So I did a test of Osmo Hardwax Oil vs Fiddes

I stupidly used Osmo for a bench in a bathroom not realising that 'standing water' would be a problem. And in a household of women, there seems to be a lot of water that gets thrown around the bathroom.

It was suggested that Fiddes hardwax oil is better with water than Osmo, which I have used for maybe 8 years.

So I bought some and did a comparison.

Same timber - blackwood - though it looks different. Seems to be a huge variation in colour with that wood and it wasn't very apparent till I dressed it. I bought it at Anagote down the road from where I live.

I sanded each piece to 240 and then applied three coats of each product with appropriate drying times between each. I have always used those white Sabco pads from Bunnings to apply hardwax oil to great effect.

The Fiddes was a bit easier to apply, but it was a fresh can and the Osmo I had was the bottom of a can I have had for maybe two years, so it was thicker.

I put a puddle of water on each and waited.

After about 6 hours, the water on the Fiddes piece had been completely absorbed by the timber. The water on the Osmo treated timber was still a small puddle. After 24 hours I wiped it off. But the water had obviously penetrated the oil and buggered the timber.

I did a second identical test and got the same result.

Now, this is not a terribly scientific comparison, but I was as fair as I could be. Osmo certainly seems to perform a lot better with water, though using hardwax oil in a bathroom is dumb.

Attachment 529509Attachment 529510Attachment 529511Attachment 529512

thanks for the comparison - scientific or not, it's pretty good.

i've made a fair number of varnishes lately. if it's raining, you can put something coated with them and put them outside. If they are waterproof, they will either dry off or you can bring them in and let them dry and they'll show no effect of water.

If they're not, they won't. it's a pretty good test.

I've got no clue how much humidity and non-standing water in a bathroom would matter if someone had excellent discretion and never got water on a hardwax oil. Maybe it wouldn't matter (whatever breathes in, lets moisture back out).

it's hard to look at the SDS of a lot of these products and get an idea of how water resistant they'll be because of how tight lipped they are about what's actually in them. Wax will probably be detrimental, but if any were biased toward polymerized tung oil, they would have better water resistance.

the whole market of finish stuff is hard to decipher, from things that aren't varnish being labeled varnish, to things that literally are being labeled something else because whatever the market segment is, calling them varnish would be unstylish or seemingly outdated.

In the US, finishes rated for kitchen and bathroom use usually have a seal saying so. It's a fairly high bar - some one part WB finishes that are reasonably durable don't meet it, but they do with a crosslinker.

Thanks DW.
The vertical surfaces in that bathroom will remain wax finished - too hard to do them again. It will be interesting to see how affected they are by steam. If I have to reapply every couple of years it's not a big deal - those hardwax oils are easy to reapply.
Pretty dopey of me to assume that a hardwax oil would be suitable for a bathroom bench. My internal logic was that it seemed fine on floors I have done, so it would be okay on a bench.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scottbr

Thanks DW.
The vertical surfaces in that bathroom will remain wax finished - too hard to do them again. It will be interesting to see how affected they are by steam. If I have to reapply every couple of years it's not a big deal - those hardwax oils are easy to reapply.
Pretty dopey of me to assume that a hardwax oil would be suitable for a bathroom bench. My internal logic was that it seemed fine on floors I have done, so it would be okay on a bench.

---

My apologies if it seems like I'd suggested worrying about the verticals. One of the things i like about being a woodworker is "the repairman lives in the house", so if there is something that could cause a problem later, we can wait to see if it does. I don't think a finish with diisocyanate crosslinker will have any problem on veritical surfaces, which is also why when I'm testing varnishes, I pour water on them and let them sit flat until the water dries off.

My thoughts were more a reflection of my own things at this point. Varnish is known as a water and solvent resistant finish, but some varnishes that you can make (especially pine/rosin varnishes like you'd hear of on vintage violins - even current make high end violins can have issues with the varnish, probably preventable, but doing it the old way is stylish at the high end)....anyway, some varnishes you can make that have nice light color don't do well against water if water is allowed to stand on them for long. the information is long known and in print from hundreds of years ago, and since those light (almost clear) house-made varnishes would be desirable, I tried them anyway, and ponder what makes them not that great because they could also be used on guitars where hand oils and moisture and sweat could touch them.

I think the maker of the hard wax oil printed that the finish was water resistant and it's not unreasonable that you felt it would be good enough.

