White Oak vs QSWO

[steve fleischmann]

I finally found the plans for the bunk beds, no I'm deciding between regular white oak, and qswo. Suggestions, input????

Steve

[Gary Keedwell]

I finally found the plans for the bunk beds, no I'm deciding between regular white oak, and qswo. Suggestions, input????

Steve
QSWO is more stable then flat-sawn white oak, but you will pay more for it too. Personally, I would not put it in a bedroom, except a master bedroom simply because of the cost. Because of the beauty of QSWO I would put it where there is high visibilty and where it would be appreciated. IMNSHO:)

Gary K.

[Greg Cole]

Ditto what Gary said.
Unless you have specific reasons for wanting the QS, save the $ for the top shelf lumber for something else.

Greg

[glenn bradley]

Well let's go with the idea that since he asked for 'either/or' that he has decided on white oak. Plainsawn on the left below moving through Riftsawn into QSWO on the right. Plainsawn has more cathedral figure and QS is more straight with flecks.

http://www.indianahardwoodspec.com/images/WhiteOakSamples3wopge.jpg

[Tim Lynch]

My lumber supplier culls the rift sawn oak out of his piles of quartersawn because folks that are buying quartersawn will just pass them over anyway. He had the rift sawn stockpiled separately and sold it to me at a bit of a discount.

I'm a big fan of rift sawn, so it works out great for me!

Maybe a supplier in your area does the same.

p.s. Here's a not-so-easy-to-see picture of some that I ran through the molder for casing. Some of the pieces showed some flake after they were molded.

[Randy Klein]

I like QSWO, but only in moderation. Too much and the flecks become overwhelming. I don't know the style of furniture you plan on making, but you can use the QSWO as a complement wood. The best example I've seen on this is here (http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?t=60075).

[John Thompson]

Evening Steve...

I use QS WO for kitchen table tops where moisture (steam) becomes a factor. The QS is more stable given the circumstances. But... you usually can't get it wide pieces due to the nature of how it is milled, so glue-up on wider strechers would become necessary if you used it.

Riff-sawn would be great for your project and flat-sawn would be fine also if you can't get riff-sawn. A bunk bed should not require QS as moisture is not a major concern and the price is also prohibitive as others have mentioned in the role the bed will play.

Regards...

Sarge..

[David DeCristoforo]

"...I like QSWO, but only in moderation. Too much and the flecks become overwhelming..."

I am in agreement with this. However, I would like to say that (IMMHO) any oak is going to look "overwhelming" when it has such a dark stain applied to it like the examples in your linked thread. QS oak, either white or red has a much less "in your face" appearance if it is finished with an oil or a clear coat. Even ammonia fuming will result in a much more subtle appearance.

[scott spencer]

I'd use both. Mix it up and feature the QS in the most visible places.

[Gary Keedwell]

"...I like QSWO, but only in moderation. Too much and the flecks become overwhelming..."

I am in agreement with this. However, I would like to say that (IMMHO) any oak is going to look "overwhelming" when it has such a dark stain applied to it like the examples in your linked thread. QS oak, either white or red has a much less "in your face" appearance if it is finished with an oil or a clear coat. Even ammonia fuming will result in a much more subtle appearance.
I don't know about that David....have you seen some interior pictures of Arts & crafts bungalow homes?:eek: :)

Gary K.

[Bill VanderLaan]

Riftsawn all the way. I love white oak. However, PS oak can be obnoxius and your really have to pay attention to matching your wood. That could be a problem with all the peices on a bunk bed. I agree with the comment about finishing with an oil or clear coat.

In the interest of full disclosure, I really like the subtlety in wood.

Best-

[Ed Falis]

...
p.s. Here's a not-so-easy-to-see picture of some that I ran through the molder for casing. Some of the pieces showed some flake after they were molded.

Tim,

What did you use to cut the corner block design?

[Don C Peterson]

It all depends on what you want, the specifics of the plans, and your budget.

For my budget I decided to use White Ash. I designed my bunk beds to be STURDY since they were for my boys.

