I have a whistle that has been sent to me for evaluation. The maker and myself have agreed that the initial identification of the wood is not as originally suspected. We would like to know if it can be narrowed down. Here is an excerpt from a discussion we have had about it:
The timber was a structural element in an old barn and it is red! I cannot believe that a tropical hardwood would have been used in this type of location in the 1750’s expecially in an agricultural building. However, there is a small possibility that it could be rosewood (mahogany to you and me) but from my limited knowlege of mahogany, it is actually much browner than this. It certainly isn’t oak, oak is much paler with a very acidic quality to it that can make the cut wood go black. Whilst this is not an occurance in old wood that has been seasoned well, green oak will blacken quite quickly. In structural locations a quater of a century ago, seasoned wood would not have been used. In any event the colour is nothing like oak. The wood has no discernable smell, I suppose 'coz it is so old
Does anyone know what sort of hardwood was being used in 18th century UK for construction?
AFAIK, anything would go, depending on the part of the structure.
The reddest common timber in Europe I know is cherrywood, which may be confused with some mahogannies. But it could be dogwood all the same.
Scaled picture (next to a match) to see the grain, size and shape of the original reclaimed lumber might help…
Also, what was the location (landscape, county) of the barn? Proximity of sea, type of agriculture, anything is a clue.
The raw wood does not have any real discernable light/dark grain pattern and in that it is similar to teak but otherwis it bears little resemblance to teak in either colour or smell. I am leaning towards mahogany or rosewood but I do not know enough about tropical hardwoods. Looking closer at the beam that this came from, whilst it was used as a structural element in the building, there is evidence that it may have been originally a door frame. If this was the case, then there is a strong possibility that it is mahogany.
I will know for definite next week, I am taking a piece to a tropical timber merchant fo a positive ID
Damn, Loren, you beat me to the punch. I’ve seen exactly that wood, dark bands and everything, but I can’t call up the wood.
Mahogany, cherry, teak, padouk, none of them seem quite right. The dark stripes may be a weathering pattern, but I KNOW I’ve seen that in a wood with the same grain and color.
So was teak, particularly for shipbuilding. We still haven’t been told where the original barn was built, which would help a bit, particularly if it was in a maritime region of the country. Here’s a bit of (polished) teak, right sort of colour maybe?
Ah, Humberside. Loads of shipbuilding, not to mention the ports (Hull, Grimsby, etc). Which does give rise to the possibility that Teak and Oak aren’t the only contenders, since there’d be all sorts of stuff floating into the ports back then. Time to stop speculating I reckon and let the experts ID the stuff… (a measure of its relative density would go a long way to helping too!).
The following chart represents relative density of a variety of woods. Cocobolo is the second most dense wood in the world, Ironwood being the most dense of all.
Balsa .11
Pine .36
Alder .38
Redwood .40
Cedar .42
Mahogany .45
Laurel .47
Cherry .50
Elm .50
Fir, Douglas .50
Magnolia .50
Walnut .53
Teak .56
Goncalco Alves .56
Birch .60
Maple .63
Beech .64
Oak .65
Rosewood, Bolivian .71
Rosewood, E. Indian .78
Water 1.00
Cocobolo 1.10
Ironwood 1.30
It looks like Oak is, on average, more dense than Teak.
I am also going to put myself out there and guess that this is some sort of Oak. It just has the visual feel to it. I like Oak a lot (live and in products). I was immediately drawn to this piece.
As one side note: This whistle plays VERY nice. In my wifes words it has “A sweet sounding timbre that eases into the notes. It is very mellow sounding.” I think what she means is that it takes just a tad to lock onto the note. I do not know if this is because of the medium airyness of the whistle or what, but the effect is very nice to us. Perfect “chiff” maybe? This whisle has more of a “traditional” or working mans sound to it versus a classical concert type sound.
The only things that I find about the whistle that I do not like are the shape of the mouthpiece ( a bit boxy or dodgy in the mouth) and it takes 0XXXX0 to get a C nat. Everything else about the physical properties has to do with the quality of the particular piece he picked to do this prototype on. I think he has a real winner in the works here.
