I'm making a walnut cutting board and I want to inlay a pear in the center.
I thought maple would look good for the pear but I wanted to see if any of
you could suggest a tight grain exotic that would retain a greenish hue
after a natural mineral oil finish for the leaves. Would poplar be too
opened grained? This board will be used.
mel wrote:
> after a natural mineral oil finish for the leaves. Would poplar be too
> opened grained? This board will be used.
IMHO poplar probably wouldn't be too open-grained, but it wouldn't stand up
very well to real use as a cutting board either. Might be OK if the user
has enough sense to chop around it instead of across it.
That's just an opinion though. My only cutting board is a piece of tempered
glass, and I know very little about them.
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
Jim Wilson <[email protected]> schreef
> Poplar is too soft. La Pacho (Tuberbuia avellanedae) comes to mind for
> the color you want.
>
> Jim
+ + +
Translation
"lapacho", aka "ipê", is a general term for several woods,
I don't know if the wood of Tabebuia avellanedae is different enough from
that of Tabebuia serratifolia as to be worth writing about.
PvR
P van Rijckevorsel wrote...
> "lapacho", aka "ipê", is a general term for several woods,
Jim Wilson <[email protected]> schreef
That's why I included the botanical name.
+ + +
Yes, I noticed you copied the site quoted quite faithfully
+ + +
> I don't know if the wood of Tabebuia avellanedae is different enough from
> that of Tabebuia serratifolia as to be worth writing about.
The color is significantly more green, which is what the OP wanted. T.
serratifolia is brown sometimes with a hint of green; at least in all
that I have seen. T. avellandae has similar characteristics otherwise,
but is noticeably greenish when fresh cut, and grows greener with age.
Jim
+ + +
Maybe. Most of the ipê I saw (should be T.serratifolia) was pretty greenish.
Perhaps the manner of drying makes a difference? However if you actually saw
the wood provided by this supplier then you have firsthand knowledge ;-)
PvR
> Jim Wilson <[email protected]> schreef
P van Rijckevorsel snidely remarked...
> > Yes, I noticed you copied the site quoted quite faithfully
+ + +
Actually this is not "snidely", I am exonerating you from the errors on the
site.
+ + +
after previously stating...
> >> > I don't know if the wood of Tabebuia avellanedae is different enough
from that of Tabebuia serratifolia as to be worth writing about.
> (BTW, in my experience, it is, and that is why I wrote about it.)
and responded to my claim:
> >> The color is significantly more green, which is what the OP wanted. T.
serratifolia is brown sometimes with a hint of green; at least in all that I
have seen. T. avellandae has similar characteristics otherwise, but is
noticeably greenish when fresh cut, and grows greener with age.
with
> > Maybe. Most of the ipê I saw (should be T.serratifolia) was pretty
greenish. Perhaps the manner of drying makes a difference? However if you
actually saw the wood provided by this supplier then you have firsthand
knowledge ;-)
> Look, pal, I don't know what your problem is, but I *am* speaking from
firsthand experience, and I tried to help the original poster. You, on the
other hand, offered nothing of value. You already admitted you wouldn't know
the difference, so why'd you pipe up to begin with?
+ + +
For starters you came up with weird non-existing names (copied from the
site), leaving the OP completely in the dark as to what to expect. I just
provided some perspective: this is a grade of ipe, and will work like ipe,
more or less look like ipe and be equally poisonous (or not). All relevant
information when making a cutting board ...
+ + +
> If you have some *experience* to share, by all means do so. But quibbling
when you don't know what you're talking about is a waste of everybody's
time.
> How much of this stuff have you worked with? Although I've worked with
only two pieces of the T. avellanedae, I have worked a great many board
feet of what is commonly sold as ipe. In my experience, there's a marked
difference in appearance between the two species, and it is as I
first described. Why do you doubt it?
+ + +
I am not doubting it. You gave no information if this was something you had
first hand experience with or was just eyeballing after looking at a
website. I just wanted to have this clarified.
However you must keep in mind that the experience you have may be restricted
to the wood at the trader, and may not be typical for the species. This may
mean that your knowledge is valuable only in the here and now. If this same
trader next year buys a new batch of wood from the same species, from the
same part of the country, but from a stand a 100km onwards the wood may look
different, yet again.
+ + +
It so happens that I buy a considerable amount of exotic hardwood lumber
from Judy Mattart. Do you think perhaps that is why I might have
recommended her web site? If you don't believe me, give her a call and
ask. It's a toll free call; the number's on her web site.
Jim
Easy does it ...
PvR
> P van Rijckevorsel wrote...
