On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 17:47:13 -0600, "Wolfgang" wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 17:27:09 -0600, "Wolfgang" wrote:


"scott" wrote in message
groups.com...
Grind a wine bottle cork in your food processor, mix with two-part
epoxy, apply to handle, let cure, buff down with a fine-grit paper or
nail file. Done!

Cheap, fast, easy, and effective. However, the trouble with all methods
using, ground, powdered, sanded, or otherwise disintegrated cork in a glue
base is that you lose both of the primary benefits of using cork in the
first place......insulation and, more importantly, resilience.
Essentially,
the method you describe (variations of which have been put forward by
others) is that you are simply filling with epoxy or some other gap
filling
compound. The cork bits become mere window dressing. Better to cut a
piece
of solid cork to fit.....even to enlarge and shape the defect if
necessary,
and then cutting and gluing a patch to fit.

Um...sorta.

No, exactly.

No, not exactly.

. That's why the preferred method is dust rather than chopped
"bits."

Preferred by whom?

Amongst others, professional rod finishers.

Double-naught superheroes everywhere?

Well, the better ones at least.

Not by me.

Not surprising in the least...and meaningless, to boot.

and a less-hard-setting adhesive rather than epoxy. Think of a
wood dough of fine sawdust versus a mixture of chips and epoxy - neither
is an impossible-to-detect restoration, but the former is preferable to
the latter.

You haven't done a great deal of restoration work, have you?

If you don't count the dozens of various pieces and projects that
currently await me, yes, I have.