Is a satin finish REALLY preferred over gloss?

[Beatsy]

From reading comments and talking with people over the years, it appears the majority (edit: of woodworkers) prefer a rubbed-out satin finish on wood rather than mirror/gloss. Why?

Even if it's not a majority, the question remains. Why do (at least some) people prefer a satin finish over a mirror-like glossy one? Simple preference is likely the main reason, of course, but I'm interested in the underlying influences. I suspect it's more than just "cos I like how it looks". What are the perceived benefits or dis-benefits driving the preference?

I mean, it's not as if satin is the best way to show off wood grain. Any surface "matting" will always make wood grain appear less crisp. It also helps reflected incident light swamp underlying detail even more thoroughly and over a wider area. I find that satin finishes hold on to skin oils (incl. fingerprints) more than gloss ones do too, so no advantage there either. Rather sub-optimal, really.

Perhaps it's a perception that it's easier to create an acceptable satin finish than a gloss one. It's true that some blemishes or surface inconsistencies are harder to see on a satin finish, but those faults are still present. Satin doesn't remove them (being more thorough in surface prep does that) it just disguises them - a bit.

Personally, I prefer a mirror surface. It's all about the wood for me, the grain, the patterns in that grain and interaction with shifting light. A high quality gloss finish lets ALL that shine through without compromise. Satin looks OK, even great at times, but it can't match gloss for delivering punch and clarity to the underlying wood.

Here's a couple of veneered blocks finished with shellac (only). Not french polished though. I applied 8 coats of shellac (min 2 hours between coats) then let it dry for two days before rubbing almost back to the wood. I then repeated this twice more, but rubbed out less finish each time. The remaining shellac layer is 0.05 mm thick and was hand buffed with Meguiar's for the final mirror surface. Note how some of the grain details show through the reflection of the coin. You don't get that with a satin finish.

You don't get clear mirror reflections "straight on" with satin either - only at at low angles. You can with gloss...

Interested to hear others views. Gloss or satin - and why. Cheers

 

[Spectric]

The finish must depend upon what style you are looking for, the eggshell / satin finish is great for a traditional style but not if you want the modern clinical look that I really dislike because for me it actually lacks character but then all to their own. I like the painted look of woodwork, I don't like it when it has been painted like a car with a high gloss sterile look.

 

[D_W]

For customer purchased stuff, most customers don't have much taste. they also are more likely to have an eye for whatever is consumer/commodity at the time, and will appreciate a discussion of:
1) oh, his has a finish that wears really well
2) this finish has a seen that will hide minor wear

I like a gloss finish better. Paint, floor, woodwork - every time. Just painted the walls semi-gloss in the house (some paints here aren't even offered in gloss at this point) to keep the light levels up and have a more durable surface. When I sent the mrs. to the paint store here (sherwin williams) the guy at the counter tried to argue my wife out of it and tell her how "cleanable" eggshell is and that it's a better choice.

Last painted the walls 16 years ago, and they were still in pretty good shape despite kids and dirt, and only repainted them this past weekend because the floor refinished area had no furniture on it and nothing in the way.

I do prefer a french polish look - depth without thickness - to a very heavy gloss finish. A very heavy/thick gloss finish where you can see that the finish is really thick makes for a durable and repairable surface, but it does look less crisp.

 

[Sgian Dubh]

Why do (at least some) people prefer a satin finish over a mirror-like glossy one?
Interested to hear others views. Gloss or satin - and why. Cheers

I suspect it's primarily the cost to create for the maker which has to be passed on to the customer: many customers won't pay. Then it's how quickly the appearance in service becomes shabby after a bit of rough treatment. Finally, there's the cost of bringing back the high gloss finish after the finish develops shabbiness.

Lower sheens, matte and satin, are generally easier and cheaper to achieve, and less obviously lose their pristine appearance in service, and I suppose some would describe the deterioration of the finish and the various dings in an item as developing an attractive sort of patina or 'lived in' look. Damaged high gloss stuff always seems to just look tired and a bit uncared for somehow.

Don't get me wrong, I really like a high gloss finish applied to certain items, and I've done it intermittently over the years for clients, but I'd never choose such a finish for workaday pieces, e.g., typically mistreated kitchen tables and chairs. The process is a time consuming one to achieve (as described by you in your opening post, for example), and then in service every little scratch sticks out like a sore thumb. Slainte.

 

[niall Y]

As a kid I seem to remember that all paint came as gloss- topcoat or mat-undercoat. Decorators would knock- back the glossy topcoat with a bit of undercoat if they wanted a satin finish. I think its a lot more forgiving especially when it picks up a bit of dust or debris.
The first time I really became aware of satin paints and varnishes, was when working for interior designers. They seemed to use nothing but satin/eggshell/semigloss I suppose it's quite good if you're trying to photograph rooms as there are no unwanted reflections.

I'm not adverse to a bit of gloss myself. I quite like the effect of Rustins Plastic Coating, though sometimes it does look like you are peering through a thin sheet of glass.

 

[hlvd]

Gloss looks nice but it highlights everything good and bad, satin’s more forgiving.

