I'm in San Diego and the cost of cherry seems to range from $8.90 bf to
$9.20. A sheet of 3/4" cherry ply is $135.00. I just bought a 1/4
sheet of 1/4" cherry for $27.
I also noticed that African Mahogany from the same supplier looks to be
$7.50 or there about per bf.
Why would domestic cherry be that much more expensive than imported
mahogany?
Do these prices seem high?
I'm redoing a couple bathrooms (in cherry) and am building new
doors/drawers. It would be cheaper (but not as much fun) to buy
pre-built, unfinished cherry doors and drawer fronts from commercial
suppliers than to build?
[email protected] wrote:
> Rick Cook wrote:
>
>>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>George wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Agreed. But let's not forget that transition areas are a normal
>>>>>part of the forest environment.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Which _cannot_ be preserved.
>>>
>>>
>>>In view of the fact that paleontology has made it clear that
>>>forests can last for thousands of human lifetimes what is
>>>your basis for saying that forests cannot be preserved?
>>>
>>
>>What paleontology clearly shows is that while an area may remain
>>forested for thousands -- or millions of years -- the composition of
>
> the
>
>>forest changes radically and repeatedly throughout the time it is in
>>existence.
>>
>>What ecology shows us is that even a 'climax' forest is not stable.
>>'Climax' is an attractor, not an end point.
>>
>>So, no, forests cannot be 'preserved' in the sense that most of the
>>environmentalist tree-huggers use the term.
>>
>
>
> I think you misrepresent the way most environmentalist tree-huggers
> use the term 'preserved'.
>
Certainly a number of the more vocal ones use 'preserved' in that way.
I'm aware that some (a minority) of environmentalists have a deeper
understanding of forest health. But even many of those seem to fall into
the 'preservationist' line when push comes to shove.
The result is that 'environmentalists' as a whole can appear a lot more
rational in print than they do in the ground, because the more rational
ones aren't the ones applying pressure.
Right now for example the 'environmentalists' are waging war to the
knife against efforts to prevent fires like the ones that burned about
250,000 acres of Arizona a couple of years ago. Since the effort
involves cutting trees they oppose it. They carry this to utterly
idiotic extremes, such as opposing thinning lanes along roads to create
barriers to fires jumping the roads. (Note I said 'thinning'. The
proposal in question would have allowed the US forest service to take
out brush and trees as necessary, not clear-cut the forest.)
But as the saying goes, 'the truth is out there. Anyone who wants to can
go look at the evidence. Those who don't want to can have a nice day.
I just killfiled one silly pointless debate in this newsgroup and I'll
be damned if I'll charge into another.
--RC
Jerry wrote:
> I'm in San Diego and the cost of cherry seems to range from $8.90 bf
to
> $9.20. A sheet of 3/4" cherry ply is $135.00. I just bought a 1/4
> sheet of 1/4" cherry for $27.
>
> I also noticed that African Mahogany from the same supplier looks to
be
> $7.50 or there about per bf.
>
> Why would domestic cherry be that much more expensive than imported
> mahogany?
>
Probably labor costs, the availability of large trees that are the most
cost-effective for conversion to timber or ply, and transportation
costs.
It probably costs more to truck Cherry overland from the Eastern
US to California than it does to send Mahogany by boat from Central
America.
Oh, you said African Mahogany. Hmm, may still be cheaper to ship.
Isn't real Mahogany about half that?
--
FF
Prices really vary depending on location with shipping being such a
huge component of the cost of wood. However, $9+ seems a bit steep.
Here in No. CA it was up tp $7+ last year but has com back down into
the high $5-low $6.
The $9 doesn't sound quite like retail but getting close. Where are you
buying?
BW
I was able to buy about 40 bft. rough sawn for $2 a bf. last week from
a local old-timer who definitely gave me a deal. Needless to say, I
was pretty happy about it, and I plan to go back and get some more very
soon.
Jerry wrote:
> I'm in San Diego and the cost of cherry seems to range from $8.90 bf
to
> $9.20. A sheet of 3/4" cherry ply is $135.00. I just bought a 1/4
> sheet of 1/4" cherry for $27.
>
> I also noticed that African Mahogany from the same supplier looks to
be
> $7.50 or there about per bf.
>
> Why would domestic cherry be that much more expensive than imported
> mahogany?
>
> Do these prices seem high?
>
> I'm redoing a couple bathrooms (in cherry) and am building new
> doors/drawers. It would be cheaper (but not as much fun) to buy
> pre-built, unfinished cherry doors and drawer fronts from commercial
> suppliers than to build?
Oak does not give the look I need and maple would require a tinted
lacquer spray finish that I cannot do. I could have picked mahogany
and gotten a look like I wanted at a lower cost.
Phisherman wrote:
> On 16 Feb 2005 14:07:00 -0800, "Jerry" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I'm in San Diego and the cost of cherry seems to range from $8.90 bf
to
> >$9.20. A sheet of 3/4" cherry ply is $135.00. I just bought a 1/4
> >sheet of 1/4" cherry for $27.
> >
> >I also noticed that African Mahogany from the same supplier looks to
be
> >$7.50 or there about per bf.
> >
> >Why would domestic cherry be that much more expensive than imported
> >mahogany?
> >
> >Do these prices seem high?
> >
> >I'm redoing a couple bathrooms (in cherry) and am building new
> >doors/drawers. It would be cheaper (but not as much fun) to buy
> >pre-built, unfinished cherry doors and drawer fronts from commercial
> >suppliers than to build?
>
> It's all about supply and demand. Kiln-dried cherry around here is
> about $3-6 per board foot. I got a lot of free cherry from fallen
> trees, but it takes a year or two to air-dry it. I suggest selecting
> a wood with less demand. What about oak or maple? In S.California,
> hardwoods must be shipped there.
