# Some kind of Sycamore or Gambel Oak???



## Burly Dennis

These bowls are from an 80 lb chunk of wood collected from the southwest US. Unfortunately, I scrapped the rest of the wood already but the last bowl is still in-progress. I was told it was Gambel Oak, but it looks more like Sycamore except the bark, about 1" thick, doesn't look anything like the Sycamore we have in Michigan. The early wood soaks up finish like crazy and darkens considerably with just a clear finish. Any help in identifying this would be appreciated.
[attachment=504]
[attachment=505]
[attachment=506]
[attachment=507]
[attachment=508]


[I resized your pics. I know you didn't do this on purpose, but it's very obnoxious to have pics that are WAYYYY to large. Please don't do that again. Thanks. Paul]


----------



## Kevin

Dennis,

I'm not familiar with Gambel Oak, but it does look more like oak than sycamore to me. 

On the images, I had to reset some things yesterday & some of the settings went wacko. The images you loaded are waaaay too big and were not rejected by the software (think I have that fixed now). 

Those are .jpg so they need to be below 100KB (still very generous size). If you can't resize let me know & I'll do it for you and put them back in your post. 

Welcome!


----------



## phinds

Looks a lot like sycamore, but I think it's silky oak. Check the two pages on my site and see what you think.


----------



## Burly Dennis

Kevin, Paul,

Sorry about the size, but I had no idea that they would be so big. And the only limit posted on the web page, that I saw, said that the pic needed to be under 500K so that is what I did.

I will take a look at your web site and see how it compares.

Thanks for the help and the coaching.
Dennis


Kevin said:


> Dennis,
> 
> I'm not familiar with Gambel Oak, but it does look more like oak than sycamore to me.
> 
> On the images, I had to reset some things yesterday & some of the settings went wacko. The images you loaded are waaaay too big and were not rejected by the software (think I have that fixed now).
> 
> Those are .jpg so they need to be below 100KB (still very generous size). If you can't resize let me know & I'll do it for you and put them back in your post.
> 
> Welcome!


----------



## Burly Dennis

Kevin,

Is there a better format to use instead of .jpg?

Dennis


Burly Dennis said:


> Kevin, Paul,
> 
> Sorry about the size, but I had no idea that they would be so big. And the only limit posted on the web page, that I saw, said that the pic needed to be under 500K so that is what I did.
> 
> I will take a look at your web site and see how it compares.
> 
> Thanks for the help and the coaching.
> Dennis
> 
> 
> Kevin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dennis,
> 
> I'm not familiar with Gambel Oak, but it does look more like oak than sycamore to me.
> 
> On the images, I had to reset some things yesterday & some of the settings went wacko. The images you loaded are waaaay too big and were not rejected by the software (think I have that fixed now).
> 
> Those are .jpg so they need to be below 100KB (still very generous size). If you can't resize let me know & I'll do it for you and put them back in your post.
> 
> Welcome!
Click to expand...


----------



## phinds

The issue is not the file FORMAT, it's the file SIZE.

JPEG is the best format to use. If you are using windows, just right-click on the upper portion of the windows explorer display window, where it shows the file name / size / date / etc, and there'll be an option to display the DIMENSION and that will show you how big it is.

If you don't know how to reduce image sizes, it's time to learn. What image tool(s) do you have available?


----------



## phinds

Joe Rebuild said:


> My money is on oak!



Kevin/Rob, I'm completely flummoxed that you think this could be oak. Far as I can see, there is zero possiblity that this is from the genus Quercus.

It looks like both sycamore and silky oak, although the bark is emphatically not sycamore. I have no idea what silky oak bark looks like but I didn't think silky oak grew in the U.S.

Dennis, since you have the wood, how about you compare it to the sycamore and silky oak pages on my site and see what you think?

An end grain closeup would help with the ID


----------



## Kevin

It doesn't look like sycamore to me. I can see why you might think so but something doesn't look right for syc. it's just slightly off. I don't think it is oak either now that I can see the pictures better. 

The bark is similar to some large blackjack oak I have seen but remember bark varies widely in many trees.The bark could almost pass for Persimmon but not the wood. The bark looks like the bark on some sourwood trees. 

Verdict: I don't know what it isn't.


----------



## phinds

Silky oak is not even close to being an oak. Many Australian woods have names like oak, elm, ash, maple, etc and are not even remotely related to the woods that we mean when we say oak, etc.

You'll note that what I said specifically is that it is not in the genus Quercus.

