I'm trying to identify the species of wood that this stump came from.
The pictures I took are at
http://homepage-link.to/handyhenry/blacksmithing/index.html
As for the first stump, I'm clueless. But I do know that it's very
heavy, as I had one heck of a time trying to pick it up and load it
into my SUV - multiple tries.
As for the last picture, I'm pretty sure it is of an Oak stump, but not
100% sure.
Thanks
Raffo wrote:
> I'm trying to identify the species of wood that this stump came from.
> The pictures I took are at
> http://homepage-link.to/handyhenry/blacksmithing/index.html
>
> As for the first stump, I'm clueless. But I do know that it's very
> heavy, as I had one heck of a time trying to pick it up and load it
> into my SUV - multiple tries.
>
> As for the last picture, I'm pretty sure it is of an Oak stump, but not
> 100% sure.
Since you only showed a weathered piece of log w/ no remaining bark and
absolutely no clear view of either end or side grain, it's pretty tough
to make even a guess on the first. If you really want someone to have
a reasonable shot at it, at least give a new surface on the end and
preferably part of the side...
Yes, the second is an oak, again w/ an weathered face not positive but
I'd venture white oak. Also, just as a if I had to guess, based on
what little view there is of the first, I'd suspect oak up fairly high
on the list as well, but it does seem a little amber in color altho
that could simply be lighting....
dpb wrote:
> Raffo wrote:
> > I'm trying to identify the species of wood that this stump came from.
> > The pictures I took are at
> > http://homepage-link.to/handyhenry/blacksmithing/index.html
> >
> > ...
>
> Since you only showed a weathered piece of log w/ no remaining bark and
> absolutely no clear view of either end or side grain, it's pretty tough
> to make even a guess on the first. ...
What he said.
But I'll hazard a guess that it is redgum.
--
FF
Actually, it's not that heavy, at least when compared to the first log.
The first log pictured is about twice as heavy as the second one
pictured. Its grain is so tightly packed, you can see all those little
tiny curls, that shows you how dense it is, and why it's so heavy.
Sugar maple, ay? I'll be glad if it is a maple, that would mean it's a
hardwood with good split resistance, which is what I want.
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, "Raffo" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >I'm trying to identify the species of wood that this stump came from.
> >The pictures I took are at
> >http://homepage-link.to/handyhenry/blacksmithing/index.html
> >
> >As for the first stump, I'm clueless. But I do know that it's very
> >heavy, as I had one heck of a time trying to pick it up and load it
> >into my SUV - multiple tries.
>
> White oak, possibly.
> >
> >As for the last picture, I'm pretty sure it is of an Oak stump, but not
> >100% sure.
>
> Don't think so. To me, the bark looks wrong for oak. My guess is sugar maple.
> I'll bet this one's pretty heavy, too, and really hard.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
>
> It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
I've posted a new pic of the one side of it, attempting to show the
rings.
Raffi.
Tim W wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > dpb wrote:
> > > Raffo wrote:
> > > > I'm trying to identify the species of wood that this stump came from.
> > > > The pictures I took are at
> > > > http://homepage-link.to/handyhenry/blacksmithing/index.html
> > > >
> > > > ...
> > >
> > > Since you only showed a weathered piece of log w/ no remaining bark and
> > > absolutely no clear view of either end or side grain, it's pretty tough
> > > to make even a guess on the first. ...
> >
> > What he said.
> >
> What he said again. We had timber specialists in to try to identify timbers
> in a historic building. Without taking samples for microscope examination
> the only statement they could make on any wood just by eyeing it was "Not
> Oak".
>
> Tim W
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, "Raffo"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >I've posted a new pic of the one side of it, attempting to show the
> >rings.
> >
>
> Sorry, but that's not very helpful. Trying to identify wood from a view of the
> end grain is a fool's errand. About the only additional information that end
> view gives is that it's definitely not red oak.
>
> Split the log, or saw or plane a little bit off one side, so that some view of
> the grain _other_than_ an end view is possible, and post a photo of that.
>
> As for the second log, you said in an earlier post that it's much lighter
> weight than the first one, and I speculated that it's perhaps either red or
> silver maple. Light weight, with that bark, there are a couple other
> possiblities, too: catalpa or cottonwood.
>
> Here, also, a view of the grain parallel to the trunk of the tree would be
> very helpful -- as would knowing where you're located.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
>
> It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
Rather than have this be all guesswork and speculation, maybe OP could
provide some info,
like geographic area where trees grew, and site conditions.
