So, I've got a coupla 1x2-6' hunks of "maple" sitting about. They look like
candidates for a cutting board to me, as an official woodtard (i.e. a
beginning wooddorker). Is there any way to tell the difference? One piece
is pretty white, whilst the other has a slight pinkish cast to it, almost
like very light red oak. Grain on both is pretty close to the same, if not
identical.

Is there any way to tell the species of these bits of wood? And really,
will it make much difference if these *aren't* hard maple and become an
end-grain cutting board?

Jason

It won't make any difference to the food whether it is hard or soft maple.

-j

"Jason Quick" wrote in message
...
So, I've got a coupla 1x2-6' hunks of "maple" sitting about. They look
like
candidates for a cutting board to me, as an official woodtard (i.e. a
beginning wooddorker). Is there any way to tell the difference? One
piece
is pretty white, whilst the other has a slight pinkish cast to it, almost
like very light red oak. Grain on both is pretty close to the same, if
not
identical.

Is there any way to tell the species of these bits of wood? And really,
will it make much difference if these *aren't* hard maple and become an
end-grain cutting board?

Jason

If you can easily make a thumb nail mark in it, it is likely soft maple.


"Jason Quick" wrote in message
...
So, I've got a coupla 1x2-6' hunks of "maple" sitting about. They look
like candidates for a cutting board to me, as an official woodtard (i.e. a
beginning wooddorker). Is there any way to tell the difference? One
piece is pretty white, whilst the other has a slight pinkish cast to it,
almost like very light red oak. Grain on both is pretty close to the
same, if not identical.

Is there any way to tell the species of these bits of wood? And really,
will it make much difference if these *aren't* hard maple and become an
end-grain cutting board?

Jason

In article , "Jason Quick" wrote:
So, I've got a coupla 1x2-6' hunks of "maple" sitting about. They look like
candidates for a cutting board to me, as an official woodtard (i.e. a
beginning wooddorker). Is there any way to tell the difference? One piece
is pretty white, whilst the other has a slight pinkish cast to it, almost
like very light red oak. Grain on both is pretty close to the same, if not
identical.

Is there any way to tell the species of these bits of wood?

Density. Pick one up. If it feels like "just a board" it's soft maple. If it
feels like "dang! this is a *heavy* board for its size" it's hard maple.

Another test: you can dent soft maple easily with your fingernail. You can
dent hard maple with a nail.

And really,
will it make much difference if these *aren't* hard maple and become an
end-grain cutting board?

Soft maple will wear faster, and it's more porous. But it'll work.

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

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

It was somewhere outside Barstow when "Jason Quick"
wrote:

Is there any way to tell the difference?

Density. Hard is more dense.

It's sufficient variation that you can make a good guess just by
picking up a board. Density forms a clear bimodal distribution -
there's some variation between species, but all the "hard" are quite a
bit more dense than all the "soft".

You can look it up in Bruce Hoadley's "Understanding Wood", but there's
not all that much "hardness" difference between the two; but hard maple
is slightly harder and denser and as the posts indicate you can judge
by heft. The way I tell the difference is that on a fresh cut or
planed piece that is not the end grain, the soft maple has a slight
greyish tinge to the wood, where the hard maple is a brisk white. I
made duplicates of my kitchen cabinets for the laundry room, and used
hard maple. When compared with the soft maple of the commercially made
units, you can tell the difference right away, hard is much brighter in
color. For cutting boards soft will be just fine.

Mutt

In article .com, "Mutt" wrote:
You can look it up in Bruce Hoadley's "Understanding Wood", but there's
not all that much "hardness" difference between the two; but hard maple
is slightly harder and denser

Completely false. There's a *hell* of a difference in hardness between the
two, as anyone who has ever worked with both types could readily tell you.

Sugar maple is almost fifty percent harder than red and black maple, and
nearly *twice* as hard as bigleaf and silver maples.

and as the posts indicate you can judge
by heft. The way I tell the difference is that on a fresh cut or
planed piece that is not the end grain, the soft maple has a slight
greyish tinge to the wood, where the hard maple is a brisk white.

This is *not* a reliable method of telling them apart. *Some* hard maple is
bright white, but it can be considerably darker. And while *some* soft maple
is pinkish, *most* of it is *not*.