Kevin, I agree w/ you about sycamore, and the bark is an abolute "no way" for sycamore. I had actually typed a post saying I thought it was silky oak, but then I got side-tracked by the BIG pics and never posted it.

Rob, what does the silky oak bark look like? Are you sure you're talking about Australian silky oak? There's a discussion of all this at:

http://hobbithouseinc.com/personal/woodpics/_discussion_sycamore.htm


----------



## phinds

OK, thanks. That does look somewhat like the stuff posted by the OP so silky oak is not ruled out so I think that's what it has to be.


----------



## Kevin

Rob, the bark of that tree could pass for a Pecan. I can't see the leaves very well but from what I _can_ see, they have the same general shape as Pecan. 

Just sayin . . . . 

.


----------



## Kevin

phinds said:


> ... so silky oak is not ruled out ...
> ... so I think that's what it has to be.




We didn't rule out Black Willow or Cedar Elm either . . . so I think that's what it has to be. A hybrid of Water Willow & Cedar Elm. 

Paul I never seen you use such reasoning. Silly Oak is not ruled out. So it must be S.O. It might be S.O. but it isn't likely. The tree came from the SW so while it's possible the tree was planted as an ornamental, the odds are in favor of it being a native tree. That alone should keep us from jumping the gun. 

Dennis, could you mail me a small sample of the wood? I only need an end grain shaving. A decent size square of flat grain would be helpful but it can be a thin. It's not necessary but the end grain is. End grain must either be taken with an extremely sharp plane so I get a nice thick, clean cut curl, or else band saw a 1/4" slice off the end of a block etc. so I can dress then end clearly enough to see the cells with my 16x loupe. 

If you have any thick wide end grain shavings that didn't go in the can yet that might work also. I'm saying I can ID it, but if it's a native species I have a decent shot at it. 




.


----------



## phinds

Well that was all predicated on the fact that I had already figured that it most likely had to be sycamore or silky oak, and based on the bark, it's definitely not sycamore. I thought the bark might rule out silky oak as well, so when it didn't, I went with that.

I again ask the OP to compare the wood to the images on my silky oak page.


----------



## Burly Dennis

First, thanks for all the input.
Second, we use photoshop 7.0 and I do know how to minimize size, I just didn't know this sites requrements, and I originally wanted to maximize detail... but over did it. The attached photos to this reply should be OK.
Third, I am not an expert like you guys, so even though I am going to use some big words, I could be using them incorrectly.

I looked at Paul's site for both silky oak and sycamore. It is definitely not sycamore AND it is probably not silky oak. The silky oak endgrain pictures show, predominantly, banded parenchyma. My pieces show no visible (at 40X) parenchyma (diffuse parenchyma). 

In my pieces the wood is diffuse porous. The growth rings are subltle to the naked eye and at 40X are noticible as a slight color change. The wood is dominated by the ray structure. There are no visible pores in the fiber structure even at 40X. The fiber is very soft and the rays are hard. It is difficult to get a clean endgrain even on a piece that had a thin polyurethane coat applied. To be honest, with the ray structure so dominant, determining what is endgrain is problematic (I know what endgrain is, normally). I took a few pics of what I think is endgrain but I will have to borrow my buddies USB microscope camera to get better pictures.

Thanks again, Dennis
[attachment=518]
[attachment=519]
[attachment=520]



phinds said:


> Joe Rebuild said:
> 
> 
> 
> My money is on oak!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin/Rob, I'm completely flummoxed that you think this could be oak. Far as I can see, there is zero possiblity that this is from the genus Quercus.
> 
> It looks like both sycamore and silky oak, although the bark is emphatically not sycamore. I have no idea what silky oak bark looks like but I didn't think silky oak grew in the U.S.
> 
> Dennis, since you have the wood, how about you compare it to the sycamore and silky oak pages on my site and see what you think?
> 
> A end grain closeup would help with the ID
Click to expand...


----------



## Burly Dennis

The bark doesn't look like mine. When I pulled the bark off my wood, it came off in little polygons that were about an inch thick from the outside to the inside of the cambium. The bark on the tree in this picture isn't quite right, remembering that bark can vary.

Dennis 



Joe Rebuild said:


> phinds said:
> 
> 
> 
> Silky oak is not even close to being an oak. Many Australian woods have names like oak, elm, ash, maple, etc and are not even remotely related to the woods that we mean when we say oak, etc.
> 
> You'll note that what I said specifically is that it is not in the genus Quercus.
> 
> My ignorance shining bright! :dash2: So much to learn! Kevin, can you ad an emoticon with foot in mouth.
> 
> here is our silky
Click to expand...


