Re: What does "original finish" mean, exactly?

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 20:39:05 GMT, quarkmeister
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>What does "original finish" mean, exactly?

Anything you can palm-off on most of the inhabitants of the room as
being possibly original.  If you refinish some old shellac-based
finishes with the right materials, then no-one (no-one !) can tell
whether it's a truly old finish that never saw daylight, or if it was
applied a year ago.

All too often "original finish" simply means never cleaned and
slathered over with the "patina" of a couple of centuries' polishing
wax and occasional re-finishes.  Downright ugly might pass as
original, whereas something that was simply stored in the dark
doesn't.

There are no original finishes, outside of King Tut's tomb. A spirit
varnish will change just from age, let alone sunlight. If the timber
underneath is cherry, then it's not the same colour today that it was
for the first 50 years.  

The real crime now is "distressing", not refinishing. When a piece is
judged as more valuable because the veneers are lifting and the finish
looks like treacle (so it might just be the same now-ruined finish
that was first applied), rather than something that was restored to
now have the same appearance it was built with, achieved by the same
materials and techniques, then something is wrong.

Don't be fooled by "patina". I've got a jar of it out in the workshop.
There's certainly a worthy difference from brand new to fifty years of
careful use, but you can't justify this "All its original grime"
fetish unless it's simply that; a fetish of age alone over quality,
because you live in a state that wasn't settled until the age of the
car.

Of course, in the saleroom it all depends on what this week's fashion
is, what Barbara Streisand bought lately, and what that funny
orange-skinned bloke was blathering about on the telly.

--
Die Gotterspammerung - Junkmail of the Gods