# a teachable moment



## phinds (Nov 3, 2017)

In a recent thread about dogwood:

https://woodbarter.com/threads/dogwood-from-mike.33196/#post-449845

I was talking about sanding to different grits. I happened to have just taken a bunch of comparison pics over the last couple of days and thought I would expand on that thread and share a few things.

I always emphasize that getting usable end grain information is usually pretty easy and I do that for two reasons. First, it's true, and second, it's an attempt on my part to get folks to learn how easy it can be to ID many woods without much work.

Often, just 100 grit sanding, or better still a single slice with a sharp blade, will give a clean enough surface to be able to ID the wood with a 10X loupe. Sometimes you need to get a bit better but not too much, and then on rare occasions, that lower-level processing just won't do the trick.

Here are some examples, with some discussion. All of these pairs are end grains at 240 grit and then at 1200 grit. I wish I had done some at 100, but my comments will have to suffice.

In each case I have attempted to capture the exact same area of the wood in both pics





This is the dogwood from the other thread. As you can see, 1200 grit really doesn't tell you anything that the 240 grit doesn't already show. This IS one where 100 grit would NOT be sufficient since these diffuse porous woods are very common and the end grain look very similar. See my discussion in the other thread for more.




Padauk --- not only does the 1200 grit tell you nothing that isn't already seen in the 240 grit, this is one where 100 grit would be sufficient, PARTICULARLY if you are trying to distinguish padauk from other red wood (bloodwood, redheart, etc)




Wenge --- again, 1200 tells you nothing that isn't already seen in the 240 grit, it's just sharper. 100 grit would work for this one (but be aware that there are a number of woods that have very similar end grain so some experience is required).




American black cherry. Another one where 1200 doesn't tell you anything new, but 100 grit would not likely be quite sufficient.




Canary --- 1200 is sharper but adds nothing new. 100 grit would be marginal.




purpleheart --- again, 1200 add nothing, just makes things sharper. 100 grit would likely be sufficient but with purpleheart you hardly need to go to end grain since it's pretty readily identifiable (as are many of the woods shown in this thread) just by the general look and feel.




yellowheart --- again, 1200 is sharper but adds nothing. 100 grit would probably be sufficient but might be marginal. Certainly 240 is sufficient. Notice how the 1200 grit pic shows a darker, richer color. Here's why (cribbed from my site)









ceiba at 1200 on the left and a web pic on the right. This is one where even 100 might do it to confirm that it is ceiba when combined with the extreme light weight of the wood (there just aren't many woods that it COULD be, given how light-weight it is.) BUT ... there is one characteristic that won't even begin to show up at 100 or 240 and in fact, just barely shows up at 1200, and it can be used to distinguish between a couple of the Cieba spp. species. That is the multitudinous fine horizontal lines that extend between the rays. These are micro level reticulate parenchyma lines. I include the web pic because it shows the lines better than my pic (also, it is at greater magnification than mine).

Here's a piece of ceiba that does not have these lines (or at least does not have them visible at 10X):



Of course, this one also has a different pore density but I don't know ceiba well enough to be sure that that is a reliable distinguishing characteristic (although I certainly assume it is).

SO ... consider yourself educated

Reactions: Like 2 | Great Post 2 | Way Cool 1 | Informative 7


----------



## Mike1950 (Nov 3, 2017)

Thanks Paul, As i said before I learn something in every ID thread.


----------



## barry richardson (Nov 3, 2017)

Good stuff!.......... took me more than a moment though

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## DKMD (Nov 3, 2017)

Cool... I hate sanding!

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## phinds (Nov 3, 2017)

DKMD said:


> Cool... I hate sanding!


Well, if you're good with a razor blade or Xacto knife, you don't have to. I avoid those things because I know that I'm more likely to cut off body parts than actually make a clean cut on end grain.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Schroedc (Nov 3, 2017)

phinds said:


> Well, if you're good with a razor blade or Xacto knife, you don't have to. I avoid those things because I know that I'm more likely to cut off body parts than actually make a clean cut on end grain.



Shooting board and a hand plane would give a nice finish.


----------



## phinds (Nov 3, 2017)

Schroedc said:


> Shooting board and a hand plane would give a nice finish.


Yeah, I've heard that that will work well, but I'm not worth squat w/ a hand plane.


----------



## ripjack13 (Mar 9, 2021)

Why have I not seen this before?
Good info Paul!


That similiar threads function at the bottom of every page is coming in handy.....

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 2


----------



## phinds (Mar 9, 2021)

ripjack13 said:


> Why have I not seen this before?


Well, see, there you go again, not paying attention


----------



## ripjack13 (Mar 9, 2021)

phinds said:


> Well, see, there you go again, not paying attention



My wife accused me of not paying attention or something, And I thought that's a weird way of starting a conversation.....

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Mike Hill (Mar 10, 2021)

Huh?

Reactions: Agree 1


----------

