- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #41
The 24" x 7" x 1 5/8" is 6.1 lbs and the 52 3/4" x 7" x 1 5/8" is 15.60 lbs.
East Indian Rosewood?
- Thread starter Manzanitaman
- Start date
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #42
This wood has been in storage for 40+ years.
That seems to be bang on for EIR at moisture content under 12%. That would be expected given 40 years of storage.
I have a question about the weights........I'm assuming these two boards are from the same plank? Same width and thickness anyway.
By my calcualtions one calculates to 3.3 #/bf and the other to 3.8 #/bf. You might want to check your scale.
Anyway - you can't really get a positive ID unless you provide a clear end-grain photo, sanded well (400 grit is preferred), and include a scale from a ruler in the photo. @Mr. Peet has taught me all this - LOL
*Edit - East Indian Rosewood clocks in at around 4.4 pounds/bf, according to the Wood database, so your boards are a little light..................
Last edited:
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #45
This was sanded to 400 and I put a new battery in scale and got 6.10 on 24" board and 13.14 on 52 3/4" piece.I have a question about the weights........I'm assuming these two boards are from the same plank? Same width and thickness anyway.
By my calcualtions one calculates to 3.3 #/bf and the other to 3.8 #/bf. You might want to check your scale.
Anyway - you can't really get a positive ID unless you provide a clear end-grain photo, sanded well (400 grit is preferred), and include a scale from a ruler in the photo. @Mr. Peet has taught me all this - LOL
*Edit - East Indian Rosewood clocks in at around 4.4 pounds/bf, according to the Wood database, so your boards are a little light..................
Jim - I’m by no means an expert on wood ID, just trying to help out.
My suggestion would be to look back through the WOOD ID forum to see how this works.
You will see some good examples, and some not so good, of what folks look for when trying to ID a species.
You will see reference to The Wood Database and also Hobbit House (Paul Hinds) as two great resources to compare:
Color, weight, pore structure, etc.
They describe in detail how to look at endgrain especially. “Looks” can be deceiving. Weight helps a lot, but clear endgrain photos are probably the most important. You will see some great endgrain shots on WB. Again - Search the “wood ID” string.
Good luck- as I mentioned your boards are a little light for EIR (my opinion) , but I’m not saying it’s impossible.
My suggestion would be to look back through the WOOD ID forum to see how this works.
You will see some good examples, and some not so good, of what folks look for when trying to ID a species.
You will see reference to The Wood Database and also Hobbit House (Paul Hinds) as two great resources to compare:
Color, weight, pore structure, etc.
They describe in detail how to look at endgrain especially. “Looks” can be deceiving. Weight helps a lot, but clear endgrain photos are probably the most important. You will see some great endgrain shots on WB. Again - Search the “wood ID” string.
Good luck- as I mentioned your boards are a little light for EIR (my opinion) , but I’m not saying it’s impossible.
They have been in storage for 40 years. I expect them to be well under 8 mc. That would influence the weight.
I do agree about the end grain pics though. @Manzanitaman you took some scans of the makore bowl blank which was amazing. I realise that this board is bigger but that is what you are aiming for.
From your current pics I see no reason to change my ID.
Not arguing, but moisture content is relative to where you live and the relative humidity. Obviously living in the desert is going to be drier than a rainforest and the weight of the wood will differ.
Endgrain ID is typically more important than weight.
I’m assuming they were stored inside. I should have asked.
Exactly. End grain ID is soo much better than the “it’s heavy” test. Though in this case it rules out king wood.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #50
It was stored in a dry storage area all that time and my moisture meter shows it at 0.00. I live in the foothills above Sacramento so we get a dry heat. This is scanned picture at 400 grit.
Diffuse porous with medium sized, randomly spaced pores with winged aliform parenchyma (occasionally lozenge shaped) with some confluence and considerable diffuse-in-aggregates parenchyma. Occasional pore multiples (radial), tightly spaced rays are thin but generally visible at 10X, growth ring boundaries range from vague to well defined
Per hobbithouse.
If you can get the lighting on the end grain. While getting at least a 3x magnification, it may be possible to verify the small rays or verify they aren't there. Also the winged parenchyma are easier to spot.
If you get a clear 3x and I can make my hardware zoom 3 to 4 x we should be able to get the 10 x magnification mentioned
Per hobbithouse.
If you can get the lighting on the end grain. While getting at least a 3x magnification, it may be possible to verify the small rays or verify they aren't there. Also the winged parenchyma are easier to spot.
If you get a clear 3x and I can make my hardware zoom 3 to 4 x we should be able to get the 10 x magnification mentioned
Yeah. The absence of parenchyma would definitely be a problem for my ID. With the information I have I will stick with EIR. For the accuracy I do prefer to have all the information.