Replies

1. 
   DennisS | Sep 10, 2002 08:47pm | #1

   I haven't seen the particular level you're describing, Lenny, but in my experience working in the masonry trades, most "wood" levels are either bound with brass or aluminum or laminated to same.

   The point being, the wood in a wooden level probably can be most anything. The integrity of the instrument doesn't necessarily depend on the degree of hardness of the wood.

   But to your question about Spanish Cedar .... The dividers in my humidor certainly don't impress me as being very "hard". (grin)

   Dennis in Bellevue WA

   [email protected]

1. 
   Brewgonia | Sep 11, 2002 03:45pm | #8

   I guess the point I was trying to get at was - is Spanish Cedar (or whatever close relative) stable enough for a long level? Given that abrasion resistance probably isn't an issue since the casing is some kind of metal - over it's length could enough bending force develop to knock it out of true? Now that I think about it - probably not. If you use Spanish Cedar in a humidor you want it to maintain 70%rh, then you certainly wouldn't want a wood that warps with the humidity to spoil the rest of the case.

   This sound reasonable Dennis?

1. 
   jonsherryl | Sep 11, 2002 05:13pm | #10

   Lenny, woods in the true mahogany family (Meliaceae) are known for their exceptionally good stability. If this level is made from one of the Cedrelas, it should stay straight. If it's made out of one of the lauan look-a-likes, you could have trouble...but even some of these species have respectable stability. I think I'd be more interested in looking at the end grain to see where out of the log the wood was cut and to be sure it doesn't contain wide or uneven growth increments (juvenile wood tissue)...or other indications in the grain direction that would suggest it might contain some uneven drying stresses.

2. 
   DennisS | Sep 10, 2002 08:51pm | #2

   Lenny -

   Try this site for some info on Spanish Cedar:

   http://www.thewoodbox.com/data/wood/spcedarinfo.htm

   Dennis in Bellevue WA

   [email protected]

3. 
   jonsherryl | Sep 10, 2002 09:10pm | #3

   Lenny, Spanish cedar is technically a "hardwood" in that it belongs to an angiosperm family. In fact it belongs to the mahogany family (Meliaceae.) In terms of its physical properties though, it is not a particularly hard wood. There are about 6 species in the Spanish cedar genus (Cedrela) that are native to Central and South America and while one of them is actually heavier and harder than Honduras mahogany, the others are noticeably softer...comparable to yellow poplar in density, with specific gravities ranging between 0.40 and 0.44.

   As for the Stanley level manufactured in Indonesia, it is doubtful that they would import South American Spanish cedar for this purpose. The better bet is that it is made out of a wood called Toon, which is native to that region. It is also a member of the Meliaceae family and closely related to Spanish cedar. It could also be made out of one of the Dipterocarpaceae species (the lauan family) in that some of the woods in this family have a similar  cedar-like scent.  

1. 
   qldwoodie | Sep 11, 2002 03:37am | #4

   Jon,

           There seems to be lots of Toonas in S.E. Asia - we import several species into Australia as a substitute for our own native "Red cedar" (Toona australis, once known as Cedrela australis, before this branch of the meliaciae was hived off into the new genus.)  One species made it to the rainforested part of Eastern Australia, and was highly prized as a cabinetmaking and joinery wood because it is easy to work, has wonderful decay resistance, and despite its open grain, polishes beautifully - it can resemble its cousin "real" Mahogany quite closely, when finished. They are all characterised by a strong and pleasant smell and most are very soft, and not really suited to making level bodies.  But, as you say, it could as easily be a Dipterocarp, or perhaps one of the "Narras", which go under a variety of local names and are Pterocarps.  They also have a strong and quite pleasant scent, can be a very attractive wood, and much denser (roughly Walnut class) and maybe more suited to that sort of job.  I've worked with a limited amount of "New Guinea Rosewood" (P. indicus) - nice wood, but inclined to have ornery strips of fibrous grain, that will neither plane, scrape nor sand readily, and it is also a bit "lively" as my old cabinetmaker mentor used to put it (ie, subject to extensive movement with humidity changes).  But it does look pretty nice when you manage to bully it into shape.  If I could only figure out how to attach a picture on this board, I'd show you a couple of pieces for comparison purposes....

   IW

   Edited 9/10/2002 8:38:11 PM ET by IWILKIE

1. 
   jonsherryl | Sep 11, 2002 04:22am | #5

   Now Ian, we're a little off topic here, but you've raised an interesting point when it comes to Cedrela...and what you Aussies have done again by fragmenting it into multiple genera. The paleobotany behind all of this is that the mahogany family (Meliaceae) probably evolved in the Southern Hemisphere and was part of the flora of extreme southern South America, Antarctica, South Africa and Australia when these land masses were closely joined and sharing a uniformly moderate climate (a hundred million years or so ago.) As the continents drifted, Antarctica glaciated, but many of the mahogany genera (Khaya and Entandrophragma in Africa, Swietenia, Carapa and Cedrela in South America and Cedrela in Australia) survived and are clearly still closely related. Your "Australian cedar" (AKA; toon) shares most of its genes with our New World Cedrela...and to coin a new genus for it is downright Botanical Nationalism.

