Baltic birch vs. Poplar for Bathroom Cabinet

[blueman]

I am building a built-in painted cabinet for one of our bathrooms (which
includes a shower).

I am planning on using poplar for the face frames but was wondering whether
it would be OK to use Baltic Birch for the sides.

Specifically, my concern is whether Baltic Birch plywood would be more
likely to absorb water and swell/delaminate in a bathroom/shower
situation. (Note: there shouldn't be any direct water contact except
from steam/humidity and the occassional 'puddling' on the floor that
could wick up into the end-grain)


Note All surfaces will be primed & painted.

[Swingman]

On 12/3/2011 7:58 PM, blueman wrote:

> I am planning on using poplar for the face frames but was wondering whether
> it would be OK to use Baltic Birch for the sides.

I would not use poplar for face frames if I could help it. "Poplar"
ain't what it used to be and is, IME, problematic from a dimensional
stability stand point.

Birch, white or red, might be a better choice, IMO.

> Specifically, my concern is whether Baltic Birch plywood would be more
> likely to absorb water and swell/delaminate in a bathroom/shower
> situation. (Note: there shouldn't be any direct water contact except
> from steam/humidity and the occassional 'puddling' on the floor that
> could wick up into the end-grain)
>
>
> Note All surfaces will be primed& painted.

Nothing wrong with Baltic birch in that environment ...or a good import
B2 paint grade birch plywood will do just as well for unseen panel sides
for a bit less.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

[Larry Jaques]

I wouldn't worry about it. It's well made plywood and the primer and
paint will seal it completely. I wouldn't hesitate to use it.

--
Self-development is a higher duty than self-sacrifice.
-- Elizabeth Cady Stanton

[Lew Hodgett]

"Swingman" wrote:

> I would not use poplar for face frames if I could help it. "Poplar"
> ain't what it used to be and is, IME, problematic from a dimensional
> stability stand point.

----------------------------------
Any idea why the current supply of Poplar is not dimensionally stable?

Lew

[Max]

"Larry Jaques" <lja...@invalid.diversifycomm.com> wrote in message
news:8fmld7ls556nvp2cj...@4ax.com...

Especially since the plywood wouldn't/shouldn't be in direct contact with
the floor.

Max

[blueman]

Yes... my plan is to put it on top of a 1.5" base (made of 2x4's) which
will be well covered by the 3" molding...

[blueman]

Swingman <k...@nospam.com> writes:
> On 12/3/2011 7:58 PM, blueman wrote:
>
>> I am planning on using poplar for the face frames but was wondering whether
>> it would be OK to use Baltic Birch for the sides.
>
> I would not use poplar for face frames if I could help it. "Poplar"
> ain't what it used to be and is, IME, problematic from a dimensional
> stability stand point.
>
> Birch, white or red, might be a better choice, IMO.

I didn't realize Poplar wasn't stable... Is this just an issue in humid
environments like a bathroom or do you not use poplar at all anymore?

Also, Birch seems to be quite pricy - about 3-4 times as expensive as
poplar (when bought milled) and almost twice as expensive as oak and
more than cherry

Seems almost a crime to pay that much for something that will be
painted... Is Poplar really that much of an issue?

[-MIKE-]

Since when? Why?


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
mi...@mikedrumsDOT.com
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

[dadiOH]

blueman wrote:
> I am building a built-in painted cabinet for one of our bathrooms
> (which includes a shower).
>
> I am planning on using poplar for the face frames but was wondering
> whether it would be OK to use Baltic Birch for the sides.

Yes. Or any other plywood.

