# Can anyone help ID these two pieces?



## tim canton (Feb 21, 2011)

I just inherited these and would like to know what they are.

2 pics of each. Thanks y'all


----------



## ryan50hrl (Jun 30, 2012)

Looks like oak to me. First pictures plain sawn oak, the one is quartersawn.


----------



## Nate Bos (Jan 11, 2012)

Is this all from the same piece of furniture? The first pic looks much like ash, the rest oak


----------



## tim canton (Feb 21, 2011)

It's two pieces. The top two and bottom two are separate . Thanks


----------



## phinds (Mar 25, 2009)

lower left pic is definitely of oak, almost certainly some form of white oak. I agree w/ Nate that the first pic could be of ash, but looking at the upper right, I'm more inclined to say it's oak.


----------



## Manuka Jock (Jun 27, 2011)

To me , the pictures and the text don't appear to tally up .
I see four different shades of timber , and two different figured grains . 
One pic of one , and three pics of the other .
I see the three as oak , and the one other , could even be stained pine

If there are two objects , how about some photos of both , photos of the complete object , as opposed to random pics of some part or other .


----------



## phinds (Mar 25, 2009)

Manuka Jock said:


> To me , the pictures and the text don't appear to tally up .
> I see four different shades of timber , and two different figured grains .
> One pic of one , and three pics of the other .
> I see the three as oak , and the one other , could even be stained pine
> ...


Which one looks like stained pine? I don't see that at all.


----------



## Manuka Jock (Jun 27, 2011)

phinds said:


> Which one looks like stained pine? I don't see that at all.


" ...could even be stained pine ..." . not "looks like" , 
and that would be the first photo , top left . I see no resemblance with wood in the other photo , the one on the top right .

Four photos , two objects , four different shades /colours , makes I.D. interesting .


----------



## phinds (Mar 25, 2009)

Manuka Jock said:


> " ...could even be stained pine ..." . not "looks like" ,
> and that would be the first photo , top left . I see no resemblance with wood in the other photo , the one on the top right .
> 
> Four photos , two objects , four different shades /colours , makes I.D. interesting .


I stand corrected.

Yeah I agree the top two don't look the same but that's entirely because of color and orientation of the cut and I'm assuming poor photography for the color difference. Both pieces clearly look ring porous which is I why I don't think they look like pine, stained or otherwise.


----------



## Manuka Jock (Jun 27, 2011)

I don't see Hardwood in that spindle in the top left photo .


----------



## cabinetman (Jul 5, 2007)

phinds said:


> I stand corrected.
> 
> Yeah I agree the top two don't look the same but that's entirely because of color and orientation of the cut and I'm assuming poor photography for the color difference. Both pieces clearly look ring porous which is I why I don't think they look like pine, stained or otherwise.


The top left doesn't appear to be similar to any of the other three. It has a 'Pine" or Ash type grain, and it may be in the same item as the top right, but looks entirely different. Could be that it was a purchased product used in the making of a product using an Oak of some sort.

Hard to imagine that either the top two, or the bottom two are on the same product. But, it's like you said, the lighting, and color resolution in the photographs might make them all look that different. The bottom two do look like quarter sawn Oak. 








 







.


----------



## tim canton (Feb 21, 2011)

Manuka Jock said:


> To me , the pictures and the text don't appear to tally up .
> I see four different shades of timber , and two different figured grains .
> One pic of one , and three pics of the other .
> I see the three as oak , and the one other , could even be stained pine
> ...



The pics are correct the top 2 go together and the bottom 2 from 2 pieces. I attached some more including pics that have those points all together. the 2 table pics are just the top and front. The 2 original bedframe pics are a spindle and cross piece. Thanks for the help guys.


----------



## phinds (Mar 25, 2009)

cabinetman said:


> The top left doesn't appear to be similar to any of the other three. It has a 'Pine" or Ash type grain, and it may be in the same item as the top right, but looks entirely different. Could be that it was a purchased product used in the making of a product using an Oak of some sort.
> 
> Hard to imagine that either the top two, or the bottom two are on the same product. But, it's like you said, the lighting, and color resolution in the photographs might make them all look that different. The bottom two do look like quarter sawn Oak.


"pine or ash" ??? I don't follow that at all. Pine is a softwood with no pores and ash is a ring porous hardwood and show feathering at cathedral grain lines (or turned ones like that spindle).

It's possible that my old eyes are deceiving me and that pic IS a bit small, but I think I see feathering in the grain lines, which would imply pores. I definitely see it in the upper right pic and I WAS sure I was seeing it in the upper left pic as well, but the closer I look the more I see how you guys may be right and maybe there isn't any in which case the upper left pic could easily look like pine.

On the other hand, it DOES seem that the OP would know if the two pics are of the same wood even if they don't look that way and the wood in the upper right pic shows feathering and is clearly ring porous. Looks like either oak or ash or possibly a similar hardwood.


----------



## phinds (Mar 25, 2009)

tim canton said:


> The pics are correct the top 2 go together and the bottom 2 from 2 pieces. I attached some more including pics that have those points all together. the 2 table pics are just the top and front. The 2 original bedframe pics are a spindle and cross piece. Thanks for the help guys.


Your pics are still too far away to be helpful. The one in the upper left is oak, agan, probably white oak of some kind.


----------



## phinds (Mar 25, 2009)

Cman, that term "feathering" that I use isn't standard, far as I know, so just to be sure I'm clear about what I mean, here's a piece of ash that shows it really well.


----------



## tim canton (Feb 21, 2011)

what would be more helpful? I supplied those because manuka said the close up of a piece didnt help. I can take whatever you want.


----------



## tim canton (Feb 21, 2011)

more of the piece in question


----------



## tim canton (Feb 21, 2011)

1 more


----------



## Manuka Jock (Jun 27, 2011)

Yep , thats' hardwood , looking more like Oak too .
And the full piece photos look Oak to me too .
The Ash that I see around here is more of a blonde


----------



## phinds (Mar 25, 2009)

Yep, it's oak. I think even considering the stain, this doesn't quite look like ash. Also, up close, the feathering I thought I was seeing on the spindle is now very obvious.


----------



## tim canton (Feb 21, 2011)

Thanks y'all . Any idea what pieces like that are worth? 
I'm not gonna sell them I'm just curious about them. Thanks again


----------



## qbilder (Dec 19, 2010)

I have no guess on value, but the woods are easy enough to identify. The bed is common red oak. The table is quarter sawn white oak. Due to the bold & tight ray patterning, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if it's chestnut oak. I don't see it often as commercial lumber, but it used to be a staple furniture wood and is/was a very common tree in the Appalachians. You see it in much of the antique furniture. It's the only white oak I will cut for furniture grade lumber because I can get the figure & color seen in old world furniture but in modern/contemporary designs. 

Here's some examples of what I cut:

qs lumber figure


chestnut oak logs - notice the almost walnut brown heart color


----------



## Longleaf Lumber Inc. (Jan 14, 2014)

tim canton said:


> more of the piece in question


Ray flecking in some of the pics is shouting white oak - turned piece best guess is some kind of ash.


----------



## Bob Vaughan (Oct 29, 2008)

Longleaf Lumber Inc. said:


> Ray flecking in some of the pics is shouting white oak - turned piece best guess is some kind of ash.


I have to agree, the table is white oak from the early 1900s and the bed is a furniture factory production, very likely ash posts because of the lack of medullary rays.


----------



## 4reel (Mar 3, 2013)

It is Oak.


----------



## Woodendoug (Jan 29, 2014)

That's oak. Most of the time, you will only hear a piece called "red oak" or "white oak". There are 30 or 40 species of oak, and those species will hybridize. The terms red and white will be applied according to their appearance (color) and is a commercial term only.


----------



## phinds (Mar 25, 2009)

Woodendoug said:


> That's oak. Most of the time, you will only hear a piece called "red oak" or "white oak". There are 30 or 40 species of oak, and those species will hybridize. The terms red and white will be applied according to their appearance (color) and is a commercial term only.


You are off by more than a factor of 10 in your estimate of the number of oak species. My database has 300+ and various references say there are from 600 to 900, although many of these are obscure.

Also, the categorizations often include a third ... "live" oak, which includes oaks from both the red and white categories but which can be distinguished from other oaks in a couple of ways. It's true that you don't often see "live oak" as a category at lumber yards.


----------



## newb (Jan 29, 2014)

Its all oak, that one picture is quarter sawn.


----------



## phinds (Mar 25, 2009)

Woodendoug said:


> The terms red and white will be applied according to their appearance (color) and is a commercial term only.


Absolutely incorrect. (1) red oak is sometimes whitish and white oak is sometimes reddish. You cannot reliably tell them apart by color (2) The tylosis in the white oaks gives them significantly different characteristics for cooperage than the red red oaks.

Here's a pic of red oak (on the left) and white oak (on the right)


----------



## Woodendoug (Jan 29, 2014)

Yeah - you're right on the quantity of species. I was going off the top of my head and was referencing the "common" 30 or 40 species native to North America!


