Guys,
I noticed a local restaurant is remodeling and they have a dumpster full of
old booths. Always on the lookout for free wood, I browsed it. The booths
are mostly plywood construction with some cheap 2x6 pine trim but they are
internally framed with plenty of this hardwood. I have no idea what it is.
I snagged a few pieces and planed them to take a look. I'm giving links to
pics for some help determining if it is worth the effort required to tear
it all out and pull staples. The manager said I could have all I want.
It doesn't feel dense like oak, it is surprisingly light but still hard.
It is very pretty when planed with long flowing soft grain and it varies
from red to nearly white.
Here are the pics.
http://home.swbell.net/snaphook/Pics/wood1.jpg
http://home.swbell.net/snaphook/Pics/wood2.jpg
Bruce wrote:
> OK, so it's alder. Is it worth salvaging?
Depends on *you*. If there were long, clear bits without staples, I'd
salvage it for sure. If it's got lots and lots of staples every little
bit, like the furniture box pallets I brought home, then you should
probably pass. I wrecked a saw blade on a piece of staple I missed, and I
removed a *lot* of staples. I ended up tossing that stuff.
Depends on how poor you are too. I exploit every source I can for free
materials because it's the only way I can afford to continue making things.
If there were fairly large clear sections, I would salvage those benches
for *pine*.
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
In rec.woodworking
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Birch maybe..
That is what I was just thinking while looking at
http://www.woodworkerssource.net/Merchant3/merchant.mv?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=WS&Category_Code=Birch
doesn't quite hit home as birch. Alder is much more like it.
--
Young Carpenter
"Violin playing and Woodworking are similar, it takes plenty of money,
plenty of practice, and you usually make way more noise than intended"
"Bruce" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Guys,
>
> I noticed a local restaurant is remodeling and they have a dumpster full
of
> old booths. Always on the lookout for free wood, I browsed it. The
booths
> are mostly plywood construction with some cheap 2x6 pine trim but they are
> internally framed with plenty of this hardwood. I have no idea what it
is.
> I snagged a few pieces and planed them to take a look. I'm giving links
to
> pics for some help determining if it is worth the effort required to tear
> it all out and pull staples. The manager said I could have all I want.
>
> It doesn't feel dense like oak, it is surprisingly light but still hard.
> It is very pretty when planed with long flowing soft grain and it varies
> from red to nearly white.
>
> Here are the pics.
>
> http://home.swbell.net/snaphook/Pics/wood1.jpg
> http://home.swbell.net/snaphook/Pics/wood2.jpg
>
>
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
In rec.woodworking
Jim Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
>Looks like birch, or possibly poplar to me. You said it's hard, so I'd
>figure birch, but poplar is more commonly used inside stuff where it
>won't be seen.
I've worked with poplar and this is not as smooth or as lightly colored as
the poplar I'm used to. I'm thinking birch. After someone said that, I
looked at some birch plywood I have and it is pretty close.
In rec.woodworking
Jim Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
>Tom M. wrote...
>> It looks like pecan to me, but pecan is a bit on the heavy side.
>
>The appearance of face grain and the apparent color [1] is
>somewhat similar to pecan, but the end grain does not look nearly dense
>enough. Unless the sample is exceedingly hard, I'd rule out pecan.
>
>The point about the weight is a good one. Bruce, what's it weigh and what
>are the sizes of the pieces? Pecan averages 3.9 lb/bf. Birch is around
>3.6-3.8 lb/bf, and poplar typically weighs under 2.4 lb/bf.
Well, the large piece is:
3-7/8 x 13/16 x 34-15/32 making it 108.5 CuIn and .75363 BdFt. It weighs
1.6375 lbs making it 2.17 lb/BdFt.
Told you it was light. That does sound more like poplar. It is also quite
a bit lighter than birch or beech. I can't find a weight for alder. The
only problem I have is that there seems to be way too much red and brown in
it to look like the poplar I'm familiar with.
In rec.woodworking
Jim Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
>That's another vote in favor of alder. I've seen a rather large variety
>of colors in "yellow" poplar, but they tend more toward the greens and
>sometimes even blues than the reds. Red alder is nearly white when cut,
>but it soon changes to reddish or yellowish light brown or tan.
>
>As far as use goes, poplar and alder are in the same class. Alder is all
>the rage lately in local cabinetry, for the 'distressed' look. Maple is a
>lot harder to distress! (G)
OK, so it's alder. Is it worth salvaging?
