Five Year Clear

[Norm Harris]

I've been following the thread on CPES and went to the Smith & Company web site http://www.smithandcompany.org where I found a product called "Five Year Clear".

I am about to begin my first major strip and varnish project, and while searching the literature, reading the postings on the Forum, and reading books by the experts (talk about confusion)I have concluded that real varnish is the best coating to use. Then along comes another new product and I am once again confused.

Has anyone had any experience with Five Year Clear? What is the opinion of the experts about two part clear finishes in general?

[Norm Harris]

I've been following the thread on CPES and went to the Smith & Company web site http://www.smithandcompany.org where I found a product called "Five Year Clear".

I am about to begin my first major strip and varnish project, and while searching the literature, reading the postings on the Forum, and reading books by the experts (talk about confusion)I have concluded that real varnish is the best coating to use. Then along comes another new product and I am once again confused.

Has anyone had any experience with Five Year Clear? What is the opinion of the experts about two part clear finishes in general?

[Norm Harris]

I've been following the thread on CPES and went to the Smith & Company web site http://www.smithandcompany.org where I found a product called "Five Year Clear".

I am about to begin my first major strip and varnish project, and while searching the literature, reading the postings on the Forum, and reading books by the experts (talk about confusion)I have concluded that real varnish is the best coating to use. Then along comes another new product and I am once again confused.

Has anyone had any experience with Five Year Clear? What is the opinion of the experts about two part clear finishes in general?

[Ian McColgin]

I put some on the sole of a friend's cabin last year. It looked really nice and held up last year finastkind, but the boat's been sold so I have no idea of the long term durability. Practical Sailor gives it high marks and their testing is excellent.

I'm planning to use it on Grana this spring inside. I'd not use it on decks exposed to sunlight. It's too expensive to use as a substitute for varnish in places that are not high wear. It's slippery, so I think it's only suitable if the sole is nice and narrow and the holly edges are sharp.

[Ian McColgin]

I put some on the sole of a friend's cabin last year. It looked really nice and held up last year finastkind, but the boat's been sold so I have no idea of the long term durability. Practical Sailor gives it high marks and their testing is excellent.

I'm planning to use it on Grana this spring inside. I'd not use it on decks exposed to sunlight. It's too expensive to use as a substitute for varnish in places that are not high wear. It's slippery, so I think it's only suitable if the sole is nice and narrow and the holly edges are sharp.

[Ian McColgin]

I put some on the sole of a friend's cabin last year. It looked really nice and held up last year finastkind, but the boat's been sold so I have no idea of the long term durability. Practical Sailor gives it high marks and their testing is excellent.

I'm planning to use it on Grana this spring inside. I'd not use it on decks exposed to sunlight. It's too expensive to use as a substitute for varnish in places that are not high wear. It's slippery, so I think it's only suitable if the sole is nice and narrow and the holly edges are sharp.

[Nora Lee]

Doing our brightwork also, has anyone had any experience with Bristol Finish by C Tech? I have heard good results with that. We have to do all brightwork as the old varnish is dead, hoping that there is some new technology out there. http://media5.hypernet.com/~dick/ubb/confused.gif

[Nora Lee]

Doing our brightwork also, has anyone had any experience with Bristol Finish by C Tech? I have heard good results with that. We have to do all brightwork as the old varnish is dead, hoping that there is some new technology out there. http://media5.hypernet.com/~dick/ubb/confused.gif

[Nora Lee]

Doing our brightwork also, has anyone had any experience with Bristol Finish by C Tech? I have heard good results with that. We have to do all brightwork as the old varnish is dead, hoping that there is some new technology out there. http://media5.hypernet.com/~dick/ubb/confused.gif

[Mike Keers]

Working from a sometimes-faulty memory, last time Practical Sailor (Consumer Reports for sailors) tested hard varnish-type finishes (as opposed to oil stuff like Cetol)they said the Smith & Co. was the absolute best and toughest of that type, but they thought it was too expensive, too fussy and too many components...five or six if I remember correctly, as you have to apply the two-part CPES as a primer, then the catalyzed clear over it. I forget the details, so I should dig out the issue, as I'm contemplating a "varnished" transom on the boat I'm building now myself.

They just recently reported on a six month exposure test of regular varnishes, and threw in the Interthane+, a two part coating, and it was failing after six months exposure, but the caveat is they only applied two coats of all finishes. They did say it was tougher than regular varnish, most of which had failed after six months.

Before anyone howls about only two coats, they were purposely testing for early failure in thin coats, and said these results were not indicative of performance of five-to-seven coats. They have an ongoing test with additional coats. This was a preliminary report of thinner coats.

I'll see if I can find the issue with the Smith stuff pitted against other hard clear finishes and get back to you.
mk

[Mike Keers]

Working from a sometimes-faulty memory, last time Practical Sailor (Consumer Reports for sailors) tested hard varnish-type finishes (as opposed to oil stuff like Cetol)they said the Smith & Co. was the absolute best and toughest of that type, but they thought it was too expensive, too fussy and too many components...five or six if I remember correctly, as you have to apply the two-part CPES as a primer, then the catalyzed clear over it. I forget the details, so I should dig out the issue, as I'm contemplating a "varnished" transom on the boat I'm building now myself.

