I’ve got a client that wants some large custom bookcases made for her hallway and she wants them built in a Mission style design. I know it was made of Quarter sawn but was Mission / Stickly Style made out of Red or White quarter sawn Oak? There’s a price difference for each and I want to match some existing furniture she has and I couldn’t tell the difference if the existing was red or white.
BjR
Replies
Mission was typically white oak, amonia fumed.
Or cherry.
It was often, but not always, QS.
I have used red oak when white was not available. Hard to tell the difference if stained properly, as you have already discovered. The main tell-tale to the naked eye is that the rays are not quite so pronounced in red.
Mike Hennessy
Pittsburgh, PA
BJR ,
You can look at the end grain to ID Red or White Oak . The Red is ring pourous and has small holes or pores that are visable where the White Oak is more dense and not visably pourous .
In my experience it is very difficult to match color with Red to make it look like White Oak ,even with the same color stain they may not look the same .
Agreed typically the Mission and Stickley type of pieces were often made of White Oak . I think the region the piece was made in may also have influenced the species used .
dusty
I think you will find that RO is more porous and splinters like heck! I made a blanket chest and it was QS RO and it looked good with a good ray fleck pattern, but If I had by choice WOQS would be the choice. Either is fine, and yes I can get RO cheaper. I put dark garnet shellac on it, so other than the more pronounced open grain It's hard to tell the difference. BTW, I did not use any grain filler at the request of the project artistic controller (wife). TM2CW
If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it.
And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
Edited 1/15/2008 11:31 am by bones
Edited 1/15/2008 11:32 am by bones
Technically, the white oak fumed was the choice with Mission Style which has already been stated. But... why don't you stain a piece of both and show the client. That would go a long way toward determining which matches the existing currently there.
Sarge..
Edited 1/15/2008 12:31 pm ET by SARGEgrinder47
Old Dusty is right on. Look at the end grain. If it's tight, it's white oak. If it's porous, it's red.
Also, the grain itself has what I call dotted lines. They're short (about 1/8") in the reds and longer (maybe 1/2" to 3/4") in the whites.
Also, red oak grain may be easier to tear while surfacing (S2S)
Good info...thanks
BjR
White oak has visible end-grain pores, too. On average, they're a little smaller than those in red oak, but they're there. The real difference is that white oak pores are closed off with membranes (called tyloses), while red oak pores are open. This makes the white oak pores less obvious (but still easy to see with a hand lens), and is the reason that you can make a watertight barrel out of white oak but not red oak.
-Steve
Steve ,
While what you say is true , the best way without a hand lens to tell is by eye , don't you think ?
If you cut a thin strip of end grain of both types the Red clearly has see through holes making it easy to identify by eye .
dusty
I am right now holding a piece of white oak, and with my somewhat aged and bifocal-aided eyes, and holding the piece under a reasonably bright desk lamp, I can clearly see the pores, without using a hand lens.
I just want the OP to understand that the presence of pores does not rule out white oak.
-Steve
Here's an old sawyer's trick (albeit somewhat at odds with the postings here about red oak being more "porous"). Take a sample of the wood and place one end in a glass of water. Blow hard on the other end, as if it were a soda straw. If you get bubbles, you got white oak.
My sawyer claims he's done this with a whole log -- just need strong lungs! ;-)
IIRC, this tip was also in a recent FWW mag -- that section about "What's the difference."
Mike HennessyPittsburgh, PA
It's the other way around: If you get bubbles, it's red oak (FWW #194).
-Steve
That 's exactly what I thought but didn't want to be a trouble maker .
d
Well, the word "dislexic" comes to mind. ;-)
Mike HennessyPittsburgh, PA
saschafer,
You're right. I did not mean to suggest that there were no pores, just that the tyloses-filled pores of the white oak are not readily visible
to the naked eye. My bad.
You may carry on.
<"...is the reason that you can make a watertight barrel out of white oak but not red oak.">Also why frigates were made of white oak, not red.Glaucon
If you don't think too good, then don't think too much...
Yes is only part of the answer. The other part is that white oak is pretty rot resistant, while most of the reds are pretty low on the scale.
"The other part is that white oak is pretty rot resistant, while most of the reds are pretty low on the scale."
The fact that white oak absorbs less water is the reason that it's more rot-resistant.
-Steve
Exactly.Glaucon
If you don't think too good, then don't think too much...
I have been working white and red oak all my life. In fact, I am building white oak counter tops right now. Both are ring porous woods. Both have visible pores. Generally you can't see the tyloses in the wood. However, the blowing trick will work with a short sample (and you CAN blow through red and CAN"T blow through white). Alternatively, if you could get a good look at some unfinished wood in her stuff, you could use one of the guides that give you a number of criteria to narrow the field. I learned this 40 years ago in a 4-H forestry project -- unfortunately, I have lost my guide or I'd quote it to you.
Obviously, if you are trying to match her furniture, you can't cut a slice and blow on it. Nor can you tell for sure by the presence or absence of ray fleck. The bookcase next to me as I type this is red oak, and it has fleck. Besides, ammonia fuming actually deemphasized the fleck in q-sawn white.
Your best bet is to get a couple of sample pieces of each type of oak and do some test finishes to see if you can closely match the existing, regardless of species.
Edited 1/16/2008 9:25 am ET by Joe Sullivan
"Your best bet is to get a couple of sample pieces of each type of oak and do some test finishes to see if you can closely match the existing, regardless of species"... Joe S
********
I see you prescibe to "Life is Simple" magazine also. ha.. ha...
Sarge..
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled