# Instruments and Equipment > Builders and Repair >  Sycamore vs. Maple

## Bernie Daniel

Roger Siminoff posted a great discussion on maple and sycamore on his web site.  Like all of his writing this was very interesting article.

----------


## testore

English Sycamore IS a maple family. I haven't read what Siminoff has to say but the English "sycamore" is great.

----------


## Marty Jacobson

All I know is, from one supplier here in Atlanta (Hardwoods International), nice curly maple on the slab is $6.00 a board foot. English sycamore is $40. 'Tis pretty. But that's crazy talk!

----------


## sunburst

Where is the link supposed to lead? I get a "yahoo mail" page with an error message.

----------


## Mike Black

*Here is the article:*

Sycamore vs. Maple  

Forestry is a challenging and exacting science, and most who are in the business
of managing woodlots, harvesting trees, and selling lumber have a pretty good
idea of the nature, region, value, and structural merits of the materials they are
engaged with.

For the untrained botanist, it's very easy to spot the difference between
deciduous and evergreen trees. While most people can pick out the maples from
the oaks (during the summer with leaves intact), determining the specific species
within families of trees gets a bit more difficult. And, once the leaves and bark
have been removed, it takes a reasonably well-trained eye to separate poplar
from cherry or black spruce from yellow spruce.

Trees are classified into various genus (groups) and species (sub-groups) and
are given Latin names to more precisely define their scientific classification.
For example, Picea is the genus of spruce, and sitchensis is species of Sitka
spruce. Red spruce is Picea rubens. (By the way, there is no tree or wood named
"Adirondack Red Spruce" even though we hear so much about it. This wood is
more properly called "red spruce" and was given its "Adirondack" nickname by
the CF Martin Organisation whose Nazareth, PA facilities are at the southern
end of the Adirondack Mountain range, and who at one time, got much of its
soundboard wood from that area.)

Of the four common members of the maple (Acer) genus used for luthierie, three
of them are not often confused, but the fourth one is. The common maples we
use are sugar maple (Acer saccharum), red maple (Acer rubrum), and big leaf
maple (Acer macrophyllum). Then, there is the odd ball, (Acer pseudoplantanus);
more commonly known as Sycamore. "Pseudoplantanus" actually means false plant which leads to why this wood is often mistaken for maple. (Acer pseudoplantanus is the common sycamore in Europe. Plantanus is the common sycamore in North America.)

Sycamore weighs 44 pounds per cubic foot compared to 47 pounds for sugar
maple. And, while it is very common to find curly figure in sycamore, the striping
is typically very consistent and regular, with close parallel curls. These close
parallel curls are what most luthiers refer to as "fiddle maple" with the wider,
more irregular stripes being referred to as "tiger maple" or "flamed maple."

So, sycamore is a member of the maple (Acer) genus and is often sold as maple
but its hardness, stiffness, and weight are quite different from red or sugar maple.
(From a weight standpoint, sycamore is more similar to big leaf maple.)

When we were building the prototype F5L mandolins at Gibson in 1978, we were
using sycamore, and most of the F5L's produced by Gibson up to about 1983
had sycamore backboards. Here's a picture of the backboard on one of the first
three F5L prototypes (left) compared to an original Loar-signed F5 (center).
Notice the very straight and parallel figure lines on the sycamore backboard
compared to the more tiger-stripe appearance of those on the original F5s.



The mandolin on the right is one of ours from 2012 and features a backboard
made from big leaf maple. Big leaf maple has unusual curly figure, and if you
carefully study the figure of the original F5 mandolin (center) to the big leaf maple
we used (right), you see huge similarities in the irregularity of the figure. Many
luthiers suggest that Gibson used sugar ("hard") maple on the original F5s, but
if you study both the grain and figure carefully, and if you take into consideration
the abundance of highly figured big leaf maple that is and was available in
Michigan - surrounding Gibson's Kalamazoo plant - you'll quickly come to the
conclusion that these Loar-signed mandolins featured big leaf maple backboards
(which contributed greatly to the instrument's dark and woody tone). Big leaf
maple is ideal for mandolin backboards because it weighs quite a bit less and
is more supple than red or sugar maple, and these attributes lend themselves
greatly towards improved mid-range and bass response of the instrument.