They just recently reported on a six month exposure test of regular varnishes, and threw in the Interthane+, a two part coating, and it was failing after six months exposure, but the caveat is they only applied two coats of all finishes. They did say it was tougher than regular varnish, most of which had failed after six months.

Before anyone howls about only two coats, they were purposely testing for early failure in thin coats, and said these results were not indicative of performance of five-to-seven coats. They have an ongoing test with additional coats. This was a preliminary report of thinner coats.

I'll see if I can find the issue with the Smith stuff pitted against other hard clear finishes and get back to you.
mk

[Mike Keers]

Working from a sometimes-faulty memory, last time Practical Sailor (Consumer Reports for sailors) tested hard varnish-type finishes (as opposed to oil stuff like Cetol)they said the Smith & Co. was the absolute best and toughest of that type, but they thought it was too expensive, too fussy and too many components...five or six if I remember correctly, as you have to apply the two-part CPES as a primer, then the catalyzed clear over it. I forget the details, so I should dig out the issue, as I'm contemplating a "varnished" transom on the boat I'm building now myself.

They just recently reported on a six month exposure test of regular varnishes, and threw in the Interthane+, a two part coating, and it was failing after six months exposure, but the caveat is they only applied two coats of all finishes. They did say it was tougher than regular varnish, most of which had failed after six months.

Before anyone howls about only two coats, they were purposely testing for early failure in thin coats, and said these results were not indicative of performance of five-to-seven coats. They have an ongoing test with additional coats. This was a preliminary report of thinner coats.

I'll see if I can find the issue with the Smith stuff pitted against other hard clear finishes and get back to you.
mk

[gashmore]

I just went and looked at the specifications page. It would be close to impossible to maintain the environment it requires for the whole job in a boat yard.

[gashmore]

I just went and looked at the specifications page. It would be close to impossible to maintain the environment it requires for the whole job in a boat yard.

[gashmore]

I just went and looked at the specifications page. It would be close to impossible to maintain the environment it requires for the whole job in a boat yard.

[Mike Keers]

I searched out the back issues of PS, and in their ongoing tests, started back in 1996, the CPES Five Year has been the consistent winner for gloss retention and surface integrity. In 1999, after 3-1/2 years of continuous outdoor exposure, only the Smith & Co and Honey Teak have held up. The Smith's darkened somewhat, and both showed some dulling, but their exact quote is "an amazing exhibition of longevity".

The downside, as Gashmore has alluded to, is the application, and also cost. PS initially noted that the entire system came in eight cans, but application, altho easy, is an involved process of mixing and applying multiple coats of the various products at fixed intervals. PS says four days, but that the result is reminiscent of "40 coats of hand rubbed varnish you used to see on classic yachts.

Aside from cost...PS quoted $225/100sf back in 1999...another possible downside is recoating...apparently the entire coating may have to be removed down to bare wood for recoating after a number of years, since under all is epoxy (CPES), and any clear coat is sacrificial to UV damage, as The Chemist and others have discussed in other threads.

Still sounds like one tough finish to me, and I'm remaining open-minded about using it, especially since I live in the high Arizona desert and sail in Mexico, and the desert/tropical sun has destroyed ten carefully and painstakingly applied coats of spar varnish in six months out here.
mk

[Mike Keers]

I searched out the back issues of PS, and in their ongoing tests, started back in 1996, the CPES Five Year has been the consistent winner for gloss retention and surface integrity. In 1999, after 3-1/2 years of continuous outdoor exposure, only the Smith & Co and Honey Teak have held up. The Smith's darkened somewhat, and both showed some dulling, but their exact quote is "an amazing exhibition of longevity".

The downside, as Gashmore has alluded to, is the application, and also cost. PS initially noted that the entire system came in eight cans, but application, altho easy, is an involved process of mixing and applying multiple coats of the various products at fixed intervals. PS says four days, but that the result is reminiscent of "40 coats of hand rubbed varnish you used to see on classic yachts.

Aside from cost...PS quoted $225/100sf back in 1999...another possible downside is recoating...apparently the entire coating may have to be removed down to bare wood for recoating after a number of years, since under all is epoxy (CPES), and any clear coat is sacrificial to UV damage, as The Chemist and others have discussed in other threads.

Still sounds like one tough finish to me, and I'm remaining open-minded about using it, especially since I live in the high Arizona desert and sail in Mexico, and the desert/tropical sun has destroyed ten carefully and painstakingly applied coats of spar varnish in six months out here.
mk

[Mike Keers]

I searched out the back issues of PS, and in their ongoing tests, started back in 1996, the CPES Five Year has been the consistent winner for gloss retention and surface integrity. In 1999, after 3-1/2 years of continuous outdoor exposure, only the Smith & Co and Honey Teak have held up. The Smith's darkened somewhat, and both showed some dulling, but their exact quote is "an amazing exhibition of longevity".

