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

Recovered Sunken Wood
http://w-ww.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10102&t=11398		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  CraigL [ Tue Mar 27, 2007 12:45 am ]
Post subject: 
I've been hearing about wood that has been recovered from the Great Lakes after being submerged for 100+ years. I'm curious to learn more. Does anybody know where/how to get it? What species are available? Is it worth pursuing?
Author:  Heath Blair [ Tue Mar 27, 2007 1:08 am ]
Post subject: 
the one i personally know of is "sinker" redwood. im not sure if any of our sponsors have any, but check out michelettiguitars.com. then go to supplies for luthiers and look for "sinker" redwood. BEAUTIFUL!
Author:  Josh H [ Tue Mar 27, 2007 1:34 am ]
Post subject: 

I have also seen maple and other sunken woods for sale at different times.


As to the where/how? I don't know.
Author:  npalen [ Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:06 am ]
Post subject: 
My personal thought is that the mystique is the only thing that adds value to the sunken wood. A perceived value at that.
Nelson
Author:  John Cavanaugh [ Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:42 am ]
Post subject: 
I remember reading about this some time ago. My recollection is that someone was working with logs that had been recovered from rivers in Wisconsin. I believe the species were midwestern hardwoods, e.g. oak, probably some maple and walnut, too. The wood was expensive. My memory is that it was said to be finer-grained than modern wood because it was old-growth forest wood.

As for where to get some, I'm sorry, I don't remember.
Author:  Hank Mauel [ Tue Mar 27, 2007 5:38 am ]
Post subject: 
"Last century" I had the opportunity to acquire some sitka tops that were recovered from logs that had been submersed in the old log ponds for who knows how long.
The cost was not exhorbitant, about the same as "normal" sitka top sets. The color and grain structures were also similar to regular sets...BUT...it was the most stable top wood I ever worked with. You could take a set, lay it on your work bench and go away for weeks and it would not move! No curl, no "potato chipping", no problems of any sort. The finished tops sounded as good as any I ever made, but the stability of the wood always left me feeling very comfortable that the tops would survive and tolerate any conditions, short of being run over by a truck, that a normal owner would encounter.
So, did the "soaking" do anything? I don't know, but it was the only variable between those sets and regular sets from a "fresh felled" tree.
YMMV!
Author:  cronen [ Tue Mar 27, 2007 8:32 am ]
Post subject: 
Recent article in Wired magazine regarding the recovery process of some of these sunken logs:  Reservoir Logs

Chris
Author:  Pwoolson [ Tue Mar 27, 2007 8:41 am ]
Post subject: 
I agree with Nelson here. I think it's a lot of hype. I have troubles believing that the soaking would really add anything to sound quality. One thing that is definate is that the cold water preserved the wood so bugs and various infestations (fungi, etc) didn't have a chance to attack the wood. Though, I admit that it would be cool to say that the wood you were working has been on the bottom of Superior fo 100 years.
As to your initial question: I think if you google sinker wood lake superior and wisconsin, you could come up with something.
Author:  crowduck [ Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:45 am ]
Post subject: 
There is some speculation regarding the possibility that the Cromona violin makers like Stradivarius used some form of sinker wood.

CrowDuck
Author:  Steve Saville [ Tue Mar 27, 2007 10:10 am ]
Post subject: 
[QUOTE=Pwoolson] I agree with Nelson here. I think it's a lot of hype. I have troubles believing that the soaking would really add anything to sound quality. [/QUOTE] I have trouble believing it and/or understanding any reason behind it, but I'm not so quick to doubt members here and other experience builders that have experience that says there is a noticeable difference. Why would you?

Please understand that no offence intended Paul, I'm just trying to understand your POV.
I have someone that is asking me to make a sinker redwood topped guitar.
Author:  Rob Girdis [ Tue Mar 27, 2007 10:28 am ]
Post subject: 


This is an article someone gave to me a few years back. I don't know where it came or the date of publication.
If you look in the Stew-mac catalog under banjos, they sell some wood for banjo rims that is also salvaged from underwater and is very expensive. Perhaps the cost of the wood is an attempt to reclaim the costs of harvesting it more than any magical sound producing characteristics the wood might have.
When lumber is kiln dried it is first steamed to bring it all up to the same humidity, then it is slowly heated in a controlled drying process to stabilize it. Perhaps the underwater wood is getting a similar treatment, being slow-soaked but with no heat, before drying and this helps to stabilize the wood as Hank has noted.
Just a guess.
Author:  Pwoolson [ Tue Mar 27, 2007 10:52 am ]
Post subject: 
[QUOTE=SteveS] [QUOTE=Pwoolson] I agree with Nelson here. I think it's a lot of hype. I have troubles believing that the soaking would really add anything to sound quality. [/QUOTE] I have trouble believing it and/or understanding any reason behind it, but I'm not so quick to doubt members here and other experience builders that have experience that says there is a noticeable difference. Why would you?

