Glenn

It does not bother me one bit that you don't care for my techniques. We all have our opinions and a way of doing things and this is a good thing. I have no objection to repainting and making your VS brand new again. I have done this to several machines that were beyond hope and yes they look brand new with new decals. I will preserve the original finish with all scars visible if the machine is in good shape as for as decals and the black finish. Would love to see pics of your finsihed product when you are done with it. Most people will not take offense to what you have said but they may in the manner which you stated.

vdot

I agree with a lot of what you had to say, but I do absolutely disagree that there are not modern materials far superior to japaning and varnish....many polymers are much tougher, glossier and resistant to damages of all kinds. All one has to do is look at most higher-class vehicle finishes. I drive my Toyota daily thru branches and thorny bushes with nary a scratch, have bird dirt and bug juice on the paint for weeks at a time with no damage. Japanning can't even stand up to a few pins without scratching, and the finish wears off by simple handling of it over a period of time (albeit a long time, but I've seen few decent cars that have had their paint worn off from even heavy "traffic").

With respect to finish, I guess I might agree with you if I wanted an older-looking finish, as it would be hard to duplicate the older patina and look in general. And I did assume that one would want a "new" and shiny look...not necessarily new as of 1895, but the highest of quality new of today...not plastic-y...but a quality high-gloss look using expensive automotive polymers, baked and clear-coated. So I suppose you may be right about that too, as I did assume, but I also explained that my goal was shiny, new and lasting from modern times for 200+ years into the future.

After I posted the "sandblasting" statement, which was made "off-the-cuff," I realized I should have corrected that, but I would actually usually not use media blasting, but a good soaking in appropriate solvent anyway, especially with Japaning it should come off down to bare metal pretty easily. Sorry for not making that correction, and you caught it.

BTW, are you the guy who has a restore shop, and goes by "Sewing Machine Steve?" If so, I liked your work (what I could see of it) on the Singer 27, and especially on the Singer 66 on your website.

SteveH

Oh so not me.... my Collection travels under the name "The Victorian Sweatshop" Here is my website which is WAY behind the actual collection, but undergoing updates as we speak.

I get your point about the "Glossy" but a Japanned finish that is restored can be just as deep if not deeper that polymer in appearance. If you could "Japan" your automobile you would have a finish that would NOT sun fade like modern paints. The main issue with Japanning is that it is brittle, whereas the modern paints are more flexible. I have restored 60's and early 70's Mopars and when I did, I shot my own paint, so I do have a small amount of experience on that side as well.

Oh, and I would LOVE to have someone show me (not tell me) an "appropriate solvent" to clean old japanning off, it is SO not as easy to strip as paint.... I am restoring a couple pair of old tailor shears and the japanning is a biatch to remove.

Macybaby

hehe -I don't like the "new" finishes on most new stuff LOL!! So I for sure wouldn't care for it on the old stuff.

My biggest pet peave is to see someone brag about "restoring" on old cabinet - and they slopped a coat of Polyurathine on it. Most retail places sell a product that is made to put on fast and easy - and to look "good enough" for those that only want to put in a half - effort to do the job right. While there are some great modern products, they often aren't availbe at the big box stores. And companies where time=money don't use them either.

To me, there is nothing prettier than 7 -8 coats of hand rubbed finish. You get a deep luster that does not look like a layer of plastic applied over the top.

A lot of newer products aren't "better" they are just different. And most of that "difference" is so they can market it as "new and better".

jlhmnj

I'll second this sentiment. I can't think of a sewing machine ever being owned in my family but my grandfather had a fine AH Fox side by side shotgun 1920's vintage. The blueing off the barrel was wore off, stock had checks, and ejectors didn't work, the product of many years out hunting with the dogs for mostly quail. My father thought it would be a fine thing to have the gun restored to like new condition and this was done but it was hardly the same gun in my opinion. Something was missing and he never should have fooled with it. The gun and the quail are both gone now.

Jon

Rodney

I like old japanning. I like old hand tools along with sewing machines and my old Stanley planes were japanned. It's a tough finish. I think why manufacturers moved away from it was more in an effort to reduce costs (plus styles change) than it was because more modern paints were superior. If a machine's finish is toast AND it's not historically significant or rare, then by all means go ahead and paint it. Most of Steve's machines are rare and becoming more significant with every passing day so it makes sense to preserve as much of the original material as possible.
People do repaints of featherweights every day. They're one of the few machines the repainters can sell at a profit when they're done. I think though that eventually people will appreciate a machine with a good original finish more than the repainted ones.
Me, I prefer an original finish or one that has been minimally repaired/restored using traditional materials and methods. I don't collect rare or valuable machines and it's still pretty easy to find machines in good original condition. I also don't mind honest wear on a machine. It's ok for a 100 yr old machine to show it's age a bit. It's natural the finish on the bed will take a beating from all the fabric being dragged across it and from needles poking and scratching it. I'm not as fond of pinrash on the arm of the machine even though it's the result of use too. It must be a useful place for pins for so many machines to have it, it's just too bad there wasn't some sort of protection for the machine.
Rodney

Macybaby

drooling here - OK, I know different subject - but an AH Fox SxS . . . .

SteveH

I think we mostly agree..

so would you prefer this (stripped, brushed, clear-coated)
[ATTACH=CONFIG]487534[/ATTACH]

over this? (missing majority of peripheral decals and big gouge in center decal)
[ATTACH=CONFIG]487535[/ATTACH]

I am just curious. I will admit I was tempted by the polished iron version myself....

vdot

I definitely go along with restoring vs re-making with wood. The wood IS both what you see and what you don't. It's integral with the finish. For me the machine is different. It's beauty is derived from the metal, the ingenuity of it's workings and it's metalwork. The coating on it is, for me, a separate piece of artwork...totally different from the art of the metalwork. In fact, I enjoy the metalwork much more than the artwork of it's coating, even new, let alone when it is washed out. Personally, I might even like a bare-metal with clearcoat finish old machine better than with a basic black finish with no real crafted artwork on it, and definitely better than washed-out artwork. The beauty of the metal machine would be so pronounced and visible with a good clearcoat. I know, I know ... a bunch of people disagree with me.

Well, it's not like I don't like the artwork, which is why I would replace the original worn-out work with meticulously hand-painted reproduction of the original, if it was nice.

I just see the machine something like I do land. The beauty of the land is inherent and permanent (more of less), just like that of the dated metal machine. If one puts a nice house on it, it can enhance the beauty of the land, but will never out-do a truly beautiful piece of land.

WHEN the house gets decrepit, it detracts from the beauty of the land. If its design was of inherent beauty and features, and it was built using fine, quality materials which could be restored to near original beauty, then great...restore it. If it wasn't anything special, or it did not make use of quality materials or it cannot be restored except as to produce a mere semblance of it's original beauty, then if you have the money, tear the old thing down, and build a new magnificent work of art upon the beautiful landscape for this generation and those in the future to enjoy as much as the last house was enjoyed by it's builders and their progeny. If you really liked the original design better than one you can come up with now, then duplicate the old one...down to the last scintilla.

Again, like in my original post, I make the point of saying..."at least that's how I see it."

vdot

Definitely...I love it! Where can I get one?

On the other hand, if you could refinish it entirely, and add fine, intricate, hand-painted artwork I would probably love that even better, with or without the artwork being original...so long as it "went" with the piece. A neon-velvet art piece, no matter how beautiful, would not make it look too good.