Jerry wrote:
> Oak does not give the look I need and maple would require a tinted
> lacquer spray finish that I cannot do. I could have picked mahogany
> and gotten a look like I wanted at a lower cost.
>
>
> Phisherman wrote:
>> On 16 Feb 2005 14:07:00 -0800, "Jerry" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >I'm in San Diego and the cost of cherry seems to range from $8.90 bf
> to
>> >$9.20. A sheet of 3/4" cherry ply is $135.00. I just bought a 1/4
>> >sheet of 1/4" cherry for $27.
>> >
>> >I also noticed that African Mahogany from the same supplier looks to
> be
>> >$7.50 or there about per bf.
>> >
>> >Why would domestic cherry be that much more expensive than imported
>> >mahogany?
>> >
>> >Do these prices seem high?
>> >
>> >I'm redoing a couple bathrooms (in cherry) and am building new
>> >doors/drawers. It would be cheaper (but not as much fun) to buy
>> >pre-built, unfinished cherry doors and drawer fronts from commercial
>> >suppliers than to build?
>>
>> It's all about supply and demand. Kiln-dried cherry around here is
>> about $3-6 per board foot. I got a lot of free cherry from fallen
>> trees, but it takes a year or two to air-dry it. I suggest selecting
>> a wood with less demand. What about oak or maple? In S.California,
>> hardwoods must be shipped there.
how about birch with cherry stain, good solid wood at less than 1/2 the
price and a lot more common, just a thought
George wrote:
> "Woody" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> >
> > Over the last 3-5 years, the price for cherry (everywhere) has
increased
> > dramatically. There are at least two major reasons for the
increase.
> >
> > First, there was severe, if not complete, reduction of logging of
cherry
> > from the Allegheny National Forest in PA due to the work of
> > conservationalists. Not sure if there was a specific endangered
species,
> > or just an across-the-board environmental concern. Reference:
> >
> > http://www.alleghenydefense.org/press/release_020909.shtm
> >
>
> No joy the link, but hereabout, cherry is a fire tree - first to
colonize.
> Don't have to stop harvesting cherry, just the stuff that shades its
> seedlings, and the supply will drop.
Concern has slowly been changing from preserving individual species
on a piecmeal basis to preservation of specific environments. Thus
there is some degree of movement to leave more woods untouched, even
though the trees therein are not scarce.
One problem with second growth in general and back cherry in
particular is that the first trees to colonize open land branch
out close to the ground and so produce knotty twisted wood.
--
FF
George wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > ...
> > Concern has slowly been changing from preserving individual species
> > on a piecmeal basis to preservation of specific environments. Thus
> > there is some degree of movement to leave more woods untouched,
even
> > though the trees therein are not scarce.
...
> >
>
>
> ...
> BTW, the only way I know of "preserving" anything is in some fluid
like
> formalin. Anything else is just some short-lived human's pipedream.
Preservation in formalin has a limited lifetime too.
There is still a lack of consensus among cosmologists as to whether or
not the universe itself has a finite lifetime.
Paleontology has made it clear that forests can last for thousands
of human lifetimes. Once established, a forest may last until
geological forces harshen the climate and even then forests can
last thousands of years after the climate would have become too
harsh because the forest itself influences the local climate.
--
FF
George wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Paleontology has made it clear that forests can last for thousands
> > of human lifetimes. Once established, a forest may last until
> > geological forces harshen the climate and even then forests can
> > last thousands of years after the climate would have become too
> > harsh because the forest itself influences the local climate.
> >
>
> Sorry, those forests blew down, burned down, succumbed to drought,
diseases
> predation and insect infestations thousands of times.
No need to apologize, I don't think it was your fault.
The trees in those forests blew down, burnt, were destroyed in
ice storms succumbed to drought, predation, insect infestions
and the like millions and millions of times. That is normal
for trees in a forest. From time to time, large contiguous
areas were set back. But the forests remained. What makes a
forest a climax environment is not that it cannot be set back,
(though some forests, those where fire was very rare, or very
common were much more stable than many believe) it is that it
keeps coming back after being set back by natural forces.
>
> Not to mention, with cherry at best a transition tree - rare in any
climax
> forest, you only have it in abundance in transition phase.
Agreed. But let's not forget that transition areas are a normal
part of the forest environment.
--
FF
George wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Agreed. But let's not forget that transition areas are a normal
> > part of the forest environment.
> >
> Which _cannot_ be preserved.
In view of the fact that paleontology has made it clear that
forests can last for thousands of human lifetimes what is
your basis for saying that forests cannot be preserved?
--
FF
Duane Bozarth wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> ...
> > Paleontology has made it clear that forests can last for thousands
> > of human lifetimes. ...
>
> That's not very long, really. Don't know what you're really driving
at
> --forested regions will remain forested under no intense changing
> environment essentially forever.
That's what I'm driving at. Forests can be preserved over
a time frame of thousands of years. Nothing can be preserved
forever so a statement that foo cannot be preserved is true
while not being partricularly illuminating.
Getting back to an earlier analogy, forests left on their
own typically will outlast a specimen preseverd in formalin
so if the lifetime of a specimen preserved in formalin es-
tablishes the time frame that constitutes 'preservation'
then indeed, forests can be preserved.
Now, there are a few people here and there who think
the Earth is only 7,000 years old and the end of time
is just around the corner. Those folks will have a
different perspective, given that most of the world's
forests in the pre-industrial are were alread far older
than that. It is easy to discount such people as nuts
but some of them vote, run for office and otherwise
get into postitions in the government where they get
to influence decisions. E.g. since forests can't be
preserved forever there is no point in keeping them
around at all. When you combine those with the nut-
cases that claim a forest will grow back from a clear-
cut in seven years you realize that a certain degree
of vigilance is needed.
