I've worked a good deal with both (lots of quarter sawn white oak the past
year or so) and to me they have similar properties with regard to machining
... probably a bit less tendency for white oak to tear out, but that may
just be my luck/imagination.
They do finish differently ... probably because red oak as coarser pores.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/29/03
"Ron Stitt" wrote in message
> Other than the color is there a lot of difference in working with red oak
> instead of white? What are the major differences between the two woods?
>
> Thanks Ron
>
Ron,
The major difference is the looks and the style. Mission furniture is mainly
quartsawn white oak. This doesnt mean that you cant substitue red oak...it just
wont have the same look.
Kitchen and bath cabinets are often red oak because it is in ample supply
and less expensive. But, red oak can be more difficult to mill. When shaping
with a router, you often get tear outs...they can be minimized if you read your
wood before shaping but experience is great to have.
John Lucas writes:
>The major difference is the looks and the style. Mission furniture is mainly
>quartsawn white oak. This doesnt mean that you cant substitue red oak...it
>just
>wont have the same look.
Similar, though. QS red oak often has more spectacular rays than does QS white
oak. But don't try to fume red oak: turns a greenish color.
Charlie Self
"If you want to know what God thinks of money, just look at the people he gave
it to. " Dorothy Parker
http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
Charlie Self wrote:
> Similar, though. QS red oak often has more spectacular rays than does QS
> white oak. But don't try to fume red oak: turns a greenish color.
I finally figured out what you guys are talking about, I think. I've never
seen QS anything, but I turned some mallets out of a chunk of red oak
heartwood. It has these weird dark lines in it that have nothing to do
with the obvious open-pore patches. I guess these must be the "rays." I
think I must have revealed some of the "quartersawn" stuff.
I've seen this in maple too. Weird little flecks that don't look like "face
of a board" grain or "edge of a board" grain.
Maybe I just need to get some sleep though.
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> John Lucas writes:
>
> >The major difference is the looks and the style. Mission furniture is
mainly
> >quartsawn white oak. This doesnt mean that you cant substitue red
oak...it
> >just
> >wont have the same look.
>
> Similar, though. QS red oak often has more spectacular rays than does QS
white
> oak. But don't try to fume red oak: turns a greenish color.
>
> Charlie Self
> "If you want to know what God thinks of money, just look at the people he
gave
> it to. " Dorothy Parker
>
> http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
I always thought the rays were longer in white oak than red, could be wrong,
I guess doesn't mean they're more spectacular.=)
In addition to what has been said, white oak is more of a light brown, red
oak has a pinkish tinge to it. I find that white oak has a finer grain, less
course than red, easier to work or more predictable? I love hand planning qs
oak, wonderful lacy shavings, I've been trying to think of a use for them.
White oaks are a much slower growing tree than reds so that may account for
some of the differences.
Happy New Year,
Jeffo
Jeffo writes:
>I always thought the rays were longer in white oak than red, could be wrong,
>I guess doesn't mean they're more spectacular.=)
I think most of the QS red oak I've seen has thicker rays, not much difference
in length, but often with an arch that is greater than any I've seen in WO.
>n addition to what has been said, white oak is more of a light brown, red
>oak has a pinkish tinge to it. I find that white oak has a finer grain, less
>course than red, easier to work or more predictable? I love hand planning qs
>oak, wonderful lacy shavings, I've been trying to think of a use for them.
>White oaks are a much slower growing tree than reds so that may account for
>some of the differences.
Pink is it for red oak. WO does not require filler for a smooth finish, while
RO does because of its open pores.
Both are easy to use, IMO, readily available, and reasonable in cost. Where I
live, RO is cheap, as well as abundant. Very chep if you buy green and rough.
Should say where I lived, and will again as soon as someone buys this house.
WO has tyloses that plug the pores, too, which contributes to its durability.
Charlie Self
"If you want to know what God thinks of money, just look at the people he gave
it to. " Dorothy Parker
http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Jeffo writes:
>
> >I always thought the rays were longer in white oak than red, could be
wrong,
> >I guess doesn't mean they're more spectacular.=)
>
> I think most of the QS red oak I've seen has thicker rays, not much
difference
> in length, but often with an arch that is greater than any I've seen in
WO.
>
- - SNIP - -
True, I get what you mean now. Where I usually buy, qs ro and qs wo are the
same price. Since I've come to prefer the white I just go for it. RO is
handy for edging and moldings for oak plywood and such.
What are you paying for qs if you don't mind me asking? I haven't shopped
around because I like what I've been getting, but 4/4 has been about
$6.25bdft, w/ shorts (under 48") $3 on a good day, and $5 for some
'miscuts', slightly undersized on one edge. Tho that's Canadian dollars.