In rec.woodworking
Silvan <[email protected]> wrote:
>Depends on *you*. If there were long, clear bits without staples, I'd
>salvage it for sure. If it's got lots and lots of staples every little
>bit, like the furniture box pallets I brought home, then you should
>probably pass. I wrecked a saw blade on a piece of staple I missed, and I
>removed a *lot* of staples. I ended up tossing that stuff.
>
>Depends on how poor you are too. I exploit every source I can for free
>materials because it's the only way I can afford to continue making things.
>If there were fairly large clear sections, I would salvage those benches
>for *pine*.
Well, I'm not poor but I love FREE! I think I'll go back and get a select
few pieces. The staples aren't too bad in the 1x2 stuff, worse in the 1x4
stuff, which is what I really wanted. I can always use it on small
projects.
Alder has that darker look to it
very similar to birch but birch is usually white and Alder is often a deeper
umber look.
--
Young Carpenter
"Violin playing and Woodworking are similar, it takes plenty of money,
plenty of practice, and you usually make way more noise than intended"
"Silvan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Bruce wrote:
>
> > the poplar I'm used to. I'm thinking birch. After someone said that, I
> > looked at some birch plywood I have and it is pretty close.
>
> Definitely not poplar. It looks like birch to me too, but the guy who
said
> it was alder is probably right. I've never seen alder.
>
> --
> Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
> Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
> http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
>
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
In rec.woodworking
[email protected] (Bruce) wrote:
Funny aside. I take the piece to work and ask a few of the guys that do
woodworking about it. I toss it to one guy and say what's this and he
says, "I don't know, balsa?" This stuff is very light but you couldn't
break that 1x2 over your leg for anything.
Just my 2 cents.
1st cent. As I recollect, alder is a type of "cottonwood" as is
poplar. The common name pretty much refers to the same tree, same
wood in different parts of the country. Split up by scientific
(latin) names the cottonwoods don't really differ that much as I
remember.
2nd cent. I don't think it's birch. If you can't mark the surface
with your fingernail, my guess would be beech.
Larry responds:
>1st cent. As I recollect, alder is a type of "cottonwood" as is
>poplar. The common name pretty much refers to the same tree, same
>wood in different parts of the country. Split up by scientific
>(latin) names the cottonwoods don't really differ that much as I
>remember.
>
Not so. Cottonwood and alder are the same genus. Tulip poplar is not. The woods
are different, too, though not as much as red oak and white oak, which are the
same genus.
Charlie Self
"The income tax has made liars out of more Americans than golf."
Will Rogers
Charlie,
You wrote:
<snip> Not so. Cottonwood and alder are the same genus. Tulip poplar
is not.snip>
This is simply not correct. All cottonwoods, poplars, and alders are
in the same family (Saliceae) AND the same genius (Populus). I don't
know which species you are calling "tulip poplar" but that's the
problem with common names. You could be correct that "tulip poplar"
is in a seperate genus if it is really NOT a poplar and merely carries
the (incorrect) poplar name because of some percieved, though not
taxonomic, similarity.
You also wrote:
<snip> The woods are different, too, though not as much as red oak and
white oak <snip>
Less different than white vs red oak. In my book that's not far from
the same.
Larry responds:
>You wrote:
><snip> Not so. Cottonwood and alder are the same genus. Tulip poplar
>is not.snip>
>
>This is simply not correct. All cottonwoods, poplars, and alders are
>in the same family (Saliceae) AND the same genius (Populus). I don't
>know which species you are calling "tulip poplar" but that's the
>problem with common names. You could be correct that "tulip poplar"
>is in a seperate genus if it is really NOT a poplar and merely carries
>the (incorrect) poplar name because of some percieved, though not
>taxonomic, similarity.
OK. You think? Try "A Guide To Useful Woods of The World." Max Kline lists
Lirodendron tulipifera as tulip poplar, as do I. Point out the "Populus" genus
there.
AKA yellow poplar for the major color of the heartwood when fresh cut (greenish
yellow, actually).
>You also wrote:
><snip> The woods are different, too, though not as much as red oak and
>white oak <snip>
Forget it. If you don't know HOW damned different red oak and white oak, though
they are the same genus, you should not be making comments about wood.
Charlie Self
"The income tax has made liars out of more Americans than golf."
