# need help



## pinky (Feb 20, 2018)

Just picked up a stack of wood via an estate sale. Nobody there had a clue as to what it was. Unfortunately, either do I. Some of it has a red tint to it. Looks to be in the teak family but ???

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## phinds (Feb 20, 2018)

Pinky, that's definitely not a teak type. It's clearly diffuse porous and teak is ring porous, or occasionally semi-ring porous but never diffuse porous.

That face grain is hauntingly familiar / very distinctive and I feel like I should know right away what it is but I'm drawing a blank. The end grain, combined with the face grain suggests one of the grainy diffuse porous woods like sucupira or ipe but I don't think it's either one of those.

What I really need is a farther-away shot of the face grain, pics of face grain of pieces w/ different color (you said only some had red) and most importantly a better end grain shot.

Also, what's the density?

Reactions: Way Cool 1


----------



## pinky (Feb 20, 2018)

@phinds 

Spent some time on your site. What do you think, cumaru? Thanks for your help, Paul.


----------



## phinds (Feb 20, 2018)

pinky said:


> @phinds
> 
> Spent some time on your site. What do you think, cumaru? Thanks for your help, Paul.


Definitely cumaru is a possibility. What's the density?

EDIT: I just realized that cumaru IS that I was thinking of when I saw the face grain, but the color was putting me off. Are most of your pieces more like the darker wood shown on my cumaru page?


----------



## pinky (Feb 20, 2018)

Most are darker, some redder but the face grain in most of these are not as plain as the pictures on your site. Definitely more character.


----------



## phinds (Feb 20, 2018)

Well, for the 3rd time, what's the density?

And can you get a better end grain shot?

EDIT: Actually, probably the best thing to do would be to just sent me a small piece (or two if there's any doubt about all the planks being the same stuff) and I can do my fine sanding on the end grain AND computer the density.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Lou Currier (Feb 20, 2018)

What other forum can you get this service. @phinds you are awesome

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## phinds (Feb 20, 2018)

Lou Currier said:


> @phinds you are awesome


Yeah, try telling my wife and kids that

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## pinky (Feb 20, 2018)

@phinds 

I heard you all 3 times about density, just haven't had the access or opportunity.

I will check tomorrow.


----------



## phinds (Feb 20, 2018)

pinky said:


> @phinds
> 
> I heard you all 3 times about density, just haven't had the access or opportunity.
> 
> I will check tomorrow.


Thanks. I'm persistent. And annoying.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Steve Walker (Feb 20, 2018)

phinds said:


> Thanks. I'm persistent. And annoying.



So is my wife


----------



## phinds (Feb 20, 2018)

Steve Walker said:


> So is my wife


Well, it's OK to tell ME that, but I suggest that you not tell her that

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Steve Walker (Feb 21, 2018)

Oh, she knows it..... and is proud of it!!

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## pinky (Feb 21, 2018)

@phinds

I have 4.5368 bd. ft. weighing 18.7 lbs.


----------



## phinds (Feb 21, 2018)

OK, so about 50lbs/cuft which is way too low for sucupira, which runs generally around 60 to maybe 68 lbs/cuft

Again, I think the best thing is for you to send me a small piece or two.


----------



## pinky (Feb 21, 2018)

@phinds 

I thought we were thinking Dipteryx odorata

PM your address.


----------



## phinds (Feb 21, 2018)

pinky said:


> @phinds
> 
> I thought we were thinking Dipteryx odorata


Right. That's the one that's too heavy for your wood, although I have seen some WEIRD variations in weights. Just recently there was a thread on a piece of black locust that was WAY outside the normal weight range for that wood.



> PM your address.


Will do


----------



## Mr. Peet (Feb 23, 2018)

First glance, 'Santos mahogany',_Myroxylon balsamum_, but I think Pinky had some he bought off of me 2 years ago.?...


----------



## phinds (Feb 23, 2018)

Mr. Peet said:


> First glance, 'Santos mahogany',_Myroxylon balsamum_, but I think Pinky had some he bought off of me 2 years ago.?...


