# best stain for pine siding?



## stick\shift (Mar 23, 2015)

That would be vinyl siding applied over your wood siding.

Your best bet is probably going to be a clear latex deck/siding stain.


----------



## JourneymanBrian (Apr 1, 2015)

pine is not very resistant to fungus/moisture/insects unfortunately.

Youd be best to paint a biocide wood protection first.

To protect from the sun the only thing that works are pigments, the darker the more UV protection.


----------



## joecaption (Nov 30, 2011)

I've used Cabot siding and fence solid stain many times when replacing rotted wooden siding on 100 year old houses.
Matches the already painted siding, and I've never seen it peel.
Going to need two coats.


----------



## ratherbefishin' (Jun 16, 2007)

Sounds like you have some nice old-growth pine. If you want to keep the grain visible, go with Penofin Red Label transparent. I'd probably go with either the cedar or red cedar tint on yellow pine.


----------



## klaatu (Mar 9, 2015)

The peeling is probably due to there being no where for moisture to escape from the wood. Doesn't it rain quite often in Florida? Make sure there is some sort of ventilation for the back side of those boards and 90% of the peeling potential is eliminated.


----------



## DIherself (Apr 26, 2011)

It is nice old-growth pine. Back in the old days, I don't think they had to coat that old wood. The worst that happened would be it greyed. Too bad I have to coat my exterior garage to be compliant with city codes. 

Yes, we are on the brink of very humid and/or wet weather here in Florida. The back of the boards are inside the garage, have never been coated. The garage stays closed, so I hope that's good enough ventilation. The side of the garage in question gets full sun most of the day. 
I


----------



## JourneymanBrian (Apr 1, 2015)

http://www.gov.scot/Resource/Img/46910/0039110.gif


----------



## klaatu (Mar 9, 2015)

DIherself said:


> It is nice old-growth pine. Back in the old days, I don't think they had to coat that old wood. The worst that happened would be it greyed. Too bad I have to coat my exterior garage to be compliant with city codes.
> 
> Yes, we are on the brink of very humid and/or wet weather here in Florida. The back of the boards are inside the garage, have never been coated. The garage stays closed, so I hope that's good enough ventilation. The side of the garage in question gets full sun most of the day.
> I


If the back of the siding is exposed inside the garage you should be ok. although it wouldn't hurt to leave the door open for a while on less humid days. Your humidity issues are a lot different then what I have in Ohio.


----------



## klaatu (Mar 9, 2015)

JourneymanBrian said:


> http://www.gov.scot/Resource/Img/46910/0039110.gif


Note that the durability ratings only apply to the heartwood. rarely seen let alone used these days.


----------



## ratherbefishin' (Jun 16, 2007)

DIherself said:


> It is nice old-growth pine. Back in the old days, I don't think they had to coat that old wood. The worst that happened would be it greyed. Too bad I have to coat my exterior garage to be compliant with city codes.
> 
> Yes, we are on the brink of very humid and/or wet weather here in Florida. The back of the boards are inside the garage, have never been coated. The garage stays closed, so I hope that's good enough ventilation. The side of the garage in question gets full sun most of the day.
> I


Penofin comes in clear, too, if you want to keep the existing color. Still has 99% UV protection.


----------



## JourneymanBrian (Apr 1, 2015)

99% uv protection without pigment? Theres something fishy there....


----------



## JourneymanBrian (Apr 1, 2015)

klaatu said:


> Note that the durability ratings only apply to the heartwood. rarely seen let alone used these days.


If youll refer to the key, youll see that the sapwood of some woods is also suitable for use, just you need chemical wood protection.

The take home message is dont build outside with pine and co...


----------



## ratherbefishin' (Jun 16, 2007)

JourneymanBrian said:


> 99% uv protection without pigment? Theres something fishy there....


Nothin' fishy at all, Brian.....transparent iron oxide pigments have been around for a long time. You've been missing out...:laughing:

http://www.pcimag.com/articles/8675...on-oxide-pigments-in-wood-finish-applications


----------



## klaatu (Mar 9, 2015)

JourneymanBrian said:


> If youll refer to the key, youll see that the sapwood of some woods is also suitable for use, just you need chemical wood protection.
> 
> The take home message is dont build outside with pine and co...


yeah I get it, just wanted to point out that the difference between heartwood and sapwood is on that chart. Good info btw.


----------



## klaatu (Mar 9, 2015)

ratherbefishin' said:


> Nothin' fishy at all, Brian.....transparent iron oxide pigments have been around for a long time. You've been missing out...:laughing:
> 
> http://www.pcimag.com/articles/8675...on-oxide-pigments-in-wood-finish-applications


I have some old chemical coatings customers that would like to hear that. Especially since Sw tried to find anything that worked for over two years. They even bought trans oxides from competitors. Nothing actually worked. I'd be suspicious of anything someone claimed about trans oxides if SW's labs are. And, trans oxide pigments are not clear.

I know there is quite a lot of info about trans oxides, and they are quite commonly used for UV protection, but my personal experience is that any UV protection they give is minimal at best. The coating still has to be excessively opaque to make a big difference over a traditional semi trans. stain.