Using sycamore isn't a bad thing. Since sycamore is in the weight class of big
leaf maple, it produces similar results. However, I much prefer big leaf maple
because of the wonderful irregular appearance of its curly figure. I don't like using sycamore for necks though, because it doesn't have the rigidity of red or sugar
maple.

Some wood dealers are providing sycamore today in place of maple. Technically, they are selling an Acer, but while the figure may be very pronounced, it is not the same wood that was used in the early Loar-signed F5s.

To make a long story short, if you get some maple with tight straight figure and if feels a bit on the light side, it's most probably sycamore, not maple (even though it's a member of the same genus).

----------


## testore

$40 a board foot still makes a very inexpensive back. The last violin I made had a $300 back.

----------


## Mandobart

Sycamore is a very common introduced tree in my region.  Takes our sub-freezing winters and 100 F plus summers.  Makes great firewood, but sheer hell to split.  Burns hot long and clean.  Due to the weird grain patterns it can have beautiful figuring when milled.  $40 a foot means I burned up a few $1000 this winter....

----------


## testore

I feel that there is a huge error in this logic. The weight of a piece of wood clan vary within the same tree. To say that you can determine the species by weight is false. Also, the sycamore I have seen in the states looks nothing like the sycamore found in England. Similar to "poplar" sold in hardware stores not actually being poplar. It is tulip wood, or trade poplar. The usage of the word sycamore should be thought of in a similar fashion. I have used English sycamore on many violas and cellos and a few mandolins. The very best English violin makers historically did too. English sycamore IS a member of the Acer family and should be thought of as having more to do with other European maple groups than anything else. Buy it when you can find it, it is incredible stuff.

----------


## testore

Relax Mandobart, I'm sure you are burning American "sycamore" and not an Acer.

----------


## Mandobart

Yes, it is American Sycamore, Platanus Occidentalis in my region.  Although we have a lot of London Plane tree (Platanus × acerifolia) as well.

----------


## almeriastrings

Quite a lot of very fine English Sycamore (_Acer pseudoplatanus)_ is grown in Northern parts of the UK, and exported to... Germany.. where it is resawn for violin wood (and often sold on as being of German origin!). I knew the owner of one large sawmill there who was very much into this particular trade. The native European Field Maple (_Acer campestre_) was certainly widely used during the 'golden age' of violin making and features on some very famous instruments.. it is the common maple of Northern Italy. 

I am intrigued by the comment about Bigleaf  maple (_Acer macrophyllum_) originating in Michigan and being used on the original F5's. This is well outside its normal range, isn't it? This is the USDA distribution map:

http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=acma3

Are we talking about introduced plantations being used? Seems kind of odd, because there are large growths there of native species.

----------


## testore

I too wondered about the big leaf statement. I read the article again and find it short on proof of the findings. it sounds like almost pure guess work.Big leaf is West coast only isn't it?

----------


## almeriastrings

Yes, that's my understanding. I would have thought the only way they'd use Bigleaf is if they were buying it in from somewhere else, and not using local stock. There is an old US Forestry Department text which has quite a lot about this available online. Well worth a read:

Maple Species by H S Betts

----------


## sunburst

I think the big leaf part is wrong, and I agree it sounds like guesswork.

----------


## peter.coombe

I hate common names.  I do wish people would stop using the name Sycamore for _Acer pseudoplatanus_ because it creates confusion with American sycamore which is a completely different species.  A much better name is European Maple, becasue it is European in origin and it is a true Maple.  It is the traditional wood for violin backs, and can make very fine sounding mandolins.  An excellent tonewood, one of the very best.  That article only creates confusion by implying _Acer pseudoplatanus_ is Sycamore so is not a Maple which is untrue.  As for price, here in Australia the costs of American Maple and European Maple is about the same because both are imported, but of course European Maple is much more expensive then the local Maples in the USA becasue it is imported.  Personally I really like European Maple (_Acer pseudoplatanus_), and you can get really good quality from the violin wood suppliers.

----------


## Shelagh Moore

There are a couple of inaccuracies in the article leading to a couple of erroneous statements. Firstly, as others have said, English (more properly European) sycamore,_ Acer pseudoplatanus_, is a true maple and very suitable for instrument-making. American Sycamore, again as others have said, is a species of _Platanus_, closely related to hybrids like the London Plane, not an _Acer_.