--

dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico

[Han]

Swingman <k...@nospam.com> wrote in
news:4vmdnZrPM4TGRUfT...@giganews.com:

> On 12/3/2011 7:58 PM, blueman wrote:
>
>> I am planning on using poplar for the face frames but was wondering
>> whether it would be OK to use Baltic Birch for the sides.
>
> I would not use poplar for face frames if I could help it. "Poplar"
> ain't what it used to be and is, IME, problematic from a dimensional
> stability stand point.
>
> Birch, white or red, might be a better choice, IMO.
>
>
>> Specifically, my concern is whether Baltic Birch plywood would be
>> more likely to absorb water and swell/delaminate in a bathroom/shower
>> situation. (Note: there shouldn't be any direct water contact except
>> from steam/humidity and the occassional 'puddling' on the floor that
>> could wick up into the end-grain)
>>
>>
>> Note All surfaces will be primed& painted.
>
> Nothing wrong with Baltic birch in that environment ...or a good
> import B2 paint grade birch plywood will do just as well for unseen
> panel sides for a bit less.

What about that water resistant green MDF you recently talked about?


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

[Swingman]

Look around you Lew, almost every thing in this country that is tainted
by corporate MBAthink is shit, including MOST current products of the
lumber industry.

Indigenous new growth and/or plantation grown wood, as poplar is wont to
be these days, with an unusually high moisture content for a tree to
start with, coupled with the corporate MBAthink, equals wood that is
inferior and improperly dried for most uses as cabinet/furniture
"lumber" ... although great for pulp.

Poplar has a high ratio of tangential to radial shrinkage, number
one cause drying defects, so how is this handled by the corporate mindset?

Ship it over the recommended moisture content and let the consumer worry
about it, which means in the end that a high percentage of what is sold
and used for cabinets/furniture will eventually exhibit dimensional
instability.

Basically, and in a sense, poplar has become the hardwood version of new
growth fir and pine ... an unacceptable percentage will turn into a
pretzel when it reaches equilibrium and not restrained in some manner.

I decided a few years ago to no longer waste my time on the wood in any
cabinet or furniture project. If you see a paint grade wooden door, or a
bowed face frame on a painted cabinet, and it is warped, you can bet it
is poplar.

Further notable is that not a single door supplier I know will use
poplar for paint grade door frames these days, not one! You can't even
order it as a door option any longer in this neck of the woods.

[Swingman]

On 12/4/2011 6:05 AM, Han wrote:
> Swingman<k...@nospam.com> wrote

>> Nothing wrong with Baltic birch in that environment ...or a good
>> import B2 paint grade birch plywood will do just as well for unseen
>> panel sides for a bit less.
>
> What about that water resistant green MDF you recently talked about?

I don't make cabinets out of mdf. MDF is much too heavy and does not
hold fasteners well enough to stand the test of time.

High grade, water resistant MDF in painted doors and drawer fronts in
some styles, like European slab doors and drawer fronts, yes.

Some things simply work well for a targeted purpose ... like using
pocket hole joinery for cabinet face frames.

[Swingman]

On 12/3/2011 11:33 PM, blueman wrote:
> Swingman<k...@nospam.com> writes:
>> On 12/3/2011 7:58 PM, bl

>> I would not use poplar for face frames if I could help it. "Poplar"
>> ain't what it used to be and is, IME, problematic from a dimensional
>> stability stand point.

> Seems almost a crime to pay that much for something that will be
> painted... Is Poplar really that much of an issue?

If price is an issue (not all that much of an investment in the face
frame material for one bath cabinet) go with red oak and paint it.

[Larry Jaques]

On Sat, 3 Dec 2011 21:32:53 -0700, "Max" <thesam...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:

Yeah, I got a bag of 100 nylon nail-in feet at a garbadj sale and
they'll last my lifetime and then some.

http://www.componentforce.com/category/313/nail-on-feet like these

[Rich]

I no longer use Poplar. My choice in California is Soft Maple.
--
"You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"

Man. 2010.1 Spring
KDE4.4
2.6.33.5-desktop-2mnb

[Max]

"-MIKE-" <mi...@mikedrumsDOT.com> wrote in message
news:jbf2q9$bn9$3...@dont-email.me...