Please understand that no offence intended Paul, I'm just trying to understand your POV.
I have someone that is asking me to make a sinker redwood topped guitar.[/QUOTE]

No offence taken and none indended from my post either. It's been kind of a feisty day on the forum.
I haven't really heard any reports from specific builders, be it pro or con. Only what was said above about stability. I have never experienced any issues with top stability so I don't see that as an issue in my particular building situation. Others might.
I guess the hype part of it is things like that article posted above. I've seen others like it that say it is widly used as instrument wood. I don't know many folks at all that use it.
One of the things that bothers me about the wood industry in general (gross over generalization of course) is that once there is buzz about a certain type of wood, the price skyrockets. (I guess this might be true of most industries). There used to be a time that curly maple was almost considered trash by lumberyards. It was undesireable by most furniture builders. Now we pay out the hoochy-coochy for it because it is popular. In my eyes, the same thing is happening with this sinker wood. Because someone somewhere said it is better than traditional tonewood, it's much more expensive. And why? Processing isn't any more difficult. It just has to sit and dry. But I've yet to see a fact as to if or why it is any better.
Author:  Brock Poling [ Tue Mar 27, 2007 11:39 am ]
Post subject: 
[QUOTE=verhoevenc] Apparently that stability, which is turn means stiffer too[/QUOTE]

That isn't obvious to me. How do you figure this?
Author:  Bob Long [ Tue Mar 27, 2007 12:49 pm ]
Post subject: 
I just today joined a Sinker redwood top from Rick Micheletti. I'll do the rosette, sound hole, and thickness it tomorrow so I may have a better idea then about what it will be like. But so far, I wouldn't call it stiff. It is beautiful to look at though, it looks very much like the top on peter's stunning double-top he posted resently.
Here

Long
Author:  SimonF [ Tue Mar 27, 2007 12:51 pm ]
Post subject: 
Well, I've built one guitar with it and have about 6 sets in my posession.
The value in this wood is that it is primo old growth wood that has been
perfectly preserved. Sure, it might not be better than the very best that
we have today - but it is certainly on par with it.

For what it is worth, the tap tone of every set of the sinker redwood in my
posession is mind blowingly impressive. Tap ANYWHERE on the piece
with just a little rap and the stuff just comes alive. Plus, the allure of it
being sunken underwater for a hundred or so years is pretty cool.

I have a beautiful mastergrade Western Red Cedar top that I got from
Steve @ Colonial and it is one of the nicest sets I have ever seen and has a
great tap tone. I'm sure you all know how much more alive cedar's tap
tone is in comparison to spruce at the same thickness.   By that I mean,
you take someone who is totally green to lutherie and have them tap a
spruce top and then a cedar top. They will always go "Wow" when they
hear the cedar top. Of course, they don't realize the potential in spruce
and the ability to thin it more than cedar.

Well, this sinker redwood is to cedar like cedar is to spruce. The tap tone
has a huge "Wow" factor. Of course, this doesn't guarantee a great
sounding guitar - that is up to the luthier. But I have no doubt that the
sinker redwood is one of the finest soundboards available to us today.
Personally, while it is cool looking, I do prefer a "normal" looking
soundboard.    

Anyway, that is my take on it and here is a closeup of the sinker redwood
under a French Polish finish.

Over and Out,
Simon

full.jpg">
Author:  SimonF [ Tue Mar 27, 2007 12:54 pm ]
Post subject: 
Well, I can't get the picture of image functions to work today. So here is a
link, if you're interested

http://www.fayguitars.com/guitars/gallery_files/page5-1005-f ull.jpg
Author:  outstrung [ Tue Mar 27, 2007 1:09 pm ]
Post subject: 
Sinker redwood is some pretty stuff. Whomever I purchased mine from also
said that is can be thinned more like spruce and that minerals have leached
into the wood over the years. I know that Bob Cef has some Anciet Kauri or
swamp kauri that was found underground in what was swamps back when
there were dinosaurs. I did some reading on Kauri (I dont know if its called
that when it is not from a ancient swamp) and you can use it for tops but not
the Ancient Kauri because it is much too strong. I cant find the website I got
the information from about the Kauri. Im not sure how any of it sounds but
the beauty may be worth the extra penny.
Author:  Kim [ Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:51 pm ]
Post subject: 
Well as for the argument that mineralisation makes wood stiffer and more stable, I'm for it .

I know that mineral impregnation into the cellular structure of wood causes petrification over time. Don't know if you ever held a piece of petrified wood in your hand at all but I have, and it is just a lump of rock, hard heavy and dense rock. It's not flakey like shayal (spl), you can still see the grain structure of the wood clearly defined, but it is just solid rock.

Now in geological terms 100 years is nothing but, if you consider the amount of soluble minerals that make up the soup at the bottom of a given lake/river/dam and the fact that for every 6 feet of water the atmospheric pressure doubles. And if you also consider that the softened, expanded, and waterlogged cells of the wood are probably less resistant to mineral impregnation, then it could be argued that, along with the supporting visual evidence of discoloration, 100 years is long enough for the process of petrification to be well on the way.

So, if this be the case, it makes sense to me that if we were to now retrieve and dry this part petrified wood from it's sarcophagus of mineral soup, it would indeed be stiffer and more stable than none pickled wood.

