Tulip Wood/Lumber Gloat
Glen Duff
Ontario Mennonite country about 1 1/2 hours north and west of Toronto.
The quality and unbelievably low prices of very large industrial
woodworking machinery blew me away. I would have bought a machine or
two but they were far too large for hobbyinst needs. Examples, an older
planer/molder with around around 75 sets of knives, almost anything you
could think of for molding heads, went for $750 Canadian. The unit must
have weighed well over a ton. Another bargain was a gigantic cutoff saw
with a 20' conveyor table. It cross cut up to 24". Can you believe the
price - $450 Canadian. That was probably the best bargain I've ever
seen in my life on anything!
Anyway, I bought 3 lots of lumber, maybe 500 board feet for $345, mostly
1 1/4" pine of various lengths and thickness. In addition to other
woods such as maple and oak, there was around 150 board feet of 1 1/4"
lumber marked Tulip. I think I've seen Tulip trees which have leaves
shaped like a tulip. The wood seems fairly soft though not as soft as
pine and is a greyish colour.
Does anyone have any experience or recommendations as to the working
qualities and uses of the wood? Is it just a utility type of wood or
can it be used for cabinets, furniture, etc.? Also, I would be
interested in opinions on how I might finish this wood.
Thanks for any comments or suggestions.
Glen Duff, Rockwood, Ontario
CWard96624
>From: Glen Duff <glen...@attcanada.net>
>Date: 11/3/98 5:30 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <363EE812...@attcanada.net>
I think tulipwood is poplar
Chuck Steger
Glen Duff wrote:
>
> Last Saturday I attended an auction of a cabinet business closing in
> Ontario Mennonite country about 1 1/2 hours north and west of Toronto.
<snip>
> Anyway, I bought 3 lots of lumber, maybe 500 board feet for $345, mostly
> 1 1/4" pine of various lengths and thickness. In addition to other
> woods such as maple and oak, there was around 150 board feet of 1 1/4"
> lumber marked Tulip. I think I've seen Tulip trees which have leaves
> shaped like a tulip. The wood seems fairly soft though not as soft as
> pine and is a greyish colour.
Sounds like you got Poplar. Tuilpwood is an exotic from Brazil that is
Salmon in color with noticeble grain stripes.
--
Chuck Steger
Warrenton, Virginia
Email: chuck....@erols.com
prome
of the leaves resembles a tulip flower in profile.
This is really nice wood for some uses. In cabinetry, it is often used for
draw sides, backs and bottoms, or for internal carcase parts. It's pretty
dimensionally stable, takes a finish pretty well, and is easy to work.
Sounds like a great auction!
CWard96624 wrote in message <19981103072420...@ng125.aol.com>...
>>d/Lumber Gloat
>>From: Glen Duff <glen...@attcanada.net>
>>Date: 11/3/98 5:30 AM Eastern Standard Time
>>Message-id: <363EE812...@attcanada.net>
>>
>>Last Saturday I attended an auction of a cabinet business closing in
>>Ontario Mennonite country about 1 1/2 hours north and west of Toronto.
>>
>>The quality and unbelievably low prices of very large industrial
>>woodworking machinery blew me away. I would have bought a machine or
>>two but they were far too large for hobbyinst needs. Examples, an older
>>planer/molder with around around 75 sets of knives, almost anything you
>>could think of for molding heads, went for $750 Canadian. The unit must
>>have weighed well over a ton. Another bargain was a gigantic cutoff saw
>>with a 20' conveyor table. It cross cut up to 24". Can you believe the
>>price - $450 Canadian. That was probably the best bargain I've ever
>>seen in my life on anything!
>>
>>Anyway, I bought 3 lots of lumber, maybe 500 board feet for $345, mostly
>>1 1/4" pine of various lengths and thickness. In addition to other
>>woods such as maple and oak, there was around 150 board feet of 1 1/4"
>>lumber marked Tulip. I think I've seen Tulip trees which have leaves
>>shaped like a tulip. The wood seems fairly soft though not as soft as
>>pine and is a greyish colour.
>>
CharlieDIY
>
>It is a species of poplar, commonly called Tulip Poplar, because the shape
>of the leaves resembles a tulip flower in profile.
>
I think you're right about the wood, but the thousands of tulip poplars around
here, including the ones in my yard, have FLOWERs shaped like tulips, not
leaves viewed in any kind of profile.
Charlie Self
Word Worker
prome
profile...it looks like a tulip, I swear!
PR:)
CharlieDIY wrote in message
<19981103090000...@ng-fd1.aol.com>...
Rick Fox
seen any tulips on them, but the leaf profile gives them away. And
they are bright gold right now.
Rick.
prome <xpr...@transformgc.com> wrote in article
<pnF%1.472$BU1....@newsfeed.slurp.net>...
Andrew Barss
: > In addition to other
: > woods such as maple and oak, there was around 150 board feet of 1 1/4"
: > lumber marked Tulip. I think I've seen Tulip trees which have leaves
: > shaped like a tulip. The wood seems fairly soft though not as soft as
: > pine and is a greyish colour.
: Sounds like you got Poplar. Tuilpwood is an exotic from Brazil that is
: Salmon in color with noticeble grain stripes.
And also immensely expensive -- it lists for $25 a board foot, in the one
place I've ever seen it.
Poplar is very dim4ensionally stable, and planes very nicely --
Andrew Barss
richard bies
Perhaps there is more than one Tulip tree -- I have a pair around 3' in
diameter in my back yard in W PA. The yard at Mt Vernon is encircled with
them.
r.m.bies
WGS
I just planted 2 in my back yard.......beats those sweet gum trees...that's
for sure!
CharlieDIY
>
>I just planted 2 in my back yard.......beats those sweet gum trees...that's
>for sure!
>
I hope not, at least not totally. We just planted a sweet gum, our second, off
one corner of my shop. It is close to a 50' tall poplar, on one side, and a
20' tall poplar on its other side. The rest of the shop is surrounded with
small oaks that I hope will mature as one pin oak, now 25' tall, is doing...at
high speed. I think my wife stuck in a couple lindens when I wasn't looking,
too, and one red maple.
Charlie Self
Word Worker
Rick Fox
You PLANTED sweetgum?
My wife and I are diligent to hack down every sweetgum sapling that
we see sprouting up from the "dead" stumps of the bigguns that we
cut down. (The stumps never really die...) Can't stand having a
yard covered with those "porcypine eggs".
Rick.
CharlieDIY <charl...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19981104043242...@ng151.aol.com>...
CharlieDIY
>
>Are you serious, Charlie?
>You PLANTED sweetgum?
