In article , "Michael Faurot" wrote:
Leon 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.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.