Official Luthiers Forum!
http://w-ww.luthiersforum.com/forum/

Semantics & Pedantics: Rift Seen in "Rift Sawn"
http://w-ww.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10101&t=31744
Page 1 of 1

Author:  Eric Reid [ Tue Apr 05, 2011 12:05 am ]
Post subject:  Semantics & Pedantics: Rift Seen in "Rift Sawn"

This seems like the sort of subject that would have caused several spats, and been beaten to death long ago on this forum, but I don't turn up anything in my searches.

Is any one bothered by the two contradictory meanings of "rift sawn"--i.e. "a board cut at exactly 90 degrees to the growth rings'', and "a board cut at 30-60 degrees to the growth rings" ?

The second definition seems to be the one in common use here and elsewhere (including some official grading definitions from hardwood lumber associations). But the first definition is also common. Common too, is a nonsensical jumbling of both definitions, as here:http://www.woodworkingadvice.com/wood-and-lumber-basics/difference-between-quarter-and-rift-sawn-lumber.html

The 90 degree definition makes some sense. Rift lumber (split shakes, for example) would have this grain orientation.

Some of you are sawyers. What is your sense of "rift sawn"? Any ideas how the 30-60 degree definition evolved?

Author:  wbergman [ Tue Apr 05, 2011 5:55 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Semantics & Pedantics: Rift Seen in "Rift Sawn"

I wonder if you are reading a trunkated definition of rift sawn. Here is what I am used to.

Quarter sawn is roughly 90 degrees to the growth rings, that is, cut along the radius of the log.

Slab cut or flat cut is roughly parallel to the growth rings.

Rift cut is in between these two. One definition I read for rift is 45 to 75 degrees off perpendicular. In reading this definiton, it was poorly written, in that it started off by stating rift was cut perpindicular to the growth rings, but then appended "45 to 75 degrees".

I have seen many nonsensical ebay adds for BRW stating that it was quarter sawn, but showing a picture of a pretty much slab cut piece.

Author:  murrmac [ Tue Apr 05, 2011 8:20 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Semantics & Pedantics: Rift Seen in "Rift Sawn"

wbergman wrote:
I wonder if you are reading a trunkated definition of rift sawn. Here is what I am used to.

Quarter sawn is roughly 90 degrees to the growth rings, that is, cut along the radius of the log.

Slab cut or flat cut is roughly parallel to the growth rings.

Rift cut is in between these two. One definition I read for rift is 45 to 75 degrees off perpendicular. In reading this definiton, it was poorly written, in that it started off by stating rift was cut perpindicular to the growth rings, but then appended "45 to 75 degrees".

I have seen many nonsensical ebay adds for BRW stating that it was quarter sawn, but showing a picture of a pretty much slab cut piece.


Actually, "quarter sawn " is a misnomer as well.

"Quarter sawing" is a sawmilling technique which yields the maximum area of the best grain, but ironically never yields a true 90° grain orientation.

A far better nomenclature for what has come to be described as "quarter sawn" would be "vertical grain".

Author:  alan stassforth [ Tue Apr 05, 2011 10:13 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Semantics & Pedantics: Rift Seen in "Rift Sawn"

I was wondering what rift sawn was a while ago,
and found different answers on google searches.
I think this is what it is,
although I did find some that differed.
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-quartersawn-wood.htm

Author:  Howard Klepper [ Tue Apr 05, 2011 11:41 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Semantics & Pedantics: Rift Seen in "Rift Sawn"

That drawing is all around on the net; some sawyers say it's wrong about rift sawn. Of course, it's possible that sawyers' usage is not consistent. There also is more than one way to quartersaw. For instance, to take alternating cuts parallel to the faces of the quarter log.

Part of the problem, as has already been pointed out, is that the terms are used differently by sawyers--for whom they describe ways to mill a log-- and by lumber buyers such as guitar makers, who use them to describe grain angle.

And that Woodcraft thing really is unintelligible.

Author:  John Bartley [ Tue Apr 05, 2011 11:58 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Semantics & Pedantics: Rift Seen in "Rift Sawn"

As a sawyer (part time) and hobbyist woodworker, the definitions that I've always used (but left a bit elastic) are this:

Quarter-sawn : grain as close as possible to 90 degrees, and not less than 75 degrees.

Rift sawn : grain from 45 to 75 degrees.

Flat sawn : grain less than 45 degrees.

Where the elasticity occurs is when a board has a blend of grains, then I use some judgement about which type of grain is predominant.

that's my usage of the terms....

