Anyone used the new(er) acrylic teak finishes?

[Jim Ehrenfried]

After taking the plunge and stripping, sanding, etc. the teak on our Ty, I'm torn on what to do next. I've narrowed the decision to Sikkens or one of the newer acrylic finishes.

I spoke with C-tech in Florida who makes "Bristol Finish". They claim their product has the look of 12 coats of varnish, can be applied over any finish in good condition, be applied from 40-100 degrees, will never need stripping (only a quick abrasion and 2 top coats), is virtually ungougable, is loaded with UV protection, and will last "maintenance free" for 3-4 years in New England.

Call me jaded, but I find these claims in the "too good to be true" category, particularly when he said the product has only been on the market for 1.5 years. When I asked about the specific longevity tests they had done, he only mentioned a Practical Sailor article that had been very favorable.

If anyone's used this class of product, does it really look like varnish? What sort of longevity/maintenace experience do you have? Any special preparation tips? I've spent too many hours getting this far. The thought of having the look of varnish and the claimed low maintenance is exciting, but I also don't want to spend more time to take this stuff off if it looks cheesy.

Thanks,

Jim Ehrenfried
TY 272 "Slipknot"



jfreeds@msn.com

[Tony Betz]

Be careful with Armada. It is easy to work with and gives a high gloss, but is very toxic. Vapors do irrepairable ling damage. Instructions require application with natural bristle brush- I have use throw-aways. Put a used badger brush in Thin-X - turned immediately into a glutenous gob. Must be cleaned with MEK (methyl ethyl ketone)or xylene. Very, very bad stuff. Because of these issues, I feel this product has no place in our Good Old Boat lockers when there are other less caustic choices, so y'all be careful!



wildings@ncia.net

[george duffie]

If anyone's used this class of product, does it really look like varnish? What sort of longevity/maintenace experience do you have? Any special preparation tips? I've spent too many hours getting this far. The thought of having the look of varnish and the claimed low maintenance is exciting, but I also don't want to spend more time to take this stuff off if it looks cheesy.

I don't know anything about the product called "Bristol Finish" but for years now I have been using an acrylic product called "Perma-Teak" and love it. It is so simple to maintain, looks great, and last much longer than Cetol, etc. To renew, just scrub down with a bleach compound and 3-M pad, rinse, AND WHILE THE WOOD IS STILL WET--apply the new finish with a paint brush. (In fact, if it dries before you get to the area with the new finish, wet it down with a wet sponge so the wood is W-E-T when it receives the new application. You do NOT have to remove all traces of old finish. It looks like hell when you first apply it (looks like liquid mustard) but when it dries (I use the dark classic color) it looks like varnished teak. I find that an application lasts about a year here in the Carolinas.



georgemary2@cconnect.net

[george duffieg]

Oh, I forgot to add: Perma-Teak does not carry all the warning labels, etc. It is as easy to use as water, and in fact, cleans up with water and the weak bleach solution you use for cleaning the teak. It does not contain the highly dangerous /toxic compounds reported by the other post regarding Bristol Finish.



georgemary2@cconnect.net

[John R.]

After taking the plunge and stripping, sanding, etc. the teak on our Ty, I'm torn on what to do next. I've narrowed the decision to Sikkens or one of the newer acrylic finishes.

I spoke with C-tech in Florida who makes "Bristol Finish". They claim their product has the look of 12 coats of varnish, can be applied over any finish in good condition, be applied from 40-100 degrees, will never need stripping (only a quick abrasion and 2 top coats), is virtually ungougable, is loaded with UV protection, and will last "maintenance free" for 3-4 years in New England.

Call me jaded, but I find these claims in the "too good to be true" category, particularly when he said the product has only been on the market for 1.5 years. When I asked about the specific longevity tests they had done, he only mentioned a Practical Sailor article that had been very favorable.