>
>My wife and I are diligent to hack down every sweetgum sapling that
>we see sprouting up from the "dead" stumps of the bigguns that we
>cut down. (The stumps never really die...) Can't stand having a
>yard covered with those "porcypine eggs".
>
Well, the eggs are not a problem, yet. And the tree is among the loveliest in
the yard during the fall...and it ain't bad looking spring and summer, either.
Charlie Self
Word Worker
Steve Rehrauer
> My wife and I are diligent to hack down every sweetgum sapling that
> we see sprouting up from the "dead" stumps of the bigguns that we
> cut down. (The stumps never really die...) Can't stand having a
> yard covered with those "porcypine eggs".
Well, there ARE fruitless cultivars available. --Steve
Jack Nevill
year, but it will do the trick.
Jack Nevill
Rick Fox wrote in message <01be080d$23d1c660$6426...@NNTPDA6B.bnr.ca>...
(The stumps never really die
>
Bill Bailer
Inspired by:
On Tue, 3 Nov 1998, Chuck Steger wrote:
>Sounds like you got Poplar. Tuilpwood is an exotic from Brazil that is
>Salmon in color with noticeble grain stripes.
>
>--
>Chuck Steger
>Warrenton, Virginia
>Email: chuck....@erols.com
I'm changing the subject, because of my severe wandering ...
Tulip trees, were once very common in the North East United States. They
were one of the four dominant types of tree, which included maple beech,
and oak. I live near a rare stand of "old" forest in Rochester NY, set
aside as a forest preserve in the 1800's and now a part of the east end
of Cobbs Hill park, where there are many huge, majestic Tulip
trees that are well over 250 years old. Do I dare use the word:
"Awesome" trees? They grow to be the tallest trees in the East.
After the settlement of the white man, the entire North East has been
burned to the ground many times, and most of the trees we now see were
actually planted, or are the trees that get the best start in a new
forest. Tulip trees become prevalent only after several hundred years
of the evolution of a forest, so almost none of our forests here in the
North East are yet old enough to see many tulip trees. If you visit
Rochester in another 500 years, our little forest may be predominantly
tulip trees by then, when their advantage of height has had time to "win
out." From the fossil record, we know that tulip trees have been
dominant in the longest lived forests here. Before ANY men came here,
before native American Indians arrived, tulip trees were dominant, and
will be again some day in areas that we leave alone long enough.
This preserve is now only as old as the first burning of this area when
the white man came here. Professional "burners" were sent out ahead of
everyone else, to prepare the land for settlement. There were already
areas that had been regularly burned by the indians (to promote deer),
but the virgin and old forest areas were uninhabitable, worthless land,
not even of value as lumber because the trees were TOO big
(ironic? read on ...). So they methodically burned every bit of it they
could find.
Although I have no experience with the wood, the trees grow very slowly,
and the wood is reputed to be very hard. It is an ancient tree, and not
closely related to any other common species, so the qualities of the
wood may be unique. Does anyone know more about the wood?
Yet another story: about what was once one of America's greatest
hardwood forests: the Adirondacks. In about 1905 the whole thing
burned to the ground, and was reseeded with evergreens by broadcasting
the seed from the newly invented airplane. One small area, which was an
island at the time (now surrounded with swamp) was spared from fire.
It is about 40 miles east of Watertown, in the foothills of the eastern
Adirondacks. It is accessable only by a long backpacking hike, and you
have to cross the Indian river on a cable and pulley. I visited the
place once, as a teenager in the 1960's, with a forestry professor from
Syracuse University.
It was like walking into a cathedral, unlike anything I could have
imagined to exist in the Eastern United States. Very little sunlight,
no ground vegetation except for indian pipe and various mushrooms. The
trees were widely spaced, even though the canopy was dense and full.
You could see a long distance horizontally through the forest, like
being in an airplane hanger or huge convention center. The trees were
huge, straight, and tall. We measured a cherry tree 20 feet in girth,
and TULIP!, beech, and oak; mostly about 15 feet in girth, and about 500
years old. The largest was 25 feet in girth, and may be 600 or 700
years old. I don't remember what species. The published lifespans of
these trees as being 100 years is nonsense! Not many maples -- it is a
forest that has evolved past the "maple" stage. The hardwood forests of
New England are very new by comparison.
There are no fresh leaves accessable for identification, and the bark is
so old that it does not resemble the bark we are familiar with. We
identified trees by the seeds found on the ground under them (cherry
pits, etc).
This forest was lumbered some time in the last 150 years (a built up
lumber trail is still evident across the swamp), but they took only the
smallest trees because only they were small enough to cut as logs and
remove -- the big ones were TOO large to do anything with! A fortunate
twist of fate ...
Is anyone familiar with this place?
Bill Bailer
wba...@cris.com, Rochester NY USA, tel:716-473-9556
Acoustics, piano technology, music theory, JSBach
CharlieDIY
Poplar? A hard, slow growing wood? Not where I come from. Tulip poplar is
one of the fastest growing hardwoods--the hybrids are incredibly fast, up to
10' per year--and it is also one of the softest. I'd venture to say that
southern pine is actually harder, at least in the raised grain areas.
In fact, In Bedford, VA, you can find what is supposed to be the largest living
tulip poplar in the country. Not too far from Thomas Jefferson's summer home
at Poplar Forest.
This is also only the second time I've heard of your burners. I tend to think
it is something that happened on occasion, that has no become legend, and
something, about like crocs in the NYC sewer system, that has happened often.
Charlie Self
Word Worker
Doug Stowe
charl...@aol.com (CharlieDIY) wrote:
> Wbailer writes:
>
> >This preserve is now only as old as the first burning of this area when
> >the white man came here. Professional "burners" were sent out ahead of
> >everyone else, to prepare the land for settlement. There were already
> >areas that had been regularly burned by the indians (to promote deer),
> >but the virgin and old forest areas were uninhabitable, worthless land,
> >not even of value as lumber because the trees were TOO big
> >(ironic? read on ...). So they methodically burned every bit of it they
> >could find.
> >
For a more accurate and picturesque view of American history, is so far a
our relationship to our forests is concerned, I suggest Eric Sloane's
book, A Reverance for Wood. A friend told me that Amazon.com still has
some copies of it. Early Americans knew the forests to be a vast
resource. Not something to be wasted, but put to use. Vast areas were
harvested and turned into charcoal and other uses that modern day
woodworkers and environmentalists have come to regret. But, this is the
first I've ever heard of professional burners, and like Charlie DIY, I
don't believe it. American pioneers were dependent on the forests to
provide materials for their homes, furnishings, fuel and most of other
items that they used in daily life. They did not deliberately waste
things in the manner that we do today.