I also made a number of compromises in style and looks to accomodate the budget. Instead of springing for large 8/4 boards, I laminated 4/4 boards, I know it doesn't look quite as nice, but it works and it saved quite a bit of money.

There was no way I was going to lay out the kind of $$ needed to go with QSWO or anything really fancy. Ash is relatively cheap and easy to work with, and I happen to like the look of Ash quite a bit too.

http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?t=63635

[Tim Lynch]

Hi Ed,

I cut the rosettes with a cheap, eBay-purchased rosette cutter that I had to sharpen the heck out of before I could use it (when will I learn?!!!:o ). I mounted it in my drill press and proceeded very slowly.

Miserable piece of junk, but they turned out okay. I made 18 rosettes, so I did get my money's worth I suppose.

[Ed Falis]

OK. Thanks, Tim.

[David DeCristoforo]

"...have you seen some interior pictures of Arts & crafts bungalow homes?..."

Well, yes, actually I lived in one for many years and now live in another albeit one with much less woodwork. Hey, look...I don't want to get into another argument over something that boils down to personal taste. I was simply trying to point out that QS oak can have a much less "aggressive" look with a "milder" finish.

[Gary Keedwell]

"...have you seen some interior pictures of Arts & crafts bungalow homes?..."

Well, yes, actually I lived in one for many years and now live in another albeit one with much less woodwork. Hey, look...I don't want to get into another argument over something that boils down to personal taste. I was simply trying to point out that Q'S oak can have a much less "aggressive" look with a "milder" finish.
Since when did you start shying away from "arguments"?:D I have worked extensively with QSWO My home is loaded with the end results of my experiments with finishing techniques. The whole idea of QSWO is to highlight the flecks and beautiful figures without the loud broadcasting. I have found that there is alot more to it then just the lightness or darkness of the finish.
As I'm typing , I am looking at 3 nestling tables that are very dark and the flecks are very subtle and not "aggresive" at all. (Too subtle, really)
I have 2 ottomans that have a oil and varnish finish that is LESS subtle but still the flecks are quiet, not loud.
The only piece that I have that would be considered loud is a sofa table that has a complicated schedule that I got from an old WOOD magazine article about a family that lives on a huge property and they make their living making Arts and Crafts furniture with their own trees from scratch. There is a big tint of red in it and it gets the most compliments. It is also the most aggressive.
Anyways, the only point I'm trying to make is that with QSWO there is no black or white.:rolleyes: :)

Gary K.

[Don Pierson]

I have limited expierence with woodworking and a singular experience with QSWO. I found QSWO a challenge to cut and finish while Cherry and Walnut are easier to work, finish, and cheaper. Here are some pics of a Tongue Drum I made for my grandsons...QSWO top and Walnut sides. The QSWO turned out beautiful but the only reason I used it is because the boys were born in Maryland where the state tree is White Oak. The boys mother tells me the mallets make for good sword fights!

[D.McDonnel "Mac"]

There are many different ways to finish white oak that will either accentuate the character of the wood or allow it to be muted. Most fall into 3 categories: Pigmented Stain, Dye Stain or Fuming.

The three characteristics of oak that allow it to look so different depending on the treatment are it's ray flek (radial tubes), open pores (characteristic of the early fast growth), the grain (the arangement of the open pore early growth and the less porous late growth). The grain and ray flek is heavily influenced by the method of sawing.

The dark stained doors in the linked example are an excelent example of the many different ways RS, QS and PS white oak can be used. The stain highlights the differences. This was accomplished most likely with a pigmented stain. Pigment sticks well in the pores and not so well on the late growth or the ray fleks.

Dye stains have no pigment therefore give a more overall wash of color. the late growth and the ray flek are more accepting of the dye stains depending on the application methods.

Fuming is the "classic" method of coloring QSWO during the heyday of the A&C movement back at the turn of the previous century (early 1900s). I've not tested it but I've read that fuming actually darkens the ray flek better than any other method even to the point of diminishing the light flek on dark background to a dark on dark monochromatic look.

Just oiling the wood will give you a light monochromatic look.

Understanding how the staining methods work on oak differently lets you manipulate the outcome more to your desired look.

[David DeCristoforo]

"Since when did you start shying away from "arguments"?"

