A few facts I hadn't known about Dogwood.
====================
http://www.woodmagazine.com/materials-g ... ng-dogwood
Buyers looking for hard stock to make weaving shuttles had to buy dogwood by the cord.
When the flowering dogwood (Cornus florida) blooms in the spring, the sight can take your breath away. The clusters of petals against the little tree's dark branches make it stand out in the deepest woodland. Throughout its range in the southeastern states, the tree adds to any landscape.
The wood of the flowering dogwood has a reputation, too-but for toughness. Stiff and finely textured, the wood weighs as much as hickory, yet is harder! In fact, when used as a chisel handle, dogwood resists crushing and mushrooming from hammer blows. And because dogwood wears smoother with age, it has known service as knitting needles, pullies, and sled runners.
This tough-as-nails reputation also made it (even today) a valuable commodity in the textile industry. You see, until the 1860s, the mechanical looms in New England and Europe relied on smooth, long-wearing boxwood from Mediterranean countries for their shuttles (spindle-shaped devices for carrying thread). In that same period, though, roller skating became a popular European pastime, and boxwood became the choice for the wheels. This new demand on a limited boxwood supply resulted in the substitution of dogwood.
Indeed, dogwood became such a valuable commodity that it was sold, not by the volume in a log as other commercial wood, but by the cord! That's partly because the dogwood at best only reaches 40' tall and grows dispersed among other trees, not in stands. So, it couldn't be economically logged in volume. Instead, farmers made extra money selling a stack at a time.
Illustration: Jim Stevenson
another hard wood
Moderator: admin
another hard wood
Hobbyman2 Favorite Quote: "If a man does his best, what else is there?"
- General George S. Patton (1885-1945)
- General George S. Patton (1885-1945)
Re: another hard wood
Here is something I was taught as a youngster.
https://www.gotquestions.org/legend-dogwood.html
steve
https://www.gotquestions.org/legend-dogwood.html
steve
10 ER, stripped down.
Basic 10ER, Parts machine. Will be a semi-dedicated drill-press machine.
10 ER, a "survivor" of the trailer fire, in the back yard, needing restoration. Has a Mk5 headrest. Finally, stripped down.
Numerous parts, for Model 10 stuff. Except for lower saw guard, A and B adapters, I've got it.
Looking for one more, or some 9 inch extension table raisers.
Basic 10ER, Parts machine. Will be a semi-dedicated drill-press machine.
10 ER, a "survivor" of the trailer fire, in the back yard, needing restoration. Has a Mk5 headrest. Finally, stripped down.
Numerous parts, for Model 10 stuff. Except for lower saw guard, A and B adapters, I've got it.
Looking for one more, or some 9 inch extension table raisers.
Re: another hard wood
Not trying to turn this onto a religious thread but there are other scriptures describing the trees of the cross.
http://catholicexchange.com/the-origin- ... -the-cross
Planting the Seeds for the Wood of the Cross
Another common form of the same legend makes the archangel Michael, who refused Seth the oil of mercy, give Seth three seeds from the Tree of Knowledge to be placed beneath the tongue of Adam when he was buried, promising him that from those seeds should grow a tree that would bear fruit whereby Adam should be saved and live again. From the three seeds sprang a trinity of trees of three separate woods, cedar, cypress, and pine, although united in one trunk. From this tree Moses cut his rod. It was transplanted by David to the borders of a pool near Jerusalem, and beneath its branches he composed his psalms.
Solomon had it cut down to form a column in his Temple, but being too short, it was rejected and cast over a stream to serve as a bridge. The queen of Sheba, when visiting Solomon, refused to pass over on that tree, declaring that it would one day occasion the destruction of the Hebrews. The king ordered that it should be removed and buried. This was done near the pool of Bethesda, at which time the virtues of the wood were immediately communicated to the waters. After the condemnation of Christ, it was found floating on the surface of the pool and the Jews took it for the main beam of the Cross.
Theories about the Wood of the Cross
This article is an excerpt from Relics of the Crucifixion. Click image to preview and order.
The prevailing idea was that the Cross was formed of three or more woods; either that the various parts were made, each from one of the three in that trinity springing from one root or, an idea not consistently followed, that the three woods were amalgamated, forming one trunk, out of which the upright beam was fashioned, thus containing in one beam the qualities of the three plants. And again, this peculiar growth was produced from three seeds containing three properties, although the fruit of one and the same tree.
It is curious to see how the same traditions will last through ages, taken from or added to, until in the last edition the earliest form is unrecognizable. Even Mandeville (fourteenth century) must have had very simple faith in the tradition — by his time much confused — to speak in his travels of a tree that was then lying as a bridge over the Kedron “of which the Cross was made.”