Cheers,
Jeffo
Jeffo asks:
>What are you paying for qs if you don't mind me asking? I haven't shopped
>around because I like what I've been getting, but 4/4 has been about
>$6.25bdft, w/ shorts (under 48") $3 on a good day, and $5 for some
>'miscuts', slightly undersized on one edge. Tho that's Canadian dollars.
I seem to recall getting my last bit for around $4.25, but don't hold me to
that (USD). I've been trying to talk a local (Virginia) sawmill owner to QS
both red and white oak, and maybe a little beech, for several years. He doesn't
like the wasted material and time, so no luck to date. I even went so far as
to offer double price for the stuff. It's good to remember though that he's
been charging half a buck a bf for log run plainsawn.
Charlie Self
"If you want to know what God thinks of money, just look at the people he gave
it to. " Dorothy Parker
http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
In rec.woodworking
"Walt Conner" <[email protected]> wrote:
>White Oak looks a little better in furniture but is much harder wood, harder
>on blades, bits, etc. I much prefer working Red Oak. Just my own opinion.
5% harder and both are softer than hard maple.
http://www.rvhardwoods.com/exotic.asp?cat=5
The best thing for Ron to do is try what is being sold in his area as Red
Oak and White Oak then decide which he and his tools like.
>5% harder and both are softer than hard maple.
This is misleading as the commercial sight listed specifically states the
species listed is peculiar to the Appalachian Region. 5% would leave the
impression the difference is negligible.
What is call Red Oak in common use includes a number of different species. I
can assure you that the difference in hardness between what is sold in this
part of the mid-West as Red Oak and White Oak is readily discernable by
weight and the response of tools to each, experience, not tables, points up
the difference.
Walt Conner
I built a whitewater dory three years ago and a similar topic arose. It
seems that white oak is extreamly water resistant compared to red oak. Each
cell in White oak is sealed up . However glue doesn't work as well as it
would with red oak. Depending on your project these factors may make the
decision for you. If you use mechanical fasteners, white oak is fine. If
it is for indoor projects with glueing... stay with the red oak. BTW, I've
been playing with hemlock lately, and am impresses on the tight grain and
strength. It isn't as open grained as the red oak.
Phisherman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 21:10:20 GMT, "Ron Stitt" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Other than the color is there a lot of difference in working with red oak
> >instead of white? What are the major differences between the two woods?
> >
> >
> >
> >Thanks Ron
>
>
> Not much working difference. White oak has a closed grain (good for
> outdoor wood projects). Red oak has an open grain and will rot
> quickly outdoors. Just the other day I cut down a white oak.
I work almost exclusively with oak, both red and white. As everyone
else on this thread has pointed out, they both work pretty much the
same. The biggest difference in my opinion is the finishing. The
white oak wood pores are naturally plugged with tyloses, a waxy
substance that repels just about any liquid (which is why it has a
better resistance to decay). This also makes it extremely difficult
to stain. On the other hand, you don't have to use nearly as much
pore filler on the white oak as you do the red.
Jeff
Unisaw A100 <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Red Oak = Ugly.
>
> White Oak = Pretty.
>
> Your Mileage May Vary.
>
> UA100
What. Ever. Dude.
-Phil Crow
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 21:10:20 GMT, "Ron Stitt" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Other than the color is there a lot of difference in working with red oak
>instead of white? What are the major differences between the two woods?
>
>
One big difference is that the pores in white oak are closed. Those in
red oak are open. Indeed the easiest way to tell which kind a board is
is to crosscut a slice off the end and blow through it. If you can, it
is red oak, whatever its color.
How much this matters depends on what you are using it for.
For boat building, white is much more resistant to decay, and lets
water travel along inside planks..
If you are making a windchest for an organ, white oak will work the
same way traditional French or English oak did. Red oak will leak air
through the pores, possibly causing neighboring notes to murmer.
White oak is harder and requires more frequent sharpening of jointer
and planer knives.
Both kinds are lumber designations. There are about six species in
each group.
HTH
Rodney Myrvaagnes J36 Gjo/a
MOM CASTS TOT IN CEMENT
Most experts voice cautious optimism
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 21:10:20 GMT, "Ron Stitt" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Other than the color is there a lot of difference in working with red oak
>instead of white? What are the major differences between the two woods?
>
>
>
>Thanks Ron
Not much working difference. White oak has a closed grain (good for
outdoor wood projects). Red oak has an open grain and will rot
quickly outdoors. Just the other day I cut down a white oak.