----------



## ratherbefishin' (Jun 16, 2007)

http://www.skincancer.org/prevention/sun-protection/sunscreen/sunscreens-safe-and-effective


klaatu said:


> I have some old chemical coatings customers that would like to hear that. Especially since Sw tried to find anything that worked for over two years. They even bought trans oxides from competitors. Nothing actually worked. I'd be suspicious of anything someone claimed about trans oxides if SW's labs are. And, trans oxide pigments are not clear.
> 
> I know there is quite a lot of info about trans oxides, and they are quite commonly used for UV protection, but my personal experience is that any UV protection they give is minimal at best. The coating still has to be excessively opaque to make a big difference over a traditional semi trans. stain.


Interesting info, for sure, klaatu, and I like that username...grew up on 50s sci-fi..., can I assume you sell S-W? Question I have for you: Did S-W try to incorporate the trans-oxides in a penetrating oil or a film coating? And how long ago? I have a hard time imaging their failure if it was an apples to apples comparison. I've had nothing but good results from Penofin on vertical surfaces, starting at 9000' in Colorado, now on the northern Gulf coast, where I can only get it, ironically, on special order through S-W, shipped out of Florida....:huh: Seems to be very popular there.

As far as the technology concerned, I did a lot of research after my second skin cancer surgery on UV protection and here's some great info:http://www.skincancer.org/prevention/sun-protection/sunscreen/sunscreens-safe-and-effective

I don't suggest you read the whole article, it's long, but the most pertinent part is this:

"Titanium dioxide and zinc oxide are physical sunscreens with a long history of use, and considered two of the most protective broad-spectrum ingredients. They are comprised of large particles, which, in traditional sunscreen formulations, showed up on the skin as a thick, white paste. By minimizing, or “micronizing,” the size of sunscreen particles, the ingredients’ characteristic opacity is reduced, giving the skin a much more natural appearance. As nanoparticles (a nanometer is one billionth of a meter; nanoparticles are from 1 to 100 nanometers), zinc oxide and titanium dioxide offer the ingredients’ sun protection abilities with a more appealing cosmetic appearance".


And, those are also the most common and most opaque paint pigments, so the real point becomes, if the chemists can do that with the most opaque pigments known, why not with crystalline
pigments that are already transparent? Just something to think about....
And I'm not saying there's any product that blows any other away, just that the technology is available...:wink:


----------



## JourneymanBrian (Apr 1, 2015)

its pretty simple, actually.

If a tree were transparent you wouldnt have much shade, would you?


----------



## klaatu (Mar 9, 2015)

ratherbefishin' said:


> http://www.skincancer.org/prevention/sun-protection/sunscreen/sunscreens-safe-and-effective
> 
> Interesting info, for sure, klaatu, and I like that username...grew up on 50s sci-fi..., can I assume you sell S-W? Question I have for you: Did S-W try to incorporate the trans-oxides in a penetrating oil or a film coating? And how long ago? I have a hard time imaging their failure if it was an apples to apples comparison. I've had nothing but good results from Penofin on vertical surfaces, starting at 9000' in Colorado, now on the northern Gulf coast, where I can only get it, ironically, on special order through S-W, shipped out of Florida....:huh: Seems to be very popular there.
> 
> ...


I worked ten years as an operations manager at a SW chemical coatings plant. We had a chemist that we shared with several other facilities in the southwest. This guy had been a coatings chemist since 1955.

We had a customer that was manufacturing large lures for the commercial and recreational fishing industry around Baja and San Diego. Initially they were trying to use nitrocellulose lacquer as a pigmented coat and a clear. This is the way they had done it for years, as it was fast drying and was compatible with their production lines. Unfortunately of course, they had all kinds of durability problems and color changes do to the salt water and the uv conditions. They wanted to do everything they could to stay with a standard nitro lacquer even though we recommended several superior options. 

Our chemist was intrigued buy some of the claims made by SW competitors and the pigment manufacturers about a trans oxide pigment that could be used in a clear nitro lacquer and give it superior UV stability. So, he gave me a list of companies to contact for lab test results and samples for us to test ourselves and at the test facilities near Medina Ohio. At that time, The Medina facility was also conducting long term exposure testing on yellow oxide trans and red oxide trans from several pigment manufacturers. After a two year test period in extended exposure booths, simulating various lengths of natural exposure of up to 20 years they concluded at that time (early 1990's I admit) that there was no increase in long term or even short term UV stability that justified the at the time significant expense of using trans pigments. Now to be honest, that was in the early 90's and I know there has been significant developments since then, but I myself still question the justification of using trans oxide pigments as a UV "protective" additive.

Like many aspects of the paint industry I personally believe that this is being used as a marketing ploy to justify the increases in price caused by other raw material and voc compliance issues. You can't tell a retail customer that you had to raise your prices significantly because you had to comply with the law. So manufacturers use things such as trans oxide pigments to justify the increase in the minds of consumers.

And, what level of pigmentation do they use to say it has increased UV protection? Like anything else, they can put a trace of trans oxide pigments in a can of stain and claim it increases UV protection. Just like mildewcides. There is no regulation on what constitutes a proper or effective level that needs to be used to call a product mildew proof.

It really is more of an issue of how they represent the trans oxides than anything else.


----------