I'm not clear where Mr George fits into the scheme of
things, maybe he'll elaborate.
--
FF
[email protected] wrote:
> Duane Bozarth wrote:
> > [email protected] wrote:
> > ...
> > > Paleontology has made it clear that forests can last for
thousands
> > > of human lifetimes. ...
> >
> > That's not very long, really. Don't know what you're really
driving
> at
> > --forested regions will remain forested under no intense changing
> > environment essentially forever.
>
> That's what I'm driving at. Forests can be preserved over
> a time frame of thousands of years. Nothing can be preserved
> forever so a statement that foo cannot be preserved is true
> while not being partricularly illuminating.
>
> Getting back to an earlier analogy, forests left on their
> own typically will outlast a specimen preseverd in formalin
> so if the lifetime of a specimen preserved in formalin es-
> tablishes the time frame that constitutes 'preservation'
> then indeed, forests can be preserved.
>
> Now, there are a few people here and there who think
> the Earth is only 7,000 years old and the end of time
> is just around the corner. Those folks will have a
> different perspective, given that most of the world's
> forests in the pre-industrial are were alread far older
> than that. It is easy to discount such people as nuts
> but some of them vote, run for office and otherwise
> get into postitions in the government where they get
> to influence decisions. E.g. since forests can't be
> preserved forever there is no point in keeping them
> around at all. When you combine those with the nut-
> cases that claim a forest will grow back from a clear-
> cut in seven years you realize that a certain degree
> of vigilance is needed.
>
> I'm not clear where Mr George fits into the scheme of
> things, maybe he'll elaborate.
>
> --
>
> FF
Fred, I'm not getting into this whole topic. I'd just like to let you
know that in certian circumstances you'd be amazed at what a clear cut
job can look like after seven years. I'm not being unrealistic but I'm
thinking of a basswood job we cut 12 years ago. The trees were reaching
the point of being over mature and were harvested in the winter. The
trees that were shaded were mostly totally hollow (which is normally
how it goes) so they all went. Harvesting in the winter will allow for
stump sprout. At least here in the northern region. When you have 5
trunks competing you get tall straight trees. 12 years later those
trees are 30 to 40' tall and maybe 12" average at chest level. It's
now a nice woods compared rotting out over time. My point is that every
woods is basically different and areas in the woods differ as to how
they should be logged.
George wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > George wrote:
> > > <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > >
> > > > Agreed. But let's not forget that transition areas are a normal
> > > > part of the forest environment.
> > > >
> > > Which _cannot_ be preserved.
> >
> > In view of the fact that paleontology has made it clear that
> > forests can last for thousands of human lifetimes what is
> > your basis for saying that forests cannot be preserved?
> >
> >
> Last chance to think, Fred.
>
> Preserving any living thing is impossible. Since the forest sprouts,
grows,
> matures, changes species, is acted upon and limited by outside as
well as
> inside influences, you can't preserve _any_ stage, not even the
climax
> forest, which becomes more vulnerable to disease and blow-over. I
haven't
> the slightest clue what is so difficult to comprehend about that if
you know
> _anything_ about such things as "ecosystems." Or are you just using
a
> buzzword?
None of what you said has any bearing on the notion of preserving
a forest. If the forest is there now and still there in a hunderd
years and was there all the time in between the forest has been
preserved for one hundred years. Change that to a thousand years
or ten thousand, the same logic applies. I cannot fathom how you
conclude that a forest cannot be preserved if the trees die. That
is a classic example of the cliche of not seeing a forest because
the trees block your view.
>
> There is no such thing as a forest lasting thousands of years without
> change - period.
>
Of course. That continuous change is essential for the preservation
of the forest. COnsider your earlier example, that of a specimen
preserved in formulin. It also undergoes continuous change, does
that mean it is not preserved?
> To return, and this is my last, so you're going, as I say, to have to
THINK,
> to the subject of cherry. Cherry is not a climax forest tree. It is
> ecostupidity to think that you can have cherry without altering the
climax
> forest, or, in some misguided "preservation" attempt, believe that
new trees
> will begin to sprout under mature canopy. You can work yourself out
of the
> cherry business for hundreds of years if you allow climax forest to
extend
> farther from the last fruiting tree than a finch with a full bowel
can fly
> before defecating.
As you know, numerous forces set back succession in forests so that
the edge envionment in which cherry flourishes will continually be
created.
--
FF
[email protected] wrote:
>
>... I'm
> thinking of a basswood job we cut 12 years ago. The trees were
reaching
> the point of being over mature and were harvested in the winter. The
> trees that were shaded were mostly totally hollow (which is normally
> how it goes) so they all went. Harvesting in the winter will allow
for
> stump sprout. At least here in the northern region. When you have 5
> trunks competing you get tall straight trees. 12 years later those
> trees are 30 to 40' tall and maybe 12" average at chest level. ...
That is a bit faster than I would have expected. How much longer
do you think it'll take befor those hollow trees are replaced
with more hollow trees?
Probably forever, because you want to manage that woodlot to keep
producing good wood, right? That's fine with me but its not
a forest unless trees therein can progress all the way through
their natural life-style. I do NOT insist that every patch of
woods must be left to grow into forest, I only argue that if
if it is not allowed to mature into a forest, it is not a forest.
--
FF
Rick Cook wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > George wrote:
> >
> >><[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >>>Agreed. But let's not forget that transition areas are a normal
> >>>part of the forest environment.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Which _cannot_ be preserved.
> >
> >
> > In view of the fact that paleontology has made it clear that
> > forests can last for thousands of human lifetimes what is
> > your basis for saying that forests cannot be preserved?
> >
> What paleontology clearly shows is that while an area may remain
> forested for thousands -- or millions of years -- the composition of
the
> forest changes radically and repeatedly throughout the time it is in
> existence.
