| Sun | Mon |
Tue | Wed |
Thu | Fri |
Sat | | | | | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | | | | |
|
Jim Hicks
Registered: May 2007
Location: Maryland
Posts: 134
|
|
Tue September 1, 2009 7:52am
|
|
|
Interresting look. Steve Cox did something similar a while ago... [ link ]
Lots of possibilities with the look.
|
|
Scott Bazinet
Registered: September 2006
Location: Dumfries, South West Scotland
Posts: 70
|
|
Tue September 1, 2009 10:46am
|
|
|
Is this coated with 2 part finish or urethane? i.e Permagloss as per the method for threadless guides
|
|
Torin Koski
Registered: April 2007
Location: Castle Rock, CO
Posts: 64
|
|
Wed September 2, 2009 3:01pm
|
|
|
Jim, the wrap Steve did involves still having the guide foot directly against the blank. It appears to have been done entirely for looks. My wraps were done with an underwrap (with one void thread space between each wrap) and an overwrap with one void thread space between each wrap filling in the void space of the underwraps as it winds around the blank and on top of the guide foot - until the point where the underwrap disappears (as it is then partially removed) and the overwrap converts to a forhan locking wrap. The resultant guide wrap has the characteristics of sandwiching the guide foot between thread wraps without the foot touching the blank, while maintaining the same weight of a conventional guide wrap (without underwraps). In addition, it provides for a (slightly) higher guide stand-off from the blank as well as virtually eliminating any "tunnel" that you would normally have to contend with - with regard to filling with your finish of choice. I actually don't necessarily like the "look" any better than a conventional wrap, but I accept it in terms of functionallity.
Scott, I started with 2 coats of (slightly thickened) PG, then after 4-5 days applied one coat of 2 part TM and then after 2 days applied one final coat of PG.
|
|
|
|