Will Rogers
<snip> OK. You think? Try "A Guide To Useful Woods of The World." Max
Kline lists Lirodendron tulipifera as tulip poplar, as do I. Point out
the "Populus" genus there. <snip>
Yeah, I think!!! If you had read what I wrote you would have realized
that L. tulipifera aka. tulip poplar IS NOT A POPLAR IT'S A
MAGNOLIA!!!
<snip> Forget it. If you don't know HOW damned different red oak and
white oak, though they are the same genus, you should not be making
comments about wood. <snip>
If you don't know what their common properties are than you shouldn't
be working wood.
Larry snarls:
><snip> OK. You think? Try "A Guide To Useful Woods of The World." Max
>Kline lists Lirodendron tulipifera as tulip poplar, as do I. Point out
>the "Populus" genus there. <snip>
>
>Yeah, I think!!! If you had read what I wrote you would have realized
>that L. tulipifera aka. tulip poplar IS NOT A POPLAR IT'S A
>MAGNOLIA!!!
Damn. I must have missed the joining of Liriodendron genus with Mangolia genus.
><snip> Forget it. If you don't know HOW damned different red oak and
>white oak, though they are the same genus, you should not be making
>comments about wood. <snip>
>
>If you don't know what their common properties are than you shouldn't
>be working wood.
>
We were speaking of differences, not common properties. Look up tyloses, among
other things.
For the hell of it, check durability ratings, too.
Charlie Self
"The income tax has made liars out of more Americans than golf."
Will Rogers
Tue, Oct 7, 2003, 9:32pm (EDT+6) [email protected]
(P=A0van=A0Rijckevorsel) says:
Repeat from yesterday:
For safety sake (Luigi got it right?):
Alder is Alnus, family Betulaceae
Birch is Betula, family Betulaceae
Yellow-poplar /
Tulip-poplar is Liriodendron tulipifera, family Magnoliaceae h.t.
Poplar (non-US) / Cottonwood / Aspen are Populus, family Salicaceae
And free wood is always popular.
JOAT
There must be a hundred silver dollars in here. I can't handle that sort
o' money, you've gotta be in the league of lawyers to steal that much.
- J. H. "Flannelfoot" Boggis
Life just ain't life without good music. - JOAT
Web Page Update 6 Oct 2003.
Some tunes I like.
http://community-2.webtv.net/Jakofalltrades/SOMETUNESILIKE/
T. <[email protected]> schreef
And free wood is always popular.
+ + +
Well, there is such a thing as wood that cannot be given away.
Some popular wood is quite expensive (ebony, cocobolo,etc)
PvR
Wed, Oct 8, 2003, 12:00pm (EDT+6) [email protected]
(P=A0van=A0Rijckevorsel) says:
Well, there is such a thing as wood that cannot be given away. Some
popular wood is quite expensive (ebony, cocobolo,etc)
You are apparently missing the point. Or, purposely being obtuse.
I hate having to explain things like this.
Free wood, is automatically popular.
JOAT
There must be a hundred silver dollars in here. I can't handle that sort
o' money, you've gotta be in the league of lawyers to steal that much.
- J. H. "Flannelfoot" Boggis
Life just ain't life without good music. - JOAT
Web Page Update 6 Oct 2003.
Some tunes I like.
http://community-2.webtv.net/Jakofalltrades/SOMETUNESILIKE/
Larry <[email protected]> schreef
> Give me a break. To check for tyloses you need a microscope or
> chemical tests.
+ + +
A hand lens is quite enough. Sometimes it is a naked eye phenomenon.
I never heard of a chemical test for tyloses. How would you go about it?
+ + +
> Durability is a matter of time and, more importantly,
where it is. I wouldn't use red oak for a water bucket (durability &
it would leak anyway). But for cabinets, jewelry boxes, i.e.,
unexposed things, durability is irrelevant & either oak machines about
the same, is about the same density (by hand) and hardness (normal
handling), and looks very similar.
+ + +
It will only look the same if you paint it. As to "very similar" there are
lots of people who think hardboard, plywood, osb and mdf look "very
similar", so this covers a lot of ground.
PvR
<snip>Damn. I must have missed the joining of Liriodendron genus with
Mangolia genus<snip>
Not genus, family. And what is Mangolia - something that produces
mango's? :)
<snip>We were speaking of differences, not common properties.<snip>
No. We were speaking of LOOKING at a piece of wood and identifying
what it is.
