Lots of questions....

[Orion]

I found just a few other things that I was confused about....

In the hard bait gallery I've noticed that some of you are creating hexigonial patterns on the baits that show up after painting it. (An example of this could be one of the newly posted hard baits tittled "first crankbait"). I know this is probably a really obvious process but i can't seem to figure it out, i have some ideas but I'd rather not try and mess up.

Another question is; when reading posts on this site I've noticed that some of you use sealer on wooden baits before priming, painting and topcoating. I was wondering, if I used an already made plastic bodied bait would i need to coat it with something before priming etc.?

Also for wooden baits i read on here that one could first coat the bait with Devcon and then prime and paint with laquer paints and then re-devcon without having to sand or seal the wood, is this true?

And one last thing; in your opinions, what is the best way to go about coating or sealing, priming, painting, and topcoating a wooden or plastic hard bait. (These lures would be used for bass, small and large mouth, pike, musky, and trolling for walleye).

[Vodkaman]

I only use balsa, but this technique is used a lot in the wood industry. I make a 50/50 mix of wood glue and water (UK pva, USA elmers), keep it in a large jar with a lid. I place my lure in the jar and give it a good shake for a few minutes, replave the lid and the mix can be used a hundred times. Mop the drips off with a paper towel and leave in a warm place for at least 6 hours, a day would be ideal.

This sinks into the wood and gives a good seal and also raises the grain. A quick going over with fine sand paper and the job is done, sealed anyway. If the wood was very grainy, it may be a good idea to repeat the operation until the grain is fixed.

For harder woods, this is good enough to paint on, but from your list of toothy prey, It might be a good idea to lay down a coat of neat epoxy. I do this on balsa every time.

The wood glue sealer technique solves 99% of the epoxy bubble problem and the surface is ready to paint. I always go over it with wet n dry or fine sand paper as I am always wary of the shiny surface, but acrylics do stick to it nicely.

If time is an issue and you do not have the patience to wait. Skip the wood glue part and seal with 5 min epoxy. It will bubble. At least give it an hour then smooth off the lumps with a flap wheel attachment in a mini drill or dremel. It's now ready for paint.

As for plastic, I would imagine that a quick scrub with wet n dry would be enough.

Personally, I never undercoat, sorry Tally!

[gtlegs]

Making the hexoganal shapes is easy. Got to Wal-Mart or any other store that sells fabric. They should have a mesh fabric in the pattern you are talking about. Then paint your base coat on the lure (the lighter color). After that is good and dry, lay the lace mesh over the lure. You usually have to strech it and tape or pin it down. Then shoot several thin coats over the mesh. After that is dry, remove mesh and wa-la.

-Trey

[Orion]

Thank you guys thats very helpful.

Vodkaman do you carve your own balsa baits or do you buy them? And for the wood glue and water sealer what type of paints work best for them? Would Createx work? and then after priming and painting do you just brush or smear on Devcon?

Haha, i hate Walmart... it's like a darn labrynth. I'm lucky if i can find what I'm looking for there in less then an hour. None of the employs know either..... what section of Wallmart should i look in for the hexigonial fabric? Although confused by Walmarts large, mazeyness that is still what I thought the process for those patterns was but i wasn't sure thank you.

[Vodkaman]

Bear in mind, I am only making lures for myself and do not get involved with the finer points of the art.

So, as far as wood carving, a few well chosen slices with a razor sharp knife, round off with some 150 grit emery, finish off with some 600 grit emery. Drill some holes, cut some slots and it's all over.

The wood glue is quite inert and harmless. You can apply any type of paint to it as far as I know. Also, it is extremely strong, stronger than the wood you are gluing, don't be fooled by its flimsy texture and appearance.

As for the epoxy, personally, I apply it with a spatula, purely because I have a huge supply of them and no spare brushes. It works well for me. But the big names with all the experience on this site recommend using an old or cheap brush. Do a search on 'devcon' 'brush' 'application' and you will find the technique, it has been mentioned many times.