--
Doug Stowe Visit my website: http://www.DougStowe.com
Author of "Creating Beautiful Boxes With Inlay Techniques"
prome
University in Annapolis, MD is a Tulip Poplar. It is truely massive. Under
it, according to legend/folklore/history many founding fathers gathered for
discussions leading to the American revolution. It was already gigantic at
that time.
Bill Bailer wrote in message ...
>
>Inspired by:
>
>On Tue, 3 Nov 1998, Chuck Steger wrote:
>>Sounds like you got Poplar. Tuilpwood is an exotic from Brazil that is
>>Salmon in color with noticeble grain stripes.
>>
>>--
>>Chuck Steger
>>Warrenton, Virginia
>>Email: chuck....@erols.com
>
>I'm changing the subject, because of my severe wandering ...
>
>Tulip trees, were once very common in the North East United States. They
>were one of the four dominant types of tree, which included maple beech,
>and oak. I live near a rare stand of "old" forest in Rochester NY, set
>aside as a forest preserve in the 1800's and now a part of the east end
>of Cobbs Hill park, where there are many huge, majestic Tulip
>trees that are well over 250 years old. Do I dare use the word:
>"Awesome" trees? They grow to be the tallest trees in the East.
>
>After the settlement of the white man, the entire North East has been
>burned to the ground many times, and most of the trees we now see were
>actually planted, or are the trees that get the best start in a new
>forest. Tulip trees become prevalent only after several hundred years
>of the evolution of a forest, so almost none of our forests here in the
>North East are yet old enough to see many tulip trees. If you visit
>Rochester in another 500 years, our little forest may be predominantly
>tulip trees by then, when their advantage of height has had time to "win
>out." From the fossil record, we know that tulip trees have been
>dominant in the longest lived forests here. Before ANY men came here,
>before native American Indians arrived, tulip trees were dominant, and
>will be again some day in areas that we leave alone long enough.
>
>This preserve is now only as old as the first burning of this area when
>the white man came here. Professional "burners" were sent out ahead of
>everyone else, to prepare the land for settlement. There were already
>areas that had been regularly burned by the indians (to promote deer),
>but the virgin and old forest areas were uninhabitable, worthless land,
>not even of value as lumber because the trees were TOO big
>(ironic? read on ...). So they methodically burned every bit of it they
>could find.
>
>Although I have no experience with the wood, the trees grow very slowly,
>and the wood is reputed to be very hard. It is an ancient tree, and not
>closely related to any other common species, so the qualities of the
>wood may be unique. Does anyone know more about the wood?
>
CharlieDIY
>For a more accurate and picturesque view of American history, is so far a
>our relationship to our forests is concerned, I suggest Eric Sloane's
>book, A Reverance for Wood. A friend told me that Amazon.com still has
>some copies of it. Early Americans knew the forests to be a vast
>resource. Not something to be wasted, but put to use. Vast areas were
>harvested and turned into charcoal and other uses that modern day
>woodworkers and environmentalists have come to regret. But, this is the
>first I've ever heard of professional burners, and like Charlie DIY, I
>don't believe it. American pioneers were dependent on the forests to
>provide materials for their homes, furnishings, fuel and most of other
>items that they used in daily life. They did not deliberately waste
>things in the manner that we do today.
We live in a 'flick your Bic' world, and I've noted in recent years a tendency
to believe that everyone not of an indigenous (sp?) species is considered
wasteful well back into the past on the same scale and with the same attitudes
we have today.
Just wasn't so. If you read the daily record keeping of people as recently as
the early 1900s, you'll note they knew where every penny--and I mean
EVERY--went, and how long what was bought was expected to last, how long the
item it replaced had lasted and on.
Sometimes, the indigenes were the biggest wastrels, burning forests to get game
(though I doubt this happened as often as some people claim), and driving
entire herds over cliffs to gather a few roasts and robes.
We do well to remember that societies evolve, and what we consider massive
efforts at conservation, five or six generations ago most people considered
everyday life.
That's not to say all people felt and acted that way, of course, but many, if
not most, did. Most people don't feel and act that way today, either.
Back to woodworking.
Charlie Self
Word Worker
George Nazarko
CharlieDIY wrote in message <19981111141340...@ng117.aol.com>...
>Wbailer writes:
>
>>"Awesome" trees? They grow to be the tallest trees in the East.
Are we talking Liriodendron tulipifera here? It is, of course a Magnolia,
not a Poplar, and it would surprise me to see it outgrow an American Elm or
Sycamore, perhaps even a Sugar Maple.
> Tulip trees become prevalent only after several hundred years
>>of the evolution of a forest, so almost none of our forests here in the
>>North East are yet old enough to see many tulip trees
>>but the virgin and old forest areas were uninhabitable, worthless land,
>>not even of value as lumber because the trees were TOO big
>>(ironic? read on ...). So they methodically burned every bit of it they
>>could find.
Yep, makes sense to me. Most trees start to develop heart rot after a
certain maturity. That's why they harvest 'em at a size representing the
best compromise between amount of wood and possibility of heart rot.
And the climax forest is indeed an inhospitable place to try and grow human
(or most other kinds of) food. Indians knew this too, and where nature
didn't make a big enough clearing to support deer or bison, they did. They
also planted their crops in the sun, not in the shade, just like us. If
they had to make sun from shade, down went the trees.
As to maturity of the forest, certain trees grow well in shade, others
don't. If there are no tulip trees in an oitherwise maturing forest, it's
because there's no seed, not because there's no shade - period.
>>
>>Although I have no experience with the wood, the trees grow very slowly,
>>and the wood is reputed to be very hard. It is an ancient tree, and not
>>closely related to any other common species, so the qualities of the
>>wood may be unique. Does anyone know more about the wood?
>>
>
>Poplar? A hard, slow growing wood? Not where I come from. Tulip poplar
is
>one of the fastest growing hardwoods--the hybrids are incredibly fast, up
to
>10' per year--and it is also one of the softest. I'd venture to say that
>southern pine is actually harder, at least in the raised grain areas.
As above, the tree in question appears to be a Magnolia, though the wood is
listed in my references as "weak, not durable, relatively fast growing".
Might as well be poplar.
>
>In fact, In Bedford, VA, you can find what is supposed to be the largest
living
>tulip poplar in the country. Not too far from Thomas Jefferson's summer
home
>at Poplar Forest.
This tree appears to like warmer climes. Might live in sheltered areas up
north, but probably was never really widespread, except on the coast, much
north of Pennsylvania. My references list it as a lover of low land and
moist places.
>
>This is also only the second time I've heard of your burners. I tend to
think
>it is something that happened on occasion, that has no become legend, and
>something, about like crocs in the NYC sewer system, that has happened
often.