<snip>Look up tyloses, among other things. For the hell of it, check
durability ratings, too.<snip>
Give me a break. To check for tyloses you need a microscope or
chemical tests. Durability is a matter of time and, more importantly,
where it is. I wouldn't use red oak for a water bucket (durability &
it would leak anyway). But for cabinets, jewelry boxes, i.e.,
unexposed things, durability is irrelevant & either oak machines about
the same, is about the same density (by hand) and hardness (normal
handling), and looks very similar.
Larry limits:
>And what is Mangolia - something that produces
>mango's? :)
Sorry. If you'd been on the NG for a bit, you'd know I had 2 dead fingers on my
left hand, so typing isn't always perfect.
>the same, is about the same density (by hand) and hardness (normal
>handling), and looks very similar.
Finish 'em the same and then let's talk. Those tyloses make some difference
then.
Charlie Self
"The income tax has made liars out of more Americans than golf."
Will Rogers
Charlie Self wrote:
> Larry limits:
>
>
>>And what is Mangolia - something that produces
>>mango's? :)
>
>
> Sorry. If you'd been on the NG for a bit, you'd know I had 2 dead fingers on my
> left hand, so typing isn't always perfect.
Hell Charlie, that leaves three good ones to use (or two if you discount
the thumb). I never need to use more than one on either hand so I have
many spares.
> Finish 'em the same and then let's talk. Those tyloses make some difference
> then.
Tyloses? Sounds like somethin' you'd take off a woman from an exotic land.
Hank
"I never had sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinski".
Dan Quayle
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
LOL ... Don't look now but that's _your_ own statement you're taking
exception to, Charlie.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 9/21/03
"Charlie Self" wrote in message
> ><snip> The woods are different, too, though not as much as red oak and
> >white oak <snip>
>
> Forget it. If you don't know HOW damned different red oak and white oak,
though
> they are the same genus, you should not be making comments about wood.
>
> Charlie Self
Larry, you were absolutely correct in _everything_ that you stated below.
And you correctly surmised that "tulip poplar" is a common name that is not
in the genus populus. Anyone replying who was interested in enlightenment
would have stated that upfront instead of introducing the term as an
obfuscation and excuse to spout off a bit of knowledge.
Some folks are like the cock who thinks the sun rises just to hear him crow.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 9/21/03
"Charlie Self" wrote in message
> Larry responds:
>
> >You wrote:
> ><snip> Not so. Cottonwood and alder are the same genus. Tulip poplar
> >is not.snip>
> >
> >This is simply not correct. All cottonwoods, poplars, and alders are
> >in the same family (Saliceae) AND the same genius (Populus). I don't
> >know which species you are calling "tulip poplar" but that's the
> >problem with common names. You could be correct that "tulip poplar"
> >is in a seperate genus if it is really NOT a poplar and merely carries
> >the (incorrect) poplar name because of some percieved, though not
> >taxonomic, similarity.
>
> OK. You think? Try "A Guide To Useful Woods of The World." Max Kline lists
> Lirodendron tulipifera as tulip poplar, as do I. Point out the "Populus"
genus
> there.
>
> AKA yellow poplar for the major color of the heartwood when fresh cut
(greenish
> yellow, actually).
>
> >You also wrote:
> ><snip> The woods are different, too, though not as much as red oak and
> >white oak <snip>
>
> Forget it. If you don't know HOW damned different red oak and white oak,
though
> they are the same genus, you should not be making comments about wood.
>
> Charlie Self
>
> "The income tax has made liars out of more Americans than golf."
> Will Rogers
On 06 Oct 2003 11:20:09 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
wrote:
>Larry responds:
>
>>You wrote:
>><snip> Not so. Cottonwood and alder are the same genus. Tulip poplar
>>is not.snip>
>>
>>This is simply not correct. All cottonwoods, poplars, and alders are
>>in the same family (Saliceae) AND the same genius (Populus). I don't
>>know which species you are calling "tulip poplar" but that's the
>>problem with common names. You could be correct that "tulip poplar"
>>is in a seperate genus if it is really NOT a poplar and merely carries
>>the (incorrect) poplar name because of some percieved, though not
>>taxonomic, similarity.
>
>OK. You think? Try "A Guide To Useful Woods of The World." Max Kline lists
>Lirodendron tulipifera as tulip poplar, as do I. Point out the "Populus" genus
>there.
