Can anyone ID this wood?

[longbarrel50]

I'm taking down an old barn on my property. It is in poor shape and the roof collapsed. It was built circa 1890. I live in western New York and we used to have quite a bit of American Chestnut trees. We still have a few in the area that have survived, some from regeneration from the roots, others that just were resistant to the blight.
Anyway, I pulled a piece of wood from one of the beams and planed it. I was sure it would be oak, but now I am not. The end grain does not resemble any oak that I know of. Can anyone identify it? I would salvage what I can if could be Chestnut. Otherwise, most of it will be burned.
Thanks for your help.
Chris

[Herebrooks]

grain looks more like ash to me, but the weight will tell if it's chestnut. Hope it is for your sake$$$$

[Arlin Eastman]

I thought it looked like Red Oak but Elm can be one of them also. I do not know what Chestnut looks like.

[Timberwolf]

Another vote for chestnut...Plane a small piece of it and look of any "flecks" or 'rays"...I don't see any sign of it in the pics you posted and that's why I think it is chestnut.

[JustinTyson]

Looks like ash to me.

[Paul-in-Plymouth]

From the location and date, chestnut seems to be an inviting possibility. However, it's hard to see the end-grain clearly in your photos.

To get a more definitive answer, I’d recommend Bruce Hoadley's nice book "Identifying Wood." Hoadley gives a systematic key for identifying woods, including American chestnut, based on features visible in cleanly cut end-grain with a 10x hand lens. The book is published by Taunton Press and is widely available in public libraries.

Hoadley's key asks the following questions: Is it ring-porous? What is the distribution of tiny late-wood pores? How wide are the rays?
These features should be visible in clean end-grain at low magnification.

Besides Hoadley’s book, the following websites have nice photos of American chestnut wood, including end-grain for comparison. However, neither website has the systematic key to identification presented by Hoadley.

http://www.wood-database.com/lumber-iden...-chestnut/

http://www.hobbithouseinc.com/personal/w...estnut.htm

[longbarrel50]

The picture is of a piece of a main beam. There is no bark on it. It is just dust and dirt.
This piece came from a rotted beam and is quite dry.
I do not see any pores or fleck in the end grain. I'll get another piece and see if I can get a better photo of the face grain. It doesn't look like pine or fir to me, but I'm not that knowledgeable in identifying wood. The rings sure are tight in this piece.
We do have a lot of ash in the area now, well that a may not be true as the emerald ash borer is killing many trees. I'm not sure what the major species was in 1890. I do agree they would have used what was on hand. These are all hand hewn beams.
These beams are over 20' long and 8 to 10" square. You don't see that today very often.

Thanks for every ones input.

Chris

[Paul-in-Plymouth]

For the record, Hoadley also classifies ash as “ring-porous,” but puts it in the “Confusing” category, with no discernible pattern to the late-wood pores, instead of the “Oak-Chestnut” category, with radial lines of late-wood pores.

[C. in Indy]

I agree to keep considering Red Elm as a possibility. Weight will be a good thing to know when assessing this.

[Phil S.]

I'm guessing not chestnut based on the end grain. Should be ring porous if it's chestnut like this-



Maybe I just can't see them in the photo. But as I said in the parallel thread upstairs, I don't have much faith in trying to ID woods based on a picture.

Phil