Suspect first may be black birch, more strongly suspect second is white
oak.
Knowledgeable local could probably name both in seconds.
J
The second one looks more like cottonwood than either the red or silver maples
growing in our yard. There is a cottonwood in the neighborhood as well. It also
bears some resemblance to an elm we had to cut down.
How dry are the logs? Most any log will be heavy if it is still wet.
Planing/cutting to show side grain will go a long way to ruling out some of the
posiblities.
The first one looks like oak or possiblily elm.
ron
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, "Raffo"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >I've posted a new pic of the one side of it, attempting to show the
> >rings.
> >
>
> Sorry, but that's not very helpful. Trying to identify wood from a view of the
> end grain is a fool's errand. About the only additional information that end
> view gives is that it's definitely not red oak.
>
> Split the log, or saw or plane a little bit off one side, so that some view of
> the grain _other_than_ an end view is possible, and post a photo of that.
>
> As for the second log, you said in an earlier post that it's much lighter
> weight than the first one, and I speculated that it's perhaps either red or
> silver maple. Light weight, with that bark, there are a couple other
> possiblities, too: catalpa or cottonwood.
>
> Here, also, a view of the grain parallel to the trunk of the tree would be
> very helpful -- as would knowing where you're located.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
>
> It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
Sat, Dec 16, 2006, 2:30pm (EST-3) [email protected] (Raffo) puzzedl
exclaims:
I'm trying to identify the species of wood <snip>
Easy. If it's free, its popular wood.
JOAT
Where does Batman buy gas for the Batmobile?
In article <[email protected]>, "Raffo"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>I've posted a new pic of the one side of it, attempting to show the
>rings.
>
Sorry, but that's not very helpful. Trying to identify wood from a view of the
end grain is a fool's errand. About the only additional information that end
view gives is that it's definitely not red oak.
Split the log, or saw or plane a little bit off one side, so that some view of
the grain _other_than_ an end view is possible, and post a photo of that.
As for the second log, you said in an earlier post that it's much lighter
weight than the first one, and I speculated that it's perhaps either red or
silver maple. Light weight, with that bark, there are a couple other
possiblities, too: catalpa or cottonwood.
Here, also, a view of the grain parallel to the trunk of the tree would be
very helpful -- as would knowing where you're located.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
In article <[email protected]>, "Raffo" <[email protected]> wrote:
>I'm trying to identify the species of wood that this stump came from.
>The pictures I took are at
>http://homepage-link.to/handyhenry/blacksmithing/index.html
>
>As for the first stump, I'm clueless. But I do know that it's very
>heavy, as I had one heck of a time trying to pick it up and load it
>into my SUV - multiple tries.
White oak, possibly.
>
>As for the last picture, I'm pretty sure it is of an Oak stump, but not
>100% sure.
Don't think so. To me, the bark looks wrong for oak. My guess is sugar maple.
I'll bet this one's pretty heavy, too, and really hard.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> dpb wrote:
> > Raffo wrote:
> > > I'm trying to identify the species of wood that this stump came from.
> > > The pictures I took are at
> > > http://homepage-link.to/handyhenry/blacksmithing/index.html
> > >
> > > ...
> >
> > Since you only showed a weathered piece of log w/ no remaining bark and
> > absolutely no clear view of either end or side grain, it's pretty tough
> > to make even a guess on the first. ...
>
> What he said.
>
What he said again. We had timber specialists in to try to identify timbers
in a historic building. Without taking samples for microscope examination
the only statement they could make on any wood just by eyeing it was "Not
Oak".
Tim W
In article <[email protected]>, "Raffo" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Actually, it's not that heavy, at least when compared to the first log.
>The first log pictured is about twice as heavy as the second one
>pictured. Its grain is so tightly packed, you can see all those little
>tiny curls, that shows you how dense it is, and why it's so heavy.
>Sugar maple, ay? I'll be glad if it is a maple, that would mean it's a
>hardwood with good split resistance, which is what I want.
In that case, there's no way it's sugar maple, unless the first log is soaking
wet -- sugar maple is one of the densest North American woods, nearly as dense
as white oak. Bark on #2 still looks like maple to me, though, and based on
your description of the weight, I'm now more inclined to think silver or red
instead of sugar.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.