----------



## phinds (Mar 25, 2009)

Woodendoug said:


> Yeah - you're right on the quantity of species. I was going off the top of my head and was referencing the "common" 30 or 40 species native to North America!


Yeah, I agree that the lumber yards probably don't see more than that.

Do I take it that you still think I am wrong about the color?


----------



## cabinetman (Jul 5, 2007)

phinds said:


> Yeah, I agree that the lumber yards probably don't see more than that.
> 
> Do I take it that you still think I am wrong about the color?


If you think it's easy, go to a real hardwood lumber distributor, and look into the bins marked...Red Oak, White Oak, Ash. When it's all in the rough, don't plan on being in a rush.


















.


----------



## phinds (Mar 25, 2009)

cabinetman said:


> If you think it's easy, go to a real hardwood lumber distributor, and look into the bins marked...Red Oak, White Oak, Ash. When it's all in the rough, don't plan on being in a rush.


cMan, I'm the one making exactly that point, so why are you pointing this out to me?


----------



## cabinetman (Jul 5, 2007)

phinds said:


> cMan, I'm the one making exactly that point, so why are you pointing this out to me?


Well Paul, I wanted to point it out to somebody, and if it was that new member, he might feel like we ganged up on him. Hope you didn't take this personally. I should have worded it differently, like...
"I couldn't agree more. At a real hardwood lumber distributor, I look into the bins marked...Red Oak, White Oak, Ash. When it's all in the rough, I don't plan on being in a rush." How's that...better?


















.


----------



## phinds (Mar 25, 2009)

cabinetman said:


> Well Paul, I wanted to point it out to somebody, and if it was that new member, he might feel like we ganged up on him. Hope you didn't take this personally. I should have worded it differently, like...
> "I couldn't agree more. At a real hardwood lumber distributor, I look into the bins marked...Red Oak, White Oak, Ash. When it's all in the rough, I don't plan on being in a rush." How's that...better?


Yeah, I wasn't paying attention to the fact that he's a newbie ... guess I could have been a little more politic in my post. On the other hand, as we all know, that's not really my style :laughing:


----------



## tim canton (Feb 21, 2011)

Thanks everyone. Just to throw my newbie two cents in isn't red and white ok really a botanical distinction In tree species and based on wood color in reality? Sort of like black locust grown in a field will be a much different color than black locust from a forest ? Maybe that's not an exact comparison but I'm just saying it's not about wood color it's about a botanical species. Thanks again all


----------



## phinds (Mar 25, 2009)

tim canton said:


> Thanks everyone. Just to throw my newbie two cents in isn't red and white ok really a botanical distinction In tree species


yes



> and based on wood color in reality?


BASED on, yes, but color is not a reliable guide, so the terms "red" and "white" are meaningless in that sense and are merely colloquial groupings of each of hundreds of species that fall into two groups; one has tylosis and one does not.


----------



## Woodendoug (Jan 29, 2014)

Yeah - I'm a "newbie" to your forum. All I was saying is a lumber yard is going to peddle the red colored stuff as red oak and the lighter colored stuff as "white" oak USUALLY. 
Im a fifth generation sawyer and I've only been in the sawmill and woodwork business for 47 years so I've got a lot to learn. LOL?


----------



## cabinetman (Jul 5, 2007)

Woodendoug said:


> Yeah - I'm a "newbie" to your forum. All I was saying is a lumber yard is going to peddle the red colored stuff as red oak and the lighter colored stuff as "white" oak USUALLY.


That's true...to those that don't know any better. :yes:



Woodendoug said:


> Im a fifth generation sawyer and I've only been in the sawmill and woodwork business for 47 years so I've got a lot to learn. LOL?


Life is an ongoing learning process. It may take the rest of mine to fully understand my wife, (if I live long enough).:laughing:


















.


----------



## Woodendoug (Jan 29, 2014)

Saw pieces off and mail em to me. I can tell by the smell and feel. I'm just kidding - about sawing pieces off.


----------



## Woodendoug (Jan 29, 2014)

And no, I didn't take it personally. The hardwood lumber I have is stuff I sawed after I cut the tree down, etc. I had the advantage through the years of seeing the complete tree to help identify the species. I saw (no pun intended) the bark, leaves, location, soil (which effects color), etc. 
When I refuse to listen, I quit learning.


----------



## Plankman (Apr 24, 2012)

tim canton said:


> I just inherited these and would like to know what they are.
> 
> 2 pics of each. Thanks y'all


I work in a timber yard in New Zealand, 1 looks like what we would call American White oak, The othe i think is American white Ash


----------

