• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


phinds last won the day on February 23

phinds had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

235 Excellent

About phinds

  • Rank
    Journeyman Poster

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    central New York state (Cortland)
  • Woodworking Interests
    turning (bowls), identification of different woods

Recent Profile Visitors

3025 profile views
  1. On my wood ID resources page, here: Wood ID Resources I have totally upgraded the section on books. In addition to adding clickable links for all the books to the Amazon page where you can buy the book, I've also expanded the descriptions of most of them. I have also finally added Eric Meier's Wood! with both the Amazon link and a link to my full review of it. I've done a few other cleanups here and there including dropping a couple of dead links.
  2. Well, that's what my web site is all about
  3. Not when you look at them up close. They are VERY easy to distinguish. Even if you don't clean up the ends well enough to see the banded parenchyma (which CLEARLY distinguishes them), hickory has pores that change somewhat gradually from large to small all the way through the growth ring whereas ash makes that change quickly and then has very small pores through the rest of the ring. hickory and white ash:
  4. Plum is often gorgeous when first cut but it won't last and there's nothing you can do about it. Here's a piece with a pic by the owner (this one is relatively unseasoned) before he had it for a while and then sent it to me and then one after I'd had it for a short time (my pic is of dry wood, very slightly aged).
  5. So, are we supposed to guess what they look like?
  6. 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?
  7. Yeah, ribbon stripe sapele is the most likely but it could be ribbon stripe African mahogany
  8. 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.
  9. No, those are rays. This is a tropical wood with very vague growth rings
  10. 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.
  11. To get started on wood ID via wood anatomy, go here: 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.
  12. 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.
  13. and for that matter, mayhaw IS in there. Don't understand how you missed it.
  14. Some of the name ordering is not the best
  15. In the 18 months since my last update I've made a couple of hundred corrections / updates / additions