>
> What ecology shows us is that even a 'climax' forest is not stable.
> 'Climax' is an attractor, not an end point.
>
> So, no, forests cannot be 'preserved' in the sense that most of the
> environmentalist tree-huggers use the term.
>
I think you misrepresent the way most environmentalist tree-huggers
use the term 'preserved'.
--
FF
Rick Cook wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > I think you misrepresent the way most environmentalist tree-huggers
> > use the term 'preserved'.
> >
> Certainly a number of the more vocal ones use 'preserved' in that
way.
> I'm aware that some (a minority) of environmentalists have a deeper
> understanding of forest health. But even many of those seem to fall
into
> the 'preservationist' line when push comes to shove.
I've met hundreds of environmentalist tree-huggers and never once
met one who though forests were static with each tree living forever.
> The result is that 'environmentalists' as a whole can appear a lot
more
> rational in print than they do in the ground, because the more
rational
> ones aren't the ones applying pressure.
I think the opposite for both environmentalists and timber interests.
Sam Donaldson explained why when he described a classic 'schtick'
used in journalism. "You interview one person on one side of the
issue, one person onthe other side, and one person somewhere
in-between. It's not scientific, but its good journalism" IMHO
it's not journalism becuase it creates the impression that two
extremists represent a consensus on two sides of an issue that
probably is multifaceted.
> Right now for example the 'environmentalists' are waging war to the
> knife against efforts to prevent fires like the ones that burned
about
> 250,000 acres of Arizona a couple of years ago. Since the effort
> involves cutting trees they oppose it.
Tell, me, does the policy call for clearing the brush while leaving
tha largest (most fire resistant) trees in place? Or does it
call for removing large trees which will encourage understory
growth making the forest more succeptible to fire?
...
>
> But as the saying goes, 'the truth is out there. Anyone who wants to
can
> go look at the evidence. Those who don't want to can have a nice day.
Everybody should take a walk in the woods at least once in a while.
--
FF
In article <[email protected]>, Rob Mitchell
<[email protected]> wrote:
> A&M Wood in Cambridge Ontario (CANADA) lists 10"W cherry for 11.75
> CDN/BF. Their quality is generally top notch.
Windsor Plywood here in Saskatoon has steamed cherry for under $8 CAD /
bf.
djb
--
"The thing about saying the wrong words is that A, I don't notice it, and B,
sometimes orange water gibbon bucket and plastic." -- Mr. Burrows
Something is wrong if mahogany is less expensive than cherry.
"Cherry" is often called "poor man's mahogany."
On 16 Feb 2005 17:40:52 -0800, "Jerry" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Oak does not give the look I need and maple would require a tinted
>lacquer spray finish that I cannot do. I could have picked mahogany
>and gotten a look like I wanted at a lower cost.
>
>
>Phisherman wrote:
>> On 16 Feb 2005 14:07:00 -0800, "Jerry" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >I'm in San Diego and the cost of cherry seems to range from $8.90 bf
>to
>> >$9.20. A sheet of 3/4" cherry ply is $135.00. I just bought a 1/4
>> >sheet of 1/4" cherry for $27.
>> >
>> >I also noticed that African Mahogany from the same supplier looks to
>be
>> >$7.50 or there about per bf.
>> >
>> >Why would domestic cherry be that much more expensive than imported
>> >mahogany?
>> >
>> >Do these prices seem high?
>> >
>> >I'm redoing a couple bathrooms (in cherry) and am building new
>> >doors/drawers. It would be cheaper (but not as much fun) to buy
>> >pre-built, unfinished cherry doors and drawer fronts from commercial
>> >suppliers than to build?
>>
>> It's all about supply and demand. Kiln-dried cherry around here is
>> about $3-6 per board foot. I got a lot of free cherry from fallen
>> trees, but it takes a year or two to air-dry it. I suggest selecting
>> a wood with less demand. What about oak or maple? In S.California,
>> hardwoods must be shipped there.
Wed, Feb 16, 2005, 2:07pm (EST-3) [email protected] (Jerry) asks:
<snip> Do these prices seem high? <snip>
To me, yes. But, I thought everything in Califphoney costs more
than in the real world.
JOAT
Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong.
- David Fasold
Jerry wrote:
>
> I'm in San Diego and the cost of cherry seems to range from $8.90 bf to
> $9.20. A sheet of 3/4" cherry ply is $135.00. I just bought a 1/4
> sheet of 1/4" cherry for $27.
>
> I also noticed that African Mahogany from the same supplier looks to be
> $7.50 or there about per bf.
>
> Why would domestic cherry be that much more expensive than imported
> mahogany?
>
> Do these prices seem high?
>
> I'm redoing a couple bathrooms (in cherry) and am building new
> doors/drawers. It would be cheaper (but not as much fun) to buy
> pre-built, unfinished cherry doors and drawer fronts from commercial
> suppliers than to build?
Quite, at least to me...
Cherry seems to be in vogue these days and SD is a "high rent" district
anyway.
If it's surfaced FAS stock in relatively small quantities that's
probably not to bad from a retailer.
I normally buy only 1C or 2C and will go ahead and buy at least 2-300
bdft at a time from my distributor in order to get reasonable (not the
cheapest) pricing. Last I checked 1C 4/4 cherry was roughly in the $4
range. FAS would have been probably closer to $6 than $9, though I
didn't price it.
"Phisherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Something is wrong if mahogany is less expensive than cherry.
> "Cherry" is often called "poor man's mahogany."
>
Profound.
I'll bet it has more to do with the cost of food, shelter and clothing in
the areas where the two are harvested.
"Woody" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Over the last 3-5 years, the price for cherry (everywhere) has increased
> dramatically. There are at least two major reasons for the increase.
