North American wood
Michael Faurot
dealers. This may well be a naive question, but why is it that
there doesn't seem to be much available in terms of other North
American trees such as Elm, Sycamore, Willow, Birch (not counting
plywood), Beech, etc.?
Or to phrase the question a different way, why is Cherry, Walnut, Oak,
Poplar, Maple, etc. what's predominately available?
--
If you want to reply via email, change the obvious words to numbers and
remove ".invalid".
Toller
"Michael Faurot" <mxfTWO...@atww.org.invalid> wrote in message
news:ruc9h4-...@usenet.news...
> This question pertains to what's available from North American wood
> dealers. This may well be a naive question, but why is it that
> there doesn't seem to be much available in terms of other North
> American trees such as Elm, Sycamore, Willow, Birch (not counting
> plywood), Beech, etc.?
>
> Or to phrase the question a different way, why is Cherry, Walnut, Oak,
> Poplar, Maple, etc. what's predominately available?
>
available and little demand. So, it would be expensive with no one buying
it at all.
I bought a quantity of Viraro from an importer closing it out. Beautiful
wood, but nobody ever heard of it, so he couldn't sell it. Same idea with
Beech. Do you want to buy a beech table or a maple table? They look about
the same and around here beech is much cheaper, if you can find it, because
no one wants it.
dadiOH
> This question pertains to what's available from North American wood
> dealers. This may well be a naive question, but why is it that
> there doesn't seem to be much available in terms of other North
> American trees such as Elm, Sycamore, Willow, Birch (not counting
> plywood), Beech, etc.?
You can buy pretty much anything you want if you look in the right
place. Google is a good start.
--
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
Leon
"Michael Faurot" <mxfTWO...@atww.org.invalid> wrote in message
news:ruc9h4-...@usenet.news...
> dealers. This may well be a naive question, but why is it that
> there doesn't seem to be much available in terms of other North
> American trees such as Elm, Sycamore, Willow, Birch (not counting
> plywood), Beech, etc.?
>
> Or to phrase the question a different way, why is Cherry, Walnut, Oak,
> Poplar, Maple, etc. what's predominately available?
I guess you could ask why the grocery store does not carry fresh Kiwi, or
Dates, or Tangerines. Then you might say the store I go to has those
fruits. The lumber yards I go to have the limber that you described as
scarce.
What ever sells well is what is stocked at most lumber yards. If your
lumber yard does not sell what you are looking for you should look at other
lumber yards.
J T
(Michael Faurot) puzzedly queries:
This question pertains to what's available from North American wood
dealers. This may well be a naive question, but why is it that there
doesn't seem to be much available in terms of other North American trees
such as Elm, Sycamore, Willow, Birch (not counting plywood), Beech,
If you're married you could have asked your wife and saved time,
she'd know. If they don't have what she wants at one store, she goes to
another, then repeats until she finds it. That's all you've got to do.
Of course, most women keep going from store to store after they find
what they want; that's optional for you.
It's basic, if one place doesn't have what you want, you check
another place.
JOAT
What is life without challenge and a constant stream of new
humiliations?
- Peter Egan
EXT
"J T" <Jakofal...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:20711-464...@storefull-3334.bay.webtv.net...
Wed, May 9, 2007, 12:28pm (EDT-1) mxfTWO...@atww.org.invalid
(Michael Faurot) puzzedly queries:
This question pertains to what's available from North American wood
dealers. This may well be a naive question, but why is it that there
doesn't seem to be much available in terms of other North American trees
such as Elm, Sycamore, Willow, Birch (not counting plywood), Beech,
etc.? <snip>
If you're married you could have asked your wife and saved time,
she'd know. If they don't have what she wants at one store, she goes to
another, then repeats until she finds it. That's all you've got to do.
Of course, most women keep going from store to store after they find
what they want; that's optional for you.
My wife doesn't go from store to store to store to find what she wants, she
picks up the phone and yellow pages and starts dialling until she finds what
she wants. If that doesn't work she gets my son to check the internet and
orders it from across the border.
J T
My wife doesn't go from store to store to store to find what she wants,
she picks up the phone and yellow pages and starts dialling until she
finds what she wants. If that doesn't work she gets my son to check the
internet and orders it from across the border.
Wonder if that means she's a smart shopper, or just lazy? LOL
CW
call a store and ask if they have something, they will say yes without any
idea if they actually do or not.
"EXT" <noe...@reply.in.this.group> wrote in message
news:464265a7$0$47142$892e...@auth.newsreader.octanews.com...
