Thread: Identifying timber in an old table

Just give Burgess a ring. They appear to still be in business at the same address.

Originally Posted by NCArcher

Just give Burgess a ring. They appear to still be in business at the same address.

The information I have is that Burgess closed down in 2005: (Complete Food Services now occupy that address)

https://www.woodworkforums.com/f11/ex...ck-sale-29064/

Although perhaps the wood stock being disposed of answers my question.

B# - first off, looks like you've done a pretty good re-finishing job for your first go at French polishing. Identifying wood from a picture is an extremely hazardous business - one is likely to make a complete idiot of oneself in a single word, and I'm afraid the quality of your pics raises the stakes. The pic of the underside doesn't look quite right for Tas. Oak (aka Vic. Ash) to me, but it may be the picture quality. The grain is distinctly 'rowed', & it could be Qld Maple, a highly desirable wood in its own right, which was often stained a dark colour to suit the tastes of former periods. It was still plentiful enough to be used in the solid, well into the late 50s (well, up here, anyway). However, that's just a tentative suggestion, & there are many woods, local or imported, that it could be. Someone who knows their woods could probably give you a reliable id if they could scratch 'n' sniff it, & you can pay to have wood id'd, but you need a sample, which I think your table would be reluctant to give up......

Cheers,

Yes I think I too would agree with Ian, that the grain appears incorrect for Rosewood. Google an image for antique rosewood furniture and you will see what I mean. It really has a distinctive grain appearance, complete with swirls, close aligned narrow grain and as well even knotting. The colour is also not correct for Rosewood. See picture I found on the net below.

So then also yes, again I think it is unlikely for Tas Oak, as I have worked with plenty of this over the years and somehow based on your pics I don't think it would be that. So what timber could it be. I am afraid I really can't say or tell from your pics. Perhaps someone else might like to suggest something.

Still nicely done polishing job and especially for your first attempt. It can become very addictive !!

Thank you IanW and Horsecroft88 for your kind comments . I certainly learned a lot in a short amount of time about french polish... Of course I am still not happy (there's that addictive part...), with a bit more practise perhaps I can get rid of some of the swirl marks from my first try .

The idea that it might be Qld Maple is interesting - I certainly can see more similarities in the grain pattern between my table and Qld Maple than I can with Tas Oak (and absolutely not Rosewood - but I'd already suspected that...). If it is Qld Maple, then IanW's comment also suggest the table might be built in the 50's - 60's, which I would guess is the age of the original maker's stamp (my guess is the sticker came later, perhaps it was refurbished by Burgess at some date - replacing what I suspect was an originally hardwood routed skirt with MDF - the leaf still has a hardwood skirt).

I agree they aren't the best photos and the resizing done by the forum software didn't improve them . If anyone is interested I have posted a couple of better ones to an external site: table underside (a bit darker than true), table closeup topside.

I guess ultimately I am curious as to the wood type so I can get an idea of what it may look like IF I stripped it and repolished it with fresh shellac (the alternative - patching over the dings in the finish with uncoloured shellac or trying to match the stain is less attractive). Perhaps the best way to find out is to take the leaf out and try it on the reverse side... The table cost me peanuts ($10, I think it would have been scrapped if I hadn't bought it), so I am not interested in preserving its value, but more interested in preserving (what I think is) a quite nice piece of furniture.