English Sycamore is _Acer pseudoplatanus_ (false Plane, because the leaves are somewhat similar) not _pseudoplantanus_ as referred to erroneously in the article. That "false plant" does not exist!

To further complicate names, the "sycamore" of the Bible is actually a species of fig, _Ficus sycomorus_.

----------


## Bernie Daniel

If you had read it you would have seen that he did say "English Sycamore" is a maple -- there is also an "American Sycamore"

----------


## Shelagh Moore

> If you had read it you would have seen that he did say "English Sycamore" is a maple -- there is also an "American Sycamore"


I did read it and did see that thank you very much. That was not the point I was making which was a correction of the species name and what had been inferred from that.

----------


## Bernie Daniel

> I hate common names.  I do wish people would stop using the name Sycamore for _Acer pseudoplatanus_ because it creates confusion with American sycamore which is a completely different species.  A much better name is European Maple, becasue it is European in origin and it is a true Maple.  It is the traditional wood for violin backs, and can make very fine sounding mandolins.  An excellent tonewood, one of the very best.  That article only creates confusion by implying _Acer pseudoplatanus_ is Sycamore so is not a Maple which is untrue.  As for price, here in Australia the costs of American Maple and European Maple is about the same because both are imported, but of course European Maple is much more expensive then the local Maples in the USA becasue it is imported.  Personally I really like European Maple (_Acer pseudoplatanus_), and you can get really good quality from the violin wood suppliers.


I agree with that -- common names are risky.  At the same time I don't understand why some many persons get confused by it though.  

The big confusion seems to be about American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis).  Where I live "everyone" knows what "sycamore" is.  This is one of the most common riparian trees in the entire south eastern USA.  

As Siminof points out the American tree is not the same tree as "English sycamore" or (Acer pseudoplatanus).    But I think where he confuses folks is by thereafter using the term "sycamore" to mean the English maple (_Acer pseudoplatanus_)  :Smile: 

I agree Roger should have more clearly stated that "English sycamore" (_A. psuedoplantus_) IS indeed a true maple tree (same genus as the North American species).  I wasn't confused when I read it last night but I can see how it might be confusing depending upon how you read it.     

BTW, there are actually *three* American *sycamore* species. In addition to "American sycamore" (Platanus occidentalis) found,as noted, in the southeast there is also  _Platanus racemosa_ commonly called "California sycamore" and found there and other western state and then there is _Platanus wrightii_ which is also called "Arizona sycamore" as that is where it is most typically found.  

Mandobart I am think you are seeing "California sycamore" not the one growing in the eastern USA?

And where does Roger say you can type wood by weight?  I think he just says the tend to be different?

I thought the most interesting part of the article as that the early F-5L were made with _Acer pseudoplatanus_ not one of the three commonly used  American maple species.

----------


## Pete Jenner

> I thought the most interesting part of the article as that the early F-5L were made with _Acer pseudoplatanus_ not one of the three commonly used  American maple species.


Disgraceful!!! How unamerican!  :Wink:

----------

John Ellington

----------


## Bernie Daniel

> I did read it and did see that thank you very much. That was not the point I was making which was a correction of the species name and what had been inferred from that.


Sorry about the confusion but I was not responding to *your* post!   :Smile:

----------


## Shelagh Moore

> Sorry about that the confusion but I was not responding to your post!


Think we're all on the right track now, which is a good thing!  :Smile: 

Here, in the UK, _Acer pseudoplatanus_ is very common and yields some rather nice figured instrument wood of good density. Good for sustainable construction.

----------


## testore

Roger suggested that if a piece of wood is light in weight that it could very well be "sycamore" rather than maple, when comparing the two. I think that is redicuolus, misleading and wrong. It doesn't make sense that Gibson would have used maple from outside of the Midwest during the teens and twenty's. The way that the backs were joined(slip matched) suggests a lumber mill of which there where plenty throughout the Midwest. To suggest it was big leaf maple because of a particular sound is also misleading. The figure shown in the photos of the Loar can be found in any species of figured maple and to claim you can identify it now is simply an overstatement. Once wood is finished and colored through 90 years of oxidation you simply are left to assume an origin and guess at a species. My biggest complaint is the usage of the word sycamore. We are comparing Acer species and it should have been more clearly written.