Michael Faurot
> You can buy pretty much anything you want if you look in the right
> place. Google is a good start.
I'm not so much looking to buy/find any of these types of wood, as
I'm musing about why it is that they're not as available as things
like Cherry, Walnut, Maple, etc.
Michael Faurot
> It is not economically viable to to sell the others. There isn't much
> available and little demand. So, it would be expensive with no one
> buying it at all.
I can understand it's not economically viable if there's little
demand. But is there a reason for the lack of demand? Is it a
case of inertia/tradition? As in, Cherry/Walnut/Oak/etc is what's
been used in the past, so that's just what everyone wants and thinks
about. Or is there little demand because these other types of woods
wood be too expensive to turn into lumber for general consumption?
> I bought a quantity of Viraro from an importer closing it out.
> Beautiful wood, but nobody ever heard of it, so he couldn't sell
> it.
I understand what you're saying, I've never heard of Viraro either.
So if I was looking to buy/use some type of exotic/import wood, I
would probably skip Viraro for something else I'd heard of before.
But where North American wood is concerned, I think most people in
North America have heard of Sycamore, Willow and Elm. I've just
never really seen these types of trees available as lumber.
> Same idea with Beech. Do you want to buy a beech table or a
> maple table? They look about the same and around here beech is much
> cheaper, if you can find it, because no one wants it.
I can't really say whether I'd rather have a table made of Beech or
Maple--I've never seen Beech (that I was aware of). Which is part of
my musing about what it is that makes these other types of woods less
available.
Michael Faurot
> What ever sells well is what is stocked at most lumber yards.
I'm sure the principles of supply and demand play a part--regular
economics. But why is there more of a demand for Cherry, Walnut and
Oak, than say Willow, Elm and Sycamore? I've never actually seen
lumber from a Willow, Elm or Sycamore or worked with this stuff.
Are these types of trees inferior for typical woodworking type
activities? Too hard to work? Ugly? They're not cultivated like
the types other types of "common" woods? They're too hard/expensive
to cultivate? There's just not enough of them? Disease (e.g.,
Dutch Elm Disease) has made them too scarce/expensive to turn into
lumber?
> If your lumber yard does not sell what you are looking for you should
> look at other lumber yards.
I'm not looking to buy this stuff per se--I'm just wondering what's
the bigger picture here?
Charlie Self
wrote:
If the assholes at AOL will let this go through, it may help explain:
A quick note on the woods: cherry, walnut, maple and the oaks are
reasonablys table woods; sycamore HAS to be quartersawn to be stable
(but it is gorgeous then); willow is too hard to locate in stands that
can be commercially cut, so is a local option wood; American beech
moves a lot, unlike European red beech, so you might not be too happy
with a table top of beech; tulip poplar is too soft for many uses, but
makes great dough bowls; Dutch elm disease wiped out many elms, but
most elm is hard to locate; birch is easy to find, and not as easy to
find in lumber stores, though it is available commercially and used in
cabinetry and furniture; Osage orange is a small tree and hard to
find, but the wood is very unusual in appearance (and working);
hickory and pecan are readily available if you like them, but aren't
much fun to work; the list goes on and on.
Once the eastern beech forests were cut over, we ended up with mixed
stands, with our current standard woods dominating even then. Today,
we're probably in 30th growth in planted areas, and there is a
tendency to not mix species in managed forests, which I see as less
desirable on a long term basis than mixing the tree species.
So, generally, the ones you list as not found can be found, but you
have to look hard, and, in some cases, be where they are locally
available (I don't go looking for mountain laurel in the areas around
these mountains, for example).
B A R R Y
> The lumber yards I go to have the limber that you described as
> scarce.
As does mine. Birch is very common, and also available in exotic
sub-varieties, like Flame Birch. One of my dealers also carries
European Steamed Beech.
Location is important.
Doug Miller
>dadiOH <dad...@guesswhere.com> wrote:
>
>> You can buy pretty much anything you want if you look in the right
>> place. Google is a good start.
>
>I'm not so much looking to buy/find any of these types of wood, as
>I'm musing about why it is that they're not as available as things
>like Cherry, Walnut, Maple, etc.
Mostly because they're not in nearly as much demand as cherry, walnut, maple,
or oak.
The reasons for that are probably a whole 'nuther discussion, but I'd suggest
primarily ignorance (most folks have no idea what sycamore, elm, hackberry,
etc. look like), habit (people are accustomed to seeing furniture made from
cherry, walnut, maple, and oak, and they buy what they're accustomed to), and
preference (cherry, walnut, maple, and oak do look nice, after all).