> > For starters you came up with weird non-existing names (copied from the
> > site), leaving the OP completely in the dark as to what to expect.
> Jim Wilson <[email protected]> schreef
> Well, I disagree with this. I provided the common name as I know it, and
the botanical name for the species, as I know it. Both can be found,
together as well as separately, elsewhere on the Internet. If you believe
they are weird or non-existing, the burden is on you to show that -- it
proves nothing to merely deride them as such.
+ + +
Showing that they are "weird or non-existing" is so easy as to be
self-evident. IDAGS for "Tuberbuia" that showed that the web has 1 listing
namely the link you provided. This is a unique name, found nowhere else in
the world. If you are interested in such matters: a name that differs in one
letter counts as quite distinct. This differs in two letters. Googling for "
"La Pacho" " gives 362 hits, missing the bulk of the websites as the regular
"lapacho" gives 25000 hits. For that you must remember to put in the quotes:
"La Pacho" gives 27400 hits, Pacho being a given name.
> + + +
> > I just provided some perspective: this is a grade of ipe,...
> Kind of like maple, huh? Or maybe butternut/walnut? Specific species
> (redundant, I know) isn't important for the characteristics of the wood?
+ + +
Perhaps more like Quercus alba versus Quercus macrocarpa.
To most people this is just white oak, but there are differences.
+ + +
> > ...and will work like ipe, more or less look like ipe and be
> > equally poisonous (or not). All relevant information when making
> > a cutting board ...
> A potentially useful contribution! It would be moreso if it came from
> first-hand experience, rather than guessing. And you will acknowledge
> that you said none of it until now, so it wasn't part of the perspective
> you provided before.
+ + +
I am an optimist, always hoping that people will actually read first and
then put two and two together. If the OP really wanted a cut-and-dried
answer I 'd advise him to go buy a cutting board of maple. Much easier and
safer.
+ + +
> > You gave no information if this was something you had first hand
> > experience with or was just eyeballing after looking at a
> > website. I just wanted to have this clarified.
> Then ask; don't impugn. If you must ASSUME, then it is wiser to give the
> benefit of the doubt.
+ + +
I did ask
+ + +
> > However you must keep in mind that the experience you have may be
restricted to the wood at the trader, and may not be typical for the
species. This may mean that your knowledge is valuable only in the here and
now. If this same trader next year buys a new batch of wood from the same
species, from the same part of the country, but from a stand a 100km onwards
the wood may look different, yet again.
> Fair enough, in some cases. However, I believe it presumes incorrectly in
> this case. And again, it does presume, which is a rather weak position to
> be arguing from.
+ + +
Quite. This is a recurring question. ln general people have a tendency to
apply what they know to a wider field. This has its dangers.
+ + +
> > Easy does it ...
> Fair enough, again, and I apologize if I went overboard. Weakness of
> human nature, I suppose, to respond in kind.
> Jim
+ + +
Well there are enough cooks on the wreck to wreck the atmosphere, but you
were reading things which were not there ;-)
PvR
Silvan <[email protected]> schreef
> I wouldn't worry about it anyway. Botanists change species around all the
> time, just so they have something to argue and write journal articles
> about.
+ + +
Although this does not affect the discussion, this actually is the case
here. An older name for the tree in question is Tabebuia ipe. The current
name of Tabebuia avellanedae is somewhat controversial, with some people
claiming this species should be joined up with Tabebuia impetiginosa (under
this name) and others disagreeing strongly.
+ + +
> I know nothing of the wood in question whatsoever, and will make no
> assertion one way or the other, but *generally* speaking, it's entirely
> plausible that the name you thought you knew is just out of date.
+ + +
Not in this case, just a careless misspelling.
PvR
> P van Rijckevorsel wrote...
> > IDAGS for "Tuberbuia" that showed that the web has 1 listing
> > namely the link you provided.
Jim Wilson <[email protected]> schreef
> Oh, I misspelled it in my first post! (And never even noticed it. When I
DMGS after one of your previous posts, I typed the name correctly, so I
didn't even get my original site in the search at all. This is one of the
reasons I was confused by your messages.) Thank you for pointing it out!
I wish you had simply said so directly at the beginning.
+ + +
It gets very tiresome pointing out misspellings to people who don't care
about spelling (which was how the misspellings came into being in the first
place)
+ + +
> > Perhaps more like Quercus alba versus Quercus macrocarpa.
To most people this is just white oak, but there are differences.
> No. It's about color, remember? But again, I am now unsure about the true
species designation for the wood in question.
+ + +
Color can vary somewhat within a species.
It is not easy to say something definite about it.
