Fallen Elm Crotch Bowl 1

[Chris Gunsolley]

I want to thank you all for the advice you gave me on how to take advantage of a crotch section, and your caution on the potential loss of figure when turning the bowls inside in. I want to thank Prashun personally for suggesting that I turn these inside out. I've learned a valuable lesson about exploiting figure, and because of you, I didn't have to learn that the hard way. I am having success in capturing the figure in this section, progressing from the smallest to the largest bowl. I only have pictures of the first one right now, but here's the first and smallest of the bowls:

339311339312339313339314339315339316339317

I don't know if the pictures express this sufficiently, but basically the figure spans the entire bowl, and you can see that as you tilt the bowl from side to side in the light, revealing gem-like ripples. I think that was achieved by sacrificing some depth in the interest of getting the walls of the bowl into the heart of the wood. This one will be my smallest out of the first half of the crotch, but still decent-sized at about 9 inches in diameter. I have a feeling the chatoyance will be even more pronounced in the larger pieces from here on out. It looks like I'll get 5 decent sized bowls from that one half of the crotch section--not a bad yield for a half a log! Then, I'll turn the big ~24" one. All of them will be turned inside out.

[David Delo]

Certainly is a beautiful piece of timber Chris. Maybe it's just because of the pictures but it appears that you have applied a sealant to the bowl. If your intention is to twice turn, looks like your wall thickness especially up around the rim might be a little to thin to get a perfect circle after drying. If you didn't seal it and are just going for a once turned warped bowl just disregard the comment.

[Brice Rogers]

It is hard to tell from a stationery photo, but the chatoyance looks terrific. I think that you have a winner there, Chris.

[mike ash]

I really like the character of that wood and the way you have turned to accentuate it! Nice job!!!

[Chris Gunsolley]

Certainly is a beautiful piece of timber Chris. Maybe it's just because of the pictures but it appears that you have applied a sealant to the bowl. If your intention is to twice turn, looks like your wall thickness especially up around the rim might be a little to thin to get a perfect circle after drying. If you didn't seal it and are just going for a once turned warped bowl just disregard the comment.

Thanks, David! Let me just express how I feel about warpage very quickly. My feelings on warpage are similar to Reed Gray's: The more it warps, the more I like it. I like that unpredictability-- that each and every bowl will be endowed by Mother Nature with some unique shape. In fact, I have yet to meet a person who's not a turner who doesn't love the warpage, it makes the bowl unique, says it's handcrafted, and people in general seem to attribute at least half of the character of a warped bowl to the warpage itself. My feelings on warpage therefore are that it is overall a very good thing. Thank you for bearing with me while I say that--I just needed to. That being said, I realize that there is a time and place for an unwarped bowl, so in the interest of those occasions, I'll turn about 1/3 of the bowls I turn to 10% of their diameter in thickness, let them dry, then finish turn them. All-in-all, this particular bowl is a once turned bowl, and it is finished other than the unique, natural evolution that its shape will undergo from here on out.

You're right that a sealer was applied to it. I sanded it from 60 grit to 220, applied raw linseed oil, wet sanded with that from 400 to 2000, applied pure carnauba wax, then lightly sanded/buffed it with 3000 grit, then 5000 grit. So, a sealer (carnauba wax) has been applied as you suspected. The bare wood actually would have shined more if I hadn't applied raw linseed oil, but then the chatoyance wouldn't have been revealed to such a degree, and I also like the idea of simply doing what's best (healthiest) for the wood, which is to saturate it in oil. So, all things considered, I prioritized the health of the wood and the chatoyance.

[Chris Gunsolley]

It is hard to tell from a stationery photo, but the chatoyance looks terrific. I think that you have a winner there, Chris.

A tremendous thank you, Brice! I was actually hesitant to even post these pictures, as they do not do the gem-like shine in the ripples justice, so I'm glad they are at least sufficient to show that it is present. As it sounds like you realize, when you see it in person, tilt the bowl side-to-side under the light, etc... it is very enlightening.

[Chris Gunsolley]

I really like the character of that wood and the way you have turned to accentuate it! Nice job!!!

Thank you, Mike! I think my goal entirely as a bowl turner is to reveal maximally the beauty that Mother Nature offers, so, more specifically, to exploit the most attractive features of the wood to the utmost degree. So, I take your comment to heart. :)

[Leo Van Der Loo]

As you seem to have abandoned the other thread and already cut , turned and finished your piece of wood this reply isn’t going to help much here, but still maybe something for next time.

As I looked at your piece of wood (Black Ash ?) I noticed that there is already a split in the right side where the pith from the right limb arm was, so for me I would not use that in my bowl.

339329 339330

A show piece should certainly not have a split in the bowl, I’d rather have 2 good bowls than 3 where one has a split in it, and of course you do have figure in the bowl you already made, but not the feather of the crotch, it would look something like this inside the bowl,

This is just a unfinished natural edge piece (inside out as Prashun called it)

339331

[Chris Gunsolley]

As you seem to have abandoned the other thread and already cut , turned and finished your piece of wood this reply isn’t going to help much here, but still maybe something for next time.