If you look at the process of wood polymerisation, it basically amounts to using vacuum to suck the cells of wood empty whilst in a polymer bath, and after a while, then pressurizing the bath to force polymer solution back into the wood cells. Sinker wood is the same deal, just it takes longer and instead of polymer, you have minerals which harden within the cells.

This is just my reckoning, but it will take some pretty good science for me to change my mind. Especially so since I also have a set of sinker red from Rick and, for me, all the claims above about it ringing exceptionally well and being very stiff and stable have been true.

Cheers

Kim
Author:  Steve Saville [ Wed Mar 28, 2007 2:42 am ]
Post subject: 
[QUOTE=Pwoolson]......I've yet to see a fact as to if or why it is any better. [/QUOTE] ....and we never will. As you know, some are convinced that one particular wood is best for either all guitars, or a particular style. No facts will ever support that.
We are dealing with opinions, and I guess that means everyone's opinion is valid.
Like you, I put more value in opinions of people with lots of experience.
Thank you for your response.

I will start my sinker redwood guitar late this year.
I might post a picture or two with an opinion.
Author:  Ziegenfuss [ Wed Mar 28, 2007 8:13 am ]
Post subject: 

I am new to the forum, but sunken wood is something that ineterests me like crazy.  In fact, I am getting my dive license in order to start trying to bring small bits up from the bottom of Lake Michigan.  What I have learned supplements much of what has been said.  Much of the sunken wood (in the great lakes) is wood that was cut more toward the virgin growth period of North America, when wood grew much more slowly, and was by nature significantly more dense to begin with.  (There has been speculation that this same phenomona - caused additionally by a mini-ice age across Europe - gave Stradavarius some of his tone).  Anyway, at the bottom of the great lakes, it is cold and oxygen deprived, and traditional aerobic bacterias that pulpify wood do not survive. Anaerobic bacteria does, but targets different portions of the wood - mainly the soft, non-structural parts.  What is left over time is a petrifying, incredibly dense piece of wood that is filled in millions of tiny voicing chambers.  Supposedly, there is documented evidence of the increase of tonal and strength characteristics.


Part of the excitement is just going down to get it though...


Sorry to bleed on the page,


Stephen
Author:  Kim [ Wed Mar 28, 2007 1:08 pm ]
Post subject: 
Welcome to the OLF Steve,

I started scuba diving at 14 and by 16 was using a hooker (not that kind of hooker sheesh!) working for a dive co doing hull scrubs etc in Fremantle harbour here in Western Australia. No wood down there though excepting the karri pylons which held up the wharf.

I am with you all the way that a big part of the excitement in your venture will be just getting down there among it. That is something that I never did tire of as there is always something new and interesting to see.

Even scrubbing ship hulls in 50' of water was exciting as it was common for sharks to follow ships into the harbour attracted by the discharge. They would swim around underneath you as you worked, feeding upon the smaller stuff that was attracted by the barnacles and whatnot knocked off by the air powered scrubber.

One of the most amazing things I have ever seen on earth is a steel cutting lance in operation under water in the pitch blackness of 11pm at night. When combined with the weightlessness one feels when diving with scuba, the intense brightness was so spectacular that one lost all other senses. You could not perceive how close or far away the light was or by any other means other than observing the direction of your bubbles, which way was up or down.

Oh....just to keep on topic, one of the guys had a guitar and we would gather after a dive and sing sea shanties. I don't think that guitar had any sinker wood in it what so ever, but it still sounded OK to me.

Cheers

Kim
Author:  peterm [ Wed Mar 28, 2007 1:44 pm ]
Post subject: 
The sunken Redwood has a high mineral content and its also partially or in a semi petrification state due to the length of time it was under water.
The tap tone is more alive and more bell like than regular redwood. Personally I love it!

Author:  Kim [ Wed Mar 28, 2007 5:35 pm ]
Post subject: 
[QUOTE=verhoevenc] Well if you can find some down there I think the problem will be getting it back up to the surface... imagine how heavy it'll be, even in water, and it's not like you can bring your chainsaw down and cut it into smaller pieces hahahaha.
Chris[/QUOTE]

I have done a bit of recovery work Chris and it is not as hard as you would imagine. The hard bit is getting things rigged for the lift. EG getting slings under the bugger can be a bit of a challenge but it aint that hard. Once the slings are in place you just hitch them to an air bag or 2 and fill'em up, and she will rise to the surface.

You just need to be careful to use the correct sized lift bags and not to over fill them. If you do, the air will expand and vent from the bottom of the bags as the load rises. This can make things a little unstable and freak'in dangerous and when you scream in 70' of water no one hears you, they can only judge how scared you where by the size of the lump in the back of your wetsuit

Very easy really but once at the surface you would certainly have your work cut out for you.

Cheers

Kim
Author:  Ziegenfuss [ Wed Mar 28, 2007 11:15 pm ]
Post subject: 

My dive instructor and I have been manufacturing bags for the purpose of bringing this stuff up.  I want to start small - more manageable in size.  He says that even with the small stuff, the biggest issue is breaking its seal from the muck...Past that - stabilizing the wood is apparently incredibly difficult after you pull it out...But I figure it is totally worth a good solid couple of trys.


 


 


Stephen
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/