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

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

Gee, Doug, I don't want to start a flame, but you had to go make me go
look it up, and density of wood is expressed as the specific gravity as
compared to water. Sugar Maple has a specific gravity of 0.63, while
Red Maple is 0.54. That's not a 50% difference. That's according to
Hoadley's "Understanding Wood"). Silver, according to US Forrest
Service is 0.47 at 12% dry and Bigleaf is 0.48. There's a much bigger
chart here at page 5 of this pdf:

http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/fp...tr113/ch04.pdf

To get close to 50%, you're talking the difference between Sugar Maple
and Poplar, the latter having a sg of about 0.42. Even if you take the
structural "side hardness" from that same chart for these species, it
ain't 50%.

Hoadley also says Red is "...heartwood pale to light brown, sometimes
similar in color to light creamy sapwood, but often with a soft or
distinct greyish cast." Page 64 if you're interested. As we all know,
wood color can vary greatly and I didn't say this grey pallor was the
acid test, its just my experience.


Doug Miller wrote:
In article .com,
"Mutt" wrote:
You can look it up in Bruce Hoadley's "Understanding Wood", but
there's
not all that much "hardness" difference between the two; but hard
maple
is slightly harder and denser

Completely false. There's a *hell* of a difference in hardness
between the
two, as anyone who has ever worked with both types could readily tell
you.

Sugar maple is almost fifty percent harder than red and black maple,
and
nearly *twice* as hard as bigleaf and silver maples.

and as the posts indicate you can judge
by heft. The way I tell the difference is that on a fresh cut or
planed piece that is not the end grain, the soft maple has a slight
greyish tinge to the wood, where the hard maple is a brisk white.

This is *not* a reliable method of telling them apart. *Some* hard
maple is
bright white, but it can be considerably darker. And while *some*
soft maple
is pinkish, *most* of it is *not*.


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

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his
butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

In article .com, "Mutt" wrote:
Gee, Doug, I don't want to start a flame, but you had to go make me go
look it up, and density of wood is expressed as the specific gravity as
compared to water.

We were talking about hardness. Density is something altogether different.
Lead and gold, for example, are considerably denser than steel, but nowhere
near as hard.

Sugar Maple has a specific gravity of 0.63, while
Red Maple is 0.54. That's not a 50% difference. That's according to
Hoadley's "Understanding Wood"). Silver, according to US Forrest
Service is 0.47 at 12% dry and Bigleaf is 0.48. There's a much bigger
chart here at page 5 of this pdf:

Interesting, I'm sure, but as noted above, not relevant to the difference in
*hardness* between maple species.

http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/fp...tr113/ch04.pdf

To get close to 50%, you're talking the difference between Sugar Maple
and Poplar, the latter having a sg of about 0.42.

Still irrelevant. Density and hardness are *not* the same, and as these tables
show, they're not even terribly closely related.

Even if you take the
structural "side hardness" from that same chart for these species, it
ain't 50%.

True: it's a lot *more* than that. Sugar maple 1450, yellow poplar 540.

Side hardness of sugar maple and red maple are 1450 and 950, respectively, at
12% moisture content. 1450 is 52.6 percent more than 950.

I was looking at the figures for compression perpendicular to the grain, which
is also a useful measure of hardness. Here, it's red maple 1000, sugar maple
1470 (47 percent more).

Hoadley also says Red is "...heartwood pale to light brown, sometimes
similar in color to light creamy sapwood, but often with a soft or
distinct greyish cast." Page 64 if you're interested. As we all know,
wood color can vary greatly and I didn't say this grey pallor was the
acid test, its just my experience.

Wood color varies enough to render it of very little value in trying to tell
the difference between hard and soft maple.

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

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

Well, Doug, I guess you know more than Bruce Hoadley. He says "Density
(weight per unit volume) is the single most important indicator of
strength in wood and may therefore predict such characteristics as
hardness, ease of machining, and nailing resistance....Specific gravity
is often called the density index."

Mutt.

Native trees of Canada, by R C Hosie in notes under red maple (acer
rubrum L) . Maple lumber can be identified as "hard" or "soft", by
applying any solution of ferric salt to the sapwood---- blue stain,
soft, green stain , hard maple. A drug store may have ferric salts,
which can be dissolved in water and applied with an eye dropper.
I used this method with good results when trying to sort out
mixed piles of red and sugar maple logs while trying to sort out a
dispute on who cut what and on whose property.. I have not used it on
sawn lumber, obviously some sapwood must be present .

Ken