As I looked at your piece of wood (Black Ash ?) I noticed that there is already a split in the right side where the pith from the right limb arm was, so for me I would not use that in my bowl.

339329 339330

A show piece should certainly not have a split in the bowl, I’d rather have 2 good bowls than 3 where one has a split in it, and of course you do have figure in the bowl you already made, but not the feather of the crotch, it would look something like this inside the bowl,

This is just a unfinished natural edge piece (inside out as Prashun called it)

339331

Leo, fortunately, this log was very deep, so I was able to cut the wood down from the state that you see in those pictures until the splits were completely removed. It's a little challenging to cut the piths perfectly out of a log that large out in the field, and those pictures were taken before I cut the surface down a little more to remove all splits and distance the blanks further from the pith. I did that the next day, and it took less than a minute. I'm sorry if you would have liked that half of the log to be more polished before I take those pictures, but anyone who spends numerous, entire days risking their life cutting down a massive fallen tree that is 150+ years old, wrestling logs that weigh hundreds of pounds and cutting their own blanks out of crotch pieces that approximate or exceed 30 inches in diameter will understand how a 1/8" deep split might make its way into a picture that you post in a forum that is intended merely for determining bowl blank layout before you find a minute to remove a minor split the next day. Thank goodness that once we make it home, we have tools such as chainsaws, lancelots, and planers that we can use to touch up the halves after we cut it. I agree with you. I obviously wouldn't use splits in a bowl(?!?).

339336339337339338

I went out there, cut it up, rolled, carted and nudged everything onto my trailer from morning to evening on an empty stomach. My 3 1/2 car garage is jam-packed full of it and I plan to allow this legend to continue to be appreciated.

I want you to know that I did see your post in the thread on blank layout, and I did take your input on blank location into consideration. I appreciate your input, and it was very informative. You may want to consider that there is not one right way to do anything, especially in art. Every approach has costs, benefits, and compromises, sometimes you get one thing, sometimes you get the other thing, and sometimes you get both, but none of them are wrong, every one of them are right because beauty indeed is in the eye of the beholder. That aside, perhaps you'll be pleased to know that I did capture the feather of the crotch of this half with at least one of the other 4 bowls that I will get out of it.

As for wood type... This is the second time you've brought up this topic questioning what type of wood this is, so maybe it will put you at ease if I explain why I have no interest in that discussion? The reason I haven't addressed that is that I'm just not interested in quibbling about what type of wood this may or may not be right now, I'm confident that I already have the answer, and because that's an ambiguous, pointless discussion. The reason I say that is that I know from experience that people--even 'experts' --don't usually agree on what type of wood a log is from with the limited amount of information I happen to have available to show you. I know well that the discussion has no end and rarely a consensus without leaves. I got to this particular tree too late to derive leaves from it, but I do have good, reliable sources of information. The park's maintenance personnel, whom are not rookies to tree identification, did know the living tree well and insisted that it was elm, coincidentally the woodgrain and bark look exactly like Elm--most likely English Elm due to the wavy, contrasty late wood in the grain, and scale-like portions on the older bark. The wood identification method outlined in "Identifying Wood" by Bruce Hoadley happens to be consistent with this claim as well.

339334339335

I appreciate your advice and suggestions and will take them into consideration as I have the advice of others. Thank you.

[Leo Van Der Loo]

Leo, fortunately, this log was very deep, so I was able to cut the wood down from the state that you see in those pictures until the splits were completely removed. It's a little challenging to cut the piths perfectly out of a log that large out in the field, and those pictures were taken before I cut the surface down a little more to remove all splits and distance the blanks further from the pith. I did that the next day, and it took less than a minute. I'm sorry if you would have liked that half of the log to be more polished before I take those pictures, but anyone who spends numerous, entire days risking their life cutting down a massive fallen tree that is 150+ years old, wrestling logs that weigh hundreds of pounds and cutting their own blanks out of crotch pieces that approximate or exceed 30 inches in diameter will understand how a 1/8" deep split might make its way into a picture that you post in a forum that is intended merely for determining bowl blank layout before you find a minute to remove a minor split the next day. Thank goodness that once we make it home, we have tools such as chainsaws, lancelots, and planers that we can use to touch up the halves after we cut it. I agree with you. I obviously wouldn't use splits in a bowl(?!?).

339336339337339338

I went out there, cut it up, rolled, carted and nudged everything onto my trailer from morning to evening on an empty stomach. My 3 1/2 car garage is jam-packed full of it and I plan to allow this legend to continue to be appreciated.

I want you to know that I did see your post in the thread on blank layout, and I did take your input on blank location into consideration. I appreciate your input, and it was very informative. You may want to consider that there is not one right way to do anything, especially in art. Every approach has costs, benefits, and compromises, sometimes you get one thing, sometimes you get the other thing, and sometimes you get both, but none of them are wrong, every one of them are right because beauty indeed is in the eye of the beholder. That aside, perhaps you'll be pleased to know that I did capture the feather of the crotch of this half with at least one of the other 4 bowls that I will get out of it.