+ + +
> > I am an optimist, always hoping that people will actually read first and
then put two and two together.
> Perhaps you give your reader too much credit? (G) IME, straight talk is
generally more effective communication.
+ + +
Straight talk would have been:
"Quit yacking and go buy a nice maple cutting board"
and likely would not have been appreciated.
Also, what is straight talk to one person is jargon to another ;-)
PvR
+ + +
> > Well there are enough cooks on the wreck to wreck the atmosphere, but
you were reading things which were not there ;-)
> Not to mention missing things which were there ;-)
> Jim
Silvan <[email protected]> schreef
> Unsurprising. I'm not a botanist, but I've been a plant guy for a long
> time, and I gave up on trying to make sure I knew the most recent name for
> everything. Plants jump entire families all the time, and botanists
> seemingly live to argue with each other over minutiae.
+ + +
Yes, unfortunately that is true. Now perhaps more so than earlier. We were
looking at a plant in the Botanical Garden here and it had two signs
attached, an old one assigning it to one family and a new one assigning it
to another family. Likely both were out of date as people now tend to move
it to a third family. I expect this phase to stabilize in a year or five.
On the other hand there are lots and lots of plants that do not have their
name or assigned family changed. Also there is an increasingly strong
counter current in favor of stabilisation.
PvR
mel wrote...
> I'm making a walnut cutting board and I want to inlay a pear in the center.
> I thought maple would look good for the pear but I wanted to see if any of
> you could suggest a tight grain exotic that would retain a greenish hue
> after a natural mineral oil finish for the leaves. Would poplar be too
> opened grained? This board will be used.
Poplar is too soft. La Pacho (Tuberbuia avellanedae) comes to mind for
the color you want.
Jim
P van Rijckevorsel wrote...
> "lapacho", aka "ip=EA", is a general term for several woods,
That's why I included the botanical name.
> I don't know if the wood of Tabebuia avellanedae is different enough from
> that of Tabebuia serratifolia as to be worth writing about.
The color is significantly more green, which is what the OP wanted. T.=20
serratifolia is brown sometimes with a hint of green; at least in all=20
that I have seen. T. avellandae has similar characteristics otherwise,=20
but is noticeably greenish when fresh cut, and grows greener with age.
Jim
P van Rijckevorsel snidely remarked...
> Yes, I noticed you copied the site quoted quite faithfully
after previously stating...
> > I don't know if the wood of Tabebuia avellanedae is different enough fr=
om
> > that of Tabebuia serratifolia as to be worth writing about.
(BTW, in my experience, it is, and that is why I wrote about it.)
and responded to my claim:
>> The color is significantly more green, which is what the OP wanted. T.
>> serratifolia is brown sometimes with a hint of green; at least in all
>> that I have seen. T. avellandae has similar characteristics otherwise,
>> but is noticeably greenish when fresh cut, and grows greener with age.
with
> Maybe. Most of the ip=EA I saw (should be T.serratifolia) was pretty gree=
nish.
> Perhaps the manner of drying makes a difference? However if you actually =
saw
> the wood provided by this supplier then you have firsthand knowledge ;-)
Look, pal, I don't know what your problem is, but I *am* speaking from=20
firsthand experience, and I tried to help the original poster. You, on=20
the other hand, offered nothing of value. You already admitted you=20
wouldn't know the difference, so why'd you pipe up to begin with? If you=20
have some *experience* to share, by all means do so. But quibbling when=20
you don't know what you're talking about is a waste of everybody's time.
How much of this stuff have you worked with? Although I've worked with=20
only two pieces of the T. avellanedae, I have worked a great many board=20
feet of what is commonly sold as ipe. In my experience, there's a marked=20
difference in appearance between the two species, and it is as I=20
first described. Why do you doubt it?
It so happens that I buy a considerable amount of exotic hardwood lumber=20
from Judy Mattart. Do you think perhaps that is why I might have=20
recommended her web site? If you don't believe me, give her a call and=20
ask. It's a toll free call; the number's on her web site.
Jim
P van Rijckevorsel wrote...
> For starters you came up with weird non-existing names (copied from the
> site), leaving the OP completely in the dark as to what to expect.
Well, I disagree with this. I provided the common name as I know it, and
the botanical name for the species, as I know it. Both can be found,
together as well as separately, elsewhere on the Internet. If you believe
they are weird or non-existing, the burden is on you to show that -- it
proves nothing to merely deride them as such.
> I just provided some perspective: this is a grade of ipe,...
Kind of like maple, huh? Or maybe butternut/walnut? Specific species
(redundant, I know) isn't important for the characteristics of the wood?
