Movement between Myrtle and English Ash.

Hi all.

I'm about to start a keepsake box made from Myrtle.

I'm wanting to add some height to the box using some English Ash (and to add a bit of contrast) in a similar fashion to the box shown in the pic below.

http://i1012.photobucket.com/albums/...pse19e7d24.jpg

My main concern is that the Myrtle is quite tight grained and the English Ash is very wide and opened grained (some growth rings are more than 1cm apart, see pics below) and i just wanted opinions that these differences would create with regard to movement further down the track. This box is not a keeper so I would not want to the two timbers coming apart any time in the future.

The Myrtle is currently 16mm thick and the Ash would be milled to about 16mm square and glued to the edge (top) of the Myrtle. I'm aware the sizes are pretty small but I am still concerned enough to ask the question.

http://i1012.photobucket.com/albums/...ps2a5abcfa.jpghttp://i1012.photobucket.com/albums/...ps36fe112c.jpg

I had a thought about using Houn Pine instead, but dont have any on hand so would have to purchase some.

Sorry if this is a topic that has been covered before (i'm sure it probably has) but hopefully not comparing these two particular timbers.

Thanks for any feed back

Steven.

Steven, I don't know anything about the stability or otherwise of Myrtle, having had very little experience with it, and I have only worked with Nth. American Ash. I believe most Ashes are pretty stable, but in any case, I don't think moisture-related wood movement is likely to bother you too much in this situation. This is how I'd look at it: Changes in response to moisture cycles along the grain are negligible in any wood, so you can ignore that. With regard to movement across the grain, it is any difference in movement of the two woods that you are concerned about, but given the box sides are quite narrow, the actual amounts each moves will be very small, even if the two woods have quite different coefficients, and this should be easily accommodated by the elasticity of the wood (& the glue, if you are using one of the various PVA brews).

Well, that's my theory, anyway, and it seems to have worked in the few instances I've glued up dissimilar woods, but it may have been just fools' luck..... :U

Cheers,

Thank you very much for your reply Ian. I was starting to wonder if anyone would offer advice.

You were correct, it was across the grain movement i was concerned about. Even with the narrow sizes, the differences in grain spacings were enough for me to question their compatibility.

I think i will give it a crack and see how it works out. I will be using Tite-Bond III (because it's all i have, not because i think it is any way suitable for the job).

We'll see how it goes.

Steven.

I woldnt be using ash in that situation. The problem is the porousness - as you will be sanding both ash and myrtle together then its very hard to stop the red sanding dust from the myrtle getting into the wide pores of the ash. Once its there, its very hard to get it out. Makes it look dirty when what you want is a clean crisp look.

Also the ash wlil need alot of grain filling - but you dont want to put grain filler on myrtle because it has almost zero grain as it is so you dont want to muddy it.

Rock maple would be a better choice - or maybe Nz silver myrtle.

Cheers
Arron

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arron

I woldnt be using ash in that situation. The problem is the porousness - as you will be sanding both ash and myrtle together then its very hard to stop the red sanding dust from the myrtle getting into the wide pores of the ash. Once its there, its very hard to get it out. Makes it look dirty when what you want is a clean crisp look.

Also the ash wlil need alot of grain filling - but you dont want to put grain filler on myrtle because it has almost zero grain as it is so you dont want to muddy it.

Rock maple would be a better choice - or maybe Nz silver myrtle.

Cheers
Arron

---

Missed it by that much..........I've already gone and glued the ash to the myrtle.

Going to have to come up with a way of filling the Ash without getting any on the myrtle. This may complicate things.

Thanks Arron for your reply, something i hadn't considered.

Steven.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arron

I woldnt be using ash in that situation. The problem is the porousness - as you will be sanding both ash and myrtle together then its very hard to stop the red sanding dust from the myrtle getting into the wide pores of the ash. Once its there, its very hard to get it out. Makes it look dirty when what you want is a clean crisp look.

Also the ash wlil need alot of grain filling - but you dont want to put grain filler on myrtle because it has almost zero grain as it is so you dont want to muddy it.

Rock maple would be a better choice - or maybe Nz silver myrtle.

Cheers
Arron

---

Good point, Arron, I confess I hadn't thought that far ahead myself. Maple, i.e., 'real' Maple (Acer spp) would certainly match the Myrtle better for texture, being a fine-grained wood, but it can still pick up fine sanding dust. Since you're committed, Steven, my suggestion would be to minimise sanding by planing to as good a finish as you are capable of. A very finely-tuned scraper might complete the job, so that you don't need to sand at all. If sanding is still necessary (& I almost always end up using some fine paper, myself), use a sanding sealer (our sponsor makes a perfectly good product!), which should prevent or greatly alleviate any carry-over.

The porosity difference between the woods may or may not be a problem, depending on your choice of finish. I would be French-polishing something like this, & I rarely use grain fillers nowadays because I don't like the way they can 'muddy' the finish. If French-polishing, you can fill virtually any wood with the shellac, eventually, if you work at them long enough. I imagine Ash would test me, but I can't see why it shouldn't fill. If not, a textural difference between the two woods might be an added bonus instead of a flaw.... :;

Cheers,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IanW

Good point, Arron, I confess I hadn't thought that far ahead myself. Maple, i.e., 'real' Maple (Acer spp) would certainly match the Myrtle better for texture, being a fine-grained wood, but it can still pick up fine sanding dust. Since you're committed, Steven, my suggestion would be to minimise sanding by planing to as good a finish as you are capable of. A very finely-tuned scraper might complete the job, so that you don't need to sand at all. If sanding is still necessary (& I almost always end up using some fine paper, myself), use a sanding sealer (our sponsor makes a perfectly good product!), which should prevent or greatly alleviate any carry-over.

The porosity difference between the woods may or may not be a problem, depending on your choice of finish. I would be French-polishing something like this, & I rarely use grain fillers nowadays because I don't like the way they can 'muddy' the finish. If French-polishing, you can fill virtually any wood with the shellac, eventually, if you work at them long enough. I imagine Ash would test me, but I can't see why it shouldn't fill. If not, a textural difference between the two woods might be an added bonus instead of a flaw.... :;

Cheers,

---

Thanks again Ian.

My choice of finish was going to be satin Minwax Wipe-on, i have used it alot and have fine tuned it to achieve results from satin to high gloss.

Having said that, after Arrons post, i did consider using Shellac as a grain filler then maybe decide on what other finishes might be suitable.

Would an oil finish be suitable here or would it turn the ash into a muddy mess. I am after a nice clean contrast between the two timbers.

Just to add a bit more info, i am planning to use some nice flame myrtle as a lid insert and maybe some thin blackwood as an inlay between the ash and flame myrtle top.

Steven.