>
> First, there was severe, if not complete, reduction of logging of cherry
> from the Allegheny National Forest in PA due to the work of
> conservationalists. Not sure if there was a specific endangered species,
> or just an across-the-board environmental concern. Reference:
>
> http://www.alleghenydefense.org/press/release_020909.shtm
>
No joy the link, but hereabout, cherry is a fire tree - first to colonize.
Don't have to stop harvesting cherry, just the stuff that shades its
seedlings, and the supply will drop.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> > No joy the link, but hereabout, cherry is a fire tree - first to
> colonize.
> > Don't have to stop harvesting cherry, just the stuff that shades its
> > seedlings, and the supply will drop.
>
> Concern has slowly been changing from preserving individual species
> on a piecmeal basis to preservation of specific environments. Thus
> there is some degree of movement to leave more woods untouched, even
> though the trees therein are not scarce.
>
> One problem with second growth in general and back cherry in
> particular is that the first trees to colonize open land branch
> out close to the ground and so produce knotty twisted wood.
>
You don't live here, where the poplars (real ones) and cherry run neck and
neck in any clear spot.
BTW, the only way I know of "preserving" anything is in some fluid like
formalin. Anything else is just some short-lived human's pipedream.
[email protected] wrote:
...
> Paleontology has made it clear that forests can last for thousands
> of human lifetimes. ...
That's not very long, really. Don't know what you're really driving at
--forested regions will remain forested under no intense changing
environment essentially forever. But over geological epoch time scales,
things <don't> stay the same very long at all, at least in some areas.
Large-scale defoliation from external forces such as Easter Island or
the importation of foreign pests (US Appalachia) for examples, are
something else entirely different.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Paleontology has made it clear that forests can last for thousands
> of human lifetimes. Once established, a forest may last until
> geological forces harshen the climate and even then forests can
> last thousands of years after the climate would have become too
> harsh because the forest itself influences the local climate.
>
Sorry, those forests blew down, burned down, succumbed to drought, diseases
predation and insect infestations thousands of times.
Not to mention, with cherry at best a transition tree - rare in any climax
forest, you only have it in abundance in transition phase.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Agreed. But let's not forget that transition areas are a normal
> part of the forest environment.
>
Which _cannot_ be preserved.
Now try and get through to those malodorous huggers who think even a poplar
can be forever.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> George wrote:
> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > Agreed. But let's not forget that transition areas are a normal
> > > part of the forest environment.
> > >
> > Which _cannot_ be preserved.
>
> In view of the fact that paleontology has made it clear that
> forests can last for thousands of human lifetimes what is
> your basis for saying that forests cannot be preserved?
>
>
Last chance to think, Fred.
Preserving any living thing is impossible. Since the forest sprouts, grows,
matures, changes species, is acted upon and limited by outside as well as
inside influences, you can't preserve _any_ stage, not even the climax
forest, which becomes more vulnerable to disease and blow-over. I haven't
the slightest clue what is so difficult to comprehend about that if you know
_anything_ about such things as "ecosystems." Or are you just using a
buzzword?
For a micro view, consider what happens when a mature tree falls in one of
your "eternal" rainforests. It starts another cycle by letting light to the
floor. New plant and animal species engage in competition for the space,
sun and the fertilizer, and dominate, each for their time, until the
shade-tolerant tall-canopied climax trees finally gain a new foothold. On a
macro scale, flood, earthquake, fire and drought can make opportunities for
entirely new ecosystems to dominate for hundreds or thousands of years in
the midst of even a climax forest. Certain ungulates preserve and expand
their pastures at the expense of the forest, or even small creatures, which
cannot normally find sustenance in a forest, can chew back woody plants and
help maintain a healthy meadow.
There is no such thing as a forest lasting thousands of years without
change - period.
To return, and this is my last, so you're going, as I say, to have to THINK,
to the subject of cherry. Cherry is not a climax forest tree. It is
ecostupidity to think that you can have cherry without altering the climax
forest, or, in some misguided "preservation" attempt, believe that new trees
will begin to sprout under mature canopy. You can work yourself out of the
cherry business for hundreds of years if you allow climax forest to extend
farther from the last fruiting tree than a finch with a full bowel can fly
before defecating.
Jerry wrote:
> I'm in San Diego and the cost of cherry seems to range from $8.90 bf to
> $9.20. A sheet of 3/4" cherry ply is $135.00. I just bought a 1/4
> sheet of 1/4" cherry for $27.
>
> I also noticed that African Mahogany from the same supplier looks to be
> $7.50 or there about per bf.
>
> Why would domestic cherry be that much more expensive than imported
> mahogany?
>
> Do these prices seem high?
>
> I'm redoing a couple bathrooms (in cherry) and am building new
> doors/drawers. It would be cheaper (but not as much fun) to buy
> pre-built, unfinished cherry doors and drawer fronts from commercial
> suppliers than to build?
>
Jerry:
Over the last 3-5 years, the price for cherry (everywhere) has increased
dramatically. There are at least two major reasons for the increase.
First, there was severe, if not complete, reduction of logging of cherry
from the Allegheny National Forest in PA due to the work of
conservationalists. Not sure if there was a specific endangered species,
or just an across-the-board environmental concern. Reference:
http://www.alleghenydefense.org/press/release_020909.shtm
Secondly, and nearly simultaneously, the demand for cherry increased
dramatically as it became preferred hardwood for furniture and trim in
high-end houses. Witness some of the Hometime and This Old House
episodes where new trimwork in libraries, etc. is often cherry. This is
essentially a fad, just as was experienced by mahogany and walnut in the
20th century.
In Pittsburgh, the S4S rate for cherry is around $6/bf and rough is
about $4.50/bf. If you find a small mill, you can get deals as low as
$3/bf on rough. At these savings, you can justify a planer/jointer if
you do a lot of work with cherry.