>
"...there is a great deal of inconsistency among common names. A
single species may have several common names, especially in different
localities. For example, Liriodendron Tulipifera is called tuliptree
or tulip poplar; the preferred common name for its wood is yellow
poplar, but locally it is known as whitewood, tulipwood, tulip poplar,
hickory poplar, white poplar or simply poplar-and even popple. But
poplar and popple commonly describe cottonwoods and aspens in the
genus Populus, and whitewood is used for several other species."
Understanding Wood, Hoadley, Taunton, 1980, p 10.
Regards, Tom
Thomas J. Watson-Cabinetmaker
Gulph Mills, Pennsylvania
http://users.snip.net/~tjwatson
Tom Watson writes:
>You could be correct that "tulip poplar"
>>>is in a seperate genus if it is really NOT a poplar and merely carries
>>>the (incorrect) poplar name because of some percieved, though not
>>>taxonomic, similarity.
>>
>>OK. You think? Try "A Guide To Useful Woods of The World." Max Kline lists
>>Lirodendron tulipifera as tulip poplar, as do I. Point out the "Populus"
>genus
>>there.
>>
>
>
>"...there is a great deal of inconsistency among common names. A
>single species may have several common names, especially in different
>localities. For example, Liriodendron Tulipifera is called tuliptree
>or tulip poplar; the preferred common name for its wood is yellow
>poplar, but locally it is known as whitewood, tulipwood, tulip poplar,
>hickory poplar, white poplar or simply poplar-and even popple. But
>poplar and popple commonly describe cottonwoods and aspens in the
>genus Populus, and whitewood is used for several other species."
>Understanding Wood, Hoadley, Taunton, 1980, p 10.
AFAIK, in the Southeast, poplar is tulip poplar. I've never heard it called
"popple" but maybe I don't hang in the right circles.
And "whitewood" seems to me to fit lime or holly better than it does "yaller
popular." But in the Borgs, it fits whatever they want it to fit at that
particular point in selling time.
I've seen all poplars, white pine, ponderosa pine and several others listed as
"whitewood" in various HD and Lowe's places, and in a couple 84 Lumber.
I left off the "i" in the midst of Liriodendron. Local names can drive you
bats, especially when you're writing about wood...I mean, how MANY do you
include.
William Lincoln (World Woods In Color) kicks off with American Whitewood for
yellow poplar, then adds poplar, canary wood, canary whitewood, yellow poplar,
hhickory poplar, tulip poplar, saddletree, popple, tulipwood (claims that is a
USA use, but the only place I've seen it is in a Brit book), tulip tree, canary
whitewood (second listing).
About like pecan and hickory, though both of those are Carya.
Charlie Self
"The income tax has made liars out of more Americans than golf."
Will Rogers
Tom Watson <[email protected]> schreef
> It gets even worse than that and I've been burned by misunderstanding
> trade nomenclature for face veneers on ply that describe color rather
> than species varieties: White Birch, Yellow Birch, Red Birch, Natural
> Birch, White Maple, Natural Maple, etc.
> The problem is made even more confusing because there are a variety of
> trade organizations that confer names and they don't all agree. It
> would be an interesting exercise to gather up the various trade and
> local names and cross reference them - but it might just make you
> crazy.
>
> Regards, Tom
+ + +
Yes, going by common name is a recipe for disaster.
Common names work well within a small area, where they mean the same thing.
The birches are a good example: in one area of North America, Red Birch,
White Birch and Yellow Birch will refer to one and the same species, while
in another area they refer to three different species. The whole mess has
been indexed long ago, but this does not help.
For safety sake (Luigi got it mostly right?):
Alder is Alnus (Betulaceae)
Birch is Betula (Betulaceae)
Yellow-poplar / Tulip-poplar is Liriodendron tulipifera (Magnoliaceae h.t.)
Poplar (non-US) / Cottonwood / Aspen are Populus (Salicaceae)
If I should guess at the wood in the picture I would tend to go for Populus,
but this has only a 25% degree of confidence. I am worried about the clear
growth rings.
PvR
On 06 Oct 2003 13:45:02 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
wrote:
>AFAIK, in the Southeast, poplar is tulip poplar. I've never heard it called
>"popple" but maybe I don't hang in the right circles.
I've never heard it called "popple", either. I've only read it.
Locally, I've heard guys call it "popular wood" for years but I'm
figuring this to be a local mispronunciation.