If anyone's used this class of product, does it really look like varnish? What sort of longevity/maintenace experience do you have? Any special preparation tips? I've spent too many hours getting this far. The thought of having the look of varnish and the claimed low maintenance is exciting, but I also don't want to spend more time to take this stuff off if it looks cheesy.

Thanks,

Jim Ehrenfried
TY 272 "Slipknot"

I purchased two quarts of Bristol Finish last month after doing extensive homework on several finishes. I've used it on some smaller teak parts thus far and I can tell you it is the same color as Z-Spar Captain's 1015 varnish. In fact, it could be considered slightly lighter, but I don't have six coats on yet. Let's not confuse this stuff with other acrylic products.....this is a state of the art two component ACRYLIC URETHANE. It is the same basic thing as Honey Teak but much lighter in color.

The people at C-Tech have had some sort of working relationship with Signature Finishes (maker of Honey Teak) in the past and decided to venture out on their own. It is a lot less expensive than Honey Teak because you don't have to purchase a "kit". They only sell Bristol Finish in quarts or gallons instead of the expensive Honey Teak kits.

The application is very similar except Honey Teak makes it confusing by dividing the components into "honey" and then "clear". Bristol Finish is much simpler to apply, just six coats about an hour apart. The claims made by Bristol and Honey Teak can be believed, they are urethanes.

C-Tech (Bristol Finish) will send you a nice brochure with a couple of pictures of finished pieces and the photos are accurate in appearance from my experience, albeit I used it on teak and they show mahogany in the photos. It is a real nice finish and looks just like many coats of varnish and is clear, no ugly pigments. I find it is easiest to work with using close to the maximum allowable percentage of reducer that is included when you buy it. It is a beautiful finish. Just look at articles reviewing Honey Teak and this is the same thing but less expensive because of the way it is packaged and sold.

[john churchill]

honey teak was formerly made by C-Tech as well. i believe they sold the product to signature. honey teak has an modest amber tint to it. if needed honey teak comes off easily with a scraper and a heat gun.
john

[John R.]

honey teak was formerly made by C-Tech as well. i believe they sold the product to signature. honey teak has an modest amber tint to it. if needed honey teak comes off easily with a scraper and a heat gun.
john

From what I've been told by Tom Fabula the owner of Signature Finishes the Honey Teak product has always made by his Signature Finishes company. They also make single part urethane paints that are claimed not to chalk as opposed to other polys. His company was first in production of Honey Teak urethane and Bristol Finish urethane came later on and was produced by others (C-Tech)that were originally affiliated with Signature Finishes that ventured into their own product line. But who really cares, the bottom line is that they are both great finishes. Take your pick: dark or light tint?

[Bill Goldsmith]

My CD27 had poorly applied, sloppy peeling varnish when I bought her two years ago. I just finished getting all the old varnish off the rubrail, toerail, bowsprit and taffrail.

After reading Zeida's posts on this board and reading the several Practical Sailor articles on teak finishes I decided to refinish my tiller last year with Honey Teak as a test. It looked beautiful. I did not use a tiller cover last summer. I purposely left the tiller on the boat outside on the hard all winter. After one year of exposure, the tiller still looks gorgeous.

After the tiller test I decided to commit. I have just finished three coats of Honey on the rubrail, toerail, bowsprit and taffrail. Even the most crusty critics at the boatyard have commented with varnish-envy. And I still have to apply the clear.

I don't find the honey vs. clear issue with Honey Teak at all confusing. You refinish with the "honey," and then apply two or more clear coats. In the future all you ever have to do is scuff and apply clear coats. The clear coats are described as the 'sacrificial' coats to the elements to protect the underlying honey coats. IF you get a ding or a gouge, you can use the honey and then clear and fade it in.

I do agree that the Honey Teak system is overpriced. About $180 to do a Cd27. That gives other competitors such as Bristol Finish an advantage certainly. But with the published and personal tests-over-time, I am satisfied that I have gone the right way.