As for wood type... This is the second time you've brought up this topic questioning what type of wood this is, so maybe it will put you at ease if I explain why I have no interest in that discussion? The reason I haven't addressed that is that I'm just not interested in quibbling about what type of wood this may or may not be right now, I'm confident that I already have the answer, and because that's an ambiguous, pointless discussion. The reason I say that is that I know from experience that people--even 'experts' --don't usually agree on what type of wood a log is from with the limited amount of information I happen to have available to show you. I know well that the discussion has no end and rarely a consensus without leaves. I got to this particular tree too late to derive leaves from it, but I do have good, reliable sources of information. The park's maintenance personnel, whom are not rookies to tree identification, did know the living tree well and insisted that it was elm, coincidentally the woodgrain and bark look exactly like Elm--most likely English Elm due to the wavy, contrasty late wood in the grain, and scale-like portions on the older bark. The wood identification method outlined in "Identifying Wood" by Bruce Hoadley happens to be consistent with this claim as well.

339334339335

I appreciate your advice and suggestions and will take them into consideration as I have the advice of others. Thank you.

Thanks for your reply and the photo’s that make me even more sure that this is indeed an Ash tree.

I’m no rookie in taking down and cutting up trees, and have a lot of knowledge in/on trees, and yes I do know it is often difficult to ID a tree by merely pictures of a piece of wood.

Good luck with your turning endeavor

[robert baccus]

Very pretty wood and great bowls as well. Don't get hung up on pith's when prepping blanks. Been turning for 27 years --bowls and vases--and never cut out a pith out yet. I do hit them with endseal on all cut surfaces very rapidly however. I quite often leave the pith going all the way through on both shapes. The secret is to double turn and endseal imediately and give the curing plenty of time.

[Leo Van Der Loo]

Just for your information :)

Here are some pictures of both Elm and Ash, a well known fact is that when Elm is sawn through the grain on the bias (rift sawn) that the wwwwwwwwwww of the interlocked grain shows up, I have a few of my pictures that show this clearly, and you can compare that with the grain in your bowl, I also have Ash log bark in one picture and you can compare that to your tree’s bark.

I also have a Black Ash bowl picture that you can compare the grain of with your bowl, shown here as well :D

339414 339415 http://www.sawmillcreek.org/asset.php?fid=312395&uid=38515&d=1466305292 339417 339418

339419 339420

Next to each other
339421

[Jamie Straw]

An observation from life: Being right is not the most important thing in a community such as this.

[Leo Van Der Loo]

An observation from life: Being right is not the most important thing in a community such as this.

It helps to get the right information for the name of the wood you put on your turning, if you don’t know what tree you have you can ask, it is all just information, we can all learn if we are willing from the ones that do know, and not just about the wood, but also all about other aspects of turning, :D.

[Chris Gunsolley]

Just for your information :)

Here are some pictures of both Elm and Ash, a well known fact is that when Elm is sawn through the grain on the bias (rift sawn) that the wwwwwwwwwww of the interlocked grain shows up, I have a few of my pictures that show this clearly, and you can compare that with the grain in your bowl, I also have Ash log bark in one picture and you can compare that to your tree’s bark.

I also have a Black Ash bowl picture that you can compare the grain of with your bowl, shown here as well :D

339414 339415 http://www.sawmillcreek.org/asset.php?fid=312395&uid=38515&d=1466305292 339417 339418

339419 339420

Next to each other
339421

Thanks for the info, Leo. I've cooled down a bit, and I'm ready to consider this objectively. I do want to label my bowls correctly in terms of wood type, and this has been intriguing me after you mentioned it. If you're right on this, I'm going to thank you immensely, because if this tree is in fact Black Ash, I want to know that and get it right. I am going to have many, many bowls from this tree. Considering your experience, I also think you're probably have more expertise than the others I consulted, whom claimed this is Elm. I may have assumed too quickly that they were correct.

I think I've got your point on the interlocking grain. Would another way to state it in different words be that the late wood in Black Ash is more dispersed, or not as much of a solid line as it is in Elm? In your pictures I see those lines that spread from the late wood in the Black Ash but not so much in the Elm. Also, the bark does resemble that which you posted. You've got me rethinking this whole thing, and I just want to know what type of wood it in fact is.

[Leo Van Der Loo]

Chris I am certain that you have a Black Ash tree there, for me that is clearly to see, and I have tried to give you the reasons this is not an Elm tree with the easiest to see information that is readily observed.

You do have to watch Black Ash though, it has this other name Basket Ash for a reason, you can find info about that on Google anytime, it is a good looking wood though, I had all I wanted here at my son’s place where Mister Beaver had sharpened his teeth and cut down 3 Black Ash trees, and then a couple other that got knocked down by the Ash trees, not as large as yours there but a solid 2 feet at the stump, it’s going to be mostly fire wood, and we can only get to it reasonably over the ice, as these trees stood on a bulge next to the “Beaver pond”, too marshy to get too otherwise :).

I’ll add this, the reason this wood was/is used to make Baskets is that the year rings are not attached to each other like in other wood, that’s why the layers can be separated by pounding the wood, which also makes this wood more vulnerable to split on the year rings.