Thanks: 0
Likes: 0
Needs Pictures: 0
Picture(s) thanks: 0
Results 1 to 15 of 15
-
22nd December 2009, 11:05 AM #1
Another timber identification problem
Hi all,
The photos show some unknown 6x1 boards that were the ceiling lining of a 1920s domestic garage in Melbourne. There is no apparent smell, even after a couple of passes through the thicknesser and the board in question has a dry density of about 623 kg/m3.
The wife has the SLR today, so I had to persevere with the the appalling colour rendition of the phone camera. I've tweaked the photos to be much closer to reality than they were, though. I dressed both sides of a board and have included photos of either side to demonstrate how one is darker and redder than the other across just 22mm.
There appears to be a bit of feature such as birds-eye in the rest (half a cube or so) and it would be nice to make some furniture from it. Even the boring old back-sawn bit here has some nice colours in the flesh.
Do we have any better suggestions than my wild guess of Kauri?
Cheers,
Mick
-
22nd December 2009, 11:20 AM #2
Kauri ??.
Hi mikm,
You could be right, but there appears to be to much pink colour in it.
Maybe it could be Myrtle. Is it heavy or just run of the mill weight.
Well that is my Guess. Be nice to see it really.
issatree.
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
-
22nd December 2009, 11:44 AM #3
Thanks issatree. If I was to (attempt to) describe the colour, I would suggest straw on one side and straw/pink on the other. As mentioned, the phone camera is that bad, it may as well be monochrome and my colour matching skills are probably not the best.
I'm hoping the original application (rough sawn lining boards for a garage/workshop probably means readily available = cheap 85 years ago) and density might also give some clues. What's "run of the mill weight", by the way?
-
22nd December 2009, 09:54 PM #4SENIOR MEMBER
- Join Date
- Sep 2008
- Location
- Coffs Harbour
- Posts
- 574
could be hoop pine, the blue stain is a clue also.
regards inter
-
22nd December 2009, 10:37 PM #5
Well spotted, Inter. That stain does have a blue tinge to it on the board and is a bit more prevalent than in the photos. I haven't come across hoop except as ply. Would you expect it was used a bit back then as boards?
-
22nd December 2009, 11:28 PM #6SENIOR MEMBER
- Join Date
- Sep 2008
- Location
- Coffs Harbour
- Posts
- 574
It was common up this way for lots of uses, but mainly butter boxes, kitchen framing & drawers. The logs back then would have been clear & of good size so it may have found its way into some vj boards or similar. Even though its suppose to be lyctid resistant I have come across a lot of hoop that has been destroyed by borers of some sort.
regards inter
-
23rd December 2009, 06:45 AM #7Skwair2rownd
- Join Date
- Nov 2007
- Location
- Dundowran Beach
- Age
- 76
- Posts
- 694
My first thought was Kauri or Hoop. More inclined to Hoop after the blue staining became apparent.
I have noticed in both species that the Protected side of a board will often have a pinkish tone but in Kauri it can even show red.
Interesting to see it used so far south.
-
23rd December 2009, 08:29 AM #8
Given that Kauri and Hoop appear to be visually similar with identical density (560 kg/m3, although my sample weighed in at 623 kg/m3), is there any other distinguishing feature besides blue stain? I found a Hoop reference suggesting it has no smell which is true for this sample, but I don't know about Kauri.
Don't suppose anybody would like to speculate as to what well seasoned 85+ year old 150 x 25 x 3000+ boards of Hoop(/Kauri) would be worth to the cube?
-
26th December 2009, 09:21 PM #9Member
- Join Date
- Oct 2008
- Location
- Birchgrove NSW
- Posts
- 54
My money is on Myrtle Beech. Have never seen Hoop or Kauri with that much pink (or any pink, for that matter).
MB runs at 700 kg/cu.m. Hoop = 530; don't know Kauri, but the Qld Kauri I have used is light, I imagine around 500.
Can't explain the blue hue but photo 1 is a dead ringer for MB. Maybe the blue is from an external source?
-
26th December 2009, 09:27 PM #10
id call it hoop.
brisbane was pretty mutch built on hoop pine.
pull apart any old house and any softwood inside will be hoop. from framing to wheatherboards, to the floors and walls.
www.carlweiss.com.au
Mobile Sawmilling & Logging Service
8" & 10" Lucas Mills, bobcat, 4wd tractor, 12 ton dozer, stihl saws.
-
27th December 2009, 05:31 PM #11
Thanks for the replies, lads. Here are some full frontals taken with the SLR in natural lighting (instead of the phone camera indoors) so they now look correct.
Is everybody still happy with their guesses, or this help refine things a bit?
Any suggestions of value?
-
27th December 2009, 09:41 PM #12SENIOR MEMBER
- Join Date
- Oct 2003
- Location
- melbourne
- Age
- 68
- Posts
- 693
Kauri and Hoop pine are closely related but I'm thinking Kauri.
-
28th December 2009, 05:21 AM #13Skwair2rownd
- Join Date
- Nov 2007
- Location
- Dundowran Beach
- Age
- 76
- Posts
- 694
Hoop is an Aruacaria. Kauri isn't, to my my knowledge.
MarkIn Boatshed may well be on the money when dry weight densities are taken int account. If this ia a Vic. species it is more likely. As I said before I am surprised that either Kauri or Hoop would be used so far south in those days.
-
28th December 2009, 09:16 AM #14SENIOR MEMBER
- Join Date
- Oct 2003
- Location
- melbourne
- Age
- 68
- Posts
- 693
That's true artme they aren't brothers just first or second cousins.
Kauri is Agathis robusta there are 21 species in this genus.
Hoop Pine is Araucaria cunninghamii there are 19 species in the genus, with most being in New Caledonia. (both of these numbers are argued)
Both genuses are part of the family Araucariaceae which are distant relatives to Pines ie same Order Pinales.
I believe a lot of Hoop Pine was carted to Victoria in the old days as softwoods were hard to come across. We only had a few Callitrus.
-
28th December 2009, 08:07 PM #15Member
- Join Date
- Oct 2008
- Location
- Birchgrove NSW
- Posts
- 54
The new photos 1 & 3 still look like Myrtle Beech to me, but photo 2 does not.
Confused, and very happy to defer to more informed opinions.
Cheers
Mark