To be honest, their are far more experienced lure builders who will better keep you on the right track. The best way is to do lots of searches 'cos there is tons of stuff hidden in post replies, so you have to dig.

Good luck with it.

[Orion]

I don't know whoes better then who but you've replied to my questions so....

I sent you a PM vodkaman.

I have to get off the computer so I'm not going to do any replies yet...... lol I'm at school and it's time for my next class....... no fun....much rather be fishing.

[LaPala]

Oops Vodka, PVA is NOT a sealer.

All PVAs (Polyvinyl acetate) glues are not water proof. The yellow PVAs (carpenters glue) have a higher moisture resistance than the white ones (Elmer's or stationary glue), but neither are completely water proof.

The purpose of sealing a wood lure is to strengthen the wood and to water proof it so in case of tooth penetration or top coat breach, the wood will not soak in water.

Proper sealing usually you want to look at material that is waterproof after curing. These would include epoxy, plastic dip, and quite a few more materials which are not as user friendly or cost effective.

[Vodkaman]

What can I say. My woody friends put me onto it years ago. I do a lot of work with mdf materials and use it to calm the cut edges down, ready for painting. It stops the paint from being absorbed. That is what I think of as sealing.

I stand corrected.

[KcDano]

If sealing a bait to waterproof is so critical, I wonder why large bait companies never bothered for the best part of a century? I do know that some conducted tests to determine which woods were less absorbant. If they went to that trouble, you think the next logical step would be to find a sealer that provided a waterproof barrier, if sealing is critical to longevity of the finish.

[LaPala]

Finding out which wood is best suited for lures works out fine for manufactures. One time cost (R&D).

Doing sealer coat will equal extra material and processes. That will equal extra $$ on material and man hours. This is a constant overhead. So when u're paying 2.99 for a wooden lure, don't complain. Saving 1 cent per lure on a monthly production of 100,000 is how much? U do the math. The bigger ur business is the more u save. Simple economics & would u be involved in a business to not make as much profit as u can?

That's why custom lures will always hold a niche.

[KcDano]

I agree with the bulk of that, However, around the turn of the century a lure by the leading bait company were around a dollar some even more. Considering that people were making a dollar a day a fishing lure was a major expenditure. Baits that were produced in that era were built with quality and intended to last, due to expense.  The majority of lures were dipped in enamel paint to provide a prime and base coat, which upon the colors were applied then dipped in clear.  I am not sure how much impact dipping a lure in a sealer would effect the overall cost at that time.But if doing so would allow skipping a one or two of the dips in the enamel. Would it cost more or less?

[woodieb8]

actually we use a sanding sealer. it absorbs into the wood giving great adhesion of primers and covers rising grain issues. creek chub pikie the standard in my business did have issues of durability. todays paints are far superior in all aspects.

[KcDano]

Yes, the paints of today are superior. But I can think of several modern baits that have experienced problems with finish durability. The heart of this debate is really, how crucial is it to sealing/waterproofing a bait. My point is that for decades bait makers made no attempt to waterproof them. If there were attempting to do such it was by coating them heavily in white enamel and other durable paints. My opinion this was not there intent because they left raw wood under the eyes and hardware mountings. Having fished numerous old baits that have chew marks deep into the wood, checking, and fracture lines extensively, the majority of the paint remains. I am talking about baits that 50-70 yrs. in age. Yes, prior to Creek Chubs subsequent buy-outs there finishes did suffer. However, if you examine one of these lures from that era you will notice that the finish is extremely thin. I have seen devconed baits that once the bait had a compromise to the finish and the wood was then subjected to water the devcon could be peeled off the bait. I have yet to see that occur on an old bait.

[doomdart]

Perhaps I should resist the temptation to chime in....

Kc, I think you raise some valid points, and I have already stated my position in previous threads. So I'll try to keep my comments brief.