----------


## whistler

> Quite a lot of very fine English Sycamore (_Acer pseudoplatanus)_ is grown in Northern parts of the UK, and exported to... Germany.. where it is resawn for violin wood (and often sold on as being of German origin!). I knew the owner of one large sawmill there who was very much into this particular trade. The native European Field Maple (_Acer campestre_) was certainly widely used during the 'golden age' of violin making and features on some very famous instruments..



Ironically, sycamore _A. pseudoplatanus_ is not native to the British Isles, having been introduced from mainland Europe in about the 16th Century., and is considered in the forestry trade to be a 'weed tree'.  However, there are many mature trees around in streets, parks, gardens and open country.  Norway maple _A. platanoides_ is another introduced species in the UK, producing lutherie-grade wood.  Although it is frequently planted, it is less widely naturalised than sycamore.  Its wood has very similar physical properties to sycamore, but like many N. American maple species, it bears orange-brown ray flecks, that contrast with the surrounding wood (in sycamore the rays appear the same colour as the surrounding wood, giving it a very clean, white appearance).  Field maple _A. campestre_, at least in the UK, seldom grows large and straight enough for instrument backs but, being otherwise similar to sycamore, it is a favourite of turners and carvers. (Many old field maples have been coppiced at some point in their lives and consequently sport multiple, often contorted, trunks.)

----------


## Bernie Daniel

> Roger suggested that if a piece of wood is light in weight that it could very well be "sycamore" rather than maple, when comparing the two. I think that is redicuolus, misleading and wrong. It doesn't make sense that Gibson would have used maple from outside of the Midwest during the teens and twenty's. The way that the backs were joined(slip matched) suggests a lumber mill of which there where plenty throughout the Midwest. To suggest it was big leaf maple because of a particular sound is also misleading. The figure shown in the photos of the Loar can be found in any species of figured maple and to claim you can identify it now is simply an overstatement. Once wood is finished and colored through 90 years of oxidation you simply are left to assume an origin and guess at a species. My biggest complaint is the usage of the word sycamore. We are comparing Acer species and it should have been more clearly written.


Well Roger was there in the building of the F-5L - in fact he started that project in 1978.  He says those mandolins had sycamore backs (i.e., Acer pseudoplatanus) and I believe him.   I don't know if you were working for in the Kalamazoo factory along with Roger of not but I'll take* his* word for that.  

He does not imply that Gibson used maple not procured from the Midwest for the 1920's mandolins -- unless you consider Michigan not part of the Midwest. LOL  

Roger presents a logical case that those '20's F-5 mandolins were constructed of Big Leaf maple not Sugar maple and his analysis is is *not* based on the weight of the wood.

Various members of this forum have insisted at various times that the finish, the glue, the species of spruce (top wood), the shape and size of the holes and just about everything else you can think of affect the sound of a mandolin.  

So if someone of the stature of Roger Siminoff says Big Leaf maple gives a superior tone I guess he is entitled to that opinion.  I would take his word over a lot of others.

A valid critique of an article presupposes that the person making the critique is actual representing what the article actually states.  At least that is how is supposed to work.

I already stated (post #19) that his use of sycamore was confusing...

----------


## testore

Roger doesn't state what he uses to determine that Loar era mondolin backs were big leaf maple. So I'm left to think that it's still guesswork. Also, to say that Gibson used sycamore in the late 70's is also wrong. As I've stated he is adding to the confusion. It is NOT sycamore! It is maple. The source for the trade name sycamore(Acer pseudoplatanus) is usually England. Did Gibson actually import it for use on mandolins? I doubt it. Did they really use sycamore and not Acer pseudoplatanus?

----------


## sunburst

> ...Roger presents a logical case that those '20's F-5 mandolins were constructed of Big Leaf maple not Sugar maple and his analysis is is *not* based on the weight of the wood...