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
Leon
"Charlie Self" <charl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178794771.2...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
If the assholes at AOL will let this go through, it may help explain:
That's it charlie, run your stick across the bars of the monkey cage. ;~)
Doug Miller
>Leon <removespa...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
>> What ever sells well is what is stocked at most lumber yards.
>
>I'm sure the principles of supply and demand play a part--regular
>economics. But why is there more of a demand for Cherry, Walnut and
>Oak, than say Willow, Elm and Sycamore? I've never actually seen
>lumber from a Willow, Elm or Sycamore or worked with this stuff.
>Are these types of trees inferior for typical woodworking type
>activities? Too hard to work? Ugly? They're not cultivated like
>the types other types of "common" woods? They're too hard/expensive
>to cultivate? There's just not enough of them? Disease (e.g.,
>Dutch Elm Disease) has made them too scarce/expensive to turn into
>lumber?
Willow isn't really suitable for most furniture uses; it's quite soft, and
rather prone to warp.
Elm used to be used widely in furniture; it's attractive, fairly hard, and
works well. I'm sure that Dutch elm disease is a major reason that elm isn't
used nearly as much as it used to be.
Sycamore is quite soft, and as such is suitable only for use in furniture that
isn't likely to get banged around much. I wouldn't use it for a dining table,
for example. When flatsawn, sycamore is prone to warp, and not especially
attractive to look at. When quartersawn, though, it's dimensionally stable,
and exhibits *spectacular* ray-flake grain. (A Google Images search on
quartersawn sycamore will produce some excellent examples.) IMO the main
factors inhibiting sycamore's use as a furniture wood are its softness, and
widespread unawareness of how beautiful it is when quartersawn.
>
>> If your lumber yard does not sell what you are looking for you should
>> look at other lumber yards.
>
>I'm not looking to buy this stuff per se--I'm just wondering what's
>the bigger picture here?
Supply and demand, for the most part.
Doug Miller
>I can't really say whether I'd rather have a table made of Beech or
>Maple--I've never seen Beech (that I was aware of). Which is part of
>my musing about what it is that makes these other types of woods less
>available.
Beech vs maple is an easy one: unless quartersawn, beech warps all over
creation. Quartersawing is a PITA for the sawyer, and the yield is lower.
Using maple is just easier all around.
dpb
wrote:
> This question pertains to what's available from North American wood
> dealers. This may well be a naive question, but why is it that
> there doesn't seem to be much available in terms of other North
> American trees such as Elm, Sycamore, Willow, Birch (not counting
> plywood), Beech, etc.?
>
> Or to phrase the question a different way, why is Cherry, Walnut, Oak,
> Poplar, Maple, etc. what's predominately available?
>
> --
Others have addressed some of the questions, mostly at a fairly
superficial level of "what is widely available is what sells" which
is, of course, true. Others have touched on the properties of some
particular species but the subject is almost limitless, far more
complex than addressed. If you're really interested in the "why's" of
why some woods are used for various things and not others the two
sources to start with are R Bruce Hoadley's "Understanding Wood".
http://woodworking.about.com/od/recommendations/gr/UnderstandWood.htm
and 'Characteristics and Availability of Commercially Important Woods'
from US Forest Products Laboratory, the font of all knowledge on
things woody --
George
"B A R R Y" <beech2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:qWC0i.17355$YL5....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
Yes, but in a sense no one has yet mentioned. Trees compete in the forest.
Those that can't compete by outgrowing their fellows toward the light perish
in one generation. Supply is sporadic or nil. Desirability of certain
species like cherry makes harvesting the forest to encourage this fairly
shade-intolerant "fire tree" to grow economically viable, but probably not
popular with the "no clearcut" set. Not that fires are allowed, you
understand, but they do happen, and birdpoop gets cherry going pretty
rapidly among the airborne seeds of their fellow colonizers.
Climax forest has a limited number of species. Here it's beech, (yellow)
birch and maple in the deciduous varieties. Hemlock, pine and spruce occur
where the soil's poor, tamarack and cedar where it's wet. Next county over
it's red oak rather than beech. Stuff like bass, poplar and white birch are
abundant, but not worth the sawyer fees and cartage.
Local woods are available from local sawyers, not local lumber dealers.
Dean H.
>> What ever sells well is what is stocked at most lumber yards.
