Aging Red Mahogany for colour match.

[Skew ChiDAMN!!]

I'm currently doing a restoration of some park benches made from Red Mahogany. Apparently these are heritage listed... or rather they're on properties that're heritage listed so that although these have only 20 odd years on them, I still have to follow the Authorities rules.

A few sections are so far gone they need replacement and have aged to a similar chocolate colour as Cooktown Ironwood. The new sections are the glorious Red Mahogany red-brown. The contrast is startling, to say the least.

I've made up a batch of FeCL as an oxidising agent, but this barely darkens the timber... even after going the extra step and washing down in black tea.

The same mixture on Meranti, Cedar or Vic Ash gives a much more dramatic difference, so it's not the that.

Is it the close-grained nature of the Red Mahogany not taking up the liquids? Is it simply not responsive to this approach? Does anyone have any advice on getting it TO match the aged parts? I'd rather not stain with a dye, as that results in colour mismatches further down the line...

As things stand, tomorrow I'll just have to apply successive coats in the hopes that each will darken that little bit more and creep up on the colour.

[ian]

Skew
Based on the restoration of a cedar door just up the street from me (in Sydney) I think you may have already breached the "heritage" guidelines.
Following a break-in that door had to be restored with cedar of roughly the same age as the original.
In your case given that the benches are only 20 years old, restoration should (to my mind) involve rebuilding them to the original design and construction methods using new wood. Will the client come at that?
No matter how you age it, new wood mixed with old is sounding like grandpa's axe.

[Skew ChiDAMN!!]

Fortunately, I'm covered there.

The contract explicitly states which pieces I can replace, although they'd prefer if I can "repair" the original sections instead, and I'm also authorised to remove safety hazards to the public... gluing & sanding any splintered areas and arrises.

Any replacement parts must be blended sympathetically to the original. ie. No obviously shiny new sections.


FWIW I agree wholeheartedly with your interpretation of "restoration" in this case. Especially as on removing the slats to access the frame rails I discovered that almost every rail is literally a thin shell of preserved wood around a wet rot porridge and few M&T's are in any better condition.

These parts cannot be touched as they're not part of the contract... and six months from now there'll probably be contracts up for bid to repair the next round of failed sections. It feels so wrong, but that's how the red tape rolls. Bureaucracy.

[Skew ChiDAMN!!]

Oh, yes. I nearly forgot.

The same oxidising mix worked perfectly today. I even used the same tea I'd brewed last week!

The difference was that I'd left the tea-bags in the jar over the weekend, so I'm guessing it was a much stronger brew this time around.

[Xanthorrhoeas]

That is definitely bureaucratic madness. I wish they would make up their minds as to 'best practice'. Some 25 years ago 'best practice' was decreed to be that the replacement HAD to stand out and be different to show it was a replacement. that even went so far as to painting replacement components of antique furniture with grey paint - looked ghastly to me. I never acceded to that - and the 'experts' couldn't tell what was replaced so they didn't complain!

Now they want to treat essentially contemporary benches as heritage! Bah Humbug on their part I say. What a waste of money and effort - but at least it gives you a living, so some good can come of everything.

[ian]

The contract explicitly states which pieces I can replace, although they'd prefer if I can "repair" the original sections instead, and I'm also authorised to remove safety hazards to the public... gluing & sanding any splintered areas and arrises.

Any replacement parts must be blended sympathetically to the original. ie. No obviously shiny new sections.


FWIW I agree wholeheartedly with your interpretation of "restoration" in this case. Especially as on removing the slats to access the frame rails I discovered that almost every rail is literally a thin shell of preserved wood around a wet rot porridge and few M&T's are in any better condition.

These parts cannot be touched as they're not part of the contract... and six months from now there'll probably be contracts up for bid to repair the next round of failed sections. It feels so wrong, but that's how the red tape rolls. Bureaucracy.

have you alerted the contract principal to this?

approached in the right way, your current contract could be "extended" to fix these as well. I personally know of cases where the contract "extensions" were worth 4x the original value of the contract.