End grain is quite a bit off for Myroxylon balsamum


----------



## pinky (Mar 16, 2018)

@phinds 
@Mr. Peet 

Should be milling this stuff up this weekend and will have cut-offs. If I send samples for both of you in one flat rate envelope, can you guys divvy it up somehow?


----------



## phinds (Mar 16, 2018)

pinky said:


> @phinds
> @Mr. Peet
> 
> Should be milling this stuff up this weekend and will have cut-offs. If I send samples for both of you in one flat rate envelope, can you guys divvy it up somehow?


Yep. We do that frequently. Mark very much prefers that at least one of the cutoffs be slightly larger than the IWCS sample size of 1/2" x 3" x 6" but I'm not picky. It would be particularly helpful if you could make one of the samples flat cut and one quartersawn but that's certainly not a requirement or anything.

I'll PM you my address


----------



## Mr. Peet (Mar 16, 2018)

phinds said:


> End grain is quite a bit off for Myroxylon balsamum


@pinky 

Yeah, just looked it over. Santos Mahogany has more noticeable rays. Red ipe was my next guess, but that density kills that...

Send Paul a few cut offs and I'll follow up with him. Thanks John...


----------



## phinds (Mar 24, 2018)

John I just got the package. Nice pieces. Lots there for both me and @Mr. Peet to have samples from both the smaller pieces and the larger pieces. Thanks.

At first glance they all appear to be cumaru but I need to explore further because while the two smaller pieces are about 64lbs/cuft and with face and end grain that is a dead ringer for cumaru (so I'm confident that they ARE cumaru), the larger pieces are 50lbs/cuft and 54lbs/cuft and have a slightly different pore size and distribution from the smaller pieces--- possibly too small a difference to matter but when combined w/ the weight difference it's suspicious so I'll check them out further by doing my end grain thing. Probably early next week since the weather should be getting a bit better by then (my garage is unheated).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## phinds (Mar 27, 2018)

OK, here are some pics of the face and end grains of pieces 1 through 4, in that order













I think you can see pretty clearly that the end grain on #4 is not the same as the others. Here's a set of end grain closeups of 1->4 (2 of each, stacked vertically) and there you can REALLY see that #4 is different





#1 and #2 are clearly cumaru. I was a bit dubious about #3 at first because the pores are significantly larger but I found cumaru samples that had similar pore size so I'm ok with that one being cumaru as well. #4 however, does not seem to be cumaru / Dipteryx odorata and I'm thinking that it is perhaps a related species that got lumped in with some cumaru. It does have both the obvious grainy face grain and the interlocked grain of cumaru but it seems to be something that is not in my own set of samples.

*LATER EDIT: see post below. Mark and I re-examined #3 and no longer believe that it is cumaru / Dipteryx odorata (but probably a closely related species). I'll process further*

Dipteryx odorata does have quite a range of end grain characteristics so it is at least possible that #4 is in fact Dipteryx odorata but with end grain characteristics that are not like any I have or can find any record of (I checked NCSU's Inside Wood and also Eric Meier's Wood Database in addition to the pieces on my site)

@Mr. Peet any ideas on #4? Note from post #23, #1 and #2 are 64lbs/cuft and #3 is 50lbs/cuft and #4 is 54lbs/cuft so it's possible that both #3 and #4 are not Dipteryx odorata. All of the colors are consistent w/ Dipteryx odorata as are the face grain's graininess and interlocked grain.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Mr. Peet (Mar 27, 2018)

I just so happened to work up some Cumaru this morning. Left to right, #3 matches best to the Cumaru I have. #1 & 2 match for pore density, rays but seem a little more red than I am used to. They reflect Almendro (_Dipteryx oleifera_) for color, but that species often as narrow banding between pores. None of the other genus species are commercially available here, so can not comment on them.

No, # 4 does not match for me. Pore density, I have seen it that high, but never with so many round pores. Cumaru does have round pores, but often has a high percentage of mis-shapened pores, or pores that look like mini Saturns. Rays are usually readily seen with a 10x loupe, but are faint in picture # 4.

The density just adds question. You discounted the _Handroanthus_ genus, did you do so with the _Metopium_ genus?