 

[Jones]

An old guy I know used to work building stands for posh car companies at the big motor shows . We can sand and finish a piece of timber so well it looks just like a plastic laminate he used to say. I think that's basically why high gloss is out of fashion, though I do like it occasionally.

 

[Ollie78]

Apparently all the paint starts off as high gloss and different levels of matting agents are added to reduce it to different sheen levels.
Gloss can be nice but it is a fingerprint magnet and once scratched a bit can look nasty. A satin is easier to live with.

Ollie

 

[the great waldo]

I'm having breakfast on an oak table that I danish oiled and the depth of figure looks great, if I had high glossed it with polyester it would feel like having a piece of glass over it. Guitars I make are usually done high gloss with cellulose which is piano like at the beginnining and then sinks into the grain a little giving the best of both worlds.
Cheers
Andrew

 

[D_W]

I'm having breakfast on an oak table that I danish oiled and the depth of figure looks great, if I had high glossed it with polyester it would feel like having a piece of glass over it. Guitars I make are usually done high gloss with cellulose which is piano like at the beginnining and then sinks into the grain a little giving the best of both worlds.
Cheers
Andrew

I wonder if there's a parallel between furniture and guitars. 60s gibson customs had very crisp details and a super quality nitro finish, but it wasn't thick. I grew up in the 80s and by then, the shift was on to encasing a guitar in really thick nitro both for the gloss look and probably to give long term room for buffing and protection against deeper scratches.

And now that the internet is around, we're back to the high end guitars having a thin finish and having really skillful buffing (like collings' CLs -the nitro is thin, and there is some shrink back over a very long period). The nitro on 80s-early 2000s gibsons that I've had is so thick that it never shrunk back into pores. Secretly, I also wonder if they figured out that nitro lacquer is a lot cheaper than a skilled guy on the buffing wheel and definitely cheaper than burn through at the wheel.

I've seen some veneered fairly fancy office furniture that's been sprayed with a heavy clear - same kind of vibe.

 

[the great waldo]

I've seen enough thick nitro, Fender were guilty of that in the vintage reissue guitars in the 80's 90' Thick finish is a safety feature to give the guys polishing a margin to work with. The early Fender finishes were probably done with a fair amount of in between coat sandings which leaves a thin finish and nice surface. A good nitro finish takes time which these days is at a premium. The bean counters have to be kept happy so slap it on as thick as possible polish it flat with coarse buffing paste and finish up with fine. On some of the later 80's Gibson sg's the inside of the cutaways were left pretty much unpolished straight of the spray gun. I must add if a nitro finish is properly flattened before the last coats using premium thinners and good quality lacquer and a guy who knows what he's doing you can get pretty much a glass like finish straight off the spraygun.
Cheers
Andrew

 

[Lefley]

From reading comments and talking with people over the years, it appears the majority (edit: of woodworkers) prefer a rubbed-out satin finish on wood rather than mirror/gloss. Why?

Even if it's not a majority, the question remains. Why do (at least some) people prefer a satin finish over a mirror-like glossy one? Simple preference is likely the main reason, of course, but I'm interested in the underlying influences. I suspect it's more than just "cos I like how it looks". What are the perceived benefits or dis-benefits driving the preference?

I mean, it's not as if satin is the best way to show off wood grain. Any surface "matting" will always make wood grain appear less crisp. It also helps reflected incident light swamp underlying detail even more thoroughly and over a wider area. I find that satin finishes hold on to skin oils (incl. fingerprints) more than gloss ones do too, so no advantage there either. Rather sub-optimal, really.

Perhaps it's a perception that it's easier to create an acceptable satin finish than a gloss one. It's true that some blemishes or surface inconsistencies are harder to see on a satin finish, but those faults are still present. Satin doesn't remove them (being more thorough in surface prep does that) it just disguises them - a bit.

Personally, I prefer a mirror surface. It's all about the wood for me, the grain, the patterns in that grain and interaction with shifting light. A high quality gloss finish lets ALL that shine through without compromise. Satin looks OK, even great at times, but it can't match gloss for delivering punch and clarity to the underlying wood.

Here's a couple of veneered blocks finished with shellac (only). Not french polished though. I applied 8 coats of shellac (min 2 hours between coats) then let it dry for two days before rubbing almost back to the wood. I then repeated this twice more, but rubbed out less finish each time. The remaining shellac layer is 0.05 mm thick and was hand buffed with Meguiar's for the final mirror surface. Note how some of the grain details show through the reflection of the coin. You don't get that with a satin finish.

View attachment 142415

You don't get clear mirror reflections "straight on" with satin either - only at at low angles. You can with gloss...
View attachment 142416

Interested to hear others views. Gloss or satin - and why. Cheers

I build things for customers everyday. I’m a carpenter and a professional house painter. I don’t think I’ve used gloss in years. I was trying to remember the last time I sprayed gloss in 20 years. It’s all been 15 % sheen or less with nitro or water base lacquer .I now use mostly water base poly carbonate for doors etc which again is low gloss. People when they pay for good wood don’t want it looking like plastic wood I quess. Which high gloss does to it.,

 

[Terry - Somerset]

For paint around the house I stopped using gloss for wood and any sort of silk finish for walls over 20 years ago. It avoids highlighting imperfections in the surface being coated preparation time is extended and any subsequent damage immediately evident.