----------



## Burly Dennis

I burned up all the pieces that didn't end up as bowls, but I can pull a bunch of shavings from my dust collector. If you could send me your address via email, I would be happy to send some too you. Also, there may be another piece of this wood where I got this one. I will check on Thursday if there is.
Dennis



Kevin said:


> phinds said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... so silky oak is not ruled out ...
> ... so I think that's what it has to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We didn't rule out Black Willow or Cedar Elm either . . . so I think that's what it has to be. A hybrid of Water Willow & Cedar Elm.
> 
> Paul I never seen you use such reasoning. Silly Oak is not ruled out. So it must be S.O. It might be S.O. but it isn't likely. The tree came from the SW so while it's possible the tree was planted as an ornamental, the odds are in favor of it being a native tree. That alone should keep us from jumping the gun.
> 
> Dennis, could you mail me a small sample of the wood? I only need an end grain shaving. A decent size square of flat grain would be helpful but it can be a thin. It's not necessary but the end grain is. End grain must either be taken with an extremely sharp plane so I get a nice thick, clean cut curl, or else band saw a 1/4" slice off the end of a block etc. so I can dress then end clearly enough to see the cells with my 16x loupe.
> 
> If you have any thick wide end grain shavings that didn't go in the can yet that might work also. I'm saying I can ID it, but if it's a native species I have a decent shot at it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


----------



## phinds

Got to agree, that's not silky oak, based on end grain. Can't figure WHAT it is.

There's another wood that has characteristics similar to sycamore and silky oak but I always forget what the name is, even though I have a page on it. I'll think of it eventually.


----------



## Kevin

Dennis, don't sweat the pics thing. I don't get persnickety over the small stuff, was just letting you know. I'm still learning this forum software also.

If you have any questions about it in the future or need some help post a question in the site help section (still working on tutorials).

I'll send you my addy in a second. Thanks for all the info in this thread - these are the kind where we all learn and one of the things this site is all about.


----------



## Burly Dennis

Paul,

I think Emory Oak is similar to this but I have ruled that out as well. I have 4 good sized chunks of Emory Oak burl and it doesn't match this stuff. You have that listed on your web site on the Oak, Misc page as Arizona Black Oak (Quercus emoryi,).
http://www.hobbithouseinc.com/personal/woodpics/oak,%20misc.htm
Is that the one of which you were thinking?



phinds said:


> Got to agree, that's not silky oak, based on end grain. Can't figure WHAT it is.
> 
> There's another wood that has characteristics similar to sycamore and silky oak but I always forget what the name is, even though I have a page on it. I'll think of it eventually.


----------



## phinds

Burly Dennis said:


> Paul,
> 
> I think Emory Oak is similar to this but I have ruled that out as well. I have 4 good sized chunks of Emory Oak burl and it doesn't match this stuff. You have that listed on your web site on the Oak, Misc page as Arizona Black Oak (Quercus emoryi,).
> http://www.hobbithouseinc.com/personal/woodpics/oak,%20misc.htm
> Is that the one of which you were thinking?



I still find it impossible to believe that it's in the genus Quercus, so I'm not surprised it's not black oak. I STILL can't remember what that other wood is that I'm thinking of, and I even poked around my site to refresh my memory but no joy.

Can you get a really clean end grain closeup? Like the one I posted as a sample pic in the sticky.


----------



## Burly Dennis

Can you get a really clean end grain closeup? Like the one I posted as a sample pic in the sticky.
[/quote]

Paul,

I found a few pieces of the wood and am sending them to Kevin today along with some of the bark.
I have one more piece and will try to get a better end grain picture with my buddies canera, but it might not be until lster today or tomorrow. Thanks for the interest.


----------



## phinds

*FINALLY FOUND IT*

OK, my senior moment has passed. I not only found the wood I was trying to think of, but I think there's a good chance that it's the right match. Check it out on my site:

*MACADAMIA ​*
http://hobbithouseinc.com/personal/woodpics/macadamia.htm


----------



## Kevin

Good job Paul. That sure does look like it. I knew it weren't sycamore. 

Well Dennis looks like I'll have a fairly decent chance of ID-ing those samples. . 