It's a new one on me, though my specialty is not American History. Makes
sense if a land company were trying to encourage settlement, though. Burn
the bottomlands for farming, and leave the highland forests for wood.
Imagine what a chore it would be with a team and chain to tip the roots of a
sycamore 6-7 ft in diameter!
D. Randal Holtzclaw
George Nazarko <@mail.tds.net> wrote in message
<72dnmf$7...@news2.tds.net>...
>
>CharlieDIY wrote in message
<19981111141340...@ng117.aol.com>...
>>Wbailer writes:
>>
>>>"Awesome" trees? They grow to be the tallest trees in the East.
>
>Are we talking Liriodendron tulipifera here? It is, of course a Magnolia,
>not a Poplar, and it would surprise me to see it outgrow an American Elm or
>Sycamore, perhaps even a Sugar Maple.
If you visit the Great Smoky Mountains National Park you can still see
remnants of the stump of the record Tulip Poplar that blew down in a storm
(in 1974, I believe). It was 17 feet in diameter, and - as is true with
most Tulip Poplars not grown in an open field - had a nearly perfect stem up
to the first limb, which was probably 100 feet above the ground. Sorry, I
can't tell you the total height, but it was a very tall tree. There are
other Tulip (or Yellow) Poplars in the same area and other areas of the park
that probably exceed 10 feet (I believe the current record is 14 feet).
Most texts refer to it as the tallest of the eastern trees. From Encarta:
"Tulip Tree, common name for a deciduous tree of the magnolia family. The
tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera) is native to the eastern United States,
where it is the tallest and largest broad-leaved tree." By the way, there
are some very impressive examples of the other native magnolias in the park
(Fraser and Big Leaf Magnolias, Cucumber Tree, etc.)
>As to maturity of the forest, certain trees grow well in shade, others
>don't. If there are no tulip trees in an oitherwise maturing forest, it's
>because there's no seed, not because there's no shade - period.
Actually, Tulip Poplar is considered a "pioneer species" because it is one
of the most shade-intolerant of the hardwoods. As a rule, hardwoods are
rather tolerant of shade and can exist quite happily in the understory, but
Tulip Poplar is an exception. It's most commonly found on disturbed sites
along with pines. If you find large stands of Tulip Poplar, it is usually
even-aged and indicative of a distubed or once-cleared site. You will
seldom to never find Tulip Poplar under a closed canopy.
Bill Bailer
>Wbailer writes:
>
>Poplar? A hard, slow growing wood? Not where I come from.
I have no experience with tulip wood, and my reportage on it's qualities
is not well informed. What I have heard is that it is difficult to
work, and falsely assumed that that meant hard. There are other
properties that may make it undesireable for wood working -- and this is
one thing I would like to know more about. It may explain why they are
comparatively rare here now -- in other words, not replanted, and their
growth discouraged, because they aren't good lumber.
>Tulip poplar is one of the fastest growing hardwoods--the hybrids are
>incredibly fast, up to 10' per year--and it is also one of the
>softest. I'd venture to say that southern pine is actually harder, at
>least in the raised grain areas.
Tulip may sometimes be called "tulip poplar," but it is not related to
poplars. Although it may grow fast, when young, what I described my
original post is not a circumstance of growth that most people are
familiar with. In a mature forest, the behavior of tulip (and other
trees) is very different from other environments. They grow much more
slowly, growing very straight and tall, with no lower branches. In such
a forest, all of the trees look pretty much the same from the ground.
Can you tell more about the woodworking properties of the wood? Is it
as soft as poplar?
>In fact, In Bedford, VA, you can find what is supposed to be the largest living
>tulip poplar in the country. Not too far from Thomas Jefferson's summer home
>at Poplar Forest.
Sounds magnificent! Do you know the height, girth, or age of that tree?
>This is also only the second time I've heard of your burners. I tend to think
>it is something that happened on occasion, that has no become legend, and
>something, about like crocs in the NYC sewer system, that has happened often.
It is no legend, it is very well documented. If you read my original
post about the two surviving forest areas that represent what the early
settlers faced, you may better understand what a nearly impossible task
settlement would have been without burning. You can't grow grain and
corn under a mature forest canopy -- only mushrooms.
CharlieDIY
>
>Tulip may sometimes be called "tulip poplar," but it is not related to
>poplars. Although it may grow fast, when young, what I described my
>original post is not a circumstance of growth that most people are
>familiar with. In a mature forest, the behavior of tulip (and other
>trees) is very different from other environments. They grow much more
>slowly, growing very straight and tall, with no lower branches.
I'm not sure what you think is the difference twixt tulip poplar and poplar.
Same tree. It is called tulip poplar because it has a tulip shaped flower in
the spring--someone not long ago pointed out that the leaves also have a
profile tulip shape, which I should have known and didn't.
The wood is soft, easily worked, and is often gouged into bread bowls around
here (a bread bowl is where bread dough is kneaded and left to rise). Easy to
work, not durable, not particularly attracive (greenish yellow streaks in a
creamy white, though I've seen it a purplish red, too). I sided my workshop in
the stuff, and also used it as subfloor because it is, though weak for a
hardwood, stronger than most softwoods. Not durable, but in siding
applications where nothing touches the ground, and it gets a coat of clear
sealer every three years or so (from a garden sprayer), I expect it will
outlast me by some years.
Quite easy to work. Doesn't splinter. Holds nails decently, and doesn't split
exceptinoally easily, though it does split easier than, for example, white oak
or hickory. But most woods do.
Actually has been used for unseen parts of furniture for many years, and still
is. I've got a very old dresser out of the Hudson Valley in NY, probably
150-200 years, that is painted pine with poplar bottoms and sides on the
drawers. Reasonably stable dimensionally, and one of the few woods available
in really wide boards these days. Also about dead useless for floors, but gets
lots of use as inner plies in hardwood plywood.
You're right about the appearance in the forest: lower branches drop off
quickly and I've seen, in the Jefferson National Forest that is nearby, some
examples that probably rise well past 75' before branching.
Don't know the girth or height of the old, old poplar. I should, but, in
truth, have forgotten.
Charlie Self
Word Worker
George Nazarko
Problem is not that the forests were burned at all, but they weren't burned
often enough. There are shade tolerant and shade intolerant species in
every area. Our pioneer trees are poplars (the real ones), white birch and
cherry. Not shade tolerant, and grow rapidly upward to stay in the light.
Sometimes they're so spindly from running up that they fall over of their
own weight.
The tree won't grow this far north, but the pulp farmers down there can
surely use it, can't they? Sounds like an ideal candidate for 40-50 year
clearcut rotation.