As to the color, Honey Teak is a rich dark brown honey gloss. I haven't seen Bristol Finish so I cannot compare. But others who have seen my work in progress advise it's the closest imitation of the classic varnish color they've seen. I think it's beautiful. I cannot wait to get to the coamings, dorade box, eyebrows and other misc. exterior teak.

As far as Sikkens Cetol is concerned I saw a Gozzard 37 at the Sail Expo in Atlantic City in January 2000 with Cetol gloss on all the brightwork. It was very attractive. Perhaps a little more opaque the Honey Teak but still showed the grain nicely.

Try to locate the Practical Sailor back issues comparing teak finishes. There's quite alot of information in there that will probably answer your questions better.

Bill Goldsmith

After taking the plunge and stripping, sanding, etc. the teak on our Ty, I'm torn on what to do next. I've narrowed the decision to Sikkens or one of the newer acrylic finishes.

I spoke with C-tech in Florida who makes "Bristol Finish". They claim their product has the look of 12 coats of varnish, can be applied over any finish in good condition, be applied from 40-100 degrees, will never need stripping (only a quick abrasion and 2 top coats), is virtually ungougable, is loaded with UV protection, and will last "maintenance free" for 3-4 years in New England.

Call me jaded, but I find these claims in the "too good to be true" category, particularly when he said the product has only been on the market for 1.5 years. When I asked about the specific longevity tests they had done, he only mentioned a Practical Sailor article that had been very favorable.

If anyone's used this class of product, does it really look like varnish? What sort of longevity/maintenace experience do you have? Any special preparation tips? I've spent too many hours getting this far. The thought of having the look of varnish and the claimed low maintenance is exciting, but I also don't want to spend more time to take this stuff off if it looks cheesy.

Thanks,

Jim Ehrenfried
TY 272 "Slipknot"

goldy@bestweb.net

[Larry DeMers]

Wow! I thought that Armada was this product that was similar to near-identical to Cetol products. I use Cetol, and am very happy with the finish and durability of that product. I can attest that cetol certainly has no ill effects.. we have 8-10 coats of base coat (2 coats) and gloss (8 coats) on all exterior teak, and have had this for 5 years now. I am asthmatic and would have noticed if the vapors were irritating or "very toxic". Also, for cleaning of my brushes, after having been used in cetol, we use turpentine or mineral spirits if that is all I have available. I do use natural bristle brushes or foam brushes for most of the exterior work.

Now Armada may certainly be a different product in this regard. I do not know more than what is commonly known about it.
Are you sure that you meant Armada, and not another product?

Cheers!

Larry DeMers
s/v DeLaMer
Cape Dory 30 ~~Sailing Superior~~

Be careful with Armada. It is easy to work with and gives a high gloss, but is very toxic. Vapors do irrepairable ling damage. Instructions require application with natural bristle brush- I have use throw-aways. Put a used badger brush in Thin-X - turned immediately into a glutenous gob. Must be cleaned with MEK (methyl ethyl ketone)or xylene. Very, very bad stuff. Because of these issues, I feel this product has no place in our Good Old Boat lockers when there are other less caustic choices, so y'all be careful!

demers@sgi.com

[John Nuttall]

....I can share the following info with you.

Firstly, let me qualify myself as a rank beginner in the world of brightwork. All my previous boats were go fast types w/ no teak. Maybe that's why I chose a CD. When I bought her, she had a lovely coating of Captain's on her. And I wanted to preserve that look, but did not want to varnish every season. After much research and hemming and hawing, I chose "Bristol Finish" and I have not regretted it one bit.

Let me try to answer your concerns, as they were once mine.

#1) BF is a two part urethane finish, an isocyanate, similar to Awlgrip. Its hard, tough, can last a long time and is an incredibly poisionous substance. You need to take the proper safety precautions. They are spelled out on the label, instructions and MSDS sheet that comes with the material. Brushing doesen't atomize the material as does spraying, never the less, these finishes have some serious VOCs and you shouldn't be careless about them.