These rates are *more* than mahogany and walnut, again because demand is
high and supply is low. In Pittsburgh, shipping isn't much of an issue.
I suspect if you're going to use a signficant amount of cherry, it may
make sense to have it shipped to you and optionally, buy it rough and
finish it yourself. One advantage of planing/jointing yourself is you
can take your nominal 4/4 cherry to 7/8" rather than what appears to be
the going rate of 3/4".
~Mark.
On 17 Feb 2005 10:08:04 EST, Woody <[email protected]> wrote:
>This is
>essentially a fad, just as was experienced by mahogany and walnut in the
>20th century.
>
Exactly. I predict in 5-10 years or so, cherry will be out of vogue
and the price will drop. There has been a race of cherry-oak-maple
prices over the last several decades and I predict this will continue.
As a woodworker, I'll select the less popular hardwoods to get a
better price yet still I create a quality piece of furniture that will
hopefully out live me. Many won't do this, so the cost will
continue to rise. Similar to the cable TV prices are soaring up past
$50 a month all because people just continue to pay it.
On 16 Feb 2005 14:07:00 -0800, "Jerry" <[email protected]> wrote:
>I'm in San Diego and the cost of cherry seems to range from $8.90 bf to
>$9.20. A sheet of 3/4" cherry ply is $135.00. I just bought a 1/4
>sheet of 1/4" cherry for $27.
>
>I also noticed that African Mahogany from the same supplier looks to be
>$7.50 or there about per bf.
>
>Why would domestic cherry be that much more expensive than imported
>mahogany?
>
>Do these prices seem high?
>
>I'm redoing a couple bathrooms (in cherry) and am building new
>doors/drawers. It would be cheaper (but not as much fun) to buy
>pre-built, unfinished cherry doors and drawer fronts from commercial
>suppliers than to build?
It's all about supply and demand. Kiln-dried cherry around here is
about $3-6 per board foot. I got a lot of free cherry from fallen
trees, but it takes a year or two to air-dry it. I suggest selecting
a wood with less demand. What about oak or maple? In S.California,
hardwoods must be shipped there.
Sounds like a good opportunity to start a small business... Make money
while enjoying your hobby...
Bob G. <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> I retired in 1998 with about 2000 BF each of Cherry, Walnut, and
> Poplar stashed away....
>
> Today I am down to about 500 or so BF of each of them...
>
> BUT after reading this thread I am really shook up so to speak...
>
> Hell in another few years I guess I will have to start working with
> number 2 common pine or give up eating and paying my property taxes...
>
> Kind of depressing honestly... Have Tools, Have Time, Can not afford
> lumber....
>
> Bob Griffiths.
Jerry wrote:
> I'm in San Diego and the cost of cherry seems to range from $8.90 bf to
> $9.20. A sheet of 3/4" cherry ply is $135.00. I just bought a 1/4
> sheet of 1/4" cherry for $27.
>
> I also noticed that African Mahogany from the same supplier looks to be
> $7.50 or there about per bf.
>
> Why would domestic cherry be that much more expensive than imported
> mahogany?
>
> Do these prices seem high?
>
> I'm redoing a couple bathrooms (in cherry) and am building new
> doors/drawers. It would be cheaper (but not as much fun) to buy
> pre-built, unfinished cherry doors and drawer fronts from commercial
> suppliers than to build?
>
A&M Wood in Cambridge Ontario (CANADA) lists 10"W cherry for 11.75
CDN/BF. Their quality is generally top notch.
I also know of lower quality (narrower, only 4-6' between knots or other
imperfections) in the $4 range. None of it is planed/jointed. Quite a
range because of quality, and demand
Cherry is in very high demand right now. There are lots of other
beautiful woods out there that aren't so expensive.
On 16 Feb 2005 14:07:00 -0800, "Jerry" <[email protected]> wrote:
>I'm in San Diego and the cost of cherry seems to range from $8.90 bf to
>$9.20. A sheet of 3/4" cherry ply is $135.00. I just bought a 1/4
>sheet of 1/4" cherry for $27.
>
>I also noticed that African Mahogany from the same supplier looks to be
>$7.50 or there about per bf.
>
>Why would domestic cherry be that much more expensive than imported
>mahogany?
>
>Do these prices seem high?
>
>I'm redoing a couple bathrooms (in cherry) and am building new
>doors/drawers. It would be cheaper (but not as much fun) to buy
>pre-built, unfinished cherry doors and drawer fronts from commercial
>suppliers than to build?
http://www.woodweb.com/Resources/RSLumberBuyingGuide.html
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1 (webpage)
"Jerry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'm in San Diego and the cost of cherry seems to range from $8.90 bf to
> $9.20. A sheet of 3/4" cherry ply is $135.00. I just bought a 1/4
> sheet of 1/4" cherry for $27.
WOW!! Where in SandyEggo are you shopping for wood??? Last time I bought
cherry was about a year ago and I paid $4.20/bf. Try Hardwood & Hardware in
the Miramar area or Lane Stanton Vance in San Marcos.
The other Jerry from San Diego.
http://www.centurymill.com/domestic.html
Use the locater drop down to check your type of wood. Multiply by .9 to
get close to $USD
Looks like Select 4/4 is about $6.40 USD
Jerry wrote:
> I'm in San Diego and the cost of cherry seems to range from $8.90 bf to
> $9.20. A sheet of 3/4" cherry ply is $135.00. I just bought a 1/4
> sheet of 1/4" cherry for $27.
>
> I also noticed that African Mahogany from the same supplier looks to be
> $7.50 or there about per bf.
>
> Why would domestic cherry be that much more expensive than imported
> mahogany?
