phinds

So, are we supposed to guess what they look like?

The ray flakes seem too numerous / strong / long for mahogany but believable for sapele. The wood in the full carcass does not appear to be the same wood as the drawer. Is it? Can you get a closeup of the carcass where it shows cathedral grain?

Yeah, ribbon stripe sapele is the most likely but it could be ribbon stripe African mahogany

Mark, the price wasn't really bad. Just $76 shipped. As for the lighting and color, it's generally OK since it's really only the anatomy that I care about. There have been a few pics where I wish the contrast was better. I just got the tool a couple of days ago and am still playing around w/ it.

No, those are rays. This is a tropical wood with very vague growth rings

No, it would not. The Wood Database is a terrific site and if you know what wood you have , it's good for getting more info on that wood. For identifying from scratch an unknown wood, it's pretty useless. That was not Eric's goal. My own anatomy site is WAY more useful for getting an ID starting from scratch. and my main site is considerably more useful for ID than Eric's is because he has a couple of pics per species and I have dozens to hundreds. For general info and good articles, mine is OK but his is better. My anatomy pages have what amounts to decision trees that allow you to hone in on a wood based on characteristics There is a brightness control but it's not much use.

To get started on wood ID via wood anatomy, go here: https://woodbarter.com/threads/wood-anatomy-an-introduction.18349/ The LEDs are very bright and sometimes make the image a bit washed out, as you see in image #2. There is a brightness control but it's not much use.

My new 200X microscope. In normal use it's configured exactly as you would expect with a microscope but because that doesn't suit wood samples, I built a little holder so that it can be easily used with wood samples. #1 is a section of my own highest-magnification pic (from my camera) of a piece of "Amazon rosewood" (species unknown). It is 1cm wide and shown full size, which is about 12X Note that you can just barely make out some rays and although you can clearly see the general shape of the pore areas and parenchyma, you can't see any detail really. #2 is a 1cm wide pic of the same piece through my new microscope, shown at 10% (full size is 40X) #3 is a .2cm wide pic of a section (as shown) of the same piece, also shown at 10% (full size is 200X) Now, clearly, the new microscope pics show more detail. BUT ... they are shown at 10% Take a look at them half size (which will lead to full size) At the full magnification of 200X, the resolution is not perfect but hey, neither am I.

and for that matter, mayhaw IS in there. Don't understand how you missed it.

Some of the name ordering is not the best

In the 18 months since my last update I've made a couple of hundred corrections / updates / additions www.hobbithouseinc.com/wood_name_database/

Not a bad table as far as it goes. Very simplistic and very limited but useful for the woods it discusses. For those interested in perusing this more, try https://woodbarter.com/threads/wood-anatomy-an-introduction.18349/

Well, it does have that.

My question is, with quartersawn wenge being pretty boring and flat cut being very attractive, why would you want to make this out of quartersawn? Also, note, wenge plywood is VERY fragile. Splits if you just look at it sideways.

I love it because it not only holds its beautiful color over time, the color (like America black cherry for example) actually enriches over time. Also, it's very easy to work with. Big drawback is that it's expensive.