In article t, Norminn wrote:

Just for the sake of argument, I don't believe either oak or ash would
ALWAYS appear completely distinctively.

You're mistaken. :-) Oak does.

I'm familiar with the look of
oak, but not the terminology. Rays or flakes? I dunno.

Here, look at this:
http://www.standupdesks.com/images/quartersawn.jpg

That's what quartersawn oak looks like. And if the wood in the photo were oak,
some of that figure would be visible -- plainly -- at the right-hand side of
the photo, where the grain is quartersawn. It isn't, and therefore the wood is
not oak.

Oak is more
open grained, as I understand, and the photo makes the wood look open
grained. Grain is so close together, I don't see how it would be
determined other figures should or should not appear?

Figure such as is visible in the image I referenced above will appear in oak,
regardless of how close together the grain lines are. It's caused by
physical structures in the tree that appear on their edges when the board is
flatsawn (whence the short, dark lines between the grain on flatsawn oak), and
on their faces when the board is quartersawn (as shown in the image referenced
above). These structures are present in all North American species of oak, and
are visible regardless of the manner in which the wood is sawn, or the
separation between the grain lines, or any other factor. That they are *not*
visible in Don's photograph is incontrovertible proof that the wood in Don's
photograph is unquestionably *not* oak. And neither are they obscured by the
stain: these ray structures do not absorb stain nearly as readily as the rest
of the wood, and staining makes them stand out even more.

All the old homes
I've seen that had "oak" woodwork may well have had ash (or something
else), but never seen one with wood identified as ash ) Ash used more
in furniture?

As I've noted several times before in this thread, they are *often* confused.
Ash is frequently used as a lower-cost substitute for oak, because most people
can't tell the difference. Both are widely used in furniture making.

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

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

In article t, Norminn wrote:
clipped

Again, pardon me if I question your wood identification. *Red* oak has a
faintly vomit- or urine-like odor to it. *White* oak smells like toast and
vanilla.

This is getting funny. I don't know what red oak smells like, but the
other two are very, very familiar and not at all alike! Jeesh!

It's a sour odor. Not quite like either of the more "familiar" ones.

The point is, white oak doesn't smell one damn thing like vomit.

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

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

In article et, Norminn wrote:
clipped

And if he uses ash, he'll have an exact match -- because that's what it is.

Not so. Age, patina, and the old finish will be hard to match.

I meant, obviously, that he'll have an exact match to the wood, not to the
finish. And anything that he might do to try to match the finish won't result
in a matching product if he starts out with the wrong wood.

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

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

On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 13:32:01 -0500, Goedjn wrote:

I'm still trying to figure out why OP is trying to make the
finial match the finial in his neighbor's house,
instead of making it match the post, the railing,
or the finial at the other end (if there is one).

Because my house is one of ten row houses. With the exception of a few
things, like fireplace mantles and some extra trellises, all the houses
were identical.

The missing finial is on the ground floor. Woods varied by floor. In my
house the ground floor is oak. Then the parlor floor is mahogany. The upper
two floors are poplar.

At the other end of the railing, and upwards through the house, the finials
are simple balls with three engraved strips around them. This one is the
only one like this. That is why I used a neighbor's house to photograph and
measure it. I got a large caliper and we took very detailed measurements.

As for the recommendation for Rosenzweig to get the wood. Thanks for the
suggestion, but my friend lives in Calgary and he says he can easily get
either ash or white oak. (He was visiting when we measured it.)

Gee. I wasn't expecting to start such a long and controversial thread!

Don www.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom).

oak - NOT
ash - NOT

it is gum wood

many old world turned pieces were gum wood.
that is what it looks like.




"Don Wiss" wrote in message
...
|I have an 1891 row house in Brooklyn. One of my newel post finials is
| missing. But neighbors with identical houses still have theirs. So a
friend
| of mine that is adept with a lathe has offered to make me a new one.
We
| have photographed and measured it. But what is the wood? A fellow that
I
| once was going to hire to make it said white oak. Then my friend
thought it
| was Douglas fir. But a friend of his that comes from Eastern Canada
says it
| is definitely yellow pine, and pointed out several features that are
| inconsistent with Douglas fir. Now the only pine in my house is the
floors.
| And the wainscoting near the finial is oak. My friend says oak is
easier to
| turn. What do you guys think it is? [Warning, this was not reduced in
size,
| so it is 441MB.]
|
| http://donwiss.com/finial.jpg
|
| Don www.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom).

In article , "Cabinets Galore" wrote:
oak - NOT
ash - NOT

it is gum wood

Nope. It's ash.

many old world turned pieces were gum wood.

This isn't in the Old World.
that is what it looks like.

No, it's not.




"Don Wiss" wrote in message
.. .
|I have an 1891 row house in Brooklyn. One of my newel post finials is
| missing. But neighbors with identical houses still have theirs. So a
friend
| of mine that is adept with a lathe has offered to make me a new one.
We
| have photographed and measured it. But what is the wood? A fellow that
I
| once was going to hire to make it said white oak. Then my friend
thought it
| was Douglas fir. But a friend of his that comes from Eastern Canada
says it
| is definitely yellow pine, and pointed out several features that are
| inconsistent with Douglas fir. Now the only pine in my house is the
floors.
| And the wainscoting near the finial is oak. My friend says oak is
easier to
| turn. What do you guys think it is? [Warning, this was not reduced in
size,
| so it is 441MB.]
|
| http://donwiss.com/finial.jpg
|
| Don www.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom).



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

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

ash mistaken for oak?
huh
what the.........
ash and oak are total different
oak has deep grain
whereas ash is like virgin wood,blemish free

stop making an ash out of yourself Douggy

dis-sed by a bitch again.........................ouch!