I'll get some sent to you in return. :yes:


----------



## Burly Dennis

phinds said:


> OK, my senior moment has passed. I not only found the wood I was trying to think of, but I think there's a good chance that it's the right match. Check it out on my site:
> 
> *MACADAMIA ​*
> http://hobbithouseinc.com/personal/woodpics/macadamia.htm



Close but no cigar. I can see why you thought of it though. I wish we had some of that!!

OK, here are three views of a piece (1.25"x1.75"x1.75") engrain, tangential view and radial view. Also, I have added a 10X view of both the endgrain and the tangential view.
[attachment=562]
[attachment=563]
[attachment=564]
[attachment=565]
[attachment=566]


----------



## phinds

PLEASE ... stop posting those gigantic pics !


----------



## phinds

Hm ... what is it that doesn't look like macadamia? I can believe maybe that's not the right ID, but from what you posted, I don't see why you say it's not.


----------



## Burly Dennis

phinds said:


> Hm ... what is it that doesn't look like macadamia? I can believe maybe that's not the right ID, but from what you posted, I don't see why you say it's not.



The weave pattern on the two planks labelled "macadamia nut scales" looks similar, but, none of the other pics look like my wood. The end grain picture is similar but I have not seen anything like the figure in the jewelry box lid and on the pen blank pictures. There are some cirular structures un Macadamia that I don't see in my wood. 

I have sent the samples to Kevin. Let's see what he has to say after he looks at them.


----------



## phinds

Burly Dennis said:


> phinds said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hm ... what is it that doesn't look like macadamia? I can believe maybe that's not the right ID, but from what you posted, I don't see why you say it's not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The weave pattern on the two planks labelled "macadamia nut scales" looks similar, but, none of the other pics look like my wood. The end grain picture is similar but I have not seen anything like the figure in the jewelry box lid and on the pen blank pictures. There are some cirular structures un Macadamia that I don't see in my wood.
> 
> I have sent the samples to Kevin. Let's see what he has to say after he looks at them.
Click to expand...


OK, thanks for that update. I always trust the guy with the wood more than I trust my ability to figure things out from just pics so I have no trouble believing you, I just didn't see it from the pics.


----------



## QJSMarquetry

It looks like London Plane (known as "lacewood" in veneer form in the UK) to me - Platanus acerifolia - http://www.capitalcrispin.com/planetree_lacewood.aspx



phinds said:


> Burly Dennis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> phinds said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hm ... what is it that doesn't look like macadamia? I can believe maybe that's not the right ID, but from what you posted, I don't see why you say it's not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The weave pattern on the two planks labelled "macadamia nut scales" looks similar, but, none of the other pics look like my wood. The end grain picture is similar but I have not seen anything like the figure in the jewelry box lid and on the pen blank pictures. There are some cirular structures un Macadamia that I don't see in my wood.
> 
> I have sent the samples to Kevin. Let's see what he has to say after he looks at them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, thanks for that update. I always trust the guy with the wood more than I trust my ability to figure things out from just pics so I have no trouble believing you, I just didn't see it from the pics.
Click to expand...


----------



## phinds

QJSMarquetry said:


> It looks like London Plane (known as "lacewood" in veneer form in the UK) to me - Platanus acerifolia - http://www.capitalcrispin.com/planetree_lacewood.aspx



Really? I've never seen any London Plane with the kind of figure show in post #28. It's that cross-hatched-looking face that I'm mostly refererring to. Have you seen London Plane like that?


----------



## Burly Dennis

Today has been a good learning day. Thanks to Pauls tutelage, I think I learned how to post a reasonably sized picture. Let's hope I got it right this time!

I also had an extensive chat with the person who collected this piece of wood from Arizona, southeast of Tuscon and within a mile of the Mexican border. He swears it is a sycamore burl just not sure which species or variety. He did have several pictures of when he harvested the wood. I scanned two of them.

The first one shows Dick getting ready to cut the burl from the lower left hand side of the tree. Notice the barbed wire? The lowest stringer was embedded three inches deep into the piece I had, which I removed along with the staple holding it, before cutting into the burl.
[attachment=573]
The second picture shows the whole tree with Dick still at the bottom of the tree. Notice that the bark, as someone pointed out earlier, is completely different at the bottom and around the burl, than it is at the top, which is more typical for sycamore. 
[attachment=574]
So, what do you think? Can you believe that it is sycamore? I am too ignorant to be sure. I still want to hear what Kevin says when he looks at the samples I sent him.


----------



## phinds

Burly Dennis said:


> So, what do you think? Can you believe that it is sycamore? I am too ignorant to be sure. I still want to hear what Kevin says when he looks at the samples I sent him.