The cabinet "should" set on a base. (That's how I've always built mine;
YMMV)

Max

[Rich]

Yes, and isn't that called a Toe Kick???

[Larry Blanchard]

On Sat, 03 Dec 2011 20:58:54 -0500, blueman wrote:

> Specifically, my concern is whether Baltic Birch plywood would be more
> likely to absorb water and swell/delaminate in a bathroom/shower
> situation.

It's my understanding that "Finnish Birch" is the same as "Baltic Birch"
except the FB uses exterior glue and the BB does not. You might want to
consider the FB.



--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

[Swingman]

On 12/4/2011 11:33 AM, Rich wrote:

> I no longer use Poplar. My choice in California is Soft Maple.

That'll work just fine ... smart man!

Most folks just look at the upfront costs ... those who do it for a
living look at the long term costs of callbacks that come from not using
a suitable material in the first place.

[-MIKE-]

Unless these are being installed on the back deck or in a sauna, plain
old plywood is going to be fine.

[Rich]

Swingman wrote:

> On 12/4/2011 11:33 AM, Rich wrote:
>
>> I no longer use Poplar. My choice in California is Soft Maple.
>
> That'll work just fine ... smart man!
>
> Most folks just look at the upfront costs ... those who do it for a
> living look at the long term costs of callbacks that come from not using
> a suitable material in the first place.
>
>

Well like you, I'm in the business. And have seen what has happened to
Poplar. My supplier won't even offer it for sale.

[-MIKE-]

On 12/4/11 11:47 AM, Rich wrote:
> Max wrote:
>
>> "-MIKE-"<mi...@mikedrumsDOT.com> wrote in message
>> news:jbf2q9$bn9$3...@dont-email.me...
>>> On 12/3/11 10:32 PM, Max wrote:
>>>> "Larry Jaques"<lja...@invalid.diversifycomm.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:8fmld7ls556nvp2cj...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Sat, 03 Dec 2011 20:58:54 -0500, blueman<NOS...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I am building a built-in painted cabinet for one of our bathrooms
>>>>>> (which
>>>>>> includes a shower).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am planning on using poplar for the face frames but was wondering
>>>>>> whether
>>>>>> it would be OK to use Baltic Birch for the sides.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Specifically, my concern is whether Baltic Birch plywood would be more
>>>>>> likely to absorb water and swell/delaminate in a bathroom/shower
>>>>>> situation. (Note: there shouldn't be any direct water contact except
>>>>>> from steam/humidity and the occassional 'puddling' on the floor that
>>>>>> could wick up into the end-grain)
>>>>>>

>>>>>> Note All surfaces will be primed& painted.

>>>>>
>>>>> I wouldn't worry about it. It's well made plywood and the primer and
>>>>> paint will seal it completely. I wouldn't hesitate to use it.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Especially since the plywood wouldn't/shouldn't be in direct contact
>>>> with the floor.
>>>>
>>>> Max
>>>>
>>>
>>> Since when? Why?
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> -MIKE-
>>>
>>

>> The cabinet "should" set on a base. (That's how I've always built mine;
>> YMMV)
>>
>> Max
> Yes, and isn't that called a Toe Kick???

Many toe kicks are cut into the plywood carcass of the cabinet.
My question has nothing to do with one's preference or any implicit
quality level involved in the choice. My question is directed to the
context of the thread which is about water absorbing into the plywood.

So, when someone says, "plywood shouldn't be in direct contact with the
fly," I ask, why not?

[-MIKE-]

On 12/4/11 12:12 PM, Swingman wrote:
> On 12/4/2011 11:33 AM, Rich wrote:
>
>> I no longer use Poplar. My choice in California is Soft Maple.
>
> That'll work just fine ... smart man!
>
> Most folks just look at the upfront costs ... those who do it for a
> living look at the long term costs of callbacks that come from not using
> a suitable material in the first place.
>

I think it was you who mention beech and birch.
Both are a joy to work with, finish very evenly, probably more even than
maple... and have a much tighter, smoother grain than oak.