"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. net...
| In article , "HeyBub"
wrote:
| Don Wiss wrote:
|
| From the variety of answers it would seem that it doesn't matter what
kind
| of wood it is inasmuch as no one can definitively tell.
|
| Speak for yourself. I can. It's ash.
|
| Ash is frequently mistaken for oak, as this thread clearly
illustrates. But
| oak has unmistakable ray flakes plainly visible in quartersawn grain.
The
| absence of this figure is absolute proof that the wood in Don's
photograph is
| unquestionably *not* oak.
|
| It's ash.
|
| --
| Regards,
| Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
|
| It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"Cabinets Galore" wrote in message
...
ash mistaken for oak?
huh
what the.........
ash and oak are total different
oak has deep grain
whereas ash is like virgin wood,blemish free


I'd agree about red oak, but white is not so deep grained. Considering the
age of the wood, the finish that has darkened, the quality of the photo, I'm
not sure that any of us can say for sure what wood it is.

http://www.afpcorp.com/WhiteOakLumber.html
http://www.afpcorp.com/WhiteAshLumber.html
http://www.righteouswoods.net/ash.html
http://www.righteouswoods.net/white_oak.html

On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 18:27:37 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article .com, "avid_hiker" wrote:
Western Red Cedar possibly if not the Douglas Fir? What ya think?

The OP's photo doesn't even resemble any type of cedar or fir. It is
*unquestionably* a hardwood, and it's almost certainly ash specifically.

Mr. Miller

There are so many variables. You cannot tell with by this photo alone
what species it is. One can only make asumptions for what was
available locally. You need to physically have the piece in hand or a
picture of the whole entire post for more clues.

I've graded/inspected all types of wood for 30 years. So I believe my
opinion is fairly good.

Regards
Dale

In article , wrote:
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 18:27:37 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article .com,
"avid_hiker" wrote:
Western Red Cedar possibly if not the Douglas Fir? What ya think?

The OP's photo doesn't even resemble any type of cedar or fir. It is
*unquestionably* a hardwood, and it's almost certainly ash specifically.

Mr. Miller

There are so many variables. You cannot tell with by this photo alone
what species it is.

Agreed -- and I didn't attempt to do that. I identified the genus.

Furthermore, it certainly *is* possible to tell from this photo alone a number
of things that it is *not* -- for example, it is definitely not maple. It
likewise is definitely not Douglas fir or western red cedar, neither one of
which have grain that bears more than a remote resemblance to that shown in
the photo. Nor is it any type of pine.

One can only make asumptions for what was
available locally.

Do you seriously contend that it is not possible, on the basis of this photo
alone, to identify the wood as a hardwood?

I'll go farther than that: it *is* a hardwood, and with 100.0% certainty it is
*not* any of the following:
- any species of maple
- American sycamore
- cherry
- walnut
- American beech
- any species of birch
- tulip poplar
If you disagree, please cite which characteristics of the wood in the photo
are consistent with one or more of these woods.

You need to physically have the piece in hand or a
picture of the whole entire post for more clues.

Not correct. Much can be told from photographs, to someone who knows what to
look for.

I've graded/inspected all types of wood for 30 years. So I believe my
opinion is fairly good.

If your opinion includes the possibility that this piece is maple, fir, cedar,
or beech, for example, I disagree with your evaluation of the quality of your
opinions.

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

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

On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 16:30:40 GMT, wrote:

On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 18:27:37 GMT, (Doug Miller) wrote:

"avid_hiker" wrote:
Western Red Cedar possibly if not the Douglas Fir? What ya think?

The OP's photo doesn't even resemble any type of cedar or fir. It is
*unquestionably* a hardwood, and it's almost certainly ash specifically.

Mr. Miller

There are so many variables. You cannot tell with by this photo alone
what species it is. One can only make asumptions for what was
available locally. You need to physically have the piece in hand or a
picture of the whole entire post for more clues.

I've graded/inspected all types of wood for 30 years. So I believe my
opinion is fairly good.

Hi Dale,

In dicussing the various pictures that I took with the friend that is going
to do the turning, he suggested I put up a couple other pictures which he
thinks best show the grain. So here are two more (also unreduced):

http://donwiss.com/finial-2.jpg
http://donwiss.com/finial-3.jpg

Don www.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom).

Hello all wood detectives --
A quick first impression is that we may be looking at chestnut, especially
if it's from an older house in the northeast.

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
. net...

"Cabinets Galore" wrote in message
...
ash mistaken for oak?
huh
what the.........
ash and oak are total different
oak has deep grain
whereas ash is like virgin wood,blemish free


I'd agree about red oak, but white is not so deep grained. Considering
the age of the wood, the finish that has darkened, the quality of the
photo, I'm not sure that any of us can say for sure what wood it is.

http://www.afpcorp.com/WhiteOakLumber.html
http://www.afpcorp.com/WhiteAshLumber.html
http://www.righteouswoods.net/ash.html
http://www.righteouswoods.net/white_oak.html

In article , "vernal888" wrote:
Hello all wood detectives --
A quick first impression is that we may be looking at chestnut, especially
if it's from an older house in the northeast.

Hmmmm... hadn't considered that possibility, and you may be right. I still
think it's ash, but I'm less sure of that now than I was previously.

I continue to stand behind my previous statements that it is not any sort of
oak.


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

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

On Sun, 18 Feb 2007, vernal888 wrote:

Hello all wood detectives --
A quick first impression is that we may be looking at chestnut, especially
if it's from an older house in the northeast.

Chestnut is often used in the houses around here. While I have poplar on
the top two floors, some of the grander houses have chestnut on the floor
just above the parlor floor.

Don www.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom).