. I asked him if he would mind telling us what they use and he gladly said that it was Sherwin Williams Hi-Bild Lacquer. Just the regular ol' stuff anyone else can buy. He said that they also use a conditioner/sanding sealer which I would assume is the sanding sealer made by Sherwin Williams. They use tinted lacquer to get all of thise wild colors on their guitars, too. While he was so willing to divulge information I asked him what type of glue they use and he said Titebond III. I also asked him about the sandpaper grit progression they use from sanding the bare wood to finishing/buffing the lacquer, but I don't remember the grits. He also mentioned that another advantage to a lacquer finish is that when a customer sends in a guitar to have it refinished, they can easily clean the guitar, prep, and refinish, with the resulting finish just as good as the day it was manufactured.

I say all of this just to point out that Gibson has made hundreds of thousands of guitars, knows how to finish wood, and has experimented with everything out there, and they choose Lacquer.

I've had a lot of experience with Sherwin Williams lacquer since this is what my father has used on all of his cabinets and furniture. I can attest to the quality of finish that can be achieved by using lacquer and its ability to be touched up or completely refinished many years down the road. This is also why I chose to use it recently on a set of dining chairs and table that I built. The tables and chairs have already gotten some scratches but I know that a few years down the road I will be able to throw it all out in the garage, slap on a new finish and not have to worry about peeling or flaking between the original and the new finish.

I have no doubt that poly provides an excellent finish but I would be hesitant to use it on anything that you would like to be easily serviceable for future refinishes.

Disclaimer: I'm, by no mean, a expert on wood finishes nor do I claim to be. I'm just sharing some of my experience.

Regards,

Nathan

Thought I'd share a few of the pictures I took…


----------



## pintodeluxe (Sep 12, 2010)

I think satin poly and satin lacquer look about the same. I use lacquer because it dries faster. Traditional poly can take 24-48 hours for each coat to dry. That is a lot of time for dust to find its way into the finish.


----------



## BLarge (Aug 29, 2011)

Polyurethane offers excellent protection to a piece that will be high use abuse, it is easy to use as a wipe on product, it's widely available, and it is accessible to any wood worker. If you thin it and build slowly, you can minimize the plastic looking effect. Oil based versus Water Bourne yields different looks, I like WB on light woods only, it makes dark wood look hazy. I'd agree with Fred, it's really best suited for floors and other protection projects.

Oil- I use Osmo on alot of projects, it has the easy of a wipe on poly but leaves a non building rich finish on wood. It's expensive and takes a little longer to dry and finish, but like other oils, it's gorgeous. My recommendation to new finishers is go oil products first, perfect their use, then explore.

Lacquer- my go to for projects that will get more abuse, but it requires spraying to do it right… That makes it hard for the average woodworker, but then again there are rattle cans for small projects.

In the end, to me, a great project is determined by high attention surface preperation. No machine marks, no tearout, entire surfaces evenly sanded with a consistent scratch pattern. The common American will have no idea if you used poly, lacquer, oil, shellac… What they will notice is how the light reflects off you falwlessly sanded surface because that's what matters, how it looks.


----------



## MrUnix (May 18, 2012)

I love poly… you can get just about any desired look you want with it, it's tough as nails and is basically fool proof. With wipe-on (50/50 mix) poly, it can be dry to the touch in less than 30 minutes (initial coats can dry in as little as a couple of minutes), and you can easily lay down 6-8 or more coats in a day without the need for sanding in between.

Cheers,
Brad


----------



## wormil (Nov 19, 2011)

I have, for many years, been a poly hate monger based on past experiences. But my wife bought some for something and had a bunch left over so I took it to the shop. To my surprise there is hardly any smell, dries in minutes, and two coats did not appear plastic at all.


----------



## bonesbr549 (Jan 1, 2010)

I've got a kitchen table I did nearly 30 years ago and two boys grown using it and numerous get togethers and its a tank. From a durability standpoint its dang hard to beat. I think it has it places and uses

I think every finish has +'s and -'s and depending on personal tastes and looks. Just like there are diff's between oil base and water base. Wipe on and spray. Not an easy either or?

Personally I do not prefer it, but it's not the anti-Christ of finishes either. Shellac is a great finish, but would not use it where water could be an issue etc.

I like in-the-wood finishes and low gloss but thats just me. Depends on what the client wants, that's the one thats best


----------



## shipwright (Sep 27, 2010)

How's the popcorn holding out Charlie?


----------



## JayT (May 6, 2012)

I don't think poly gets a bad rap as much as it gets overused and used incorrectly too often. There are times it is the most appropriate finish, there are other times a different finish would work/look better. Too many coats of poly does give a "plasticy" look, IMHO. However on a tabletop or floor, a little bit plasticy is better than a lot beat up.

