Thread: Drying timber from fruit trees

thanks FE

I have waxed the ends of my plum and any areas exposed stacked and stored in a crate
I had half debarked one piece which for some reason I didn't finish off in one go B%$#F^%$
split didn't it torsional splits.
The branch must have been twisted badly I am going to leave it and check on it from time to time.

I'll post a pic when this rain stops and I can get out in the shed.

Pic 1 is the blank shown before in cross section. It is the crotch of an apricot tree felled about 7 years ago. It has the typical central split in the smallest branch but it is otherwise sound. I have traced two circles on it to show that a bowl blank (or maybe two smaller ones) could be cut to remove all cracking (the end grain cracks are shallow and virtually disappear when rounding the outside). In the case of the hollow form shown in pic 2,3 and 4, which was made from the other half of this log, I chose instead to maximise the crotch features and fill the crack with epoxy. That side had a larger section of the cracked branch.


In your opinion, was this a good choice or would it have been better to cut out the cracks and have a flawless grain?

Hi FE

I saw a sign on a woodworkers turnings and boxes at a show it went something like this.

"Wood is a natural product it therefore has cracks, splits & grain, colourisation changes throughout its life. During the course of my working on it I have to use tools these occassionaly leave marks difficult to remove. " It did go on, but you get the drift.

If you had chosen to skirt the main crack completley you may have changed the look totally so there would be no comparison.

I am only new to using epoxy & resin to fill with but it can add eye appealing sale $$$$ to a finished product which many may have used in the fire.

Ray

Hmmm Ray, I would have read that sign as "I am a bad turner, please tolerate my mistakes"... and I am reading your comment as "a patch is a patch, but it could be OK". Thanks, you have been helpful.

Originally Posted by Frank&Earnest

Hmmm Ray, I would have read that sign as "I am a bad turner, please tolerate my mistakes"... and I am reading your comment as "a patch is a patch, but it could be OK". Thanks, you have been helpful.

Thats what I did when I read the sign I checked out his work well some of it much being made from Australian hardwoods like your sample photos they had cracks etc some filled with either resin or Epoxy didn't ask wasn't interested enough to know.
The sign was in elation to tool marks where gouges had gone over these cracks etc and slight and I do mean ever so slight nicks were visible.
Only one had chuck marks on the bottom tenon you know where the edges dig in.

I have seen rough edged bowls in arty type stores from QLD to Strahun/Tassie going prices $$$$$ they had no more no less than your bowl.

I don't think all patch's are equal how much antique furniture is out there with carvings on it that shouldn't have been there but were place to hide some imperfection.

Compared to my Pine bowl its FE

Rather than start a new post

Check this guys stuff out FE click on the little info tab for prices http://www.beautifulwoodenart.com/

Originally Posted by Frank&Earnest

. . . I chose instead to maximise the crotch features and fill the crack with epoxy. That side had a larger section of the cracked branch.
In your opinion, was this a good choice or would it have been better to cut out the cracks and have a flawless grain?

I think you did the right thing. I don't worry about cracks unless there is a functional or structural reason to leave them out, and then I will try to epoxy fill if on balance the other woods features are worth having.

FWIW, just about everything I made in this picture (except for the chisel handles) has been left either with cracks or natural holes, or they have been epoxy filled - even the mallets.



Cheers

Thanks Bob, I see your point. You make beautiful functional objects using the "old world charm" of wood to the best advantage, the natural flaws of wood being part of that charm.

My quandary was more specific, though, and boils down to this: when I am making a decorative object and I have the choice between a flawless but less striking grain and a repaired more striking one, does the artificiality of the repair detracts more from the aesthetics of the piece than is added by the beauty of grain?

I realise that each piece really needs to be assessed individually to make that call, I was just wondering whether there were some general rules of thumb (or personal gut feelings!) people follow to make this choice.

Originally Posted by Frank&Earnest

My quandary was more specific, though, and boils down to this: when I am making a decorative object and I have the choice between a flawless but less striking grain and a repaired more striking one, does the artificiality of the repair detracts more from the aesthetics of the piece than is added by the beauty of grain?

Thanks Frank&Earnest. I have made some decorative items. The two slabs of wood in the RHC of the picture started out as cheese board/platters but I though they were so striking I'm using them as wall hangings. I call one "comet" and the other "galaxy" (with black or worm hole!), galaxy is about 900 mm across. I left a natural edge and all cracks as is.

I guess it depends if you're making to sell or for your own satisfaction and how decorative the piece is and the size of the fill. For selling, unless the item is really striking and the cracks etc can form part of the character of the piece and the cracks are small I would probably fill (if the cracks are pointless and too big I would simply not offer it for sale). It is unfortunate that we do have a bit of a flawless fruit mentality about natural objects.

OK, I got it. Two nil for flawless (after all, it was my gut feeling also). Thanks to both, guys. I'll cut that blank accordingly and wen I get around to it post the result.