Good point. Let's do it. I don't think you can invoke the Arts and Crafts" style without considering the basic philosophy of the movement which was an insurrection against the over-decorated opulence of the Victorian period. The preference for oak as the material of choice for woodwork was completely consistent with the reserved humility that was at the core of the movement.

At that time oak was not considered a high quality wood. It was used for framing houses and barns and in the production of “low end” mass produced furniture. The higher quality pieces were made from mahoganies, walnuts, rosewoods and the like. There was a considerable amount of oak of furniture produced during the 1920s and, even though it was of sufficient quality to survive for many years, (most of it ending up in second hand stores and eventually flooding the plethora of “antique” stores that appeared during the late 60s and early 70s) it was the period’s equivalent of the veneered MDF stuff you see today in stores like Ikea.

During the “antique craze” that started in the mid to late 60s, many people came to equate “solid oak” with “quality. This misconception was, I believe, caused by nothing more than ignorance on the part of the buyers who were certainly correct in their conclusion that the pieces they were buying were superior in many respects to the factory pieces currently being made. But the simultaneous conclusion that these oak “antiques” represented the best quality of a bygone era was completely erroneous. What is worse, this erroneous conclusion led to the mass production of major quantities of poor quality “solid oak” furniture and cabinets in the 60’s and 70’s. This misconception that oak was a wood of choice for high quality woodwork persists today.

What I find interesting is that even the proponents of the Arts and Crafts movement, who were so devoted to unpretentious simplicity accompanied by the highest standards of workmanship, succumbed to the conviction that “quality” wood was synonymous with “dark” wood. Thus, their compulsion to color the humble oak from which they crafted their masterpieces.

As to Mr. Sontag’s post, I think the fact that he stained the wood created a contrast between the various grain patterns that would not have been nearly as dramatic if the pieces had been left raw or unstained. So, for the purposes of the point he was illustrating, the coloring was a plus.

For myself, I can state unequivocally that I have never liked the idea of using oak for fine woodwork, the exception being, of course, in the creation of “authentic” Arts and Crafts style pieces in which case the choice of oak is completely appropriate. I can also state unequivocally, that I like the idea of dark stained oak even less. My “advice” to the OP was simply that oak does not have to be so stained and that QS oak can have a much more understated “look” if it is simply clear finished.

[Gary Keedwell]

"Since when did you start shying away from "arguments"?"

Good point. Let's do it. I don't think you can invoke the Arts and Crafts" style without considering the basic philosophy of the movement which was an insurrection against the over-decorated opulence of the Victorian period. The preference for oak as the material of choice for woodwork was completely consistent with the reserved humility that was at the core of the movement.

At that time oak was not considered a high quality wood. It was used for framing houses and barns and in the production of “low end” mass produced furniture. The higher quality pieces were made from mahoganies, walnuts, rosewoods and the like. There was a considerable amount of oak of furniture produced during the 1920s and, even though it was of sufficient quality to survive for many years, (most of it ending up in second hand stores and eventually flooding the plethora of “antique” stores that appeared during the late 60s and early 70s) it was the period’s equivalent of the veneered MDF stuff you see today in stores like Ikea.

During the “antique craze” that started in the mid to late 60s, many people came to equate “solid oak” with “quality. This misconception was, I believe, caused by nothing more than ignorance on the part of the buyers who were certainly correct in their conclusion that the pieces they were buying were superior in many respects to the factory pieces currently being made. But the simultaneous conclusion that these oak “antiques” represented the best quality of a bygone era was completely erroneous. What is worse, this erroneous conclusion led to the mass production of major quantities of poor quality “solid oak” furniture and cabinets in the 60’s and 70’s. This misconception that oak was a wood of choice for high quality woodwork persists today.

What I find interesting is that even the proponents of the Arts and Crafts movement, who were so devoted to unpretentious simplicity accompanied by the highest standards of workmanship, succumbed to the conviction that “quality” wood was synonymous with “dark” wood. Thus, their compulsion to color the humble oak from which they crafted their masterpieces.