>
> I'm sure the principles of supply and demand play a part--regular
> economics. But why is there more of a demand for Cherry, Walnut and
> Oak, than say Willow, Elm and Sycamore? I've never actually seen
> lumber from a Willow, Elm or Sycamore or worked with this stuff.
> Are these types of trees inferior for typical woodworking type
> activities? Too hard to work? Ugly? They're not cultivated like
> the types other types of "common" woods? They're too hard/expensive
> to cultivate? There's just not enough of them? Disease (e.g.,
> Dutch Elm Disease) has made them too scarce/expensive to turn into
> lumber?
I think you hit the nail on the head about Elm. Having done a lot of tree
work over the years I can tell you that willow is very brittle wood, so
that's not desirable for any project I can think of. Sycamore likes wet feet
and is seldom or never found too far from a pond, lake or river. So,
sycamore is probably never found in large stands (sustainable harvest and
all that stuff). My buddy with whom I used to do most of that tree work is
now a suburban logger, picking up the logs cut by the residential tree
companies who used to be his direct competition. He has learned a lot about
sorting and grading logs for the mills. I'll ask him about the mills' demand
for specialty woods. It's really a question of knowing the right mill for
the log(s).
I do know that the best logs are not saw logs going to saw mills. The best
money is paid for veneer grade logs, which probably explains your reference
to fine plywoods.
Speaking of sustainable harvest, he bought a couple dozen acres in upstate
NY and paid for the whole dang thing with one conservative harvest of
cherry. He says he'll get a harvest like that every ten years or so as the
other trees mature.
-Dean
ready to kill a couple more Norway Maples. He said it isn't very stable and
checks a lot. I might save some for the mill anyway, just for fun and
curiosity.
J T
(Michael Faurot) now doth mumble:
<snip> I'm not looking to buy this stuff per se--I'm just wondering
what's the bigger picture here?
Yeah, well you coulda said from the start.
Michael Faurot
> A quick note on the woods: cherry, walnut, maple and the oaks are
> reasonablys table woods; sycamore HAS to be quartersawn to be stable
> (but it is gorgeous then); willow is too hard to locate in stands that
> can be commercially cut, so is a local option wood . . .
Thanks for the post and all the info. This is the type of information
I was after.
> So, generally, the ones you list as not found can be found, but you
> have to look hard, and, in some cases, be where they are locally
> available (I don't go looking for mountain laurel in the areas around
> these mountains, for example).
Understood. I knew these other types of wood were out there and I
could get some if I really wanted. But I was more interested in
the background of why things like Cherry/Walnut/Maple/Oak were more
predominately available than stuff like Willow/Elm/Sycamore. Thanks
again for all the background info.
spaco
western Wisconsin and there is a sawmill about every ten miles or so.
Maybe there's a newsgroup for sawmillers and or hobby sawmills. Our
closest sawmill buys everything in the woods, finding something to do
with it.
That was about circular saw mills. There are also lots of band saw
mills around. Most of them around here are part-timers, but they saw
whatever comes their way, too.
Pete Stanaitis
-------------------------------
dadiOH
> dadiOH <dad...@guesswhere.com> wrote:
>
>> You can buy pretty much anything you want if you look in the right
>> place. Google is a good start.
>
> I'm not so much looking to buy/find any of these types of wood, as
> I'm musing about why it is that they're not as available as things
> like Cherry, Walnut, Maple, etc.
Because those are in plentiful supply, work well and are durable.
Michael Faurot
> <snip> I'm not looking to buy this stuff per se--I'm just wondering
> what's the bigger picture here?
> Yeah, well you coulda said from the start.
Try looking at my original post[1] again and carefully read the
entire message. Especially the last line. Hell, I'll go ahead and
even quote the last line right here:
Or to phrase the question a different way, why is Cherry,
Walnut, Oak, Poplar, Maple, etc. what's predominately
available?
How do you interpret that to mean I'm looking to buy or acquire lumber
from Elm, Willow, Sycamore, etc.?
[1]: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.woodworking/msg/5070423595b40747?hl=en&
Charlie Self
wrote:
> J T <Jakofalltra...@webtv.net> wrote:
> > Wed, May 9, 2007, 11:33pm (EDT-1) mxfTWOTWOF...@atww.org.invalid
> > (Michael?Faurot) now doth mumble:
> > <snip> I'm not looking to buy this stuff per se--I'm just wondering
> > what's the bigger picture here?
> > Yeah, well you coulda said from the start.