Mostly based on the figure of the wood, and I don't know why because any common maple species can display any curly (or flame or tiger) figure. If we saw quilted figure in the backs of Loars (we don't), then we would have a good indication that they were big leaf maple because we don't see quilted figure in other maples, but density or curly figure cannot distinguish a species in a constructed instrument. 
One common characteristic of big leaf maple is the appearance of dark annual rings (grain lines) that can and do show up through a finish. I've never seen that in the back of a Loar mandolin, and though it is easiest to see in quartered pieces, and though many Loar mandolins had flat sawn backs, I recently saw all three of Hershel Sizemore's Loars together in one place, and two of them have quartered backs. All three have different curly figure. As always when I've looked at a Loar, I did not see the dark grain lines that would indicate big leaf maple, or anything else that would indicate big leaf maple, in any of them, including the quartered backs. I do not think Lloyd Loar mandolins had big leaf maple backs, and I've never heard it suggested before, but I have not seen them all...

----------


## Spruce

> *Here is the article:*
> 
> Sycamore vs. Maple  
> 
> Forestry is a challenging and exacting science, and most who are in the business
> of managing woodlots, harvesting trees, and selling lumber have a pretty good
> idea of the nature, region, value, and structural merits of the materials they are
> engaged with.
> 
> ...


 :Disbelief:

----------

swain

----------


## James Sanford

I have a question regarding identifying wood.  Is it possible to test the "DNA"?

----------


## testore

Care to elaborate Bruce? I've been anxiously waiting your comments......please?

----------


## Bernie Daniel

> Roger doesn't state what he uses to determine that Loar era mondolin backs were big leaf maple. So I'm left to think that it's still guesswork. Also, to say that Gibson used sycamore in the late 70's is also wrong. As I've stated he is adding to the confusion. It is NOT sycamore! It is maple. The source for the trade name sycamore(Acer pseudoplatanus) is usually England. Did Gibson actually import it for use on mandolins? I doubt it. Did they really use sycamore and not Acer pseudoplatanus?


I would agree it's his guess as he obviously was not there in the 1920's -- but keep in mind he has worked closely with Gibson -- there are pics of him working in the Kalamazoo factory so he  probably learned a lot from the "old timers" there so therefore it follows that he probably knows a lot of things about the early work at Gibson that most of us don't.  I think he is a pretty reliable source.

As to sycamore -- folks from the UK can correct me but I think a common name for _Acer pseudoplatanus_ is actually "sycamore maple" -- or *sycamore* for short.  I don't see why you are so hung up on that.

Other common names for the tree are: false plane-tree, great maple, Scottish maple, mock-plane, Celtic maple and here it comes, *sycamore*!

Oh one other thing -- American sycamore, _Platanus occidentalis_, has been used for mandolin backs and sides so that adds to the confusion I suppose

----------


## Bernie Daniel

> I have a question regarding identifying wood.  Is it possible to test the "DNA"?


Interesting thought.  I think wood is mostly cell wall -- but I would guess there is still plenty of DNA in there - -but the question would be how badly it is degraded I suppose.

----------


## testore

The reason I'm bothered by the usage of the word sycamore is because it is not a sycamore. Also if you go to a lumber yard and buy sycamore(in the U.S)to build a mandolin it won't be an Acer(maple). Roger doesn't clarify that very well.

----------


## Marty Jacobson

> I have a question regarding identifying wood.  Is it possible to test the "DNA"?


Apparently so! http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...87I09D20120819

----------


## Spruce

> Care to elaborate Bruce? I've been anxiously waiting your comments......please?


There is very little in that article, IMHO, that jives with reality...
I don't mean to get nit-picky, but in the tonewood biz we _have_ to...    :Wink: 
If this was a Wiki article, it would _bleed_ with blue ink...
For instance:

_"Sycamore vs. Maple"_ 

Sycamore (in this discussion) _is_ maple...

_"'Pseudoplantanus" actually means false plant which leads to why this wood is often mistaken for maple."_

It's "_pseudoplatanus_", and not "_pseudoplantanus_", OK?.
And it _is_ maple.
Here ya go.

_"Sycamore weighs 44 pounds per cubic foot compared to 47 pounds for sugar
maple."_

Not always.
Wood famously varies from tree-to-tree.
Those are _average_ weights, averaging hundreds of trees...