As to Mr. Sontag’s post, I think the fact that he stained the wood created a contrast between the various grain patterns that would not have been nearly as dramatic if the pieces had been left raw or unstained. So, for the purposes of the point he was illustrating, the coloring was a plus.

For myself, I can state unequivocally that I have never liked the idea of using oak for fine woodwork, the exception being, of course, in the creation of “authentic” Arts and Crafts style pieces in which case the choice of oak is completely appropriate. I can also state unequivocally, that I like the idea of dark stained oak even less. My “advice” to the OP was simply that oak does not have to be so stained and that QS oak can have a much more understated “look” if it is simply clear finished.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/evsac/Video/DONALD3.jpgYea David, I read that book too.:rolleyes:
Now, skipping up to the present.:) I think even Gustav Stickley would appreciate the modern techniques available to us today. Alot of people don't realize that he mass-produced his furniture using methods that were modern at the time. I think he would have used the modern dyes and finishing products that we use today and I think he would vary his products accordingly.
I like experimenting with finishes. I make alot of Arts & Crafts stye furniture and every one has a different finish.
GK.

[David DeCristoforo]

What book? I'm not gonna argue with you if you are going to accuse me of plagiarism. And how could you possibly know what Gustav Stickley would do? I might just as well presume that he would be horrified by the poor quality rubbish that gets passed off these days as "Arts and Crafts" woodwork...

[Gary Keedwell]

What book? I'm not gonna argue with you if you are going to accuse me of plagiarism. And how could you possibly know what Gustav Stickley would do? I might just as well presume that he would be horrified by the poor quality rubbish that gets passed off these days as "Arts and Crafts" woodwork...
:eek: Hey take it easy. What I meant is that we all know alot about the era from reading. From what I have read from books is that he (Gustav) was an avid experimenter. Even when his business failed and he was in virtual exile, he was constantly messing around with finishing. He was an innovator and a risk taker, and you are right, I could not possibly know what he would do....only surmise by his history.;)
Gary K.

[Michael O'Sullivan]

I don't think you can invoke the Arts and Crafts" style without considering the basic philosophy of the movement which was an insurrection against the over-decorated opulence of the Victorian period. The preference for oak as the material of choice for woodwork was completely consistent with the reserved humility that was at the core of the movement.

I think you are misinterpreting the A&C philosophy. I do not believe they were reacting so much against Victorian opulence as against "industrialization", which they took to be the supercession of the craftsman by the machine. I do not want to politicize the forum, so one may draw one's own's conclusions from that.

[Roger Newby]

Randy,
Your pictures of the various combinations of sawn oak was very informative. Thank you for the tip. I'm partial to most any kind of oak and like the QS variety in moderation as well. It seems more appropriate as a display piece such as a clock or picture frame. My daughter does a lot of stained glass work and the Qs oak as well as sycamore have given some really good results.

[David DeCristoforo]

"I think you are misinterpreting the A&C philosophy. I do not believe they were reacting so much against Victorian opulence as against "industrialization", which they took to be the suppression of the craftsman by the machine."

OK... That then. Or that too. Whatever.

"...and you are right, I could not possibly know what he would do..."

Come on...this is going to be a pretty wimpy argument if we start agreeing with each other....

[Gary Keedwell]

I think you are misinterpreting the A&C philosophy. I do not believe they were reacting so much against Victorian opulence as against "industrialization", which they took to be the supercession of the craftsman by the machine. I do not want to politicize the forum, so one may draw one's own's conclusions from that.
I think you might be a little off on that one. Gustav's factory produced all his wood parts from machines. It is a misconception that his furniture was "hand crafted" Even in those days you had to produce them at a fairly low cost so as to sell them at a reasonable price for the average family.
The main reason that his furniture is so rare is because of the heating systems of the day. Central heat was for the well-to-do so people gathered their chairs around the heat source....the furniture literally fell apart from the harsh invironment. ( that's a popular theory anyways)
Gary K.

[David DeCristoforo]

"...the furniture literally fell apart from the harsh environment..."

That and the crappy glue....don't forget about the crappy glue. In addition, I'll bet more A&C chairs were destroyed by kids (like mine) constantly "rocking" on the back legs!