Trapper's Village (French Canada)

Register or Login to Hide This Ad for Free!
Okay, They're going to paint the building. You know why? Because without the paint the logs will be unprotected from the elements, which will allow them to rot. There's nothing worse than rotting wood on the side of a building, because it looks bad. The paint they painted the other buildings is used to protect the logs, from deteriorating from the elements. Mark my words, they will have to paint the logs with a protective coat of some type, or else, well let's just say it won't look good.

On that note, they don't have to paint it a dark color like the other buildings, they can always do a lighter color, like what Trapper's has. I would very much like them to paint it the color of Trapper's, that would look very good.
 
Just saying many of the wooden fences in the park do not get painted with anything and they do not rot. Check the wooden fence alongside the train tracks in Heatherdowns and Pompeii.
 
Yes, but, after time they start to deteriorate, and turn gray. I don't want to see gray wood on the side of a building. Anyway, like I said before, they don't have to paint it a dark color, they can always paint it a lighter color like they did Trapper's. And Trapper's even with the protective paint looks very natural.
 
Matthew, I think you should probably use the word varnish instead of paint. A varnish is a protective sealant of sorts that keep the wood protected; however, it is clear and glossy so it would make the wood look shiny yet keep it's current color and look.

I do not mind them using a varnish, preferably something not extremely glossy. However, I do not want to them to actually paint the building at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Peter R.
Party Rocker said:
Matthew, I think you should probably use the word varnish instead of paint. A varnish is a protective sealant of sorts that keep the wood protected; however, it is clear and glossy so it would make the wood look shiny yet keep it's current color and look.

I do not mind them using a varnish, preferably something not extremely glossy. However, I do not want to them to actually paint the building at all.
Click to expand...

I don't know where you got that I said they should paint the whole building? I specifically stated the logs several times. Anyways, varnish is a paint, that's clear and protects, what's the difference? You get what I was trying to say.
 
The logs make up the building, other than some of the siding and stone portions.

Varnish is not a paint. I will have Applesauce further explain the importance between the two. Keep in mind it is important to use the correct terminology. In my opinion, if you use the correct terminology you seem more credible and knowledgeable about what your talking about.

Being an artist I believe, Applesauce would know more.
 
The logs don't make up the building, there is a main structure and then there are the logs that are put on, that cover up the main structure.

BTW, I don't need to be told the difference between paint and varnish, I already knew the difference. Thanks, but it doesn't take a scientist to know the difference.

And if you want me to use the correct terminology for everything I say, I'd recommend you do the same.

Thanks Blaze Star.(oops did I say the wrong definition or whatever?)

And how the heck does being an artist mean you know the difference between paint and varnish?!
 
Matthew, the logs make up the majority of the outside of the building or the majority of the area being varnished or painted. This is what I meant when I said the building.

Why would you say paint instead of varnish if you know the difference? If you use the incorrect terminology, it can confuse others and especially in this situation I almost thought you were serious about using paint instead of varnish which would contradict your argument being that paint does not protect (at least not not to the extent that varnish does) yet varnish does.

I try to educate myself the best I can in subject I talk about. I ask questions when necessary and research when appropriate. For example, when I realized what you actually meant instead of painting I went to research and read up on varnishing and painting. I want to try to be as accurate as I can when making an argument.

I go by many names, I really don't care what you call me.

Artists should know more about paints than your typical Joe as a lot of them have some education about paint and some even work with it on a daily basis. I assume Applesauce has the proper education and experience, but that is just a hunch.
 
Mathew, you are clearly getting too worked up over everything. I've said it before, but you keep pushing and feeding arguments. It's wood, they're stating what they would like to say. Yes you think it should be painted. Good for you. Stop trying to make an argument over everything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hoopla, jonfin826, Nicole and 7 others
Behave now, children.

JGR3y6k.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hoopla, wombat96, Zachary and 5 others
I did have a lot to say about the subject, going into further detail. But, I won't be going down that path. I will say this though.

PR, I don't really appreciate being thrown under the bus to side with either argument. I know you probably didn't mean it that way, but that's how it came out. And just because I am an artist, doesn't mean I know everything about everything art related. I'm a digital artist 95% of the time.

That being said, I don't know much about paints, outside there are water based and oil based, and that's for traditional artist works. I'm sure there are the similarities between artist paints and paints for wood, but at the same time I'm sure they are very different in how they react to their surfaces. But I am unaware of most knowledge on the differences and similarities, as I don't work with wood. Even with my other hobbies.

However, Matthew, I do know there is a huge difference between paint, varnish/lacquer and stains. Just because it's painted on or can be found in the paint section of Lowes, doesn't make it a paint.

At the end of the day though, I would like to see that bathroom match Trapper's than the rest of the area. Because I've never really liked that dark grey-brown paint. And I think having a more natural wood tone to the area would brighten it up and make it look nicer. (Of course that being said, I'd like it if the entire area looked more like natural wood. However, there are other areas of the park that need more attention. /looking at you Festa)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nicole and Jrbgwfan06
The un-spoken option anyone? You can fill a handheld garden sprayer with a product called 'Thompson's water seal', which is neither a paint, varnish, or coating of any sort, and completely protect the wood that you are spraying it on. It is a penetrant, that does not distort, discolor, or alter the physical properties of the wood whatsoever. lasts for 10-15 years before breaking down. Water will literally bead up on the surface and drip off like a waxed car. This is an option that would keep the building looking exactly as it does right now if that is what the park desires.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBW, Nicole, Lee and 2 others
So this whole argument is my fault? Okay.

Sorry everybody, because apparently, even though there were multiple people involved, this argument is my fault.

Anyways, the original reason I said paint was because I was referring to the dark paint that covers most of the shops, and buildings in the area. Then when I referred to Trapper's the name for what I was trying to say wasn't coming to my mind at the time, so I just said paint. Yes I know there's a difference between varnish and paint, but the name for what I was referring to, wasn't coming to my mind, at the time.

Yes, I did use the wrong terminology, but was it really worth dragging people into the conversation, to tell a person about something that he said he already understands? And then in another post I get blamed for starting an argument, when all I was doing, was backing up my view of the situation.

With that said, I'd like to end this "argument" here, if you don't mind.

BTW, you would think that stopping the argument instead of assigning blame for the argument would be the more "mod" thing to do, but nope.
 
Staining the wood provides little or no protection. It simply just stains the wood. I wouldn't mind the varnish so long as they can reduce the glossy-ness, so that the wood can at least be protected.
 
I was joking...

That said, I thought stain provided protection? (Not that I have any knowledge about this stuff.) Found this:

"An exterior wood stain is different than an interior wood stain in that it will have some alkyd BINDER added to it. The binder is the component that forms a film in alkyd paints, but without any pigments in the can of stain, the binder will dry clear. The purpose of adding binder to exterior wood stains is primarily to coat the wood to prevent the rapid increases and decreases in it's moisture content due to large and rapid changes in humidity outdoors. It's these large changes in the wood's moisture content due to seasonal changes in humidity that cause wood left outdoors to crack. The binder added provides a film to house UV blockers to protect the wood from the Sun, and it also protects the wood from attack by mold, mildew and bacteria. Thus, the grey and cracked appearance of weathered wood is due to a combination of the effects of the changing moisture content in the wood from season to season and exposure to bacteria and the UV light from the Sun."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Consider Donating to Hide This Ad