Perhaps one of the reasons the "old" paints were quite durable is because many of them (I assume) still contained lead. Great for paint, but bad for the health of the painter.

Even with the current lead free paints, I still do not feel it necessary to do all the priming and prep. I know 99% of you will disagree, but I think that the individual who is still experimenting with body shapes and styles is better off spending his or her time finding the right combo of shapes/lips/weightings than waiting on primer to dry. If that is bad advice, then sorry.

Even those that turn out to be successes, I still don't think the lack of primer matters. If you pay meticulous attention to the topcoat (I only know about Devcon) I feel you are OK with LM bass (freshwater) baits. You might need two good coats depending on the sequence of hardware assembly. For the other species, disregard what I am saying.

I am not saying that finished lures without primer will look "bad." Quite the opposite. I do not see bubbling problems in the topcoat.

As far as long term durability and longevity, I think we all know the answer. The priming is recommended (most say required). The priming can be done with various products. But Kc raises interesting questions.

Could the fact that the "old" baits were made with higher quality "old" wood be a factor? I know that most of the wood we find these days is new growth.

[Vodkaman]

I was going to hold off this post reply until I had done some controlled testing. But I cannot see the point. The building industry is vertually built around PVA glue. It is most often referred to as a wood glue, but its main application is as a wood sealer, for sealing not only wood, but other materials like plaster in bathrooms, concrete etc.

It may be water based, but once cured it is totally impervious to water. Two coats of watered down PVA (industry recommends 2 parts PVA to 1 part water) will penetrate the wood far deeper than any epoxy. Devcon may well be tougher, but once that thin outer shell has been pierced, the game is over. On balsa baits, it would still be advantageous to epoxy after sealing with PVA, to slow the teeth down some.

Probably the best, most durable sealing method is Swedes pellet/plastic dip method.

So, Lapala, with all the respect that is rightly due to you for your knowledgeable contributions to lure building. Oops, you got this one wrong.

[Vodkaman]

Oh god, I hate eating humble pie.

The first web site I read told me what a good waterproofing sealer it was. If I had taken the trouble to read a few more sites, the truth would have emerged.

So, Lapala, Oops, you are right.

Prolonged immersion will cause the PVA to break down. I wish I had finished my testing first, too impatient.

[woodieb8]

old timers used shellac as a sealer. nowadays theres sealers available. one thing not taken in this talk is. water temps. contaction and expansion of woods. many think sealing actually creates a super bond to keep out all water. if you fish a wood bait it will let water in somwhere sealed or not. the thing is sealers create a very good bond for the paints themselves to hold. . as for cracks and hazing thats created from in ability of paints and clears to actually expand and contract. thus the cracks and paint blo.. every wood is different in its ability to hold pait. the harder the wood the tuffer it is to create the desired durable finish.. basiclly your proof is very obvious plastic versus wood. . i prefer wood for action. after 25 years painting theres always a new hurdle,,new paints and epoxies. if it works for you use it.

[KcDano]

Doomdart,

the quality of wood most likely has some bearing. The lack of availability of quality wood at a reasonable price during the 60's, forced Creek Chub to expand their line of plastic baits. Several years expired before some of their baits returned to the market in a wood version again and eventually were made exclusively in plastic. During the 30's C.A. Clark the maker of the famous Water Scout soaked different woods in water for 90 days to determine which was more suitable for production. He arrived at "high southern cedar" as the best wood for a floating bait, mahogany and poplar were used for sinking baits.

Woodie, Yes, checking and fracture lines are caused by expansion and contraction of the wood. The wood doesn't have to be subjected to water for this to take place. I think the old lure makers were cognizant of this fact so took no effort to attempt waterproof. Some

[doomdart]

"high southern cedar"

Am I correct to assume this means cedar that grew in the higher elevations? Interesting stuff. Cedar and poplar are great. Never touched mahogany.