The Venerable Bede (c. 673-735) and John Cantacuzenus (c. 1292-1383) both record the idea that the Cross was composed of four kinds of wood: cypress, cedar, pine, and box.
Innocent says the upright was of one wood, the transverse beam of another, the title of a third, and that the feet were supported on a projecting step made of a fourth wood.
In England a notion existed that the wood was mistletoe, then a tree, but that ever since the Crucifixion it has been but a parasite.
The aspen leaf was said to tremble because the Cross was of that wood.
In some parts of England the elder tree is supposed to have been the wood of the Cross, and to the present day some reverend peasants carefully look through their faggots before burning them for fear there should be any of this wood among them.
Another common idea is that the main beam of the Cross was of cedar, the transverse of cypress, the inscription was carved on a piece of olive, and the footrest was of palm.
Some people who meditate on the fabulous combine the woods of the fir pine and box in the Holy Cross. An old legend makes out that the Cross was made of “Palm of Victory,” “Cedar of Incorruption,” and “Olive for Royal and Priestly Unction.” And in a Latin verse we are told:
The foot of the Cross is Cedar, The Palm holds back the hands, Th’ tall Cypress holds the body, The Olive in joy is inscribed.
Lipsius (d. 1606), the most learned writer on the subject, thinks that the Cross was probably of oak, a wood abounding in Palestine, easily procured and strong. The relics he had seen he thought to be of that wood.
It is pronounced to have been of oak by A. F. Angelo Rocca Camerte in his book De Particula ex Pretioso et Vivivico Ligno Sacratissimae Crucis (Rome, 1609), in which he gives an account of a fragment in the Apostolic Treasury. This is supposed to be the same fragment for which Pope Leo the Great (c. 400-461) thanks Juvenal (d. 458), bishop of Jerusalem, in one of his letters, circa 450.
Curzon says that all the very ancient relics of the Cross that he had seen were of the same wood, which had a peculiar, half-petrified appearance. In his possession were two relics, said to be of the True Cross, the older enclosed in a shrine of the late thirteenth century; the other, in a modern setting, was of a different wood.
So much for the divided opinions concerning the wood of the Holy Cross, which after all, with the multiplicity of conjectures, leaves the question unsolved. The folklore of Europe teems with them; certain veins of legends are found to run through countries where the same traditions predominate.
The fragments this writer has seen are of a rich burnt-umber color; the grain, a little lighter, stands somewhat in relief from the decaying fiber around, but the substance of them is too far perished to decide on the kind of wood they originally were.
Where did the wood of the Cross grow? King David is said to have transplanted it from Lebanon to a spot near Jerusalem. “To the west of Jerusalem is a fair church where the tree of the Cross grew,” says Sir John Mandeville around 1360.
Henry Maundrell (1665-1701), in his description of a Greek convent that he visited about half an hour’s distance from Jerusalem, says: “That which most deserves to be noted in the convent is the reason of its name and foundation. It is because there is the earth that nourished the root, that bore the tree, that yielded the timber, that made the Cross. Under the high altar you are shown a hole in the ground where the stump of the tree stood.”
A mile or two west of Jerusalem, in a valley among the hills, is the Greek monastery of the Holy Cross, which is the convent referred to by these two travelers. The foundation dates from a period not long subsequent to the discovery by St. Helena. The buildings now standing are of a great age.
Editor’s note: This article is from a chapter in Relics from the Crucifixion, which is available from Sophia Institute Press. The image is a relic of the True Cross held in the Museo Diocesano in Genoa.
http://catholicexchange.com/the-origin- ... -the-cross
Planting the Seeds for the Wood of the Cross
Another common form of the same legend makes the archangel Michael, who refused Seth the oil of mercy, give Seth three seeds from the Tree of Knowledge to be placed beneath the tongue of Adam when he was buried, promising him that from those seeds should grow a tree that would bear fruit whereby Adam should be saved and live again. From the three seeds sprang a trinity of trees of three separate woods, cedar, cypress, and pine, although united in one trunk. From this tree Moses cut his rod. It was transplanted by David to the borders of a pool near Jerusalem, and beneath its branches he composed his psalms.
Solomon had it cut down to form a column in his Temple, but being too short, it was rejected and cast over a stream to serve as a bridge. The queen of Sheba, when visiting Solomon, refused to pass over on that tree, declaring that it would one day occasion the destruction of the Hebrews. The king ordered that it should be removed and buried. This was done near the pool of Bethesda, at which time the virtues of the wood were immediately communicated to the waters. After the condemnation of Christ, it was found floating on the surface of the pool and the Jews took it for the main beam of the Cross.
Theories about the Wood of the Cross
This article is an excerpt from Relics of the Crucifixion. Click image to preview and order.
