Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Woodworking (rec.woodworking) Discussion forum covering all aspects of working with wood. All levels of expertise are encouraged to particiapte. |
Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
North American wood
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? -- If you want to reply via email, change the obvious words to numbers and remove ".invalid". |
#2
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
North American wood
"Michael Faurot" wrote in message ... 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? 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 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. |
#3
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
North American wood
Michael Faurot 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.? 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 |
#4
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
North American wood
"Michael Faurot" wrote in message ... 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? 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. |
#6
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
North American wood
|
#7
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
North American wood
|
#8
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
North American wood
They must be better than around here. A great deal of the time, when you
call a store and ask if they have something, they will say yes without any idea if they actually do or not. "EXT" wrote in message anews.com... 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. |
#9
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
North American wood
dadiOH 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. -- If you want to reply via email, change the obvious words to numbers and remove ".invalid". |
#10
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
North American wood
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? 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? -- If you want to reply via email, change the obvious words to numbers and remove ".invalid". |
#11
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
North American wood
Toller 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. -- If you want to reply via email, change the obvious words to numbers and remove ".invalid". |
#12
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
North American wood
On May 9, 1:28�pm, "Michael Faurot"
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? -- If you want to reply via email, change the obvious words to numbers and remove ".invalid". 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). |
#13
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
North American wood
Leon wrote:
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. |
#14
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
North American wood
In article , "Michael Faurot" wrote:
dadiOH 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. |
#15
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
North American wood
"Charlie Self" wrote in message oups.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. ;~) |
#16
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
North American wood
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. |
#17
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
North American wood
In article , "Michael Faurot" 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. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
#18
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
North American wood
On May 9, 12:28 pm, "Michael Faurot"
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/reco...rstandWood.htm and 'Characteristics and Availability of Commercially Important Woods' from US Forest Products Laboratory, the font of all knowledge on things woody -- http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/fp...tr113/ch01.pdf |
#19
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
North American wood
"B A R R Y" wrote in message . net... Leon wrote: 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. 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. |
#20
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
North American wood
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. |
#21
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
North American wood
Wed, May 9, 2007, 11:33pm (EDT-1) lid
(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. JOAT What is life without challenge and a constant stream of new humiliations? - Peter Egan |
#22
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
North American wood
Charlie Self wrote:
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. -- If you want to reply via email, change the obvious words to numbers and remove ".invalid". |
#23
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
North American wood
Get out of town and locate small to midsize sawmills. I live in
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 ------------------------------- Michael Faurot 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? |
#24
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
North American wood
Michael Faurot wrote:
dadiOH 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. -- 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 |
#25
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
North American wood
J T wrote:
Wed, May 9, 2007, 11:33pm (EDT-1) lid (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 he 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.w...5b40747?hl=en& -- If you want to reply via email, change the obvious words to numbers and remove ".invalid". |
#26
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
North American wood
Doug Miller wrote:
In article , "Michael Faurot" 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. -- If you want to reply via email, change the obvious words to numbers and remove ".invalid". |
#27
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
North American wood
On May 11, 7:26�pm, "Michael Faurot"
wrote: J T wrote: Wed, May 9, 2007, 11:33pm (EDT-1) (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 he * * * * 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.w...423595b40747?h.... -- 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? |
#28
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
North American wood
Doug Miller wrote:
[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. -- If you want to reply via email, change the obvious words to numbers and remove ".invalid". |
#29
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
North American wood
Doug Miller wrote:
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. -- If you want to reply via email, change the obvious words to numbers and remove ".invalid". |
#30
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
North American wood
Dean H. wrote:
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. -- If you want to reply via email, change the obvious words to numbers and remove ".invalid". |
#31
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
North American wood
In article , "Michael Faurot" wrote:
Doug Miller wrote: In article , "Michael Faurot" 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. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
#32
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
North American wood
In article , "Michael Faurot" wrote:
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. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
#33
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
North American wood
"Michael Faurot" wrote in message news Doug Miller wrote: [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. 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". |
#34
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
North American wood
|
#35
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
North American wood
Charlie Self wrote:
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. -- If you want to reply via email, change the obvious words to numbers and remove ".invalid". |
#36
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
North American wood
"Michael Faurot" 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. |
#37
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
North American wood
|
#38
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
North American wood
On May 11, 10:14 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , "Michael Faurot" wrote: Doug Miller wrote: In article , "Michael Faurot" 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. |
#39
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
North American wood
On May 10, 8:23 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
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. 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. 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. |
#40
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
North American wood
"Michael Faurot" wrote in message ... Toller 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. Thats my point, you haven't seen beech and would be skeptical of furniture 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. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Wood in North Carolina | Woodturning | |||
American Only (was: charge an american device in Europe) | Electronics Repair | |||
JR North | Metalworking |