D. Randal Holtzclaw wrote in message <72f1gn$ijp$1...@news.usit.net>...
Bill Bailer
On 12 Nov 1998, CharlieDIY wrote:
>Wbailer writes:
>>Tulip may sometimes be called "tulip poplar," but it is not related to
>>poplars. ...
>
>I'm not sure what you think is the difference twixt tulip poplar and poplar.
Maybe you didn't say what you meant? The "tulip" tree is, as I said,
sometimes called "tulip poplar;" there is no difference. But it is NOT
a poplar, and as it stands in the forest, does not resemble a poplar.
From your description of the wood, as lumber, it may resemble poplar in
it's working qualities and color, so as lumber (not as a tree) it may
traditionally be classed with poplar in the distribution channels.
>I've got a very old dresser out of the Hudson Valley in NY, probably
>150-200 years, that is painted pine with poplar bottoms and sides on the
>drawers. Reasonably stable dimensionally, and one of the few woods available
>in really wide boards these days. Also about dead useless for floors, but gets
>lots of use as inner plies in hardwood plywood.
Here, do you really mean poplar, or tulip? I know poplar is used in the
manner you say, but is tulip used that way? Can you tell the difference
in the woods by looking at it? When you buy "poplar," can you tell
which you are really getting? Can you buy "tulip," specifically?
>You're right about the appearance in the forest: lower branches drop off
>quickly and I've seen, in the Jefferson National Forest that is nearby, some
>examples that probably rise well past 75' before branching.
>
>Don't know the girth or height of the old, old poplar. I should, but, in
>truth, have forgotten.
Now I am confused again! I assume you are talking about tulip?
When you described the wood that you have worked with, were you
referring to wood that was bought as poplar, or do you know for sure
that it actually was tulip?
Thank you for your description of the working qualities of the wood -- I
believe it explains why the tulip is sometimes referred to as tulip
poplar (that is, if you were describing real tulip, and not poplar).
Bill Bailer
>D. Randal Holtzclaw wrote in message <72f1gn$ijp$1...@news.usit.net>...
>
>>>As to maturity of the forest, certain trees grow well in shade, others
>>>because there's no seed, not because there's no shade - period.
This makes sense to me. Could it be that tulip seed does not survive
forest fires? They seeds are small, and are dropped late in the season,
so there may be nothing left to grow. Also, the durability of the seeds
may be low, as compared to, for example an oak (acorn), and may rot or
become infertile in less than a year?
>>Actually, Tulip Poplar is considered a "pioneer species" because it is one
>>of the most shade-intolerant of the hardwoods. As a rule, hardwoods are
>>rather tolerant of shade and can exist quite happily in the understory, but
>>Tulip Poplar is an exception. It's most commonly found on disturbed sites
>>along with pines. If you find large stands of Tulip Poplar, it is usually
>>even-aged and indicative of a distubed or once-cleared site. You will
>>seldom to never find Tulip Poplar under a closed canopy.
This makes sense, but the tulips in this hardwood stand in Rochester NY
are mixed with beech, oak, maple, etc, and appear to be the same age.
I noticed that after our "great ice storm" that there were resultant
holes in the canopy, and that there are now tulip tree sapplings taking
advantage of that, even though they are not in direct sunlight. If they
grow fast, they may beat the other hardwoods in claiming those new
windows of light. The leaves on the young sapplings are very large,
much larger than on the mature trees. They appear to me to actually be
quite adaptive to shade. Which still makes it a mystery to me why there
are so many fewer of them now than in the geologically past. Little has
changed, except the arrival of human beings.
Another point to consider is this: if tulip is a "pioneer" species, why
does it grow to be the tallest tree in the East? No other pioneer
species grows tall at all. Isn't this height only an advantage in a
mature forest?
>Shade intolerant, is it? Sort of shoots the original poster's theory down.
>Problem is not that the forests were burned at all, but they weren't burned
>often enough. There are shade tolerant and shade intolerant species in
>every area. Our pioneer trees are poplars (the real ones), white birch and
>cherry. Not shade tolerant, and grow rapidly upward to stay in the light.
>Sometimes they're so spindly from running up that they fall over of their
>own weight.
Poplars and birches are common pioneer species here in Western NY. I
have seen cherry in many settings, especially in some of the oldest
forests in this state. They compete well with other hardwoods. The
reason they often appear in new growth is because they arrive sooner
than the other species -- deer and other animals eat the cherries,
including the pits (seeds), which have evolved to survive the passage
through the digestive tract, and get distributed over long distances by
that means.
I have seen tulip ONLY in old forests, or as "loners," never in new
growth. This has nothing to do with theory, only observation.
>The tree won't grow this far north ...
The upper edge of the natural range runs from Lake Ontario to Boston,
but it is a rugged tree and will surely grow further north than that, if
planted. How far north are you?
Bill Bailer
>
>For a more accurate and picturesque view of American history, is so far a
>our relationship to our forests is concerned, I suggest Eric Sloane's
>book, A Reverance for Wood. A friend told me that Amazon.com still has
>some copies of it. Early Americans knew the forests to be a vast
>resource. Not something to be wasted, but put to use. Vast areas were
>harvested and turned into charcoal and other uses that modern day
>woodworkers and environmentalists have come to regret. But, this is the
>first I've ever heard of professional burners, and like Charlie DIY, I
>don't believe it. American pioneers were dependent on the forests to
>provide materials for their homes, furnishings, fuel and most of other
>items that they used in daily life. They did not deliberately waste
>things in the manner that we do today.
>Doug Stowe Visit my website: http://www.DougStowe.com
>Author of "Creating Beautiful Boxes With Inlay Techniques"
The "burning" is a well documented fact of our history. The "vast
areas" that you speak of, ammounted to the entire eastern United States
-- and contained thousands of times more hardwood than anyone could have
made use of. The only way to get rid of it was to burn it. What Eric
Sloane describes is the life of pioneers AFTER the burning, and how they
treated their "wood lots," which were small stands of trees in a small
corner of each farm. As for charcoal, I doubt that pioneers had any use
for it, except for very small quantities in a blacksmiths shop. The
reverence for wood was very great, no doubt, but of the trees that were
here before the pioneers came, less than 1% was needed for anything
useful, and the other 99% was burned. Most settlers never got a chance
to see the natural landscape -- it was burned long before they arrived.
The land could not even be surveyed and sold, until burned. The
government sold large un-surveyed tracts to land companies, who could
not get a nickel for an acre of forested land. Even now, forested land
in Western NY is nearly worthless -- the money you can get for having it
lumbered may or may not pay the taxes on it. Farm land in NYS has been
steadilly abandoned for the last 100 years, and the ammount of forested
land is steadilly increasing.
Burning did not necessarilly kill all of the trees -- many trees
survived, and had to be "girdled" -- stripping a ring of bark arround
the base of the tree. The many dead trees that were left standing were
often left in place; there was not enough time to take them down, and
agriculture had to get underway immediately. Those big dead ones were
taken down one at a time over a period of many years, and again, burned.
The ammount of wood that had to be gotten rid of may just be
unfathomable, from our modern perspective.
ERich10983
>The "burning" is a well documented fact of our history.
I remember reading about this in school history books as a kid. I believe that
the ashes were shipped back to England to be used as fertilizer (potash?).
Pictures of the area around Searsport, Maine showed very few trees. Mostly
bare fields with only scattered elms lining the streets. Now, everything is
covered with trees. It takes regular attention to keep a field open in New
England.
Earle Rich
Mont Vernon, NH
Doug Stowe
Bill Bailer <Wba...@cris.com> wrote:
> Maybe you didn't say what you meant? The "tulip" tree is, as I said,
> sometimes called "tulip poplar;" there is no difference. But it is NOT
> a poplar, and as it stands in the forest, does not resemble a poplar.
> From your description of the wood, as lumber, it may resemble poplar in
> it's working qualities and color, so as lumber (not as a tree) it may
> traditionally be classed with poplar in the distribution channels.
>
The poplar family "populus" as it grows in Arkansas, is represented by
three species, White poplar, which doesn't amount to much in the way of
useful lumber, and eastern and swamp cottonwoods. The eastern cottonwood
is valuable for lumber and veneer. The swamp cottonwood has lumber useful
for lesser grade requirements. These are not sold as poplar. The tulip
poplar is the wood you would find sold by hardwood dealers under the name
poplar.
I know this must seem confusing. The poplars my parents planted in their
back yard in the 60's as a fast growing windbreak had leaves like a
cottonwood and were nothing at all like the towering tulip poplar.
Will Flor
>Wbailer writes:
>
>>
>>Tulip may sometimes be called "tulip poplar," but it is not related to
>>original post is not a circumstance of growth that most people are
>>familiar with. In a mature forest, the behavior of tulip (and other
>>trees) is very different from other environments. They grow much more
>>slowly, growing very straight and tall, with no lower branches.
>
>the spring--someone not long ago pointed out that the leaves also have a
>profile tulip shape, which I should have known and didn't.
No, poplars and tulip poplars aren't the same tree at all - in fact, the
previous poster is correct when he says that they're not related. Tulip
poplar is a magnolia, not a poplar at all - it's a completely different family
of plant. They're as closely related as, say, a dog and a monkey. The thing
that is confusing as all get-out is that somebody decided to give the "tulip
poplar" (or "yellow poplar") a name that ended in the word "poplar" even
though it isn't one. Poplars, members of the genus Populus, are mostly made
into paper, as their lumber is pretty weak. Occasionally one can find
cottonwood lumber; cottonwood definitely is a poplar. However, the usual type
of "poplar" lumber available is indeed from "tulip poplar". It's almost as
confusing as "cedar" - none of the cedar lumber available in the US actually
comes from true cedars, members of the genus Cedrus. Don't even get me
started on "mahogany". ;-)
-Will Flor wi...@will-flor.spamblock.com
Appropriately adjust my return address to reach me via e-mail.
Hoff Stuart
I would be interested in a source for this "burning" being a well
documented fact of our history. Early histories I've been reading (Hawke
- Everyday Life in Early America, Tate (ed) - The Chesapeake in the
Seventeenth Century, Cronon - Changes in the Land - Indians, Colonists
and the Ecology of New England) do not mention it.
They do mention wide spread use of wood for lumber, tanning for
tanneries (especially oak and hemlock), potash for making soap and
fertilizer (it takes a 1000 tons of wood to make 1 ton of potash), iron
making (250 bushels of charcoal for one ton of iron), heating houses (5
to 20 cords of wood a year per house) as well as other uses such as
split rail fences, mine timber, potassium nitrate for gunpowder from
wood ashes, etc. These all add up to a lot of wood.
They also said a settler could clear in a year no more than an acre or
two and in a lifetime he would leave less than a hundred acres of
cultivable land and pasture. It took about half a century to carve a
farm out of the wilderness. Girdling came first, in a year or two the
tress are chopped down. The stumps are left to decay - it might take 10
years.
This doesn't mean that wood wasn't wasted however - the richest and
straightest trees were often used and the rest were piled and burned on
the spot. Just like happens today. This does not imply that there were
professionals who burned down forests for money unless they had a use
for it - such as potash.
Hoff Stuart
Robert S Wallace
genus Populus that have tulip-shaped leaves. It is likely that the wood
named 'tulip' was from the "tulip tree", or Liriodendron tulipifera, a member
of the Magnolia family. The wood is fairly soft, although useful for
certain structural elements. It is probably NOT a poplar, specifically,
despite the similar appearance and physical properties of the woods.
Rob Wallace,
Associate Professor of Botany
Iowa State University
In article <rLD%1.443$BU1....@newsfeed.slurp.net>,
prome <xpr...@transformgc.com> wrote:
>It is a species of poplar, commonly called Tulip Poplar, because the shape
>of the leaves resembles a tulip flower in profile.
>
>This is really nice wood for some uses. In cabinetry, it is often used for
>draw sides, backs and bottoms, or for internal carcase parts. It's pretty
>dimensionally stable, takes a finish pretty well, and is easy to work.
>
>Sounds like a great auction!
>
>
>CWard96624 wrote in message <19981103072420...@ng125.aol.com>...
>>>d/Lumber Gloat
>>>From: Glen Duff <glen...@attcanada.net>
>>>Date: 11/3/98 5:30 AM Eastern Standard Time
>>>Message-id: <363EE812...@attcanada.net>
>>>
>>>Last Saturday I attended an auction of a cabinet business closing in
>>>Ontario Mennonite country about 1 1/2 hours north and west of Toronto.
>>>
>>>The quality and unbelievably low prices of very large industrial
>>>woodworking machinery blew me away. I would have bought a machine or
>>>two but they were far too large for hobbyinst needs. Examples, an older
>>>planer/molder with around around 75 sets of knives, almost anything you
>>>could think of for molding heads, went for $750 Canadian. The unit must
>>>have weighed well over a ton. Another bargain was a gigantic cutoff saw
>>>with a 20' conveyor table. It cross cut up to 24". Can you believe the
>>>price - $450 Canadian. That was probably the best bargain I've ever
>>>seen in my life on anything!
