1 gal. Cedar Tone Transparent CWF-UV Exterior Wood Stain

I have used this product for years! It also works, the decking will last so much longer. It brings new life to my deck and the deck looks great!

Works well and lasts a long time on the uprights. My deck gets a lot of direct sun, so the floor boards require an every other year coating. We started with the clear, moved to the honey, and now after 20 years we use the Cedar. All good.

Order delivered on time. Stained a weathered cedar fence. Used a sprayer and followed up with a stain brush. Great coverage.

This is the same review I left for WoodRx, and post here as well for the comparison with Flood's CWF-UV. After working with film-based finishes (Sikkens’ Cetol product) that are a real pain to refinish after it starts to breakdown and flake off, decided to try a penetrating-based finish. The photos show WoodRx “Classic PT” on the left, and Flood CWF-UV “cedar” on the right. One aesthetic concern is UV weatherization of wood to a gray or silver color. All the online advice says semi-transparent or semi-solid for the best UV protection. Perhaps that’s correct in the VERY long term, but the practical side of things is periodic refinishing about every 5 years. I won’t go through another round of pressure washing, sanding, TSP washing, etc. to prep a surface that was previously covered with a film-forming finish. Penetrating finishes that don’t build up a film seem to fit the bill. I decided to try the Flood CWF-UV (PPG) product since it seemed comparable to WoodRx but at a lower price point. After testing the two side-by-side I won’t be using the Flood product. First, the CWF-UV was definitely thicker / more viscous in the can compared to the waterlike consistency of WoodRx. No surprise that, when brushed on, the CWF-UV left clear brush strokes while WoodRx did not. I could see the WoodRx soaking into the wood, while the CWF-UV appeared to lay on the surface. After drying, the brush strokes didn’t level out, and they remained visible. For its part, the WoodRx being thinner meant drips left some distinct lines too. But if one is careful enough to ensure the drips are wiped, the final appearance is consistent. Second, the sheen on the WoodRx was also more wax-like when viewed at a skewed angle, while CWF-UV looked more flat. But from a direct-on view of the wood, WoodRx looks more natural, while the Flood product obscured the grain. Perhaps some want that, but having a natural product look natural is the goal. Third is water resistance. The picture speaks for itself. CWF-UV allowed the water to sheet, while WoodRx beaded much, much more. Fourth, the warranty on WoodRx against graying (5 years) is longer than the PPG product (4 years). Fifth might go to CWF-UV, but also seems consistent with non-penetrating, surfact film-forming product. I sanded both lightly, and CWF-UV seemed to hold up better compared to WoodRx, which sanded down to bare wood more quickly. I don’t necessarily think that’s a bad thing, as it would likely make refinishing easier, but it also shows that it didn’t penetrate as deeply as I thought it would (or perhaps should). I also didn’t do a second coat, which is recommended, and may try to do more of a saturation first coat on the actual application. Nevertheless, the CWF-UV product just didn’t seem to penetrate like it claims it does. So, WoodRx it is, though we won’t be using the “classic PT” tone, as it has too much of a greenish tint to perhaps match the blue-green color of CCA- and ACQ-treated wood. We plan on spraying with an “airless” sprayer to ensure product is evenly applied and gets in between pickets.

I restored a 30 years old fence with it. It's worth every penny.

Application was easy, soaked in to wood quickly. I put 2 coats on and it seems to be holding up in rainfall well. Would recommend this product.