[cheesehead]

My argumenative points are:

How many of these old lures are still retaining their paint?

one of the reasons the old lure manufacturers didn't seal or coat their lures is that not many options were available. as for your dollar comparison here is an eye opener. http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi

The facts of the matter are this though.

In our craft today we owe it to ourselves to continue to make the best possible items we can. Just because others didn't do things does not mean that we shouldn't. If one wants to stay stuck in the old paradigms then by all means do so. However it is your own work that will become stagnant. It is your choice lead, follow, or get out of the way.

[doomdart]

It is your choice lead, follow, or get out of the way.

Right, but please understand that some might lead, follow, and get out of the way in the same day. If a bait catches fish, personally I don't care if it will be represented in a museum some day. If it does show up there, I hope it will be mounted in the mouth of a huge fish. I don't think any of the visitors will care what lies beneath the topcoat.

cheesehead, I agree with you most all of the time.

I think we can consider this thread "hijacked" and for that I'm sorry.

[KcDano]

Doomdart, I should have stated "Southern High Cedar" which does not have limbs near the ground.

Cheesehead, You ask, How many of these old lures are still retaining their paint?

You tell me how many old lures there are, and we can start from there to determine what percentage of the remaining lures still have paint.

Who is to say that wood is the best option, is there conclusive evidence to the fact, that fish prefer wood over plastic construction?

[LaPala]

Cheesehead, You ask, How many of these old lures are still retaining their paint?

You tell me how many old lures there are, and we can start from there to determine what percentage of the remaining lures still have paint.

KC, It seem u just wanna argue for argue sake. Cheese points are very valid which you choose to ignore & bring up some other "facts" in tangent.

Who is to say that wood is the best option, is there conclusive evidence to the fact, that fish prefer wood over plastic construction?

And who is to say other materials is better either? It's up to the fisherman to decide which would suit best the situation. Wood just happen to be the most convenient & workable material for DIY. Are u doing Plastic injection moldings KC? I presume this discussion would be about lures we can make and not some plastic injection molded lures that require a few 100K in just mold alone to get it done.

[cheesehead]

Right, but please understand that some might lead, follow, and get out of the way in the same day. If a bait catches fish, personally I don't care if it will be represented in a museum some day. If it does show up there, I hope it will be mounted in the mouth of a huge fish. I don't think any of the visitors will care what lies beneath the topcoat.

cheesehead, I agree with you most all of the time.

I think we can consider this thread "hijacked" and for that I'm sorry.

There is nothing wrong with being a follower or steping aside and letting the faster ones through. It's all a choice of where we want to be with our building. My personal choice is to do my own thing while encouraging others to excel at their craft. I know I will never be a renowned lure craftsman but I still strive to do the best I can with what I have. The sharing of knowledge and experiences here is what drives others to excell.

[KcDano]

Did I claim that not sealing/waterproofing a lure was the way it should be done? I questioned how essential it is to the production of a durable finish. And by the number of maker's who didn't for decades. I conclude that it must not have been crucial or they would have done so. Balsa being the one exception due to it's fragile nature.

"KC, It seem u just wanna argue for argue sake. Cheese points are very valid which you choose to ignore & bring up some other "facts" in tangent."

Cheesehead asked a question that is subjective and beyond answering with any degree of accuracy.

"The facts of the matter are this though.

In our craft today we owe it to ourselves to continue to make the best possible items we can. Just because others didn't do things does not mean that we shouldn't. If one wants to stay stuck in the old paradigms then by all means do so. However it is your own work that will become stagnant. It is your choice lead, follow, or get out of the way."

I believe, Cheese is infering that constructing a wood lure without sealing/waterproofing the wood is less than a satisfactory method. Perhaps he will clarify. I say making a lure from wood sealed or not, could be considered an archaic method and equally doomed to the same destiny of stagnation. So who is leading, following, or in danger of being trampled by the herd?