>>>
>>>Anyway, I bought 3 lots of lumber, maybe 500 board feet for $345, mostly
>>>1 1/4" pine of various lengths and thickness. In addition to other
>>>woods such as maple and oak, there was around 150 board feet of 1 1/4"
>>>lumber marked Tulip. I think I've seen Tulip trees which have leaves
>>>shaped like a tulip. The wood seems fairly soft though not as soft as
>>>pine and is a greyish colour.
>>>
>>>Does anyone have any experience or recommendations as to the working
>>>qualities and uses of the wood? Is it just a utility type of wood or
>>>can it be used for cabinets, furniture, etc.? Also, I would be
>>>interested in opinions on how I might finish this wood.
>>>
>>>Thanks for any comments or suggestions.
>>>Glen Duff, Rockwood, Ontario
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I think tulipwood is poplar
Tulipwood is a dense hardwood related to Rosewood (genus Dalbergia)
from Brazil having reddish and craeam solored striped figure; also called
pau rosa. One would not find this in large lots unless the auction was at a
hardwoods distributor. It is not very common, and is fairly pricey as
exotics go. HTH
--
Robert S. Wallace
Associate Professor of Botany "In cerevisia veritas est."
Dept. of Botany - Iowa State Univ.
Ames, Iowa 50011-1020 rwal...@iastate.edu FAX: 515-294-1337
+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_ooo000ooo_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+
CharlieDIY
>The poplars my parents planted in their
>back yard in the 60's as a fast growing windbreak had leaves like a
>cottonwood and were nothing at all like the towering tulip poplar.
>
>--
Different strokes: unless I'm wildly mistaken, cottonwoods are related, but
not the same. To prevent further mix-ups, here's a quote: "The liriodendron
tulipfera range is great, running form New York and Connecticut down to Florida
and west to Missouri....The tree is fast growing and reaches heights of over
100 feet with frequency, often going to 165 feet....Trunks reach 6-1/2 feet in
diameter. Yellow poplar sapwood is white, and often several inches thick,
while the heartwood is a yellowish brown, sometimes streaked with green,
purple, black, blue or red. The wood is straightgrained and uniform in
texture. Poplar works easily with hand and power tools, especially those that
are kept sharp, and it glues up easily with all woodworking adhesives. It
doesn't split easily, so it holds nails and screws well,"
That's poplar in my locale and most of the East.
Many of the poplars planted as windbreaks, by the way, were Lombardy poplars,
which are a very fast growing hybrid. I've got some similar fast growing
poplars, but in shade tree form, along my drive, and as I noted earlier, they
are claimed to grow 8' a year, and I've observed that they sometimes actually
grow more than 10' per year. A non-hybrid tulipfera grows from 2' to 4' a year
depending on conditions.
Oh yeah. The quote is from Woodworker's Guide to Selecting and Milling Wood,
Betterway, Cincinnati, OH 1994. I wrote it.
Charlie Self
Word Worker
CharlieDIY
>>The "burning" is a well documented fact of our history.
>
>I remember reading about this in school history books as a kid. I believe
>that
>the ashes were shipped back to England to be used as fertilizer (potash?).
>Pictures of the area around Searsport, Maine showed very few trees. Mostly
>bare fields with only scattered elms lining the streets. Now, everything is
>covered with trees. It takes regular attention to keep a field open in New
>England.
Lots of potash shipped back to England, of course, but pictures of Searsport,
ME with mostly bare fields doesn't speak to me of colonial days at all.
Drawings, maybe?
Charlie Self
Word Worker
john carlson
40' tall. Distinctive leaves that look like a tulip viewed in cross
section.
According to my Peterson Field Guide to Eastern Trees, the
Tuliptree (liriodendron Tulipifera) is indeed the "tallest and in some
ways handsomest" eastern forest tree and is second only to sycamore on
trunk girth. Wood is described as straight-grained, fine, soft and
resistant to splitting and easily worked. The Guide notes that the
tree was widely used by Native Americans for dugout canoes (Due, I
believe, to its light weight). Though widely known as Yellow Poplar
and Tulip Poplar, it is actually a relative of the Magnolias and not
closely related to true poplars.
On 11 Nov 1998 09:39:21 PST, Bill Bailer <Wba...@cris.com> wrote:
>
>Inspired by:
>
>On Tue, 3 Nov 1998, Chuck Steger wrote:
>>Sounds like you got Poplar. Tuilpwood is an exotic from Brazil that is
>>Salmon in color with noticeble grain stripes.
>>
>>--
>>Chuck Steger
>>Warrenton, Virginia
>>Email: chuck....@erols.com
>
>I'm changing the subject, because of my severe wandering ...
>
>Tulip trees, were once very common in the North East United States. They
>were one of the four dominant types of tree, which included maple beech,
>and oak. I live near a rare stand of "old" forest in Rochester NY, set
>aside as a forest preserve in the 1800's and now a part of the east end
>of Cobbs Hill park, where there are many huge, majestic Tulip
>trees that are well over 250 years old. Do I dare use the word:
>"Awesome" trees? They grow to be the tallest trees in the East.
>
>After the settlement of the white man, the entire North East has been
>burned to the ground many times, and most of the trees we now see were
>actually planted, or are the trees that get the best start in a new
>forest. Tulip trees become prevalent only after several hundred years
>of the evolution of a forest, so almost none of our forests here in the
>North East are yet old enough to see many tulip trees. If you visit
>Rochester in another 500 years, our little forest may be predominantly
>tulip trees by then, when their advantage of height has had time to "win
>out." From the fossil record, we know that tulip trees have been
>dominant in the longest lived forests here. Before ANY men came here,
>before native American Indians arrived, tulip trees were dominant, and
>will be again some day in areas that we leave alone long enough.
>
>This preserve is now only as old as the first burning of this area when
>the white man came here. Professional "burners" were sent out ahead of
>everyone else, to prepare the land for settlement. There were already
>areas that had been regularly burned by the indians (to promote deer),
>but the virgin and old forest areas were uninhabitable, worthless land,
>not even of value as lumber because the trees were TOO big
>(ironic? read on ...). So they methodically burned every bit of it they
>could find.
>
>Although I have no experience with the wood, the trees grow very slowly,
>and the wood is reputed to be very hard. It is an ancient tree, and not
>closely related to any other common species, so the qualities of the
>wood may be unique. Does anyone know more about the wood?
>
ERich10983
>Lots of potash shipped back to England, of course, but pictures of Searsport,
>ME with mostly bare fields doesn't speak to me of colonial days at all.
>
>Drawings, maybe?
>
Quite right. The pictures were taken during the early 20th century and there
were still a lot of horses around. Home heating used a lot of wood also.