The downside, as Gashmore has alluded to, is the application, and also cost. PS initially noted that the entire system came in eight cans, but application, altho easy, is an involved process of mixing and applying multiple coats of the various products at fixed intervals. PS says four days, but that the result is reminiscent of "40 coats of hand rubbed varnish you used to see on classic yachts.

Aside from cost...PS quoted $225/100sf back in 1999...another possible downside is recoating...apparently the entire coating may have to be removed down to bare wood for recoating after a number of years, since under all is epoxy (CPES), and any clear coat is sacrificial to UV damage, as The Chemist and others have discussed in other threads.

Still sounds like one tough finish to me, and I'm remaining open-minded about using it, especially since I live in the high Arizona desert and sail in Mexico, and the desert/tropical sun has destroyed ten carefully and painstakingly applied coats of spar varnish in six months out here.
mk

[thechemist]

That web site has a prety good discussion of why varnish fails, and the significance of a stabilizer package in clear finishes. Your varnish may well have lost much of its gloss in six months.....that is pretty much normal for varnishes. I completely evaporated a varnish film in a few weeks under UV lamps in the lab. If your varnish failed on the wood [which would be evidenced first by a bleaching of the wood under the varnish film, and then by cracking and loss of adhesion to the wood], that would more likely have been due to insufficient UV absorber in the varnish, the role of which is to shield the substrate from UV degradation.

[thechemist]

That web site has a prety good discussion of why varnish fails, and the significance of a stabilizer package in clear finishes. Your varnish may well have lost much of its gloss in six months.....that is pretty much normal for varnishes. I completely evaporated a varnish film in a few weeks under UV lamps in the lab. If your varnish failed on the wood [which would be evidenced first by a bleaching of the wood under the varnish film, and then by cracking and loss of adhesion to the wood], that would more likely have been due to insufficient UV absorber in the varnish, the role of which is to shield the substrate from UV degradation.

[thechemist]

That web site has a prety good discussion of why varnish fails, and the significance of a stabilizer package in clear finishes. Your varnish may well have lost much of its gloss in six months.....that is pretty much normal for varnishes. I completely evaporated a varnish film in a few weeks under UV lamps in the lab. If your varnish failed on the wood [which would be evidenced first by a bleaching of the wood under the varnish film, and then by cracking and loss of adhesion to the wood], that would more likely have been due to insufficient UV absorber in the varnish, the role of which is to shield the substrate from UV degradation.

[TimScearce]

I have used Smith & Co. 5-Year Clear on the cabin of my Robb 35 Yawl. I am pleased so far.

I intially paid a guy to sand, prep, CPES and apply the 5-Year product as I was too busy at work to do it myself. I think he didn't read the instructions. It started to fail after 3 months. I then removed to old stuff (it comes off pretty easily with a heat gun and a scraper), resanded, totally soaked the wood with CPES (the trick, I think) and reapplied 7 coats of the 5-Year stuff. That was last spring. I took the boat up to the Canadian Gulf Islands and back into some gnarly gales and didn't put the cover on until October. The forward caprail has been exposed all of this relatively mild winter. Everything looks great. Here is a link to a Photopoint pic made with a cheap digital camera:

http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?u=951217&a=6956417&p=47229256&Sequence=0&res=high

I have also used regular varnish on top of CPES and have been similarly impressed with it's durability.

So, IMHO, it's worth a look.

[TimScearce]

I have used Smith & Co. 5-Year Clear on the cabin of my Robb 35 Yawl. I am pleased so far.

I intially paid a guy to sand, prep, CPES and apply the 5-Year product as I was too busy at work to do it myself. I think he didn't read the instructions. It started to fail after 3 months. I then removed to old stuff (it comes off pretty easily with a heat gun and a scraper), resanded, totally soaked the wood with CPES (the trick, I think) and reapplied 7 coats of the 5-Year stuff. That was last spring. I took the boat up to the Canadian Gulf Islands and back into some gnarly gales and didn't put the cover on until October. The forward caprail has been exposed all of this relatively mild winter. Everything looks great. Here is a link to a Photopoint pic made with a cheap digital camera:

http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?u=951217&a=6956417&p=47229256&Sequence=0&res=high

I have also used regular varnish on top of CPES and have been similarly impressed with it's durability.

So, IMHO, it's worth a look.

[TimScearce]

I have used Smith & Co. 5-Year Clear on the cabin of my Robb 35 Yawl. I am pleased so far.

I intially paid a guy to sand, prep, CPES and apply the 5-Year product as I was too busy at work to do it myself. I think he didn't read the instructions. It started to fail after 3 months. I then removed to old stuff (it comes off pretty easily with a heat gun and a scraper), resanded, totally soaked the wood with CPES (the trick, I think) and reapplied 7 coats of the 5-Year stuff. That was last spring. I took the boat up to the Canadian Gulf Islands and back into some gnarly gales and didn't put the cover on until October. The forward caprail has been exposed all of this relatively mild winter. Everything looks great. Here is a link to a Photopoint pic made with a cheap digital camera:

http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?u=951217&a=6956417&p=47229256&Sequence=0&res=high

I have also used regular varnish on top of CPES and have been similarly impressed with it's durability.