>
> Try looking at my original post[1] again and carefully read the
> entire message. Especially the last line. Hell, I'll go ahead and
> even quote the last line right here:
>
> Or to phrase the question a different way, why is Cherry,
> Walnut, Oak, Poplar, Maple, etc. what's predominately
> available?
>
> How do you interpret that to mean I'm looking to buy or acquire lumber
> from Elm, Willow, Sycamore, etc.?
>
>
> --
Well, life's a wee bit funny that way. When someone asks about
availability, it tends to be because MOST someones have more than a
passing interest in buying, renting, leasing, stealing or otherwise
grabbing hold of at least some of the items they're asking about.
If you don't want it, why do you give a rat's tuchus whether or not
it's available?
Michael Faurot
> In article <dulah4-...@usenet.news>, "Michael Faurot" <mxfTWO...@atww.org.invalid> wrote:
> >I can't really say whether I'd rather have a table made of Beech or
> >Maple--I've never seen Beech (that I was aware of). Which is part of
> >my musing about what it is that makes these other types of woods less
> >available.
> Beech vs maple is an easy one: unless quartersawn, beech warps all over
> creation. Quartersawing is a PITA for the sawyer, and the yield is lower.
> Using maple is just easier all around.
Well, since I wrote that message, I did some looking around and I've
seen some Beech now. It reminds me of Oak, but without the open pores and
a little softer. I rather like the look of it myself.
So I guess if I were to see two tables, constructed and finished in a
similar fashion, I'd probably opt for the Beech table if
it was less expensive and I didn't need the table to withstand a lot
of abuse. If this was to be dining table--definitely Maple as that
should stand up better to abuse.
Michael Faurot
> Willow isn't really suitable for most furniture uses; it's quite soft,
> and rather prone to warp.
> Elm used to be used widely in furniture; it's attractive, fairly hard,
> and works well. I'm sure that Dutch elm disease is a major reason that
> elm isn't used nearly as much as it used to be.
> Sycamore is quite soft, and as such is suitable only for use in
> furniture that isn't likely to get banged around much. I wouldn't use
> it for a dining table, for example. When flatsawn, sycamore is prone
> to warp, and not especially attractive to look at. When quartersawn,
> though, it's dimensionally stable, and exhibits *spectacular*
> ray-flake grain. (A Google Images search on quartersawn sycamore will
> produce some excellent examples.) IMO the main factors inhibiting
> sycamore's use as a furniture wood are its softness, and widespread
> unawareness of how beautiful it is when quartersawn.
Thanks for the info on these species. I may have to look for some
quartersawn Sycamore--that sounds like it would be interesting to
work. I probably won't use it for furniture, but perhaps some boxes.
Michael Faurot
[Availability of Elm, Sycamore, Willow, etc.]
> Mostly because they're not in nearly as much demand as cherry, walnut, maple,
> or oak.
> The reasons for that are probably a whole 'nuther discussion, but I'd suggest
> primarily ignorance (most folks have no idea what sycamore, elm, hackberry,
> etc. look like), habit (people are accustomed to seeing furniture made from
> cherry, walnut, maple, and oak, and they buy what they're accustomed to), and
> preference (cherry, walnut, maple, and oak do look nice, after all).
That's the general impression I got. People don't know it's out there
and there's a certain inertia/tradition that goes with Cherry, Walnut,
Maple, Oak, etc. Those issues, coupled with things mentioned in other
posts such as disease, workability, ability to cultivate/harvest
apparently make these other types of wood less common.
Michael Faurot
> I think you hit the nail on the head about Elm. Having done a lot of tree
> work over the years I can tell you that willow is very brittle wood, so
> that's not desirable for any project I can think of. Sycamore likes wet feet
> and is seldom or never found too far from a pond, lake or river. So,
> sycamore is probably never found in large stands (sustainable harvest and
> all that stuff).
Thanks for the reply and to everyone else that has mentioned something
concerning this topic. I believe I've got the general picture now
about why these other North American types of wood aren't seen as much.
Doug Miller
>Doug Miller <spam...@milmac.com> wrote:
>> In article <dulah4-...@usenet.news>, "Michael Faurot"
> <mxfTWO...@atww.org.invalid> wrote:
>
>> >I can't really say whether I'd rather have a table made of Beech or
>> >Maple--I've never seen Beech (that I was aware of). Which is part of
>> >my musing about what it is that makes these other types of woods less
>> >available.