The idea of a crosslinked shellac is novel to me because shellac is a wonderful do-all-kinds-of-things finish and really simple to use once you get used to what it likes, but without the crosslinking, it's not tolerant of water.

cooking varnishes and wondering about this stuff out loud is narrow interest - it allows understanding of other finishes, but I would never contend that it's something the average person should take up. There are a lot of synthetic finishes out there that are great and there's no practical reason that I do it - but I do find it frustrating that when you really do want to know what's in something, you often can't find out. It's no different in the states. I don't want to know to rip off the manufacturer, I want to know to see if I want the product they're making -especially now with some really unholy exchanges being made to meet VOC rules in the states.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by D.W.

....cooking varnishes and wondering about this stuff out loud is narrow interest - it allows understanding of other finishes, but I would never contend that it's something the average person should take up. There are a lot of synthetic finishes out there that are great and there's no practical reason that I do it - but I do find it frustrating that when you really do want to know what's in something, you often can't find out. It's no different in the states. I don't want to know to rip off the manufacturer, I want to know to see if I want the product they're making -especially now with some really unholy exchanges being made to meet VOC rules in the states.

---

I would describe myself as a very average person, so it's unlikely I will take up the cooking of varnishes anytime soon. Perhaps when I quit my day job and the family do more of their own food cooking.

Perhaps the secrecy around what goes into some products is partly because they are not all that complicated and it's hard to justify high price points for simple mixes?

One thing I do need to start doing is writing down what finishes I use and evaluating them. I have lots of cans and bottles of stuff and usually forget what I use on various projects. But or course, I am not a maker of fine furniture or anything like that.

Scott

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scottbr

Perhaps the secrecy around what goes into some products is partly because they are not all that complicated and it's hard to justify high price points for simple mixes?

---

You are right. Much of the value that you spend is spent on distribution and retail, more so than the cost of the products. I don't think there is much around that half of the cost is the actual product, which means you have to do what you can to hide your composition.

Same reason coca cola and pepsi don't put out an ingredient and process list for all of their drinks.

Have used fiddies in the past -currently using Lobo These have been the choices of my employers. they do apply differantly - Havent lived with them though? The Fiddies has more sheen -Though the Lobo is only refered to as matt-satin. The lobo does definetly penitrate deeper. Fiddies seems to have moe sheen though??????

Thanks for doing the comparison. Interesting results - speaking to a few people who went from osmo to fiddes they did it because their clients were getting water marks with the osmo. I have used fiddes on my kitchen benchtop and make no extra effort in wiping up water, it would also sit there for hours and I havent had a problem.

I applied with a roller though with a fairly heavy first coat. Second coat also applied with roller and much thinner. Not sure if that makes a difference.

In terms of sheen, is the lobo the waterbased PU finish? If thats the case water based finishes generally will show less chatoyancy as far as I know

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qwertyu

In terms of sheen, is the lobo the waterbased PU finish? If thats the case water based finishes generally will show less chatoyancy as far as I know

---

Even in a full gloss, they look a little strange in raking light (the best of them) if you're used to an aliphatic solvent type finish. AS in one that's just a little warm, but doesn't get dark like cheap polyurethane with aromatic solvents used to.

I've been entertaining myself with varnish because it has more depth than anything I've ever seen, but the application isn't quite as easy as an engineered finish like a polyurethane. However, even with a good light colored tree resin varnish, the chatoyance and dazzle lessens when the gloss film is made thicker, a move I'd make for protection on something that would see wear. A lot of the WB finishes build quickly and easily and could stifle chatoyance just because of the film thickness, along with the fact that they don't have any color to make areas of varying absorption look as different as a varnish or a slightly warmed lacquer/polyurethane would.

Well, there's a word I have never been exposed to: chatoyance. Had to look that one up.
I missed these responses.
Fiddes sent me one of those product review emails and I responded (not publicly) and said I was a bit disappointed with the water penetration i.e. worse than Osmo.
They got straight back to me and we had a chat. Turns out I applied it too thinly. As noted by Quertyu, the recommended method is by roller or brush vs pad and then burnishing as I did (and as I do with Osmo). So it was a user error.
I tried that and it was much better in regards to water penetration, but it looked and felt more like a coating, which I'm not keen on. I like using hardwax oil because it doesn't look like a coating on the timber and feels better.
I'm going to try the much cheaper Feast Watson version next as a comparison and will report back.
But I have learnt my lesson about using hardwax oil in a bathroom - what was I thinking?
Scott