So, IMHO, it's worth a look.

[Concordia41]

Based on the Practical Sailor reports I bought the Honey Teak kit a while back. ($150 for the basic components) The Five Year Clear I ruled out because of its inability to touch up or repair and the fact that it susposedly darkened the wood. (Now that I'm using CPES alot, I wonder if that isn't what darkens the wood. Isn't that the undercoating for the FYC?)

The other selection factor was that Honey Teak was a Florida company and I just figured their product would stand the best chance against the Florida sun - which is my brightwork's sworn enemy.

When I got ready to use the Honey Teak. I called the distributor with some application questions because I had sections of teak, locust AND mahogany sanded and preped. He either could not or would not discuss the differences in the various woods, oil content, density, etc. He basically just said his stuff would work on anything, don't sweat the details, etc. As Smith's and their Five Year Clear is his main competitor, he had nothing good to say about CPES. Based on the conversation, I put the Honey Teak back on the shelf.

Well, along comes one of my favorite clients with a brand new Hunter 50, and he wants Cetol on the wood trim in his cockpit. Figuring if what he wanted was Cetol, then his expectation range would be about right to pull off an experiment with the Honey Teak.

IT WAS AMAZING!!!! Yes, the six different cans and two pages of directions were a bit intimidating, but that's the beauty of this. It's a two-part sytem and can concieveably be done from start to finish in a couple of days. I built four coats of the base - let it kick overnight - and over the space of the next few days (due to my time constraints and the weather, not the product) put on six coats of the gloss. A small project really could get all ten coats in a day. No sanding between coats if you keep your time line right. Like I said, it was amazing. Also, I had to call the distributor with a couple of questions - literally midbrush stroke - and he got right back to me and answered those questions very well.

Drawbacks: It's got a little of the same orangishness that makes me dislike Cetol.

It seems on the brittle side. I dinged a couple of spots just reinstalling the cockpit seats.

Time will tell how it holds up. Unless I'm mistaken, the Practical Sailor folks just applied the products and left them out to weather. If it has a problem with being brittle - and by saying that I mean that it's too hard and without enough stretch to absorb a ding, this guy's cockpit - with gear and what not being drug in and out - will be a much better test.

Time will tell.

But now here's the next thing going on in the crazy world that's my head - what about trying one of the clear coat systems over a good varnish like Epifanes or Schooner instead of their base???? Me thinks I need to prepare some test boards...that'd be in my spare time...right after I get our deck and bottom refastened...

If I can figure out this Photopoint thing, I'll try to post a picture of the Honey Teak project.

[Concordia41]

Based on the Practical Sailor reports I bought the Honey Teak kit a while back. ($150 for the basic components) The Five Year Clear I ruled out because of its inability to touch up or repair and the fact that it susposedly darkened the wood. (Now that I'm using CPES alot, I wonder if that isn't what darkens the wood. Isn't that the undercoating for the FYC?)

The other selection factor was that Honey Teak was a Florida company and I just figured their product would stand the best chance against the Florida sun - which is my brightwork's sworn enemy.

When I got ready to use the Honey Teak. I called the distributor with some application questions because I had sections of teak, locust AND mahogany sanded and preped. He either could not or would not discuss the differences in the various woods, oil content, density, etc. He basically just said his stuff would work on anything, don't sweat the details, etc. As Smith's and their Five Year Clear is his main competitor, he had nothing good to say about CPES. Based on the conversation, I put the Honey Teak back on the shelf.

Well, along comes one of my favorite clients with a brand new Hunter 50, and he wants Cetol on the wood trim in his cockpit. Figuring if what he wanted was Cetol, then his expectation range would be about right to pull off an experiment with the Honey Teak.

IT WAS AMAZING!!!! Yes, the six different cans and two pages of directions were a bit intimidating, but that's the beauty of this. It's a two-part sytem and can concieveably be done from start to finish in a couple of days. I built four coats of the base - let it kick overnight - and over the space of the next few days (due to my time constraints and the weather, not the product) put on six coats of the gloss. A small project really could get all ten coats in a day. No sanding between coats if you keep your time line right. Like I said, it was amazing. Also, I had to call the distributor with a couple of questions - literally midbrush stroke - and he got right back to me and answered those questions very well.

Drawbacks: It's got a little of the same orangishness that makes me dislike Cetol.

It seems on the brittle side. I dinged a couple of spots just reinstalling the cockpit seats.

Time will tell how it holds up. Unless I'm mistaken, the Practical Sailor folks just applied the products and left them out to weather. If it has a problem with being brittle - and by saying that I mean that it's too hard and without enough stretch to absorb a ding, this guy's cockpit - with gear and what not being drug in and out - will be a much better test.

Time will tell.