>
> Do these prices seem high?
>
> I'm redoing a couple bathrooms (in cherry) and am building new
> doors/drawers. It would be cheaper (but not as much fun) to buy
> pre-built, unfinished cherry doors and drawer fronts from commercial
> suppliers than to build?
>
--
Will
Occasional Techno-geek
"Jerry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'm in San Diego and the cost of cherry seems to range from $8.90 bf to
> $9.20. A sheet of 3/4" cherry ply is $135.00. I just bought a 1/4
> sheet of 1/4" cherry for $27.
>
> I also noticed that African Mahogany from the same supplier looks to be
> $7.50 or there about per bf.
>
> Why would domestic cherry be that much more expensive than imported
> mahogany?
>
> Do these prices seem high?
Like real estate the 3 most important factors in determining the LOCAL cost
of wood is Location, Location, Location.
SonomaProducts.com wrote:
> Prices really vary depending on location with shipping being such a
> huge component of the cost of wood. However, $9+ seems a bit steep.
> Here in No. CA it was up tp $7+ last year but has com back down into
> the high $5-low $6.
>
> The $9 doesn't sound quite like retail but getting close. Where are you
> buying?
We hit $9 here in CT last year, but prices have now slid to the $6-$7
range for FAS Cherry.
Location...
Barry
Robatoy wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Rob Mitchell <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>I also know of lower quality (narrower, only 4-6' between knots or other
>>imperfections) in the $4 range. None of it is planed/jointed. Quite a
>>range because of quality, and demand
>
>
> 4 CAN$? That is not bad, Rob.
>
> Spill!!
> Where?
> I'm in Sarnia...
>
> *S*
>
> Rob
What so you can take it all?? ;)
Check out
http://www.kooturlumber.com/lumber.shtml
They have online prices. I was there about 1 month ago, and he had much
more than I would need. It was unplaned so I couldn't get a real good
look at the grain, but it looked straight enough. He also had better
stuff for a bit more $$. A long way from Sarnia though, he is near
Stoney Creek, just south of Hamilton. Small private kind of place, but
quite a bit of wood.
Rob
"Jerry" <[email protected]> wrote in news:1108591620.699330.302220
@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
> I'm in San Diego and the cost of cherry seems to range from $8.90 bf to
> $9.20. A sheet of 3/4" cherry ply is $135.00. I just bought a 1/4
> sheet of 1/4" cherry for $27.
>
> I also noticed that African Mahogany from the same supplier looks to be
> $7.50 or there about per bf.
>
> Why would domestic cherry be that much more expensive than imported
> mahogany?
>
> Do these prices seem high?
...
Higher than what I pay here in Colorado. I can get select and better rough
4/4 cherry for $6.10 a bf. It's been going up and down a bit in price
(mostly up by about 15% over the last year or year and a half. My big
problem with cherry is that it's darned hard for me to find good quality
cherry, period.
I buy either from a hardwood lumber yard or from an out-of-state supplier
who trucks in once a month. The fellow who trucks in is having a devil of
a time finding cherry for his mill.
Here, African mahogany is just a little cheaper than cherry but the quality
of the African is very high (wide, flat, clear boards). On the other hand,
Honduran mahogany is pushing $8 a bf for me.
Woody <[email protected]> wrote in news:43oee2-cqi.ln1
@news.woodwrecker.com:
>
> In Pittsburgh, the S4S rate for cherry is around $6/bf and rough is
> about $4.50/bf. If you find a small mill, you can get deals as low as
> $3/bf on rough. At these savings, you can justify a planer/jointer if
> you do a lot of work with cherry.
>
Had not checked in a while so I just called my supplier (Northland
Forest Products, Manassas VA). Current price for 4/4 cherry is
$5.45/bf. So if you are paying $7-9/bf I feel sorry for you.
"BeniBoose" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Sounds like a good opportunity to start a small business... Make money
> while enjoying your hobby...
>
The trouble with starting it as a business is that too much of your time
gets sucked off on other activities that are't part of your hobby:
distribution and display, advertising, marketing. However, you can minimize
these distractions that don't make sawdust, and maybe make enough to keep
buying cherry.
Steve
Jerry wrote:
> I'm in San Diego and the cost of cherry seems to range from $8.90 bf to
> $9.20. A sheet of 3/4" cherry ply is $135.00. I just bought a 1/4
> sheet of 1/4" cherry for $27.
>
> I also noticed that African Mahogany from the same supplier looks to be
> $7.50 or there about per bf.
>
> Why would domestic cherry be that much more expensive than imported
> mahogany?
>
> Do these prices seem high?
>
> I'm redoing a couple bathrooms (in cherry) and am building new
> doors/drawers. It would be cheaper (but not as much fun) to buy
> pre-built, unfinished cherry doors and drawer fronts from commercial
> suppliers than to build?
>
The African Mahogany price is about what I'd pay here in Phoenix, but
the Cherry price is about $1-$1.50 higher.
I suspect the difference is that shipping is essentially the same to San
Diego and Phoenix on the African Mahogany and the shipping cost is
higher for the cherry. But that's a guess.
--RC
In article <[email protected]>,
Rob Mitchell <[email protected]> wrote:
> I also know of lower quality (narrower, only 4-6' between knots or other
> imperfections) in the $4 range. None of it is planed/jointed. Quite a
> range because of quality, and demand
4 CAN$? That is not bad, Rob.
Spill!!
Where?
I'm in Sarnia...