For woodwork projects which for me is a hobby, I tend to favour matt or satin finishes on furniture - tables, chairs etc - not as a preparation time reducer but simply subjective appearance. Some items will get a gloss finish - mainly when woodturning.

 

[Jacob]

From reading comments and talking with people over the years, it appears the majority (edit: of woodworkers) prefer a rubbed-out satin finish on wood rather than mirror/gloss. Why?
........

Because it's easier.

 

[Citracal]

We just finished repolishing an enormous dining table. For one person I think there were about 50 hours on the job. There are very very few people willing to spend that sort of money on a table just to be refinished when that alone will get you a brand new one. Also, it requires a huge amount of experience when you move on to larger pieces of furniture to be able to get a really high quality even shellac finish. Was interesting to learn about/do but can't say I've much desire at all to be doing it more frequently.

 

[Beatsy]

Thoughtful responses, as always. Thanks folks.

Clearly it's impossible to make a simple gloss/satin choice as there are too many "other factors" related to context and expected usage of the end result. Plus folks working for profit (professionals) will likely have a vastly different set of priorities to those working for the love of it (amateurs).

In my case, it's currently an amateur production of a chess board, but with emphasis on the wood itself. Each square is a carefully selected showcase of some aspect of a species and it's grain patterns. More importantly, each square can be separated from the board and individually "fondled" to study it more closely under different lighting. So the main purpose of this project is essentially "decorative", which means I want a finish that shows the wood with maximum clarity. A very thin finish brought to a super-high gloss does that best, IMO. Time taken to do this and later maintain it (both elapsed and effort) is not an issue. It will be finished when it's "properly" finished and maintaining it will be my job. The journey (construction) is the best part anyway. Completion ends that. Booo!

To be honest though, sanding and finishing (as in oiling, french polishing, varnishing etc) is my favourite activity in woodwork and I make a right meal of it, every time. The more coats and iterations of sanding back needed, the happier I am. I love seeing normally-invisible chatoyance and near-microscopic grain details emerge as the finer grits do their thing. Luvvly jubbly. Probably need counselling for that...

 

[Samkilby]

It’s just a trend isn’t it.

Largely in interior decor terms, more people want Matt paint on their walls, as it currently looks better. It isn’t anywhere near as durable however. Guess what level of Sheen we have in most of our house ?!

Furniture trends as far as I can see from the mainstream are -
The majority of people no longer want antiques or anything antique-y looking in any facet.
The things people really dislike for their own homes are dark aged oak looks, mahogany, cherry and a massive one - orangey antique pine with danish oil on it.
Things people seem to really like are pale woods - ash, sycamore, maple, or the contrasting American black walnut.

My experience is mainly that people want the timber to look how it looks when it’s sanded and not yet blown out.

Osmo raw generally is what they want, but the protection it offers is pretty minimal I find ..
danish oil is an absolute no go for most people. Similarly with building up a French polish etc. they just don’t want the finished piece in their house because of trends..

Hesse lignal are a cool high solid oil product, in that you can knock up your own mix of the Matt and glossy components, they have a separate hardener, and you can add in their dye to give colours, and of course first coat works well cut with white spirit.

Ta

 

[Jacob]

From reading comments and talking with people over the years, it appears the majority (edit: of woodworkers) prefer a rubbed-out satin finish on wood rather than mirror/gloss. Why?
.....

Because it's much easier to achieve a good result and "mirror/gloss" can make things look like like plastic.
Oops its an old thread and I said the same a year ago!
At least I'm consistent.
I like linseed oil on most wooden things - it's quick and easy, but will polish up if you want it to.
Osmo oil on floors as it is very hard wearing and non slip.

 

[johnnyb]

I personally love the deep brushed gloss of an old school front door complete with barely perceptible brush marks. it's almost hazy looking. perfect gloss is a bit boring tbh. like French polished shellac it's the imperfection that make it pleasing. texture is also what you can get using oils etc. although it's tricky making something look professional without spray lacquer.

 

[rafezetter]

IMHO - gloss only works on wood that is either fresh and you get to dictate how much prep you do beforehand, and how much wetsanding and polishing you're prepared to do after - and a GOOD gloss finish needs a lot, or on old wood that has had lots of attention to bring it back to "glossworthy" condition.

aka old doors and skirting boards in most houses are not glossworthy, because gloss shows up EVERY.SINGLE.IMPERFECTION up a treat, and few people (almost none) are willing to spend the money to do the many hours of prep required to fix it. - I don't mean the "old" stuff that can be replaced with MDF of the same shapes, I mean the 8" high stuff with fancy mouldings you can't get anymore.

I like a nice glass finish gloss just as much as the next person, and I've the experience to do it - it just costs too much money.

I understand JohnnyB's take on it, but even then the door needs more prep.