>
>> Beech vs maple is an easy one: unless quartersawn, beech warps all over
>> creation. Quartersawing is a PITA for the sawyer, and the yield is lower.
>> Using maple is just easier all around.
>
>Well, since I wrote that message, I did some looking around and I've
>seen some Beech now. It reminds me of Oak, but without the open pores and
>a little softer. I rather like the look of it myself.
I do too -- and quartersawn, it's really pretty.
>
>So I guess if I were to see two tables, constructed and finished in a
>similar fashion, I'd probably opt for the Beech table if
>it was less expensive and I didn't need the table to withstand a lot
>of abuse. If this was to be dining table--definitely Maple as that
>should stand up better to abuse.
Depends on which type of maple. Beech is not as hard as hard maple (sugar or
black maple), but it's a *lot* harder than soft maple (usually red maple,
sometimes silver or bigleaf). For a dining table, given the choice between
soft maple and quartersawn beech, IMO the beech wins, hands down. Hard maple
vs. quartersawn beech depends mostly on visual appeal; either one is plenty
hard enough for a dining table.
Doug Miller
>Thanks for the info on these species. I may have to look for some
>quartersawn Sycamore--that sounds like it would be interesting to
>work. I probably won't use it for furniture, but perhaps some boxes.
Should work well for that, and you'll enjoy working with it. It works easily,
and has a very pleasant spicy odor when machined. Kind of reminds me of
nutmeg.
Leon
"Michael Faurot" <mxfTWO...@atww.org.invalid> wrote in message
news:oebfh4-...@usenet.news...
I have noticed that the less known woods are used in the furniture that you
find at the furniture store. Typically it is used in the pieces that are
heavily stained and have the description of Cherry Finish, or Walnut Finish,
etc. If the description of the piece has the word "Finish", chances are
that the wood being used is not the type used in the Finish description. A
classic example, "Fruitwood Finish".
J T
(Michael Faurot) doth burble:
Try looking at my original post[1] again and carefully read the entire
message. Especially the last line. Hell, I'll go ahead and even quote
the last line right here:
Or to phrase the
question a different way, why is Cherry, Walnut, Oak,
Poplar, Maple, etc. what's predominately available?
How do you interpret that to mean I'm looking to buy or acquire lumber
from Elm, Willow, Sycamore, etc.?
So? Reading it again doesn't change a thing. Still reads like you
wanted woods to buy, other then just the ones you quoted.
Michael Faurot
> Well, life's a wee bit funny that way. When someone asks about
> availability, it tends to be because MOST someones have more than a
> passing interest in buying, renting, leasing, stealing or otherwise
> grabbing hold of at least some of the items they're asking about.
> If you don't want it, why do you give a rat's tuchus whether or not
> it's available?
The whole point of the questions, for me, was to learn more about
other types of North American woods, with the *possibility* that I
might ultimately want to use some of these things. I didn't want
to buy first, and then potentially learn the species was not suitable.
Because Walnut, Cherry, Oak, is so readily available, it's almost
like osmosis to become familiar with them. You see them all the
time--so it's easy to pick up information about them. With these
other types of woods, because they aren't as readily available to
me, I haven't learned much of anything about them.
From what I've recently learned, I may indeed want to use Beech and
Sycamore for some future projects. For the Sycamore, I'll want to
insure it has been quartersawn. Elm could come in handy as well,
but I probably won't find much due to disease. As for Willow, I
probably wouldn't want to use any of that as it sounds to be
problematic to work with.
Leon
"Michael Faurot" <mxfTWO...@atww.org.invalid> wrote in message
>
> From what I've recently learned, I may indeed want to use Beech and
> Sycamore for some future projects. For the Sycamore, I'll want to
> insure it has been quartersawn. Elm could come in handy as well,
> but I probably won't find much due to disease. As for Willow, I
> probably wouldn't want to use any of that as it sounds to be
> problematic to work with.
Beech is commonly used in the pieces that are sold in discount stores.
Typically it is a light colored, closed grain wood. There are a lot of TV
tray sets that are made out of beech.
Father Haskell
> In article <84bfh4-bj8....@usenet.news>, "Michael Faurot" <mxfTWOTWOF...@atww.org.invalid> wrote:
> >Doug Miller <spamb...@milmac.com> wrote:
> >> In article <dulah4-4ie....@usenet.news>, "Michael Faurot"
> > <mxfTWOTWOF...@atww.org.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> >I can't really say whether I'd rather have a table made of Beech or
> >> >Maple--I've never seen Beech (that I was aware of). Which is part of
> >> >my musing about what it is that makes these other types of woods less
> >> >available.