*S*
Rob
Cherry (1)#375$8.49 bdft 4/4 (S2S,FAS)
Cherry (2)#385$7.45 bdft 5/4 (S2S,FAS)
Cherry (3)#376$11.00 bdft 8/4 (S2S,FAS)
Cherry (4)#12241$10.00 bdft 12/4 (Rough) (S2S,FAS)
http://www.capitalcitylumber.com/hardwoods.cfm, Raleigh, NC
Pricey stuff
Steve
"Jerry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'm in San Diego and the cost of cherry seems to range from $8.90 bf to
> $9.20. A sheet of 3/4" cherry ply is $135.00. I just bought a 1/4
> sheet of 1/4" cherry for $27.
>
> I also noticed that African Mahogany from the same supplier looks to be
> $7.50 or there about per bf.
>
> Why would domestic cherry be that much more expensive than imported
> mahogany?
>
> Do these prices seem high?
>
> I'm redoing a couple bathrooms (in cherry) and am building new
> doors/drawers. It would be cheaper (but not as much fun) to buy
> pre-built, unfinished cherry doors and drawer fronts from commercial
> suppliers than to build?
>
I retired in 1998 with about 2000 BF each of Cherry, Walnut, and
Poplar stashed away....
Today I am down to about 500 or so BF of each of them...
BUT after reading this thread I am really shook up so to speak...
Hell in another few years I guess I will have to start working with
number 2 common pine or give up eating and paying my property taxes...
Kind of depressing honestly... Have Tools, Have Time, Can not afford
lumber....
Bob Griffiths.
Thu, Feb 17, 2005, 10:20am [email protected] (Bob=A0G.) claims:
<snip> Have Tools, Have Time, Can not afford lumber....
That's why they invented pallets.
JOAT
Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong.
- David Fasold
Bob G. wrote:
>Kind of depressing honestly... Have Tools, Have Time, Can not afford
>lumber....
A similar but different problem. We don't keep stock from
older projects lying about at work and much of it goes to
the dumpster, or worse some fellow employee. As it is I've
said I won't buy any lumber until I've used up all that I've
rat holed. I can't stand the thought of ever retiring
because I might miss something good.
Have Tools, have lumber, cannot afford time.
UA100
I hate to give something of a "nothing reply" but there is an
exotic lumber place in Carlsbad (or near there) that does
not* (ding!) list cherry wood on the site. You could call and
ask, and it is a resource of most other lumbers.
http://www.anexotichardwood.com/
--
Alex
cravdraa_at-yahoo_dot-com
not my site: http://www.e-sword.net/
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 09:51:04 GMT, Unisaw A100 <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Bob G. wrote:
>>Kind of depressing honestly... Have Tools, Have Time, Can not afford
>>lumber....
>
>
>A similar but different problem. We don't keep stock from
>older projects lying about at work and much of it goes to
>the dumpster, or worse some fellow employee. As it is I've
>said I won't buy any lumber until I've used up all that I've
>rat holed. I can't stand the thought of ever retiring
>because I might miss something good.
>
>Have Tools, have lumber, cannot afford time.
>
>UA100
=====================
LOL.... I can only tell you that my TIME is not all that great
either,....amazing how fast the clock can move once you retire...
BUT it sure beats the hell out of working....
Bob Griffiths
[email protected] wrote:
> George wrote:
>
>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>Agreed. But let's not forget that transition areas are a normal
>>>part of the forest environment.
>>>
>>
>> Which _cannot_ be preserved.
>
>
> In view of the fact that paleontology has made it clear that
> forests can last for thousands of human lifetimes what is
> your basis for saying that forests cannot be preserved?
>
What paleontology clearly shows is that while an area may remain
forested for thousands -- or millions of years -- the composition of the
forest changes radically and repeatedly throughout the time it is in
existence.
What ecology shows us is that even a 'climax' forest is not stable.
'Climax' is an attractor, not an end point.
So, no, forests cannot be 'preserved' in the sense that most of the
environmentalist tree-huggers use the term.
--RC
Bob G. wrote:
> Kind of depressing honestly... Have Tools, Have Time, Can not afford
> lumber....
A guy Dad knows builds custom furniture for people for free. You feed him
wood, he feeds you furniture. It's the only way he can afford to sustain
the habit.
I hear even at that he's not keeping himself as busy as he wants. People
are having trouble affording to buy him wood.
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 02:58:40 GMT, the inscrutable "Deborah Buerfeind"
<[email protected]> spake:
>
>"Jerry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> I'm in San Diego and the cost of cherry seems to range from $8.90 bf to
>> $9.20. A sheet of 3/4" cherry ply is $135.00. I just bought a 1/4
>> sheet of 1/4" cherry for $27.
>
>WOW!! Where in SandyEggo are you shopping for wood??? Last time I bought
>cherry was about a year ago and I paid $4.20/bf. Try Hardwood & Hardware in
>the Miramar area or Lane Stanton Vance in San Marcos.
Or Cut and Dried Hardwoods on Cedros in Solana Beach. Excellent
selection of good woods.
http://www.cutanddriedhardwood.com/lumber/lumber.htm
>The other Jerry from San Diego.
The other Larry previously from the Sandy Eggo area.
--
"Giving every man a vote has no more made men wise and free
than Christianity has made them good." --H. L. Mencken
---
www.diversify.com Complete Website Development
BeniBoose wrote:
> Sounds like a good opportunity to start a small business... Make money
> while enjoying your hobby...
>
>
>
> Bob G. <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
>>I retired in 1998 with about 2000 BF each of Cherry, Walnut, and
>>Poplar stashed away....
>>
>>Today I am down to about 500 or so BF of each of them...
>>
>>BUT after reading this thread I am really shook up so to speak...
>>
>>Hell in another few years I guess I will have to start working with
>>number 2 common pine or give up eating and paying my property taxes...
>>
>>Kind of depressing honestly... Have Tools, Have Time, Can not afford
>>lumber....
>>
>>Bob Griffiths.
Either that or learn to scrounge like the rest of us.
Perhaps now's the time to start working on those small projects?
--RC