But now here's the next thing going on in the crazy world that's my head - what about trying one of the clear coat systems over a good varnish like Epifanes or Schooner instead of their base???? Me thinks I need to prepare some test boards...that'd be in my spare time...right after I get our deck and bottom refastened...

If I can figure out this Photopoint thing, I'll try to post a picture of the Honey Teak project.

[Concordia41]

Based on the Practical Sailor reports I bought the Honey Teak kit a while back. ($150 for the basic components) The Five Year Clear I ruled out because of its inability to touch up or repair and the fact that it susposedly darkened the wood. (Now that I'm using CPES alot, I wonder if that isn't what darkens the wood. Isn't that the undercoating for the FYC?)

The other selection factor was that Honey Teak was a Florida company and I just figured their product would stand the best chance against the Florida sun - which is my brightwork's sworn enemy.

When I got ready to use the Honey Teak. I called the distributor with some application questions because I had sections of teak, locust AND mahogany sanded and preped. He either could not or would not discuss the differences in the various woods, oil content, density, etc. He basically just said his stuff would work on anything, don't sweat the details, etc. As Smith's and their Five Year Clear is his main competitor, he had nothing good to say about CPES. Based on the conversation, I put the Honey Teak back on the shelf.

Well, along comes one of my favorite clients with a brand new Hunter 50, and he wants Cetol on the wood trim in his cockpit. Figuring if what he wanted was Cetol, then his expectation range would be about right to pull off an experiment with the Honey Teak.

IT WAS AMAZING!!!! Yes, the six different cans and two pages of directions were a bit intimidating, but that's the beauty of this. It's a two-part sytem and can concieveably be done from start to finish in a couple of days. I built four coats of the base - let it kick overnight - and over the space of the next few days (due to my time constraints and the weather, not the product) put on six coats of the gloss. A small project really could get all ten coats in a day. No sanding between coats if you keep your time line right. Like I said, it was amazing. Also, I had to call the distributor with a couple of questions - literally midbrush stroke - and he got right back to me and answered those questions very well.

Drawbacks: It's got a little of the same orangishness that makes me dislike Cetol.

It seems on the brittle side. I dinged a couple of spots just reinstalling the cockpit seats.

Time will tell how it holds up. Unless I'm mistaken, the Practical Sailor folks just applied the products and left them out to weather. If it has a problem with being brittle - and by saying that I mean that it's too hard and without enough stretch to absorb a ding, this guy's cockpit - with gear and what not being drug in and out - will be a much better test.

Time will tell.

But now here's the next thing going on in the crazy world that's my head - what about trying one of the clear coat systems over a good varnish like Epifanes or Schooner instead of their base???? Me thinks I need to prepare some test boards...that'd be in my spare time...right after I get our deck and bottom refastened...

If I can figure out this Photopoint thing, I'll try to post a picture of the Honey Teak project.

[Concordia41]

http://albums.photopoint.co]http://albums.photopoint.co

[This message has been edited by Concordia41 (edited 05-02-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Concordia41 (edited 05-02-2001).]

@*&$^#(*&$#( I give up!!!

[This message has been edited by Concordia41 (edited 05-02-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Concordia41 (edited 05-03-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Concordia41 (edited 05-03-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Concordia41 (edited 05-03-2001).]

[Concordia41]

http://albums.photopoint.co]http://albums.photopoint.co

[This message has been edited by Concordia41 (edited 05-02-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Concordia41 (edited 05-02-2001).]

@*&$^#(*&$#( I give up!!!

[This message has been edited by Concordia41 (edited 05-02-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Concordia41 (edited 05-03-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Concordia41 (edited 05-03-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Concordia41 (edited 05-03-2001).]

[Concordia41]

http://albums.photopoint.co]http://albums.photopoint.co

[This message has been edited by Concordia41 (edited 05-02-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Concordia41 (edited 05-02-2001).]

@*&$^#(*&$#( I give up!!!

[This message has been edited by Concordia41 (edited 05-02-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Concordia41 (edited 05-03-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Concordia41 (edited 05-03-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Concordia41 (edited 05-03-2001).]

[Jamie Barnhard]

Well, gang I have been using Armada, A techie moisture cure coating that has won my favor hands down. I like the fact that it can be applied from 40 to 90 degrees and that you can put another coat on in 3 to 5 hours. and it has great UV protection and a stunning gloss. One draw back it is slippery as hell when it's wet so watch your footing.

[Jamie Barnhard]

Well, gang I have been using Armada, A techie moisture cure coating that has won my favor hands down. I like the fact that it can be applied from 40 to 90 degrees and that you can put another coat on in 3 to 5 hours. and it has great UV protection and a stunning gloss. One draw back it is slippery as hell when it's wet so watch your footing.

[Jamie Barnhard]

Well, gang I have been using Armada, A techie moisture cure coating that has won my favor hands down. I like the fact that it can be applied from 40 to 90 degrees and that you can put another coat on in 3 to 5 hours. and it has great UV protection and a stunning gloss. One draw back it is slippery as hell when it's wet so watch your footing.