The prevailing idea was that the Cross was formed of three or more woods; either that the various parts were made, each from one of the three in that trinity springing from one root or, an idea not consistently followed, that the three woods were amalgamated, forming one trunk, out of which the upright beam was fashioned, thus containing in one beam the qualities of the three plants. And again, this peculiar growth was produced from three seeds containing three properties, although the fruit of one and the same tree.
It is curious to see how the same traditions will last through ages, taken from or added to, until in the last edition the earliest form is unrecognizable. Even Mandeville (fourteenth century) must have had very simple faith in the tradition — by his time much confused — to speak in his travels of a tree that was then lying as a bridge over the Kedron “of which the Cross was made.”
The Venerable Bede (c. 673-735) and John Cantacuzenus (c. 1292-1383) both record the idea that the Cross was composed of four kinds of wood: cypress, cedar, pine, and box.
Innocent says the upright was of one wood, the transverse beam of another, the title of a third, and that the feet were supported on a projecting step made of a fourth wood.
In England a notion existed that the wood was mistletoe, then a tree, but that ever since the Crucifixion it has been but a parasite.
The aspen leaf was said to tremble because the Cross was of that wood.
In some parts of England the elder tree is supposed to have been the wood of the Cross, and to the present day some reverend peasants carefully look through their faggots before burning them for fear there should be any of this wood among them.
Another common idea is that the main beam of the Cross was of cedar, the transverse of cypress, the inscription was carved on a piece of olive, and the footrest was of palm.
Some people who meditate on the fabulous combine the woods of the fir pine and box in the Holy Cross. An old legend makes out that the Cross was made of “Palm of Victory,” “Cedar of Incorruption,” and “Olive for Royal and Priestly Unction.” And in a Latin verse we are told:
The foot of the Cross is Cedar, The Palm holds back the hands, Th’ tall Cypress holds the body, The Olive in joy is inscribed.
Lipsius (d. 1606), the most learned writer on the subject, thinks that the Cross was probably of oak, a wood abounding in Palestine, easily procured and strong. The relics he had seen he thought to be of that wood.
It is pronounced to have been of oak by A. F. Angelo Rocca Camerte in his book De Particula ex Pretioso et Vivivico Ligno Sacratissimae Crucis (Rome, 1609), in which he gives an account of a fragment in the Apostolic Treasury. This is supposed to be the same fragment for which Pope Leo the Great (c. 400-461) thanks Juvenal (d. 458), bishop of Jerusalem, in one of his letters, circa 450.
Curzon says that all the very ancient relics of the Cross that he had seen were of the same wood, which had a peculiar, half-petrified appearance. In his possession were two relics, said to be of the True Cross, the older enclosed in a shrine of the late thirteenth century; the other, in a modern setting, was of a different wood.
So much for the divided opinions concerning the wood of the Holy Cross, which after all, with the multiplicity of conjectures, leaves the question unsolved. The folklore of Europe teems with them; certain veins of legends are found to run through countries where the same traditions predominate.
The fragments this writer has seen are of a rich burnt-umber color; the grain, a little lighter, stands somewhat in relief from the decaying fiber around, but the substance of them is too far perished to decide on the kind of wood they originally were.
Where did the wood of the Cross grow? King David is said to have transplanted it from Lebanon to a spot near Jerusalem. “To the west of Jerusalem is a fair church where the tree of the Cross grew,” says Sir John Mandeville around 1360.
Henry Maundrell (1665-1701), in his description of a Greek convent that he visited about half an hour’s distance from Jerusalem, says: “That which most deserves to be noted in the convent is the reason of its name and foundation. It is because there is the earth that nourished the root, that bore the tree, that yielded the timber, that made the Cross. Under the high altar you are shown a hole in the ground where the stump of the tree stood.”
A mile or two west of Jerusalem, in a valley among the hills, is the Greek monastery of the Holy Cross, which is the convent referred to by these two travelers. The foundation dates from a period not long subsequent to the discovery by St. Helena. The buildings now standing are of a great age.
Editor’s note: This article is from a chapter in Relics from the Crucifixion, which is available from Sophia Institute Press. The image is a relic of the True Cross held in the Museo Diocesano in Genoa.
Hobbyman2 Favorite Quote: "If a man does his best, what else is there?"
- General George S. Patton (1885-1945)
- General George S. Patton (1885-1945)
Re: another hard wood
That's fascinating history. By the way, if you are interested in a woodworking wax that has frankincense and myrrh in it, there is one! It's called ALFIE SHINE, made by a British tool collector, and available on sellers such as Amazon and eBay. I have gotten some of it and I really enjoy the scent.
Chris
Chris