John

Author:  theguitarwhisperer [ Tue Apr 05, 2011 7:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Semantics & Pedantics: Rift Seen in "Rift Sawn"

I'm out of kerfs.

Author:  B. Howard [ Tue Apr 05, 2011 7:48 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Semantics & Pedantics: Rift Seen in "Rift Sawn"

The photo link posted earlier is basically the same as the one in my plywood wholesalers catalog. The only difference is in how the boards are actually shown as sawn from the quarters. I can have sheets layed up with veneers of any of those 3 types as well as rotary cut. Typically riftsawn is very consistent, much more so than quatersawn. Quatersawn will still have some flat grain at the edges of some boards. There is a noticeable difference when the two are side by side. Used to do a lot of quarter and sometimes rift white oak cabinets a few years ago. The difference really stands out on white oak.
Brian

Author:  Clay S. [ Wed Apr 06, 2011 3:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Semantics & Pedantics: Rift Seen in "Rift Sawn"

I think part of the confusion comes from the fact that a rift saw is used to saw logs radially, as is done to make bevel siding. The rift saw produces vertical grain boards which are ideal for siding as they lay flat. Technically this is rift sawn lumber.
What many of us call rift sawn could probably be better called "off quarter". Somewhere in between quarter and flat sawn grain.

Author:  Mike OMelia [ Wed Apr 06, 2011 4:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Semantics & Pedantics: Rift Seen in "Rift Sawn"

Filippo Morelli wrote:
Todd Stock wrote:
... time to get back to making kerfings...


Kerfing?! How do you make nothing? :mrgreen: [uncle]

Filippo


I have shop full of kerfing....

However... I did find this article (mentioned above) http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-quartersawn-wood.htm very interesting.

But still, this just adds to the confusion. When "we" think of quarter sawn tops, etc., we are looking for grain lines that are almost vertical (viewed at end). In the above link (wisegeek) it is apparent that what they call quarter sawn can yield wood with all grain angles! It does apear to be an issue of semantics. In fact, the riftsawn "method" seems to be the only method that yeilds mostly the type of wood most of us are interested in.

Very good post!

Thanks

Mike

Author:  Bobc [ Wed Apr 06, 2011 7:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Semantics & Pedantics: Rift Seen in "Rift Sawn"

Mike O'Melia wrote:
Filippo Morelli wrote:
Todd Stock wrote:
... time to get back to making kerfings...


Kerfing?! How do you make nothing? :mrgreen: [uncle]

Filippo


I have shop full of kerfing....

However... I did find this article (mentioned above) http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-quartersawn-wood.htm very interesting.

But still, this just adds to the confusion. When "we" think of quarter sawn tops, etc., we are looking for grain lines that are almost vertical (viewed at end). In the above link (wisegeek) it is apparent that what they call quarter sawn can yield wood with all grain angles! It does apear to be an issue of semantics. In fact, the riftsawn "method" seems to be the only method that yeilds mostly the type of wood most of us are interested in.

Very good post!

Thanks

Mike


Mike that is a good article. Unfortunately very few sawyers use the rift sawn method. Too much waste.

Author:  Mike OMelia [ Thu Apr 07, 2011 9:08 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Semantics & Pedantics: Rift Seen in "Rift Sawn"

What is interesting is what we call "quarter sawn" wood can be obtained from all 3 cut methods. Some are more efficient at generating it. Seems what is needed is a set of (generally accepted) terms that describe grain orientation. It appears what folks have done is adopt cutting-method names to describe it, even though it can be inaccurate.

Learned something new today!

Mike

Author:  Link Van Cleave [ Thu Apr 07, 2011 11:53 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Semantics & Pedantics: Rift Seen in "Rift Sawn"

While we are on the subject I will add my two cents. I hear a lot of people calling flat sawn, slab sawn. They are not the same thing.
If you slab saw a log you will end up with all the cuts.

As far as the rest of it I have never been confused. It all seems pretty clear. I go with what John said.

Quote:
As a sawyer (part time) and hobbyist woodworker, the definitions that I've always used (but left a bit elastic) are this:

Quarter-sawn : grain as close as possible to 90 degrees, and not less than 75 degrees.

Rift sawn : grain from 45 to 75 degrees.

Flat sawn : grain less than 45 degrees.

Where the elasticity occurs is when a board has a blend of grains, then I use some judgement about which type of grain is predominant.

that's my usage of the terms....