[NormMessinger]

Concordia, don't start cussing with your eyes closed. http://media5.hypernet.com/~dick/ubb/smile.gif Look at your attempt to display a picture. Note that the ] is missing after [img , remove the URL= and on the end should be [/img] instead of [/URL}. Try it once more. There is a old saying, something like, fifth time's a charm.

--Norm

[This message has been edited by NormMessinger (edited 05-03-2001).]

[NormMessinger]

Concordia, don't start cussing with your eyes closed. http://media5.hypernet.com/~dick/ubb/smile.gif Look at your attempt to display a picture. Note that the ] is missing after [img , remove the URL= and on the end should be [/img] instead of [/URL}. Try it once more. There is a old saying, something like, fifth time's a charm.

--Norm

[This message has been edited by NormMessinger (edited 05-03-2001).]

[NormMessinger]

Concordia, don't start cussing with your eyes closed. http://media5.hypernet.com/~dick/ubb/smile.gif Look at your attempt to display a picture. Note that the ] is missing after [img , remove the URL= and on the end should be [/img] instead of [/URL}. Try it once more. There is a old saying, something like, fifth time's a charm.

--Norm

[This message has been edited by NormMessinger (edited 05-03-2001).]

[Concordia41]

Ta da!

http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?u=1668945&a=12794734&p=47816263

[Concordia41]

Ta da!

http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?u=1668945&a=12794734&p=47816263

[Concordia41]

Ta da!

http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?u=1668945&a=12794734&p=47816263

[Norm Harris]

Concordia,

I haven't seen the product out here, but it looks great on your boat.

Do you have any contact information or know who might carry the product in CA?

[Norm Harris]

Concordia,

I haven't seen the product out here, but it looks great on your boat.

Do you have any contact information or know who might carry the product in CA?

[Norm Harris]

Concordia,

I haven't seen the product out here, but it looks great on your boat.

Do you have any contact information or know who might carry the product in CA?

[Concordia41]

Norm -

Thanks, but alas, she's not my boat. She belongs to a client. She's an HC 50 - just won Cruising World's performance cruiser of the year award. They set you back about 500k.

http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?u=1668945&a=12794734&p=47845946

This job was not a candidate for the conventional varnish project. Not without loosing my mind. I wouldn't let myself calculate the linear feet of trim, but even after removing what was accessable, I used almost two rolls of tape - but then again, I'm a firm Rebecca Wittman disciple. I tape, sand, remove tape, and re-tape before applying the finish. The saving grace was Honey Teak's ability to build coat on top of coat without curing time and sanding between coats.

We'll see how it holds up. I also need to experement with the digital camera. These are regular pictures scanned and then uploaded. There's a lot being lost in the quality (probably by my scanner).

If you decide to use the Honey Teak, let me know. There's a couple of things I'd of done different.

[This message has been edited by Concordia41 (edited 05-08-2001).]

[Concordia41]

Norm -

Thanks, but alas, she's not my boat. She belongs to a client. She's an HC 50 - just won Cruising World's performance cruiser of the year award. They set you back about 500k.

http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?u=1668945&a=12794734&p=47845946

This job was not a candidate for the conventional varnish project. Not without loosing my mind. I wouldn't let myself calculate the linear feet of trim, but even after removing what was accessable, I used almost two rolls of tape - but then again, I'm a firm Rebecca Wittman disciple. I tape, sand, remove tape, and re-tape before applying the finish. The saving grace was Honey Teak's ability to build coat on top of coat without curing time and sanding between coats.

We'll see how it holds up. I also need to experement with the digital camera. These are regular pictures scanned and then uploaded. There's a lot being lost in the quality (probably by my scanner).

If you decide to use the Honey Teak, let me know. There's a couple of things I'd of done different.

[This message has been edited by Concordia41 (edited 05-08-2001).]

[Concordia41]

Norm -

Thanks, but alas, she's not my boat. She belongs to a client. She's an HC 50 - just won Cruising World's performance cruiser of the year award. They set you back about 500k.

http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?u=1668945&a=12794734&p=47845946

This job was not a candidate for the conventional varnish project. Not without loosing my mind. I wouldn't let myself calculate the linear feet of trim, but even after removing what was accessable, I used almost two rolls of tape - but then again, I'm a firm Rebecca Wittman disciple. I tape, sand, remove tape, and re-tape before applying the finish. The saving grace was Honey Teak's ability to build coat on top of coat without curing time and sanding between coats.

We'll see how it holds up. I also need to experement with the digital camera. These are regular pictures scanned and then uploaded. There's a lot being lost in the quality (probably by my scanner).

If you decide to use the Honey Teak, let me know. There's a couple of things I'd of done different.

[This message has been edited by Concordia41 (edited 05-08-2001).]

[Scott Rosen]

Concordia,

What exactly did the Honey Teak folks have to say about CPES? I've never heard anything bad about it. I use it myself, and although I'm still relatively new to it, I think it's a top-notch product. So far it's done everything Smith said it would.