Because it's the finish that most people are aware of, it's the one they grab when starting out. Overuse and inexperience is a bad combination, especially with finishing. As someone progresses in their woodworking and really starts to learn about finishes, whole new horizons open up. Plus, they get better at prep and application, which results in a better look, as well.


----------



## oldnovice (Mar 7, 2009)

I am not pro or con on any finish as each project needs it's own special treatment!
If that were not the case then why are there so many options for the amateurs and professionals?
There are many variables that determine which finish is best for each project.

The only finish I will *never* use is stain and poly combinations available!


----------



## CharlieM1958 (Nov 7, 2006)

odnovice: A lot of us are with you on that one!


----------



## PurpLev (May 30, 2008)

sometimes…the best finish for popcorn is butter, but if you slap on too much it gets a plasticy taste… sometimes simply salt does the job and leaves the natural flavor and texture of the popped corn.

there is a time and place for everything…


----------



## gfadvm (Jan 13, 2011)

Great topic Charlie! I use a lot of Spar urethane when I need durability but restrict its use to indoor projects (even though it is marketed as an exterior finish). To me , it has a less plastic look. It contains "long oils" which add some color/warmth to the wood.


----------



## CharlieM1958 (Nov 7, 2006)

I think some good points have been made, and no one has even started any name-calling yet. 

A lot of comments have mentioned considerations like durability, drying time, and such. It's been a good discussion, but I was really just asking about appearance, and whether or not you think it really looks bad,or if that's just a put-down used by people who prefer more traditional finishes.


----------



## wormil (Nov 19, 2011)

It is a plastic so if you get it thick it's going to look like plastic but it seems like there have been improvements since the stuff I used in the 80's. This year is the first time I've used polyurethane since around 1989 when I refinished a desk for some friends.


----------



## wapakfred (Jul 29, 2011)

Just a tweak to the statement about Spar containing "long oils". A long oil varnish simply has more oil in the mixture that's cooked to become varnish. The higher oil content gives the result the more flexible feature.


----------



## Tennessee (Jul 8, 2011)

Nathan - you may be aware of the studies done on tonal properties of wood and finishes in stringed instruments. Turns out lacquer is way more tonal than poly, mainly because it dries to a harder finish and seems to be able to generate vibrations better than other finishes. Some woods are also more tonal, like maple and ash, but sometimes they want a warmer tone, so mahogany is used, usually in the back of electrics, or as body wall of acoustics.

But the other obvious repair issues with lacquer also are there for Gibson, as well as the drying times.

I shot pretty much only polyurethane, mostly semi-gloss, for the twelve years I ran my refinishing shop. I could usually buff it with 0000 steel wool within two days and put on a thin coat of paste wax, and have a fairly waterproof finish that my customers loved. Fairly thin, and allowing the wood grain to show through, but still pretty resilient and tough.

Now, since I do mostly small stuff I shoot lacquer, but for my guitars it is 12-14 hand rubbed coats of Tru-Oil, since I don't have an oven system. My answer to the fast build of the lacquers used by the major guitar companies.


----------



## MLWilson (Jun 28, 2015)

I wanted Blue Ice to look like frozen water. So I used ***************. I'm trusting my more-experienced Buddies on the durability, because I'm relatively new to Woodsmithery. As to lacquer: It's not available in Southern California. I've never used it. Shellac is my BFF because I can put as much or as little on as I want, depending on the luster I'm looking for. Too shiny? Easily knocked back. Not shiny enough? More, please. Shellac always gets topped with either furniture wax or Carnauba for protection. All this is with regard to indoor Things. Outdoor Things? I'm still trying to figure it out. Spar Varnish seems to peel off within a couple years. Spray-on Poly, on the other hand. Well. The "plastic factor" of Poly can be dealt with just as with Shellac.
I got my Envirotex a week ago, for the floor of the Buddy Bell, and am still trying to work up the nerve to use it.
I'm a little surprised about Gibson's choice of Lacquer for their guitars. Although they are electric. guitars. As I understand it, throughout history, a mixture of Shellac with some kind of ground semi-precious stone (Ruby, Garnet, etc.) has been, and still is, the traditional finish for acoustic instruments. i guess you'd know that, wouldn't you, Charlie? You're a guitar maker, right?


----------



## CharlieM1958 (Nov 7, 2006)

Mark: I'm no guitar maker…. the only one I built so far was from a kit.  I do play a bit though.

You are correct about shellac being a traditional instrument finish for hundreds of years. However, in the last 50 years or so (someone here probably knows the history better than me) lacquer has been the dominant finish for guitars, both electric and acoustic. In recent years there has been a trend towards poly-type finishes in lower-end instruments, but as far as I know virtually all manufacturers use some version of lacquer on their top-end guitars.


----------



## wormil (Nov 19, 2011)

> As I understand it, throughout history, a mixture of Shellac with some kind of ground semi-precious stone (Ruby, Garnet, etc.) has been, and still is, the traditional finish for acoustic instruments.
> - Mark Wilson


Ruby and Garnet are colors of shellac, not actual ground minerals.