>
> >> Beech vs maple is an easy one: unless quartersawn, beech warps all over
> >> creation. Quartersawing is a PITA for the sawyer, and the yield is lower.
> >> Using maple is just easier all around.
>
> >Well, since I wrote that message, I did some looking around and I've
> >seen some Beech now. It reminds me of Oak, but without the open pores and
> >a little softer. I rather like the look of it myself.
>
> I do too -- and quartersawn, it's really pretty.
>
>
>
> >So I guess if I were to see two tables, constructed and finished in a
> >similar fashion, I'd probably opt for the Beech table if
> >it was less expensive and I didn't need the table to withstand a lot
> >of abuse. If this was to be dining table--definitely Maple as that
> >should stand up better to abuse.
>
> Depends on which type of maple. Beech is not as hard as hard maple (sugar or
> black maple), but it's a *lot* harder than soft maple (usually red maple,
> sometimes silver or bigleaf). For a dining table, given the choice between
> soft maple and quartersawn beech, IMO the beech wins, hands down. Hard maple
> vs. quartersawn beech depends mostly on visual appeal; either one is plenty
> hard enough for a dining table.
Beech is hard enough to make plane bodies from, which by design
have to withstand abuse, by being dragged over miles of rough
lumber and by being smacked with a hammer on ends and topdeck.
Interesting that you see more old beech planes than maple if the
latter is significantly harder or more stable.
Looks like those old plane bodies were cut from split lumber, which
would be even more expensive than QS. Split lumber is the most
stable, since the fibers all run parallel to the surfaces.
Both woods age beautifully, with beech taking on a deep ivory color
and glow.
Father Haskell
> In article <gtjah4-i9e....@usenet.news>, "Michael Faurot" <mxfTWOTWOF...@atww.org.invalid> wrote:
> >Leon <removespamlcb11...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
> >> What ever sells well is what is stocked at most lumber yards.
>
> >I'm sure the principles of supply and demand play a part--regular
> >economics. But why is there more of a demand for Cherry, Walnut and
> >Oak, than say Willow, Elm and Sycamore? I've never actually seen
> >lumber from a Willow, Elm or Sycamore or worked with this stuff.
> >Are these types of trees inferior for typical woodworking type
> >activities? Too hard to work? Ugly? They're not cultivated like
> >the types other types of "common" woods? They're too hard/expensive
> >to cultivate? There's just not enough of them? Disease (e.g.,
> >Dutch Elm Disease) has made them too scarce/expensive to turn into
> >lumber?
>
> Willow isn't really suitable for most furniture uses; it's quite soft, and
> rather prone to warp.
Split willow is used for chair caning and basket weaving.
> Elm used to be used widely in furniture; it's attractive, fairly hard, and
> works well. I'm sure that Dutch elm disease is a major reason that elm isn't
> used nearly as much as it used to be.
Likewise, chestnut, which I'd give my right foot and left big toe for.
Disease-resistant American elm strains being introduced to the
market. HD supposedly bought 5,000 saplings. In 50, 100 years,
maybe elm will be as common as #2 white pine.
J T
(Michael Faurot) doth burble:
<snip> Because Walnut, Cherry, Oak, is so readily available, it's almost
like osmosis to become familiar with them. You see them all the time--so
it's easy to pick up information about them. With these other types of
woods, because they aren't as readily available to me, I haven't learned
That's because you didn't try. You'e on the web! Remember? You
can find out about almost any wod thee is, in minutes. You 'have' heard
of google, right? So google sycamore, pink ivory, or whatever wood
you're curious about, and find links that'll tell you all about it.
Might want to check out wood toxicity while you're at it. Or, you could
just type in something like North American woods.
Toller
"Michael Faurot" <mxfTWO...@atww.org.invalid> wrote in message
> Toller <Tol...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> It is not economically viable to to sell the others. There isn't much
>> available and little demand. So, it would be expensive with no one
>> buying it at all.
>
> I can understand it's not economically viable if there's little
> demand. But is there a reason for the lack of demand? Is it a
> case of inertia/tradition? As in, Cherry/Walnut/Oak/etc is what's
> been used in the past, so that's just what everyone wants and thinks
> about. Or is there little demand because these other types of woods
> wood be too expensive to turn into lumber for general consumption?
>
>> I bought a quantity of Viraro from an importer closing it out.