>
>And "whitewood" seems to me to fit lime or holly better than it does "yaller
>popular." But in the Borgs, it fits whatever they want it to fit at that
>particular point in selling time.
>
>I've seen all poplars, white pine, ponderosa pine and several others listed as
>"whitewood" in various HD and Lowe's places, and in a couple 84 Lumber.
AFAIK "whitewood" is a general shop term for woods that are light in
color and are usually given an opaque finish or left raw, as a hidden
secondary wood. I've also heard the term, "in the white" to describe
any wood that has yet to be finished. The Brits sometimes refer to
some whitewoods as "deal".
>
>I left off the "i" in the midst of Liriodendron. Local names can drive you
>bats, especially when you're writing about wood...I mean, how MANY do you
>include.
>
>William Lincoln (World Woods In Color) kicks off with American Whitewood for
>yellow poplar, then adds poplar, canary wood, canary whitewood, yellow poplar,
>hhickory poplar, tulip poplar, saddletree, popple, tulipwood (claims that is a
>USA use, but the only place I've seen it is in a Brit book), tulip tree, canary
>whitewood (second listing).
It gets even worse than that and I've been burned by misunderstanding
trade nomenclature for face veneers on ply that describe color rather
than species varieties: White Birch, Yellow Birch, Red Birch, Natural
Birch, White Maple, Natural Maple, etc.
The problem is made even more confusing because there are a variety of
trade organizations that confer names and they don't all agree. It
would be an interesting exercise to gather up the various trade and
local names and cross reference them - but it might just make you
crazy.
>
Regards, Tom
Thomas J. Watson-Cabinetmaker
Gulph Mills, Pennsylvania
http://users.snip.net/~tjwatson
On 05 Oct 2003 14:00:54 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
scribbled
>Larry responds:
>
>>1st cent. As I recollect, alder is a type of "cottonwood" as is
>>poplar. The common name pretty much refers to the same tree, same
>>wood in different parts of the country. Split up by scientific
>>(latin) names the cottonwoods don't really differ that much as I
>>remember.
>>
>
>Not so. Cottonwood and alder are the same genus. Tulip poplar is not. The woods
>are different, too, though not as much as red oak and white oak, which are the
>same genus.
Were you both thinking of aspen: "Populus tremuloides" and "P.
grandidentata" instead of alder? "Alnus rubra", red alder, is used on
the West coast and does not resemble poplar. (I was going to say
Pacific Northwest, but British Columbia, Oregon & Washington are
actually in the southeast. :-))
BTW, alder is in the birch family (Betulacaea) while true poplars are
in the willow family (Salicacaea). Tulip poplar is a magnolia.
The OP's wood sort of looks like birch, so my vote would be for red
alder, which is used as a cheap hardwood.
Luigi
Who does not live in a place where local sawmills have prized
hardwoods. Fire-killed aspen or poplar are as hard as local hardwoods
gets.
Replace "no" with "yk" twice to get real email address.
Luigi
Replace "no" with "yk" twice
in reply address for real email address
Birch maybe..
"Bruce" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Guys,
>
> I noticed a local restaurant is remodeling and they have a dumpster full
of
> old booths. Always on the lookout for free wood, I browsed it. The
booths
> are mostly plywood construction with some cheap 2x6 pine trim but they are
> internally framed with plenty of this hardwood. I have no idea what it
is.
> I snagged a few pieces and planed them to take a look. I'm giving links
to
> pics for some help determining if it is worth the effort required to tear
> it all out and pull staples. The manager said I could have all I want.
>
> It doesn't feel dense like oak, it is surprisingly light but still hard.
> It is very pretty when planed with long flowing soft grain and it varies
> from red to nearly white.
>
> Here are the pics.
>
> http://home.swbell.net/snaphook/Pics/wood1.jpg
> http://home.swbell.net/snaphook/Pics/wood2.jpg
>
>
Sat, Oct 4, 2003, 4:23pm (EDT+4) [email protected] (Bruce) says:
<snip> Here are the pics. <snip>
Popular wood. No doubt about it.
JOAT
There must be a hundred silver dollars in here. I can't handle that sort
o' money, you've gotta be in the league of lawyers to steal that much.
- J. H. "Flannelfoot" Boggis
Life just ain't life without good music. - JOAT
Web Page Update 4 Oct 2003.