----------



## nashley (Nov 25, 2014)

Paul,
I was not aware that the finish had an effect on the tonal properties of the guitar, but now that you've mentioned it, it does make sense that the softer finish will act as a sound absorber. Neat info, thanks! I've got a neighbor that builds custom electrics and I think he uses the same oil finish that you do and I think he really like the stuff.

Mark,
My mother in law has a cherry dining table with a poly finish and I've always thought that it had that plastic look to it. Although, It might just be that it's a gloss finish. The plastic effect may diminish with a satin. Regardless, I don't think poly looks bad. This, of course, is just my opinion/preference. I have a feeling that if a poly finish was the only finish available, very few would think that it looked bad since they have nothing else to compare it to. With an increase in the number of choices, there's an increase in personal preferences. This is probably the reason your answer hasn't been directly answered since it's a preference thing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't polyurethane essentially a plastic?

Regard,


----------



## mmh (Mar 17, 2008)

I would agree that over applying a poly finish will give you a "plastic" look. If you only apply a few thin coats that will dry more evenly, then you'll have a nice tough, water proof finish.

Personally, I don't use poly on my canes mainly because it's hard to sand off, as it clogs the sand paper, as I have to use when the cane needs to be refinished because of dings from being dropped or banged. Hence, I am using a high friction wax product that dries very quickly so it's a bit tricky to apply to get a nice even coat, but it's much easier than the tung oil/poly formula I was originally using that took many hours to dry and if it was cold or humid, sometimes days and was quite problematic with air bubbles, not to mention the dust that could stick on it from being tacky so long.

Can you please pass the popcorn?


----------



## CharlieM1958 (Nov 7, 2006)

It's nice to know that you provide ongoing "tech support" for your beautiful canes.


----------



## RogerBean (Apr 25, 2010)

Charlie,
I've been following this topic with interest. Personally, I seldom use poly for anything, but see advantages for utilitarian projects that will be used hard, and where repairability, color, and authenticity are not an issue. I personally much prefer shellac (French polish) or WaterLox (a tung oil varnish) for both their ease of use, repairability, and warm color. My third choice would be nitrocellulose lacquer. Each is more than durable enough for my purposes.

That said, I'm willing to spend a lot of time on multiple step finishing processes. And, most of my projects are pretty traditional, either the boxes or period furniture, and are very unlikely to be used hard or abused, so the primary benefit of polyurethane (the harder wearing surface) is pretty much irrelevant. But for those who are happy with poly it's obviously satisfying a need.
Roger


----------



## Waldo88 (Nov 7, 2014)

It has its use for heavily used wood. I'd prefer it on all furniture in the TV room; with little kids you can expect standing water, toy abuse, etc on it regularly, things that other finishes just don't handle well. No need to over apply it though.

Outside of that environment I don't use it, what I do use depends on if a film finish is needed or not. Danish oil (BLO+poly, lol) and wax if no, shellac or lacquer if yes. But, a good bit of the reason I don't use it otherwise is that its such a PITA to do well, and takes so darn long.

I would expect pretty much every major commercial seller of wooden things to use lacquer. Time is $$$, lacquer is a fast finish.


----------



## CharlieM1958 (Nov 7, 2006)

Roger, I think a traditional French polish is absolutely the right finish for boxes of the caliber you produce.

I do think that many different types of finishes can look either good or bad, depending on how well or poorly they are applied. Different finishes require somewhat different skill sets. I need to practice more with lacquer and shellac finishes.


----------



## OSU55 (Dec 14, 2012)

Absolutely poly gets a bad rap. It has everything thing to do with how it is applied. I can make it look virtually any way I want, from "close to the grain" to a piano gloss finish. I use thinned poly instead of the various "oil" finishes available - same result, less cost. I don't use oil based much at all for higher film thickness due to drying time and knit lines, but it can be made to look very good. Usually use WB poly for higher film thickness finishes where durability is required, i.e. kitchen table top.

Finishing in general gets a bad rap. Folks spend thousands of $'s on equipment and hundreds to thousands of man hours learning and building projects, then want the super simple, super quick finish. Spend 1/2 the woodworking time on finishing/learning, and some of your $ on equipment, and I think you will find a major improvement in the finished product.


----------



## wapakfred (Jul 29, 2011)

Actually, I think if they spent that much time learning more about finishing, they wouldn't use a polyurethane anyway. Much better varnishes available.


----------



## OSU55 (Dec 14, 2012)

Maybe. Depends on what you consider better varnishes. I've used non poly varnishes (very hard to find today) and don't like them as well - too soft and the same slow drying problems. Conversion varnish, absolutely, but I've never used it due to the toxicity, which I may be overstating in my mind. I certainly agree that spending time learning about finishing will lead to using other finishes and techniques, opening on entirely new world of how the finished product looks.


----------