> ...and will work like ipe, more or less look like ipe and be
> equally poisonous (or not). All relevant information when making
> a cutting board ...
A potentially useful contribution! It would be moreso if it came from
first-hand experience, rather than guessing. And you will acknowledge
that you said none of it until now, so it wasn't part of the perspective
you provided before.
> You gave no information if this was something you had first hand
> experience with or was just eyeballing after looking at a
> website. I just wanted to have this clarified.
Then ask; don't impugn. If you must ASSUME, then it is wiser to give the
benefit of the doubt.
> However you must keep in mind that the experience you have may be restricted
> to the wood at the trader, and may not be typical for the species. This may
> mean that your knowledge is valuable only in the here and now. If this same
> trader next year buys a new batch of wood from the same species, from the
> same part of the country, but from a stand a 100km onwards the wood may look
> different, yet again.
Fair enough, in some cases. However, I believe it presumes incorrectly in
this case. And again, it does presume, which is a rather weak position to
be arguing from.
> Easy does it ...
Fair enough, again, and I apologize if I went overboard. Weakness of
human nature, I suppose, to respond in kind.
Jim
P van Rijckevorsel wrote...
> IDAGS for "Tuberbuia" that showed that the web has 1 listing
> namely the link you provided.
Oh, I misspelled it in my first post! (And never even noticed it. When I
DMGS after one of your previous posts, I typed the name correctly, so I
didn't even get my original site in the search at all. This is one of the
reasons I was confused by your messages.) Thank you for pointing it out!
I wish you had simply said so directly at the beginning.
Of course, I did get the name from the LumberLady web site. She has been
a good source for exotic hardwoods for me. I have bought a veritable
rainbow of woods from her, and naturally (and unfortunately, as it turns
out) referred to her site for the wood in question.
I apologize for the error. In retrospect, perhaps the botanical name is
not merely misspelled, but wrong altogether. I really don't know.
However, the wood I was referring to does have the desired
characteristic; that much I can vouch for. Since the error is unique to
the LumberLady site, I was certainly directing the OP to a solution,
wasn't I? (G)
> Perhaps more like Quercus alba versus Quercus macrocarpa.
> To most people this is just white oak, but there are differences.
No. It's about color, remember? But again, I am now unsure about the true
species designation for the wood in question.
> I am an optimist, always hoping that people will actually read first and
> then put two and two together.
Perhaps you give your reader too much credit? (G) IME, straight talk is
generally more effective communication. Speaking otherwise is so often
misunderstood and at worst may be perceived as obfuscation.
> Well there are enough cooks on the wreck to wreck the atmosphere, but you
> were reading things which were not there ;-)
Not to mention missing things which were not there ;-)
Jim
Jim Wilson wrote:
> No. It's about color, remember? But again, I am now unsure about the true
> species designation for the wood in question.
I wouldn't worry about it anyway. Botanists change species around all the
time, just so they have something to argue and write journal articles
about.
I know nothing of the wood in question whatsoever, and will make no
assertion one way or the other, but *generally* speaking, it's entirely
plausible that the name you thought you knew is just out of date.
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
P van Rijckevorsel wrote:
> Although this does not affect the discussion, this actually is the case
> here. An older name for the tree in question is Tabebuia ipe. The current
> name of Tabebuia avellanedae is somewhat controversial, with some people
> claiming this species should be joined up with Tabebuia impetiginosa
> (under this name) and others disagreeing strongly.
Unsurprising. I'm not a botanist, but I've been a plant guy for a long
time, and I gave up on trying to make sure I knew the most recent name for
everything. Plants jump entire families all the time, and botanists
seemingly live to argue with each other over minutiae.
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 01:32:05 GMT, "Frank Ketchum"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"mel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> I'm making a walnut cutting board and I want to inlay a pear in the
>center.
>> I thought maple would look good for the pear but I wanted to see if any of
>> you could suggest a tight grain exotic that would retain a greenish hue
>> after a natural mineral oil finish for the leaves. Would poplar be too
>> opened grained? This board will be used.
>>
>
>How about pear wood?
>
He wanted a greenish hue. Pearwood is anything but.
Rodney Myrvaagnes NYC J36 Gjo/a
"Religious wisdom is to wisdom as military music is to music."
"mel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'm making a walnut cutting board and I want to inlay a pear in the
center.
> I thought maple would look good for the pear but I wanted to see if any of
> you could suggest a tight grain exotic that would retain a greenish hue
> after a natural mineral oil finish for the leaves. Would poplar be too
> opened grained? This board will be used.
>
How about pear wood?