There's no possiblity that this is what is normally called sycamore in the USA. That species, generally Platanus occidentalis (more generally Platanus spp.) has a bark that is unmistakable and is utterly unlike that shown in the pic. Also, it doesn't grow with multiple trunks like that.

EDIT: there ARE some trees that look like the one you posted and that DO have the word "sycamore" as all or part of one or more of their common names, so in the most technical sense, this may well be "sycamore". But my point is that it is not Platanus occidentalis, though judging from the wood, it certainly appears to be closely related.

Here's what I mean when I say "sycamore": (it's also called the "ghost tree" because of the appearance of the bark). You will also notice the single straight trunk, which is typical.

[attachment=575][attachment=576]


----------



## Burly Dennis

phinds said:


> Burly Dennis said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, what do you think? Can you believe that it is sycamore? I am too ignorant to be sure. I still want to hear what Kevin says when he looks at the samples I sent him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no possiblity that this is what is normally called sycamore in the USA. That species, generally Platanus occidentalis (more generally Platanus spp.) has a bark that is unmistakable and is utterly unlike that shown in the pic. Also, it doesn't grow with multiple trunks like that.
> 
> EDIT: there ARE some trees that look like the one you posted and that DO have the word "sycamore" as all or part of one or more of their common names, so in the most technical sense, this may well be "sycamore". But my point is that it is not Platanus occidentalis, though judging from the wood, it certainly appears to be closely related.
> 
> Here's what I mean when I say "sycamore": (it's also called the "ghost tree" because of the appearance of the bark). You will also notice the single straight trunk, which is typical.
Click to expand...


Yep, I agree with you about the bark. What Dick said was that the upper branches looked more like the photos you showed. The trunk and burl had what you saw in the photo. I also have only seen single trunked sycamore. We may never know, but he does have more of it if we get curious enough to send it somewhere else for identification.


----------



## Kevin

Dennis, 

The tree in the picture is 100% definitely a Sycamore tree in my opinion. I don't know if I've said it in this thread or not but everyone here who knows me, has seen me say it before and Paul knows this for himself as well. 

And that is, trees can and often do look very different from one region to another. While I have seen rough Sycamore bark here in Texas on older trees, I've never seen one that rough at the bottom. But with the picture of the upper branches it leaves zero doubt that the tree in the picture is a Sycamore. All I have to do is admit that I'm wrong about the wood itself not looking quite like Sycamore. And that's easy watch this:

I was wrong about the wood itself not being Sycamore.

Well that wasn't so bad. I'm wrong at least once every day so I'm glad to get it over with this early. Now I can be correct about most everything I say for the rest of the day.

Paul's pics are typical of young Syc. and is the only kind of bark appearance I've ever seen in young ones. As they age the bark will definitely take on a rougher look at the bottom and keep the smoother look up high in the crown and the smaller branches below it. Not *all* big syc's will take the rough look but most do. But I reiterate why I was fooled; I've never seen one do anything close to that and I've seen bigger syc than that. 

As to the multi-trunks, it's very common here in Texas to have them. The largest Sycamore I've personally seen is growing from a common mound of 3 of them with an osage thrown right in the midst. I may have a pic - I know I posted some on another forum I'll see about getting one posted here.


----------



## phinds

Kevin, very cool. I've learned something new. Thanks.

By the way, what's the biggest sycamore you've ever seen (diameter)?

I've never seen any more than maybe 4' at chest height, but I've heard reports of much bigger ones and wonder if that's true.


----------



## Kevin

phinds said:


> . . . By the way, what's the biggest sycamore you've ever seen (diameter)? . . .



Paul, I've never gotten a tape measure around it because I've always been alone while logging in that area, except for one time when my wife was with me; as fate would have it, before leaving the shop she forgot to remind her husband to bring one. Women. Sheesh. 

I've also never had the logging tape with me or I could have gotten a dia. with it alone. But I have stood back a ways from it and held a rigid tape tape up and guesstimated it between 4.5 - 5' at breast height. 

_"Breast height"_ is deceiving with this tree though, because the trunk itself doesn't begin until about 1.5' ^ground level, because of the _"mound"_ I referred to. It's one of the strangest things I've run into in my short time as a logger/sawyer. Words can't do it any justice I'll just have to get some pics.