John

Author:  Link Van Cleave [ Thu Apr 07, 2011 1:39 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Semantics & Pedantics: Rift Seen in "Rift Sawn"

Todd Stock wrote:
Again, I think the issue is using the same words to describe both grain orientation in lumber and the process steps of milling that lumber from a log.

When I suggest that a student buy a nicely quartered set of B/S wood for a project, I'm not demanding he find a log and have it quartersawn. On the other hand, when a sawyer tells me he has quartersawn a log, I don't expect that every piece of lumber milled will show a dead quartered face. Context matters, and in the context of most luthiery discussions, the definitions of quartered, rift, and flatsawn refer strictly to grain orientation in relation to the face, and do not imply a particular methodology on the part of the sawyer.


That sums it up nicely. Well stated.
L.

Author:  Mike OMelia [ Thu Apr 07, 2011 5:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Semantics & Pedantics: Rift Seen in "Rift Sawn"

Link Van Cleave wrote:
Todd Stock wrote:
Again, I think the issue is using the same words to describe both grain orientation in lumber and the process steps of milling that lumber from a log.
.


That sums it up nicely. Well stated.
L.


+2.

Author:  Bobc [ Thu Apr 07, 2011 6:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Semantics & Pedantics: Rift Seen in "Rift Sawn"

Mike O'Melia wrote:
Link Van Cleave wrote:
Todd Stock wrote:
Again, I think the issue is using the same words to describe both grain orientation in lumber and the process steps of milling that lumber from a log.
.


That sums it up nicely. Well stated.
L.


+2.


+3

Author:  alan stassforth [ Thu Apr 07, 2011 8:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Semantics & Pedantics: Rift Seen in "Rift Sawn"

+ 4.
Anyone else?

Author:  Mike OMelia [ Thu Apr 07, 2011 9:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Semantics & Pedantics: Rift Seen in "Rift Sawn"

It is clearly and simply impossible for many of us (me included) to not head off into smart a** land. ;)

Author:  John Arnold [ Thu Apr 07, 2011 9:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Semantics & Pedantics: Rift Seen in "Rift Sawn"

Quote:
I hear a lot of people calling flat sawn, slab sawn. They are not the same thing.
If you slab saw a log you will end up with all the cuts.

At least at the sawmills I have been to, the 'slabs' are the waste pieces from the outside of the log that have wane and bark on them. Most of them are flat sawn. In general, a 'slab' is just any thick piece of wood that usually has a natural edge, no matter what the grain orientation. In that regard, I suppose you could call a through-cut log 'slab cut', but most of the sawmills call that 'through cut' or 'through and through'. That was the term used at the Martin sawmill when I visited it in the early-1980's. With the larger logs, cutting a log that way usually requires a very large bandmill.
The most common method used at the smaller sawmills is called 'boxing the heart'. The log is squared up, then boards are cut, rotating the log 90 or 180 degrees after each cut. By squaring the log first, the sawmill can cut larger logs than its capacity would otherwise allow when cutting through the center of the complete log.

Author:  Howard Klepper [ Thu Apr 07, 2011 9:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Semantics & Pedantics: Rift Seen in "Rift Sawn"

John Arnold wrote:
At least at the sawmills I have been to, the 'slabs' are the waste pieces from the outside of the log that have wane and bark on them. Most of them are flat sawn.


I have heard those called "scabs." I have also heard a sawyer call a thick through-cut board with its two narrower edges left natural a "flitch," but "flitch" is also used for a stack of consecutively cut pieces (which usually do have two natural edges).

A 'rift saw' appears to be a saw built for making radial cuts in a log--I haven't been able to find a drawing or photo of one; but it also is a kind of blade with the teeth on the ends of arms rather than on the perimeter of a disc. I doubt that these are made anymore; before the modern blade making methods of putting cuts within a circular saw blade to relieve expansion, distortion from heat was a major problem, and the rift blade was a way of dealing with that.

The horse may have left the barn already, but 'vertical grain' is probably a better term to use for lumber or resawn guitar wood than 'quartersawn.'

Author:  Link Van Cleave [ Fri Apr 08, 2011 1:47 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Semantics & Pedantics: Rift Seen in "Rift Sawn"

John, I have heard it used that way as well. Also I have heard the outside cuts are called cants.
I call it flitch cut myself but have heard folks call flitch cuts, slab cuts.
Wow, tree names are bad enough but the nomenclature seems to get progressively worse as it goes from tree, to lumber and finally to type of cut.
L.

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/