Quebracho, Schinopsis lorentzii

[Big Ry]

Medullary are often several times bigger than the other rays, and tend to go back to nearly pith.

See waht Wki says...

Medullary ray (botany) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

and go botany

Medullary ray (botany) — Grokipedia

In botany, medullary rays, also known as vascular rays or pith rays, are radial plates of parenchyma cells that extend vertically through the vascular cylinder (stele) primarily in stems and, during s

grokipedia.com

I thought they all came from the pith i guess i need to read more

 

[daveflutes]

143 euros to ship 3 small blocks to the US

Edit: evidently there's an error with their system and this isn't normal. Getting a real quote via email.

I thought the going rate was £35 for three live edges Did that one work out?

 

[Big Ry]

I thought the going rate was £35 for three live edges Did that one work out?

I just got an updated quote of 52€ for DHL and 43€ for UPS super saver, but I'm right at the bottom threshold of 0.5kg for that shipping tier, so I'm waiting to see what the cheaper their is if i remove 1 of the 3 blocks i tried to buy.

 

[daveflutes]

A couple more close-ups of the quebracho, at 2.5x and 5x. I need to clean my sensor!

I hope these are clear enough to be useful.

2.5x is roughly 8 x 12mm fov
5x is roughly 4 x 6mm fov

Green Valley at 2.5x and 5x






Sturdy Woods at 2.5x then 5x

 

[SA-Motors]

Both of my quebracho samples shown above fluoresce a strong yellow under blacklight.
Tomorrow will be taken up mostly by seeing which of my woods have a cool glow!

Hey guys, does anyone have a reference link describing how to do the backlight test and glow test? (i’d love to follow along, and understand how to do these tests and what they mean.) thanks!

 

[Big Ry]

Hey guys, does anyone have a reference link describing how to do the backlight test and glow test? (i’d love to follow along, and understand how to do these tests and what they mean.) thanks!

I'm not sure if there is an ASTM (or similar testing body) test standard covering the precise protocol, but the gist of an alcohol extractive test or water extractive test is that you take shavings and suspend them in alcohol or water, respectively, then expose the solution to UV (black) light and observe the color and intensity of the fluorescence, if any. From what I've read, the results can be impacted by the choice of alcohol (e.g., ethanol, methanol/ethanol blend, isopropyl). The results can also be impacted the wavelength of the UV light, with most consumer "black" lights being between 365nm and 405nm. Furthermore, there can be differences in results between the alcohol and water tests, hence why you see them described separately. I've also recently read that the response spectra can vary based on local soil conditions and other factors impacting the chemical composition of a wood. And worse, some species can have multiple response spectra that could be observed differently depending upon light source among other variables. All things considered, you sometimes see apparent discrepancies in the results for a given species between different sources, and so i think these tests are better left as secondary identifiers of a species.

 

[Nature Man]

I'm not sure if there is an ASTM (or similar testing body) test standard covering the precise protocol, but the gist of an alcohol extractive test or water extractive test is that you take shavings and suspend them in alcohol or water, respectively, then expose the solution to UV (black) light and observe the color and intensity of the fluorescence, if any. From what I've read, the results can be impacted by the choice of alcohol (e.g., ethanol, methanol/ethanol blend, isopropyl). The results can also be impacted the wavelength of the UV light, with most consumer "black" lights being between 365nm and 405nm. Furthermore, there can be differences in results between the alcohol and water tests, hence why you see them described separately. I've also recently read that the response spectra can vary based on local soil conditions and other factors impacting the chemical composition of a species. And worse, some species can have multiple response spectra that could be observed differently depending upon light source among other variables. All things considered, you sometimes see apparent discrepancies in the results for a given species, and so i think these tests are better left as secondary identifiers of a species.

Great scientific response!

 

[SA-Motors]

Hi @Big Ry thank you for that explanation. Not only does it help me understand what you guys are talking about, but the challenges in using it for a diagnosis. thank you again for the info.

 

[daveflutes]

Hi @Big Ry thank you for that explanation. Not only does it help me understand what you guys are talking about, but the challenges in using it for a diagnosis. thank you again for the info.

I bought a small blacklight flashlight for like $15 and that alone has been really helpful. Just shining it round the room full of wood was informative. You can take it further then with water or alcohol extraction. Look for one that only emits at 365nm.

 

[SA-Motors]

Hi @daveflutes and @Big Ry Can I ask a few questions on your final conclusions on the quebracho?

What do you believe is the full botanical name of the Quebracho from Sturdy Woods?

And what was the consensus on the Quebracho from GVWP? ... that it is Goncalo Alves (or something else), but basically not wood from the Schinopsis genus?

Thanks guys!

 

[Big Ry]

Hi @daveflutes and @Big Ry Can I ask a few questions on your final conclusions on the quebracho?

What do you believe is the full botanical name of the Quebracho from Sturdy Woods?

And what was the consensus on the Quebracho from GVWP? ... that it is Goncalo Alves (or something else), but basically not wood from the Schinopsis genus?

Thanks guys!