[Swingman]

And you're right with new construction and regions where foundations are
traditionally laid over a vapor barrier that prevents "wicking" from the
surrounding soil into the concrete slab ... once the concrete is cured
the moisture content in the concrete is not usually enough to effect the
edge of a plywood end panel with a toe kick notch in it, and there is
nothing to stop that type of cabinet from sitting on a vapor barrier
itself at minimal cost.

All bets are off in regions where below grade building; basements, etc,
is prevalent.

[-MIKE-]

How many bathroom cabinets are on foundation concrete, however?
And is the OP's?

(did I write "fly?") :-)

[J. Clarke]

In article <jbgc7e$7fb$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, lbl...@fastmail.fm says...

>
> On Sat, 03 Dec 2011 20:58:54 -0500, blueman wrote:
>
> > Specifically, my concern is whether Baltic Birch plywood would be more
> > likely to absorb water and swell/delaminate in a bathroom/shower
> > situation.
>
> It's my understanding that "Finnish Birch" is the same as "Baltic Birch"
> except the FB uses exterior glue and the BB does not. You might want to
> consider the FB.

They're all euphemisms for Soviet Birch. Only the Soviet Union is no
more and the name has stuck. Read the fine print, don't just assume
from the nomenclature that it has specific properties.

[Lew Hodgett]

lbl...@fastmail.fm wrote:

> It's my understanding that "Finnish Birch" is the same as "Baltic
> Birch"
> except the FB uses exterior glue and the BB does not. You might
> want to
> consider the FB.

--------------------------------
"Baltic" includes not only Russian but also other Eastern European
producers.

Only Finland uses exterior glue.

Lew

[Larry W]

In article <9n8nd7h6inp8bpjcd...@4ax.com>,
Larry Jaques <lja...@invalid.diversifycomm.com> wrote:
<...other stuff skipped...>
>
>Yeah, I got a bag of 100 nylon nail-in feet ...
<...snipped...>

Why did that sentence make me think of Jesus Christ?



--
Better to be stuck up in a tree than tied to one.

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar.org

[blueman]

Swingman <k...@nospam.com> writes:

> On 12/3/2011 11:33 PM, blueman wrote:
>> Swingman<k...@nospam.com> writes:
>>> On 12/3/2011 7:58 PM, bl
>>> I would not use poplar for face frames if I could help it. "Poplar"
>>> ain't what it used to be and is, IME, problematic from a dimensional
>>> stability stand point.
>
>> Seems almost a crime to pay that much for something that will be
>> painted... Is Poplar really that much of an issue?
>
> If price is an issue (not all that much of an investment in the face
> frame material for one bath cabinet) go with red oak and paint it.

Is there any disadvantage to red oak over Beech if it's painted?

[blueman]

Nope... it's on the 3rd floor.
The question is whether some occassional wicking from small "puddles"
left over from showers or baths is an issue?

[-MIKE-]

In my mind, Beech would look better painted, unless you like the deep,
wide grain of oak. Some do, some don't.

[-MIKE-]

I guess I'm just trying to figure out who's getting puddles on their
bathroom floors. Little quarter sized pools where some drops have
gathered, yes, but enough to cover the floor to the point it reaches the
cabinets?
You'd have to be a pretty large person to leave a puddle when you get
out of the shower. Several large people. And besides, who's *not* using
bath mats?

If you're leaving those kinds of puddles, you need a locker room, not a
bathroom. :-)

[Larry Jaques]

On Mon, 5 Dec 2011 02:57:41 +0000 (UTC),
lwas...@sdf.lNoOnSePsAtMar.org (Larry W) wrote:

>In article <9n8nd7h6inp8bpjcd...@4ax.com>,
>Larry Jaques <lja...@invalid.diversifycomm.com> wrote:
><...other stuff skipped...>
>>
>>Yeah, I got a bag of 100 nylon nail-in feet ...
><...snipped...>
>
>Why did that sentence make me think of Jesus Christ?