It doesn't speak well for the Honey Teak folks that they have to trash-talk a competitor, especially one who makes a great product. When I talk to the folks at Smith, they are quick to praise other companies' products they think are worthy. For example, I called them to ask some application questions for using the CPES under Sterling two-part LPU. The Smith folks said they had heard great things about Sterling from their customers and they told me it was an excellent choice, compatable with CPES. It was only after they said that to me, that they told me that they also make a white two-part LPU. I figure anyone who can say good things about the competition must be confident in their own product.

[Scott Rosen]

Concordia,

What exactly did the Honey Teak folks have to say about CPES? I've never heard anything bad about it. I use it myself, and although I'm still relatively new to it, I think it's a top-notch product. So far it's done everything Smith said it would.

It doesn't speak well for the Honey Teak folks that they have to trash-talk a competitor, especially one who makes a great product. When I talk to the folks at Smith, they are quick to praise other companies' products they think are worthy. For example, I called them to ask some application questions for using the CPES under Sterling two-part LPU. The Smith folks said they had heard great things about Sterling from their customers and they told me it was an excellent choice, compatable with CPES. It was only after they said that to me, that they told me that they also make a white two-part LPU. I figure anyone who can say good things about the competition must be confident in their own product.

[Scott Rosen]

Concordia,

What exactly did the Honey Teak folks have to say about CPES? I've never heard anything bad about it. I use it myself, and although I'm still relatively new to it, I think it's a top-notch product. So far it's done everything Smith said it would.

It doesn't speak well for the Honey Teak folks that they have to trash-talk a competitor, especially one who makes a great product. When I talk to the folks at Smith, they are quick to praise other companies' products they think are worthy. For example, I called them to ask some application questions for using the CPES under Sterling two-part LPU. The Smith folks said they had heard great things about Sterling from their customers and they told me it was an excellent choice, compatable with CPES. It was only after they said that to me, that they told me that they also make a white two-part LPU. I figure anyone who can say good things about the competition must be confident in their own product.

[Concordia41]

Scott - Good question. Allow me to clarify. The Honey Teak gentleman didn't trash CPES/Smiths, he just didn't have anything good to say. The conversation was several months ago, so I don't want to quote anything verbatim.

Generally, I asked if he had any experience with his product being used over CPES. His response was along the lines of - they didn't make CPES, he hadn't used CPES and he couldn't tell me how it'd work - but of course his product was great and wonderful and why would I need to try anything else with it...

Again, it wasn't so much bashing anybody else, just the hard-core sales pitch for his product. As I mentioned previously, I was so disappointed in the conversation I put the Honey Teak cans back on the shelf.

NOW TO HIS DEFENSE and because I don't want to be the one to give the appearance of trashing a product or someone. When I did use the product and called with application questions, the same person was right on point with prompt, accurate answers and practical advice. Also, he answers his phone from something like 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. Eastern time. I called once late in the evening expecting to just get an answering machine, and he answered personally. I asked him why on earth he was answering his phones so late. His response was that about this time of night, the folks in Hawaii need their questions answered.

Only time will tell if the product holds up in actual use as well as it did in the Practical Sailor tests. That's really the only question in my mind at this point. As far as the ease of application, build up of coats, etc. it is all that was promised and more.

[This message has been edited by Concordia41 (edited 05-17-2001).]

[Concordia41]

Scott - Good question. Allow me to clarify. The Honey Teak gentleman didn't trash CPES/Smiths, he just didn't have anything good to say. The conversation was several months ago, so I don't want to quote anything verbatim.

Generally, I asked if he had any experience with his product being used over CPES. His response was along the lines of - they didn't make CPES, he hadn't used CPES and he couldn't tell me how it'd work - but of course his product was great and wonderful and why would I need to try anything else with it...

Again, it wasn't so much bashing anybody else, just the hard-core sales pitch for his product. As I mentioned previously, I was so disappointed in the conversation I put the Honey Teak cans back on the shelf.

NOW TO HIS DEFENSE and because I don't want to be the one to give the appearance of trashing a product or someone. When I did use the product and called with application questions, the same person was right on point with prompt, accurate answers and practical advice. Also, he answers his phone from something like 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. Eastern time. I called once late in the evening expecting to just get an answering machine, and he answered personally. I asked him why on earth he was answering his phones so late. His response was that about this time of night, the folks in Hawaii need their questions answered.

Only time will tell if the product holds up in actual use as well as it did in the Practical Sailor tests. That's really the only question in my mind at this point. As far as the ease of application, build up of coats, etc. it is all that was promised and more.

[This message has been edited by Concordia41 (edited 05-17-2001).]

[Concordia41]

Scott - Good question. Allow me to clarify. The Honey Teak gentleman didn't trash CPES/Smiths, he just didn't have anything good to say. The conversation was several months ago, so I don't want to quote anything verbatim.

Generally, I asked if he had any experience with his product being used over CPES. His response was along the lines of - they didn't make CPES, he hadn't used CPES and he couldn't tell me how it'd work - but of course his product was great and wonderful and why would I need to try anything else with it...

Again, it wasn't so much bashing anybody else, just the hard-core sales pitch for his product. As I mentioned previously, I was so disappointed in the conversation I put the Honey Teak cans back on the shelf.

