Replies

1. 
   RW | Aug 21, 2003 04:47am | #1

   Looks like old SYP to me

   "The child is grown / The dream is gone / And I have become / Comfortably numb "      lyrics by Roger Waters

1. 
   YesMaam27577 | Aug 21, 2003 10:20pm | #6

   Might be Douglas Fir. More likely some sort of common pine. Some call it Loblolly, some call it Ponderosa, perhaps there are other names. But it's just a piece of pine. I've seen it thousands of times.Vast projects should not be founded on half vast ideas.

2. 
   fdampier5 | Aug 21, 2003 04:54am | #2

   Tamarck

3. 
   jonsherryl | Aug 21, 2003 06:17am | #3

   Z3, it would help to know where you are located.

   Judging from your pictures, I'm relatively sure this wood is a "softwood", meaning it is a conifer species. It certainly is not walnut. Both RW's guess of southern yellow pine and Frenchy's guess of tamarack (larch) were two of the possibilities that also came to mind for me. The color looks a little more like tamarack than SYP, but the lighting in these computer transmitted photos can be deceptive. Another candidate might be Baldcypress...Which is why I'm curious where this house is located. It is also possibly Douglas-fir.

   You would be able to narrow this list down rather quickly by examining the smoothly cut end grain with a hand lens (10X or stronger.) Of the four woods mentioned above, three are resinous species...meaning the end grain should display resin canals. They look something like the pores in a hardwood, but are much less plentiful. the size and quantity of the resin canals would also provide some clues. Of these woods, only the baldcypress would lack this feature.

   The clues that would also help you narrow down the search are a little more subjective and harder to verbally explain. Tamarack looks very much like southern yellow pine, but has a more oily feel and a very harsh (pine like) scent. The Douglas-fir also has a distinctive scent and a more warm orange tan color than either tamarack or SYP. Douglas-fir and baldcypress are quite similar in appearance, but they can be separated on the basis of baldcypress' lack of resin canals.

   Beyond the above, I'd have to see a sample to be of any more help. Let me know, if you're curious enough to want to send me a sample.

   ---

   Z3, I took one more look at your photos...and just as an afterthought, another species that I don't think we can rule quite so quickly is redwood...especially if you are on the west coast. If it's redwood, it looks like second growth material, as opposed to the darker old growth with narrower spaced rings. Redwood, like baldcypress, is non resinous and it would be lighter in weight than the other candidates. Also, it would be virtually without scent...But lets leave it there until you give us your location.  

   
   

   ---

   Edited 8/20/2003 11:23:03 PM ET by Jon Arno

   
   

   ---

   Edited 8/20/2003 11:34:39 PM ET by Jon Arno

1. 
   Kevin | Aug 21, 2003 08:13am | #4

   Hmmm... I've never seen Redwood as yellow as the wood between the growth rings looks to be in those pics.

   As you say... Redwood doesn't have much smell to it. But, when sanded it does have a decidedly sweet smell to it.

   Regards,

   Kevin

1. 
   jonsherryl | Aug 21, 2003 06:11pm | #5

   Kevin, I had the same initial thought about the yellowish earlywood tissue, but then it dawned on me that it might be patina...so, I couldn't dismiss it as a possible longshot candidate. That broad banded latewood figure has the look of some second-growth redwood I've seen.

   Unless Z3 is out on the west coast, though, it's not likely that it would be second growth redwood, given the early '60s dating...but then, since he's described it as being an odd shelf (compared to the wood in the others) it could be a later repair. A lot of this speculation could easily be put to rest with a sample, because weight and scent are major clues when it comes to sorting out softwoods. The cellular anatomy of the softwoods (gymnosperms) is so primitive and simple that examination of the end grain doesn't give you much to go on other than; presence or absence of resin canals and the earlywood-latewood transition (abrupt or gradual.) The hardwoods have far more unique end grain "signatures" based on pore patterns and ray size...and how to ID them is a little easier to verbally explain.

   I think the common image among most woodworkers when it comes to redwood is based on what the old-growth stock looks like; fine textured, dark reddish brown color and tight ring spacing. Redwood actually regenerates quite quickly. It's very habitat sensitive, but on good sites it's a rapid grower for the first few decades. The less mature wood it produces at this stage isn't as pigmented (or as decay resistant) and in fact looks a little like Doug-fir at first glance...But its lack of scent and exceptionally light weight are dead giveaways, if you can get your hands on a sample.

4. 
   dirksiegers | Aug 22, 2003 02:21am | #7

   Hello, Dirk here,

   I agree with yesmam, a lot of trim---cabinetry---doors--- were done in Fir, it was brittle, sappy, and split easily.

   I am not saying douglas but probably that.

   You should be able to smell that old musty fir odour.

   Anyway if the price is right, use and enjoy., watch for sharp slivers.

   Dirk

5. 
   Baldy | Aug 22, 2003 03:58am | #8

   I'm pretty sure it's cypress.  I just finished remodelling a house built about 1940.  Most of the trim that came out looked just like your pictures.  Several of the pieces were stamped by the manufacturer as cypress.  Hope this helps.