You naughty boy. <g>

I don't think they had panty hose back then, LW. And even if they did,
and he did wear 'em, I doubt he'd have been wearing them at the time.
(Sorry, J)

[Father Haskell]

Fast growing weed tree, 3 - 4 feet per year. Unfortunately,
fast growing usually means weak.

[Father Haskell]

On Dec 4, 11:40 am, Swingman <k...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> I don't make cabinets out of mdf. MDF is much too heavy and does not
> hold fasteners well enough to stand the test of time.

Shooting a little superglue into the screw holes makes
the surrounding MDF hard as a rock and much more
able to hold screws. Not real practical, though.

[Morgans]

"Swingman" wrote in message
news:DOidnVojh_dkKkbT...@giganews.com...

On 12/4/2011 11:33 AM, Rich wrote:

> I no longer use Poplar. My choice in California is Soft Maple.

That'll work just fine ... smart man!

*****************************************

How about basswood?

-- Jim in NC

[blueman]

Swingman <k...@nospam.com> writes:

> On 12/3/2011 7:58 PM, blueman wrote:
>
>> I am planning on using poplar for the face frames but was wondering whether
>> it would be OK to use Baltic Birch for the sides.
>

> I would not use poplar for face frames if I could help it. "Poplar"
> ain't what it used to be and is, IME, problematic from a dimensional
> stability stand point.
>

> Birch, white or red, might be a better choice, IMO.

I went to a local high quality lumber shop used mostly by cabinet
makers. I was all set to buy the Birch despite its 3x cost.

I started chatting with one of the managers mentioning that I was told
that Poplar "ain't what it used to be" -- and the manager told me that
while he would love to sell me the higher priced Birch, in his
experience Poplar is both more stable and more workable than Birch. A
couple of customers within earshot agreed... so maybe the issue with
Poplar is a regional one or maybe it depends on the quality of the
Poplar.

The Poplar was prety cheap ($1.67 per lineal foot for 1x6), high
quality and already S4 so I went with the Poplar rather than paying
$5.50 per bf for S3 birch (that was still rougher than the nicely milled
Poplar).

[Swingman]

Word to the wise ... a salesman (someone "selling" you something) in any
business having to do with construction, and particularly cabinetmaking,
lumber yards or otherwise, is never to be trusted ... they're like
politicians when it comes to there lips moving. :)

A good rule to follow: Whenever a salesman advises, ask to see an
example of _his_ work in that regard.

Better to ask a cabinetmaker, or better yet, a cabinet door maker (where
quality and material choice will totally make or break the deal), one
who cares about their product, what they use.

(and at least two have already advised you in that regard) <g>

The price is generally a good indicator of material quality in this
business. There is a big difference between inexpensive and "cheap" ...
your words. Not that the cheaper material will all be bad, but you
generally have to buy much more of it, and the risk of having to redo
work because of inherent instability will make it more expensive in the
long run.

That notwithstanding, the odds are you should be just fine for your
one-off cabinet face frame, mainly because a face frame is constrained
in movement by attachment to the cabinet panels.

(However, it only takes one, constrained or not, to ruin an entire run
in a $60K kitchen, so those who care do not use price as the ultimate
factor in choosing material).

However, should you use that "cheap" (your words) poplar he sold you for
your cabinet door frames, I will guarantee that one of every three will
bow/warp to some extent in the not too distant future.

Did you pick out the wood yourself, and more importantly, do you know
what to look for?

If you know what to look for you can indeed reduce your odds of that
happening, but not as significantly with today's poplar as you can with
other wood species.

In any event, you should likely be OK, and good luck with your project.

--

[-MIKE-]

I'm automatically suspect of any salesman who says,

"Poplar is both more stable and more workable than Birch."

Really!?

In any case, it's entirely possible that they actually make more profit
on the less expensive poplar than the more expensive Birch, which may
influence his recommendation.