NOW TO HIS DEFENSE and because I don't want to be the one to give the appearance of trashing a product or someone. When I did use the product and called with application questions, the same person was right on point with prompt, accurate answers and practical advice. Also, he answers his phone from something like 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. Eastern time. I called once late in the evening expecting to just get an answering machine, and he answered personally. I asked him why on earth he was answering his phones so late. His response was that about this time of night, the folks in Hawaii need their questions answered.

Only time will tell if the product holds up in actual use as well as it did in the Practical Sailor tests. That's really the only question in my mind at this point. As far as the ease of application, build up of coats, etc. it is all that was promised and more.

[This message has been edited by Concordia41 (edited 05-17-2001).]

[Norm Harris]

Thank you all for you suggestions.

Looks like I am going to use CPES as a sealer. For a finish, I am going to be conservative and use Interlux #96 Captain's. I am really leery of using a two part finish that is so hard to remove that I wind up selling the boat to some other unsuspecting novice.

[Norm Harris]

Thank you all for you suggestions.

Looks like I am going to use CPES as a sealer. For a finish, I am going to be conservative and use Interlux #96 Captain's. I am really leery of using a two part finish that is so hard to remove that I wind up selling the boat to some other unsuspecting novice.

[Norm Harris]

Thank you all for you suggestions.

Looks like I am going to use CPES as a sealer. For a finish, I am going to be conservative and use Interlux #96 Captain's. I am really leery of using a two part finish that is so hard to remove that I wind up selling the boat to some other unsuspecting novice.

[Jim H]

Originally posted by TimScearce:
I have used Smith & Co. 5-Year Clear on the cabin of my Robb 35 Yawl. I am pleased so far.

I intially paid a guy to sand, prep, CPES and apply the 5-Year product as I was too busy at work to do it myself. I think he didn't read the instructions. It started to fail after 3 months. I then removed to old stuff (it comes off pretty easily with a heat gun and a scraper), resanded, totally soaked the wood with CPES (the trick, I think) and reapplied 7 coats of the 5-Year stuff. That was last spring. I took the boat up to the Canadian Gulf Islands and back into some gnarly gales and didn't put the cover on until October. The forward caprail has been exposed all of this relatively mild winter. Everything looks great. Here is a link to a Photopoint pic made with a cheap digital camera:

[URL=http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?u=951217&a=6956417&p=47229256&Sequence=0&res=high]http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?u=951217&a=6956417&p=47229256&Sequence=0&res=high[/UR L]

I have also used regular varnish on top of CPES and have been similarly impressed with it's durability.

So, IMHO, it's worth a look.Tim, it's been 2 years now, how's the 5 Yr Clear holding up?

[Jim H]

Originally posted by TimScearce:
I have used Smith & Co. 5-Year Clear on the cabin of my Robb 35 Yawl. I am pleased so far.

I intially paid a guy to sand, prep, CPES and apply the 5-Year product as I was too busy at work to do it myself. I think he didn't read the instructions. It started to fail after 3 months. I then removed to old stuff (it comes off pretty easily with a heat gun and a scraper), resanded, totally soaked the wood with CPES (the trick, I think) and reapplied 7 coats of the 5-Year stuff. That was last spring. I took the boat up to the Canadian Gulf Islands and back into some gnarly gales and didn't put the cover on until October. The forward caprail has been exposed all of this relatively mild winter. Everything looks great. Here is a link to a Photopoint pic made with a cheap digital camera:

[URL=http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?u=951217&a=6956417&p=47229256&Sequence=0&res=high]http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?u=951217&a=6956417&p=47229256&Sequence=0&res=high[/UR L]

I have also used regular varnish on top of CPES and have been similarly impressed with it's durability.

So, IMHO, it's worth a look.Tim, it's been 2 years now, how's the 5 Yr Clear holding up?

[Jim H]

Originally posted by TimScearce:
I have used Smith & Co. 5-Year Clear on the cabin of my Robb 35 Yawl. I am pleased so far.

I intially paid a guy to sand, prep, CPES and apply the 5-Year product as I was too busy at work to do it myself. I think he didn't read the instructions. It started to fail after 3 months. I then removed to old stuff (it comes off pretty easily with a heat gun and a scraper), resanded, totally soaked the wood with CPES (the trick, I think) and reapplied 7 coats of the 5-Year stuff. That was last spring. I took the boat up to the Canadian Gulf Islands and back into some gnarly gales and didn't put the cover on until October. The forward caprail has been exposed all of this relatively mild winter. Everything looks great. Here is a link to a Photopoint pic made with a cheap digital camera:

[URL=http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?u=951217&a=6956417&p=47229256&Sequence=0&res=high]http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?u=951217&a=6956417&p=47229256&Sequence=0&res=high[/UR L]

I have also used regular varnish on top of CPES and have been similarly impressed with it's durability.

So, IMHO, it's worth a look.Tim, it's been 2 years now, how's the 5 Yr Clear holding up?