Some tunes I like.
http://community-2.webtv.net/Jakofalltrades/SOMETUNESILIKE/
Tom M. wrote...
> It looks like pecan to me, but pecan is a bit on the heavy side.
The appearance of face grain and the apparent color [1] is
somewhat similar to pecan, but the end grain does not look nearly dense
enough. Unless the sample is exceedingly hard, I'd rule out pecan.
The point about the weight is a good one. Bruce, what's it weigh and what
are the sizes of the pieces? Pecan averages 3.9 lb/bf. Birch is around
3.6-3.8 lb/bf, and poplar typically weighs under 2.4 lb/bf.
[1] Digital images generally are not very accurate as to color, and the
human eye sees color in relative, rather than absolute, terms. The
background strongly influences perceived colors.
Bruce wrote...
> 3-7/8 x 13/16 x 34-15/32 making it 108.5 CuIn and .75363 BdFt. It weighs
> 1.6375 lbs making it 2.17 lb/BdFt.
>
> Told you it was light. That does sound more like poplar. It is also quite
> a bit lighter than birch or beech. I can't find a weight for alder.
Alder is virtually identical to poplar in density, so that matches well
with your sample.
> The only problem I have is that there seems to be way too much red and brown
> in it to look like the poplar I'm familiar with.
That's another vote in favor of alder. I've seen a rather large variety
of colors in "yellow" poplar, but they tend more toward the greens and
sometimes even blues than the reds. Red alder is nearly white when cut,
but it soon changes to reddish or yellowish light brown or tan.
As far as use goes, poplar and alder are in the same class. Alder is all
the rage lately in local cabinetry, for the 'distressed' look. Maple is a
lot harder to distress! (G)
Jim
Bruce wrote...
> OK, so it's alder. Is it worth salvaging?
Depends on how you value your time, how large the pieces are, and what it
would take to put it to use. Around here (Tucson, AZ), alder is one of
the least expensive woods, and that's despite that it has to be trucked
in. Costs about $2/bf. I'd probably pass, unless I could put them to good
use easily and soon.
Cheers!
Jim
On 4 Oct 2003 20:20:20 -0700, [email protected] (Tom M.) Crawled out of
the shop and said. . .:
>It looks like pecan to me, but pecan is a bit on the heavy side.
>
>Tom
i donno bout Pecan,,, i would think pecan would be a bit on the spendy
side to stuff into a restaurant booth. . .
Traves
It looks like pecan to me, but pecan is a bit on the heavy side.
Tom
[email protected] (Bruce) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Guys,
>
> I noticed a local restaurant is remodeling and they have a dumpster full of
> old booths. Always on the lookout for free wood, I browsed it. The booths
> are mostly plywood construction with some cheap 2x6 pine trim but they are
> internally framed with plenty of this hardwood. I have no idea what it is.
> I snagged a few pieces and planed them to take a look. I'm giving links to
> pics for some help determining if it is worth the effort required to tear
> it all out and pull staples. The manager said I could have all I want.
>
> It doesn't feel dense like oak, it is surprisingly light but still hard.
> It is very pretty when planed with long flowing soft grain and it varies
> from red to nearly white.
>
> Here are the pics.
>
> http://home.swbell.net/snaphook/Pics/wood1.jpg
> http://home.swbell.net/snaphook/Pics/wood2.jpg
Bruce wrote:
> the poplar I'm used to. I'm thinking birch. After someone said that, I
> looked at some birch plywood I have and it is pretty close.
Definitely not poplar. It looks like birch to me too, but the guy who said
it was alder is probably right. I've never seen alder.
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
Looks like Alder to me
"Bruce" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Guys,
>
> I noticed a local restaurant is remodeling and they have a dumpster full
of
> old booths. Always on the lookout for free wood, I browsed it. The
booths
> are mostly plywood construction with some cheap 2x6 pine trim but they are
> internally framed with plenty of this hardwood. I have no idea what it
is.
> I snagged a few pieces and planed them to take a look. I'm giving links
to
> pics for some help determining if it is worth the effort required to tear
> it all out and pull staples. The manager said I could have all I want.
>
> It doesn't feel dense like oak, it is surprisingly light but still hard.
> It is very pretty when planed with long flowing soft grain and it varies
> from red to nearly white.
>
> Here are the pics.
>
> http://home.swbell.net/snaphook/Pics/wood1.jpg
> http://home.swbell.net/snaphook/Pics/wood2.jpg
>
>