I once asked my father how they handled splitting and handling large logs when
gathering wood along the Penobscot Bay shore for firewood. They simply went up
the the hardware store, bought a 1/4 or 1/2 stick of dynamite, used an auger
drill to install, and ran like hell. I am a little resentful that I missed out
on that as a kid.
CharlieDIY
>I once asked my father how they handled splitting and handling large logs
>when
>gathering wood along the Penobscot Bay shore for firewood. They simply went
>up
>the the hardware store, bought a 1/4 or 1/2 stick of dynamite, used an auger
>drill to install, and ran like hell. I am a little resentful that I missed
>out
>on that as a kid.
>
>
My father worked his parents' Kentucky farm as a kid, and walked away at 17 (in
'17) to go to Detroit and learn to be a mechanic. I wish I'd known enough to
ask him those kinds of questions when he was alive.
Charlie Self
Word Worker
Bill Bailer
On Sun, 15 Nov 1998, Geof Gonter wrote:
>
>In article <Pine.SUN.4.01.981113...@viking.cris.com>,
>Bill Bailer <Wba...@cris.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>>Wbailer writes:
>>it's working qualities and color, so as lumber (not as a tree) it may
>>traditionally be classed with poplar in the distribution channels.
>
I have since discovered that the US Forestry Service (at their web site)
prefers the desighnation "yellow poplar," and elsewhere, "tulip poplar."
To refer to it as just "tulip tree" is actually less common, although
people not in the forestry or lumber business seem to prefer to leave
off the word "poplar."
>
>Yellow poplar is extremely important in the lumber industry. It is used in
>frames in upholstered furniture, drawer parts, bottom panels, plywood core
>stock, pallets, and exterior panels on furniture. It is also used where
>the painting of the furniture/wooden product is done, such as painted
>stair rails, newell posts, and ballisters. There is a distinct difference
>in the boards, when viewed in a complete width. Yellow poplar often
>contains the purple and green hues of minerals and other elements that the
>tree brings toward its canopy when transferring water and food from its
>roots. The true poplars are pretty much pure white in color, similar to
>basswood.
>
I have seen poplar wood that I know to have come NOT from tulip that is
not white, and has greyish and greenish hues in it, and not very
attractive. I have also seen wood that I know was from cottonwood that
is similar, not at all white, and also not at all resembling
basswood. I assume that some, possibly younger true poplars, but not
all, are pure white, as you say.
I do believe that reference to tulip as just "poplar" is restricted to
wood at it's point of final sale, as a "classification," but that it is
better in all other circumstances, when meaning tulip, to at least
include the word "tulip," or "yellow." Without that, saying just
"poplar," you are referring to TWO trees that are classed together as
lumber, and is botanically confusing.
>>Bill Bailer
>>wba...@cris.com, Rochester NY USA, tel:716-473-9556
>>Acoustics, piano technology, music theory, JSBach
>
>Piano technology in what way? My primary employer used to make (still do
>in a limited amount) piano parts from sugar pine, basswood, and hard
>maple.
>--
> ---Geof Gonter--- MacChamp President - MacJam'98 Chair
I have worked in piano building, quality control, rebuilding, repair,
design, stringing scales, tuning and temperaments, ... just about
everything to do with pianos. Dozens of different woods are selected
for optimal qualities, to make a good piano. Nobody has to know more
about the practial applications of woods, and their qualities, than a
"piano man." The three woods that you mention are important, but only
three of many. Remarkably, pianos are expected to last longer than
almost anything else, and they do. Most pianos ever made still exist.
My own is 106 years old, and entirely original wooden parts. We don't
yet know how long they can last, because we haven't been making modern
pianos much longer than that.
C. Brunner
>Wbailer writes:
>>Although I have no experience with the wood, the trees grow very slowly,
>>and the wood is reputed to be very hard. It is an ancient tree, and not
>>closely related to any other common species, so the qualities of the
>>wood may be unique. Does anyone know more about the wood?
>Poplar? A hard, slow growing wood? Not where I come from. Tulip poplar is
>one of the fastest growing hardwoods--the hybrids are incredibly fast, up to
>10' per year--and it is also one of the softest. I'd venture to say that
>southern pine is actually harder, at least in the raised grain areas.
>Charlie Self
>Word Worker
Yellow poplar, or "tulip tree", grows like a weed around here--several feet
per year, easily, in our long season (Alabama). The wood seems soft, and not
very strong, but it is smooth and homogeneous. I thought yellow poplar was
technically a type of magnolia. I'll check my tree book....
C. Brunner
"NOT" is a spamblock
CharlieDIY
>
>Yellow poplar, or "tulip tree", grows like a weed around here--several feet
>per year, easily, in our long season (Alabama). The wood seems soft, and not
>
>very strong, but it is smooth and homogeneous. I thought yellow poplar was
>technically a type of magnolia. I'll check my tree book....
It is a relative of magnolia and not a true poplar, but it is what is
recognized as poplar in much of the mid-Atlantic and south.
Charlie Self
Word Worker
Kim A Taylor
: >Wbailer writes:
: >>Although I have no experience with the wood, the trees grow very slowly,
: >>and the wood is reputed to be very hard. It is an ancient tree, and not
: >>closely related to any other common species, so the qualities of the
: >>wood may be unique. Does anyone know more about the wood?
: >Poplar? A hard, slow growing wood? Not where I come from. Tulip poplar is
: >one of the fastest growing hardwoods--the hybrids are incredibly fast, up to
: >10' per year--and it is also one of the softest. I'd venture to say that
: >southern pine is actually harder, at least in the raised grain areas.
: >Charlie Self
: >Word Worker
: Yellow poplar, or "tulip tree", grows like a weed around here--several feet
: per year, easily, in our long season (Alabama). The wood seems soft, and not
: very strong, but it is smooth and homogeneous. I thought yellow poplar was
: technically a type of magnolia. I'll check my tree book....
: C. Brunner
: "NOT" is a spamblock
Might be running into a confusion here, tulipwood as I know it is a true
rosewood (Dalbergia sp.), while tuliptree is a flowering hardwood that
produces lumber about like poplar.
Kim.
--
============================================================================
Kim Taylor NEXT EVENTS:Nov 7 Ottawa, Nov 21 Leamington,
mailto:kata...@uoguelph.ca Dec 5 Toronto, Dec 6 JCCC gradings
UG. 519-824-4120 ext. 3700
Dept. Animal Science Join iai...@listserv.uoguelph.ca
U. of Guelph, Guelph Ontario Send to: LIST...@LISTSERV.UOGUELPH.CA
Canada N1G 2W1 Command: SUBSCRIBE IAIDO-L yourname
FAX 519-836-9873 Homepage:http://www.uoguelph.ca/~kataylor
============================================================================