I got the block of Quebracho from Sturdy Woods yesterday. It is definitely not the same thing as the Quebracho from GVWP. It is a similar reddish color, but it has no striping. The block is rough cut on the long grain faces, so its hard to ascertain texture of the long grain at this point. I have not done any in depth inspection of the block yet either. Going off appearance and hand-feel, the Sturdy Woods quebracho is of similar density (perhaps slightly less than GVWP) and is drier. Both pieces have a fine and smooth end grain with natural luster.

I will be evaluating the Sturdy Woods Quebracho grain in more detail; I just have been dealing with a sick toddler here and haven't been able to get into the shop. I plan to clean up the grain and get general photos, cut a sliver for microscopic shots, do water and alcohol extractive testing, and conduct UV fluorescence testing. GVWP Quebracho was reactive to UV in the raw wood form, so it will be interesting to compare the two.

I had posted GVWP Quebracho both here and on Steve Earis' Wood ID facebook group, and Mark Peet and Steve Earis both questioned the Quebracho ID and I believe both agreed that it was likely Goncalo Alves (dont quote me on that). Several others also were on board with Goncalo Alves as the proper ID, so I had concluded that it was most likely Goncalo Alves and not Quebracho. The density being so much higher than is typical of Goncalo Alves is certainly a curious anomoly, but the working characteristics of GVWP were essentially the polar opposite of what I've always heard about quebracho. It was so easy to work, even with hand tools. I think this is one of the biggest factors in support of it not being Schinopsis genus.

As for Sturdy Woods Quebracho being Schinopsis lorentzii, I really cannot say for sure since I do not have a reference piece to compare against. Hopefully once I get some good clean photos, someone with a confirmed sample can confirm the ID or it can be confirmed based on details available online.

 

[SA-Motors]

Hi @Big Ry Hope your young one feels better soon! Sick kids is no fun, but at least they recover quicker than us adults.

Thank you for that update above. I'm really interested in what your tests yield. I'm considering ordering a piece from Sturdy Woods, but will wait to see what your tests tell you. Thanks again.

 

[Big Ry]

Hi @Big Ry Hope your young one feels better soon! Sick kids is no fun, but at least they recover quicker than us adults.

Thank you for that update above. I'm really interested in what your tests yield. I'm considering ordering a piece from Sturdy Woods, but will wait to see what your tests tell you. Thanks again.

Thanks! No throw up today, just a mild fever.

I should be able to get to the quebracho some time this week. Definitely not tonight... Way too tired! I was given assurances that it is the real deal quebracho. Michele at sturdy woods was familiar with the GVWP quebracho and insisted it isn't the same as theirs. Based on appearance alone, it certainly looks like the quebracho Colorado shown on wood database, so that's a good sign.

 

[daveflutes]

Do you know whether all of the GVWP quebracho is sourced from the same place? The wood in their listings does vary in appearance. Could get confusing if some of it is and some isn't quebracho! Ryan, I'll send you a thin piece of mine from GVWP that I have spare, from the same block as the photos above.

 

[Big Ry]

Do you know whether all of the GVWP quebracho is sourced from the same place? The wood in their listings does vary in appearance. Could get confusing if some of it is and some isn't quebracho! Ryan, I'll send you a thin piece of mine from GVWP that I have spare, from the same block as the photos above.

I don't know if he has used different sources, but Dave of GVWP is a member of the forum. You could shoot him a PM to ask. I will say that the photos in the OP of Dave's quebracho don't seem to line up with the quebracho I got from him. If you look at the thread i linked to in my first reply, you can see just how heavily striped my blocks are compared to yours. Mine look like textbook goncalo alves, whereas yours looks much closer to the sturdy woods quebracho. So it's not outside of the realm of possibilities that Dave's used multiple sources and/or some of the supply got mislabeled.

For what it's worth, even if my blocks are goncalo alves, they are probably the finest looking goncalo alves I've ever seen. I was very pleased with the finished look of the book ends i made for my father. And considering the fact that my material selection for the project was purely based on density, these blocks fit the bill very well. I also thought it was pretty inexpensive for quebracho, which i suppose should be considered a red flag too. Certainly compared to the sturdy woods block, for which i ponied up €350, this stuff from GVWP was like an order of magnitude less. Perhaps it's expensive for goncalo alves (honestly not sure. I don't buy it often), but it's not expensive for quebracho from my understanding based on others' purchases as well as IWCS sample pricing.

 

[Big Ry]

Meant to post this several days ago but got side tracked.

I inspected the Quebracho from Sturdy Woods, and it is notably different from the quebracho from GVWP, as suspected. This stuff from Sturdy Woods is super hard, in keeping with S. Lorentzii. Its an exact match to Dave's piece of course. It's very hard, dense, and oily/resinous. The oils are sticky and bleed out with alcohol, very similar to guaiacum. The wood is reddish brown in color. No strong or unique odor. The raw wood exhibits moderate yellow fluorescence under UV. Alcohol extractive fluoresces a slight yellow under UV (vial with piece of tape on it). Water extractive doesn't fluoresce appears to be positive on froth test.

 

[Big Ry]

 

[daniscool]

View attachment 287754View attachment 287755View attachment 287756

Very cool. You are setting a new standard for wood ID posts. Someone should add this as an example thread for the Wood ID sub forum. It is really top tier.

 

[Nature Man]

View attachment 287754View attachment 287755View attachment 287756

What about moisture content? So what is your bottom line conclusion? Chuck