----------



## Burly Dennis

Kevin said:


> phinds said:
> 
> 
> 
> . . . By the way, what's the biggest sycamore you've ever seen (diameter)? . . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paul, I've never gotten a tape measure around it because I've always been alone while logging in that area, except for one time when my wife was with me; as fate would have it, before leaving the shop she forgot to remind her husband to bring one. Women. Sheesh.
> 
> I've also never had the logging tape with me or I could have gotten a dia. with it alone. But I have stood back a ways from it and held a rigid tape tape up and guesstimated it between 4.5 - 5' at breast height.
> 
> _"Breast height"_ is deceiving with this tree though, because the trunk itself doesn't begin until about 1.5' ^ground level, because of the _"mound"_ I referred to. It's one of the strangest things I've run into in my short time as a logger/sawyer. Words can't do it any justice I'll just have to get some pics.
> 
> Kevin, Paul, Thanks for the adventure and the learning. I enjoyed it.
> 
> Best Regards,
> Dennis
Click to expand...


----------



## Burly Dennis

Burly Dennis said:


> Kevin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> phinds said:
> 
> 
> 
> . . . By the way, what's the biggest sycamore you've ever seen (diameter)? . . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paul, I've never gotten a tape measure around it because I've always been alone while logging in that area, except for one time when my wife was with me; as fate would have it, before leaving the shop she forgot to remind her husband to bring one. Women. Sheesh.
> 
> I've also never had the logging tape with me or I could have gotten a dia. with it alone. But I have stood back a ways from it and held a rigid tape tape up and guesstimated it between 4.5 - 5' at breast height.
> 
> _"Breast height"_ is deceiving with this tree though, because the trunk itself doesn't begin until about 1.5' ^ground level, because of the _"mound"_ I referred to. It's one of the strangest things I've run into in my short time as a logger/sawyer. Words can't do it any justice I'll just have to get some pics.
> 
> Kevin, Paul, Thanks for the adventure and the learning. I enjoyed it.
> 
> Best Regards,
> Dennis
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


That is interesting. My reply got imbedded into your comments. I think I entered the text in the wrong place. Hmmm. I keep learning, I think.


----------



## Kevin

Burly Dennis said:


> Burly Dennis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> phinds said:
> 
> 
> 
> . . . By the way, what's the biggest sycamore you've ever seen (diameter)? . . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paul, I've never gotten a tape measure around it because I've always been alone while logging in that area, except for one time when my wife was with me; as fate would have it, before leaving the shop she forgot to remind her husband to bring one. Women. Sheesh.
> 
> I've also never had the logging tape with me or I could have gotten a dia. with it alone. But I have stood back a ways from it and held a rigid tape tape up and guesstimated it between 4.5 - 5' at breast height.
> 
> _"Breast height"_ is deceiving with this tree though, because the trunk itself doesn't begin until about 1.5' ^ground level, because of the _"mound"_ I referred to. It's one of the strangest things I've run into in my short time as a logger/sawyer. Words can't do it any justice I'll just have to get some pics.
> 
> Kevin, Paul, Thanks for the adventure and the learning. I enjoyed it.
> 
> Best Regards,
> Dennis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is interesting. My reply got imbedded into your comments. I think I entered the text in the wrong place. Hmmm. I keep learning, I think.
> 
> You started entering your text above the end-quote tags, like I did here. Standby - I am making a mini tutorial for you . . . .
Click to expand...


----------



## Kevin

When you reply to a post you have a few options. 


You can click the Reply button directly beneath the post you want to quote (red rectangle)
You can click the green + symbol beneath every post for multi-quoting (blue circles)
Or you can click the Reply button on the bottom of every thread which is to the right and a little larger than the other Reply buttons for no quotes at all (green rectangle)

[attachment=589]

[attachment=590]


----------



## esmith

I've seen a few very big Sycamores here in Sacramento CA that are an easy 60"+. They are almost always hollow when they get that big.

Take a normal tape, measure around the tree at breast height, divide by 3.14 and you have your diameter,... or at least very, very close.

I have never seen a Sycamore burl at the bottom, just above the roots, as you might see in CA Walnut. I don't know AZ Sycamore, they may burl differently but that photo could be just a root ball.


----------



## Burly Dennis

It is interesting that you mention the root ball. It was only on the one side of the tree. I don't know what classifies a burl as a burl precisely, but they usually contain highly figured wood and grain that goes every which way. In the large piece I had the grain was quite regular and not at all what I would normally excpect from a burl. Does that make it qualify as a root ball, or just an abnormal growth?


----------