#2) I chose it over Sikkens, because Cetol is a stain and hides much of the grain and beauty of the wood. I find the orange tint unappealing too. I know good it's a good product and that Cetol jobs can look "shipshape", but to me Cetol just does not look like varnish. I got excited when I learned they now have a Cetol Light, with less pigment, but as the engineers at Sikkens told me (yes I spoke w EVERYONE! )the UV protection in that product comes from the pigment. I suppose you could conclude that Cetol Light will degrade sooner than regular Cetol. That put me back to square one.

#3)Armada and Cetol fall into the same category - stains that conceal the grain. Armada is just a different color. To be precise (which I can't) there are chemical differences, but to me it's a mute point because they are IMHO both ugly!

#4)The too good to be true claim.... Actually as pointed out by John Churchill in an earlier post, C-Tech used to make Honey Teak. They have been around awhile. I don't know how the split up occured, but the folks a C-Tech told me that they wanted to make a formula that's easier to use, lighter in color and less costly than the Honey Teak was/is. So actually they have several years of experience, and their previous product Honey Teak is getting great reviews from Practical Sailor after over 30 months. This adds up to more than 1.5 years experience to me. And besides, 2 part Urethanes are nothing new. Look how long Awlgrip has been around. Considering the alternative(varnish or Cetol), I took the "leap of faith" and chose the urethanes.

5) Which urethane BF or HT ??? I spoke with both groups. Everyone was nice and informative and the choice came down to my perceptions of ease of application and color. With the HT, you have 2 mixes, base which contains the color then clear. No big deal for an initial application on bare wood, but when you consider the touch up ramifications it seemed like a hassle. BF is all one mix (3 components)and you can mix as little as you need - just maintain the ratios. The price is only 60% of the HT price too. About $50 bucks for a quart kit (makes 44oz). My 31 takes 2qts., but I don't think I'll use it all up. As for color, both are probably acceptable. Zieda loves the color of her HT, but she might like this color too. As I recall her boat was finished with HT before she got it, so as far as I know she didn't have to choose. Lucky her....

6)Application IS easy. Prep is the pain, but with any job -it's all in the prep. Just prep like you would for varnish. Strip, bleach out any deep stains and sand. Make sure you redo any caulking that needs done before you apply the BF. That way you can seal it too. (This months issue of Good Old Boat has a great article on sealants.) Mix the stuff according to the directions, don't forget to stir the can first. The stuff settles. You don't need to mask, but BF with max reducer gets very thin. You can wipe up fresh drops w/lacquer thinner ( another haz mat ). I used a white china bristle brush, the best I could find. It's worth the investment. If you take care of it, it will last longer than me and you.

7)Mixing ratios. For the first couple of coats, I recommend the max reducer. It's really a misnomer, because what it does is retard the reaction and it slows down the "kick off" of the mix. This gives the BF time to flow out and level. No brushmarks or puddles. It also gives the wood time to off gas so you won't get bubbles. It also helps to make sure the wood has fully warmed up for the day. Even in Dec when it was very cold, I was suprised to see bubbles from offgassing. After you have sealed the wood real good(2-4 coats) off gassing isn't an issue, and you can mix the stuff "hotter". I even tried it with zero reducer. Way too hot, kicked in about 15 min. I had to sand that mess off .... If you mix right, you really can get on a coat an hour, NO SANdING between coats. It works! BTW, I forgot to mention, that no sanding between coats was a major decision criteria. Not only because it's less hassle, but when you have a limited working window (a weekend) time between coats is critical.

Lastly, the GLOSS!!!!!!!!!!!! Get out the Ray Bans. It is glossy. Looks like one of those mahogany runabouts you see in Wooden Boat Mag. You know the type. The varnish looks so deep, you'd think you could stick your arm down in it!!!

I hope this helps with your decision. I have a way to go to complete my brightwork, but once I do I'll post a foto. Good luck.....

John Nuttall
s/v "Aimless"
CD31 #28
Oriental, NC




nuttallj@msn.com