What color was the sawdust? Should I stop in Friday to smell it?


----------



## phinds (Mar 27, 2018)

Mr. Peet said:


> No, # 4 does not match for me. Pore density, I have seen it that high, but never with so many round pores. Cumaru does have round pores, but often has a high percentage of mis-shapened pores, or pores that look like mini Saturns. Rays are usually readily seen with a 10x loupe, but are faint in picture # 4.


I agree



> The density just adds question. You discounted the _Handroanthus_ genus, did you do so with the _Metopium_ genus?


Metopium tends to have less dense pores and more prominent rays, so I'd rule that out



> What color was the sawdust? Should I stop in Friday to smell it?


I didn't pay any attention but you'll be getting an oversized sample from it so you'll be able to do that test. Hm ... I think you're suggesting that it might be ipe and at a quick look, you might be right but the end grain is not as good a match as I would like. I've never seen ipe with growth ring boundaries quite that distinct and take a look at the line (marginal parenchyma?) through the lower right pic in the composite pic above. Doesn't look like ipe. Let's take a look at it next time you're over.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## DKMD (Mar 27, 2018)

I love it when you guys talk dirty to each other...

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 1 | Funny 2


----------



## phinds (Mar 27, 2018)

DKMD said:


> I love it when you guys talk dirty to each other...


Well, at least Mark isn't cussing in Latin as much as usual.

Reactions: Agree 1 | Funny 1


----------



## phinds (Mar 30, 2018)

Mark came by today and we looked at #3 and he now has me convinced that it's not cumaru / Dipteryx odorata but is possibly a closely related species. I need to do some more pics.

We still can't figure out what #4 is.


----------



## Mr. Peet (Apr 1, 2018)

phinds said:


> Mark came by today and we looked at #3 and he now has me convinced that it's not cumaru / Dipteryx odorata but is possibly a closely related species. I need to do some more pics.
> 
> We still can't figure out what #4 is.



Happy Easter Paul and all.

Just looked at #4 again. It reminds me of 'Ipe' a lot, but more lite than those usually used as outdoor decking. I cut a sliver to check the sawdust color, more brown than the yellow/green of the 'Ipe' group. I did not do a red reaction test. Then that smell, well, it matches well with my 'Frijolillo or Guaje', _Leucaena shannonii_. So I would check that genus. I can't access Inside Wood, keeps saying page down or too slow of a response. You took photos on July 10,11, &21, 2017 of a sample with interlocked grain (you called it Leadwood). My straight grained sample, I did not find photos, but have posted on here;Nov. 13, 2016 in the recent finds forum a curly and ribbon grained samples, but not the straight grained sample. In better light I could give it a try and photograph later.


----------



## Mr. Peet (Apr 2, 2018)

> @Mr. Peet any ideas on #4? Note from post #23, #1 and #2 are 64lbs/cuft and #3 is 50lbs/cuft and #4 is 54lbs/cuft so it's possible that both #3 and #4 are not Dipteryx odorata. All of the colors are consistent w/ Dipteryx odorata as are the face grain's graininess and interlocked grain.



So Paul gave me 3 samples to look at. I used digital calipers and scale to start afresh. I'm not sure how anal Paul was on rounding, I carried numbers to 7 places. When I redid densities, this is what I found.

#1 - 67.462843 pounds per cubic foot, about 1.08065 density
#3 - 54.655845 pounds per cubic foot, about 0.875503 density
#4 - 54.381709 pounds per cubic foot, about 0.871111 density

Out of time, snow plow time....

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## phinds (Apr 2, 2018)

Mr. Peet said:


> So Paul gave me 3 samples to look at.


Just to be clear, #1 and #2 are clearly identical and from the same piece so effectively I gave Mark all 4 samples, 1&2, 3, 4


----------



## Mr. Peet (Apr 2, 2018)

http://delta-intkey.com/wood/en/www/mimleuc.htm

For some reference on _Leucaena shannonii. _Pictured from left to right, #4 unknown, straight grained, ribbon grained and curly (feather curl).
_


 

 

 

 

 

 _

Reactions: Like 2


----------