>> Beautiful wood, but nobody ever heard of it, so he couldn't sell
>> it.
>
> I understand what you're saying, I've never heard of Viraro either.
> So if I was looking to buy/use some type of exotic/import wood, I
> would probably skip Viraro for something else I'd heard of before.
> But where North American wood is concerned, I think most people in
> North America have heard of Sycamore, Willow and Elm. I've just
> never really seen these types of trees available as lumber.
>
>> Same idea with Beech. Do you want to buy a beech table or a
>> maple table? They look about the same and around here beech is much
>> cheaper, if you can find it, because no one wants it.
>
> I can't really say whether I'd rather have a table made of Beech or
> Maple--I've never seen Beech (that I was aware of). Which is part of
> my musing about what it is that makes these other types of woods less
> available.
>
made of it.
People know oak, maple, cherry, walnut, mahogany, and teak. That is what
they will buy, so that is what woodworkers use, lumberyards carry, and
sawmills process.
I happen to love butternut and ash, but they are tough sells in furniture;
people want what they are used to.
B A R R Y
>
>I happen to love butternut and ash, but they are tough sells in furniture;
>people want what they are used to.
Me too, especially ash. Done right, it can really look cool.
B A R R Y
<removespa...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
>Beech is commonly used in the pieces that are sold in discount stores.
>Typically it is a light colored, closed grain wood. There are a lot of TV
>tray sets that are made out of beech.
I have a purchased workbench of Beech.
Michael Faurot
> Beech is commonly used in the pieces that are sold in discount stores.
> Typically it is a light colored, closed grain wood. There are a lot of TV
> tray sets that are made out of beech.
Just got my first bit of Beech the other day. A friend was throwing
away some old aluminum webbed lawn chairs that had become too
dilapidated to use. They had some wooden arm rests, so I salvaged
those off the chair before tossing the rest in the trash. After
planing the arm rests a bit, it turns out they're Beech! From just
playing with the stuff, I do like it. I'll definitely be looking to
get some of this lumber in the future.
Charlie Self
> On Sat, 12 May 2007 17:20:55 GMT, "Leon"
>
>
> >Beech is commonly used in the pieces that are sold in discount stores.
> >Typically it is a light colored, closed grain wood. There are a lot of TV
> >tray sets that are made out of beech.
>
> I have a purchased workbench of Beech.
Most likely European red beech. It is a great deal more stable than
American beech.
B A R R Y
wrote:
>
>Most likely European red beech. It is a great deal more stable than
>American beech.
Could be.
Do you know if this is the stuff sold as "steamed" Beech?
It's kind of a bland wood, but it has it's uses when combined with a
focus point, such as highly figured wood, or some sort of art.
George
"B A R R Y" <beech2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dcqd431j5a6mtdt7q...@4ax.com...
They steam the beech to relieve some of the tension caused during growth
(lignin creep), and equalize the white sapwood slightly. Europeans will buy
American beech that way. Only real market for our local beech used to be
flooring, where small pieces and many holds kept it in line, but now it's
being shipped out. Ill-behaved wood, and definitely not one you want to
stack outdoors to bring it down to the kiln-ready 20%. Stuff will often rot
by then, or twist into unuseability.
Doug Miller
>Beech is hard enough to make plane bodies from, which by design
>have to withstand abuse, by being dragged over miles of rough
>lumber and by being smacked with a hammer on ends and topdeck.
>Interesting that you see more old beech planes than maple if the
>latter is significantly harder or more stable.
What can I say? It *is* a fact that sugar maple is harder than American
beech, although I don't think I ever said it was "significantly" harder. It is
also a fact that beech is more prone to warp than sugar maple unless
quartersawn.
dpb
<mxfTWOTWOF...@atww.org.invalid>
...
> The whole point of the questions, for me, was to learn more about
> other types of North American woods, with the *possibility* that I
> might ultimately want to use some of these things. I didn't want
> to buy first, and then potentially learn the species was not suitable.
Then I'll repeat my previous suggestion -- get a copy of R Bruce
Hoadley's "Understanding Wood" and peruse the US Forest Laboratory
site. You can learn all there is to know from the folks who really
know...
Scott Lurndal
>Looks like those old plane bodies were cut from split lumber, which
>would be even more expensive than QS. Split lumber is the most
>stable, since the fibers all run parallel to the surfaces.
>
I'm not sure that split beech for planes would be all that
expensive, since at the lengths required (generally less
than 12"), firewood is sufficient.
scott