1. 
   qldwoodie | Sep 11, 2002 07:52am | #7

   Jon,

         Actually, you'll get no arguments from me over this interminable splitting of hairs- the taxonomists have been at it with a vengeance, lately!   My area of expertise, such as it is, is really in the animal world, and there we have to deal with the bacteriologists and their constant diddling with names.  To the devil with all PCR machines, I say.

   Now a horse has always been a horse, as far back as I can remember.................(:-) 

   But to get serious.....

   P'rhaps Toona/Cedrela was a left-behind of the Gondwana flora, as you suggest. Nothofagus (AKA 'Beech' and 'Myrtle'down here) certainly falls in that category.  But I think (and I may be out to lunch, here - one of you lurkers with real botanical knowlege might chip in??) that it has come down from Asia along with species like the figs much more recently than that.  We have a very interesting rainforest here on the east coast - a lot of species which have evolved from the 'old' flora, intermingled with species that have arrived from the north more recently, but have drifted enough genetically for the splitters to have their way with them.  And I think T. australis is one of the latter group.  It had a real upsurge in popularity during our bicentenial celebrations 14 years (already!) ago - people buying up any old thing made from it, and others scouring the countryside for old logs to turn into saleable items.  Legend has it that the local wood is much better than any of the imported lookalikes.  Having worked with it quite a bit (I grew up in a locality where it was still relatively plentiful) I would say it's like most woods - variable.  Good, mature stuff is easy to work, richly coloured, though often very bland wrt figure, and has this property of finishing so easily and well - a French polisher's dream, once the pores are filled.  But most of what you can get hold of now is pale, soft stuff (easily marked with a fingernail or a carelessly placed tool)  - very sharp edge tools are a must.

   So I would be surprised if it were a Cedrela/Toona that the level in question is made of.

   Edited 9/11/2002 12:53:55 AM ET by IWILKIE

1. 
   jonsherryl | Sep 11, 2002 04:46pm | #9

   Ian, this is off-topic, but I was visiting my daughter over in Madison, Wisconsin, last week and...because Madison is sort of a hotbed of wood technology, given that the USDA Forest Products Laboratory is located there...I always tour the used books stores. Well, I just happened to run across an old tome entitled; The Trees of New South Wales, by R. H. Anderson (1968 edition) for a mere $10.

   My question is, are you familiar with this reference and if so, is it still current enough to be reliable...given the fast and loose way you Aussies toy with your taxonomic nomenclature? 

2. 
   eddiefromAustralia | Sep 12, 2002 02:19am | #11

   Jon,

   Without stealing Ian's thunder, I'd say take it. It would cover the properties of a lot of woods thta were plentiful then but are now 'exotic' now. Modern info would be hard to find.

   Cheers, eddie

3. 
   jonsherryl | Sep 12, 2002 03:54am | #13

   Eddie, I already bought the book. I'm a sucker for all things Australian (especially Fosters lager)...I was just wondering if I'd been had again.

4. 
   qldwoodie | Sep 12, 2002 03:23am | #12

   Jon,

   I'm not familiar with that particular text - I looked it up on our catalogue, but the only copies of the 68 edition (which is the most recent, by the way) are at a campus which is 80 kilometres away from me, so I can't slip over in the noon hour and check it out for you....  It's a NSW government publication, and I'd expect the quality of the work would have been up to the mark.

    As Eddie suggests, most of the useful info on the woods doesn't change, and at least families are stable, so if there've been any name changes they will be minimal.  I can think of a few that have occurred since 68, like a couple of Casaurinas being hived off into a new genus called Allocasaurina, but you could figure these out if need be.  NSW doesn't have quite as many species as my home state (Queensland) but they do have sub-tropical rainforest in the north-east, so the book should cover a pretty good range of species and give you a good sampler of what's around down here.

   This has ended up as a bit of a personal chit-chat, hasn't it (- I'm happy to answer direct emails, as you know).  But I suppose it doesn't hurt to publicise our woods a bit - there are a few small companies prepared to export some of the really interesting dry-country hardwoods. And we do have some good stuff!  For example, now that most of the traditional tool-handle woods like the Dalbergias are becoming so scarce, we should look at promoting a few of our excellent species that are probably quite sustainable.   I've been using Allocasaurina torulosa for plane and other tool handles for a long time - it takes a finish at least as good as the rosewoods, and can be more interesting in appearance, to my (unbiased) eyes.  Colen Clenton uses it a lot for the wooden bits of his superb layout tools.  It's an extremely abundant species, used almost exclusively for firewood, in the past.  (As a teenager I helped to cut and load more cords of the darn stuff than I care to remember!)

   Cheers,  IW

5. 
   jonsherryl | Sep 12, 2002 04:09am | #14

   Thanks Ian, it looks like a pretty comprehensive and serious reference and it's comforting to know there are no later editions. Government publications tend to get updated when significant changes make them obsolete.

2. 
   eddiefromAustralia | Sep 11, 2002 04:56am | #6

   Hi Ian/Jon,

   Have watched a few of your exchanges and defer to your superior experience.

   Aust'n red cedar (Toona Australis) has a close relative imported from Indonesia/Malaysia, (Toona Surian). Maybe this timber might be the one you refer to.

   Cheers, eddie