_"And, while it is very common to find curly figure in sycamore"_

No no no.
In fact, in the logyards of Europe I always had a _much_ harder time finding curly trees compared to the percentage of trees that displayed curly figure in North America...

_"...the striping
is typically very consistent and regular..."_

In England, yes.  
But the Bosnian stuff--with it's broad slanted wide flaming--is the stuff that is the most highly sought after because you see it _all the time_ in the old Italian fiddles.

_"These close
parallel curls are what most luthiers refer to as "fiddle maple" with the wider,
more irregular stripes being referred to as "tiger maple" or "flamed maple."_ 

There famously isn't any standard terminology for this.
It varies from country to country, from rifle stock makers to luthiers, and even within the luthiery community itself... 
As we all know...    :Wink:  

_So, sycamore is a member of the maple (Acer) genus and is often sold as maple
but its hardness, stiffness, and weight are quite different from red or sugar maple._

There's a _huge_ market for _Acer rubens_ in this country for violins, because it can be virtually indistinguishable from the European maple that everyone values so-ooo highly...
In both it's weight and visuals under varnish, it _can be_ hard to distinguish from European maple...

_"From a weight standpoint, sycamore is more similar to big leaf maple"_

Not necessarily...

_"...if you take into consideration
the abundance of highly figured big leaf maple that is and was available in
Michigan - surrounding Gibson's Kalamazoo plant..."_

Really?
I had no idea Bigleaf grew in Michigan, unless it was in someone's back yard.
And even that is doubtful...
It's an indigenous species to the Left Coast.
Here ya go.

_"...you'll quickly come to the
conclusion that these Loar-signed mandolins featured big leaf maple backboards"_

First time I've _ever_ heard of this...
Bigleaf on the quarter is the one maple species that is pretty easy to ID under varnish, and I've never seen a Loar that I would guess "Bigleaf" on...
Yes, the wood on the Loars is hard to positively ID, but Bigleaf would be my _last_ choice of the 6 maple species commercially available at the time....

_"Big leaf
maple is ideal for mandolin backboards because it weighs quite a bit less and
is more supple than red or sugar maple..."_

Again, not necessarily...

_"Since sycamore is in the weight class of big
leaf maple"_

^^^

_"I don't like using sycamore for necks though, because it doesn't have the rigidity of red...maple."_

Again, (if worm-track was not present in the red maple) I would have a hard time telling the two apart in the lumberyard...

_"Some wood dealers are providing sycamore today in place of maple."_ 

European wood dealers--who have been doing this for well over 200 years--have _always_ provided sycamore in place of maple....
Because it _is_ maple.

_"Technically, they are selling an Acer...it is not the same wood that was used in the early Loar-signed F5s."_

I'm pretty sure we see a _lot_ of sycamore, _especially_ in the early Loars...
But again, it's famously hard--if not impossible--to ID the wood...
There is a chemical test for differentiating between Red and Hard maple, but throw European into the mix (much less Bigleaf), and you're looking at a tough nut to crack...

_"To make a long story short, if you get some maple with tight straight figure and if feels a bit on the light side, it's most probably sycamore"_

Look at all the Strads with their figuring that is hardly tight and straight...
Sycamore.  _Acer pseudoplatanus_.  Period.

_"...not maple..."_

If it's an _Acer_, isn't it maple??

Whew, glad I got some time on my hands here...   :Wink:

----------

HoGo, 

Mike Black, 

Pete Jenner, 

peter.coombe, 

Soundfarmer Pete, 

sunburst, 

swain

----------


## peter.coombe

"To make a long story short, if you get some maple with tight straight figure and if feels a bit on the light side, it's most probably sycamore"

BS.  This is Bosnian _Acer pseudoplatanus_.  I have about 50 sets and there is just as much variation in the figure as you will find in American Maples.  Some is broad and uneven as in this example, others are tight and even, others are broad and even and anything in between.  As for being light, yes it is lighter than hard Maple, but there is a big overlap with Big Leaf and Red Maple.

----------

swain

----------


## HoGo

Amen to what Bruce said!
I just add that in central Europe I'd guess the ratio of maples in forests is something like 90% acer pseudoplatanus, 6-7% acer platanoides, and the remaining 3-4% acer campestre. Most of european instruments are made with a. pseudoplatanus and only very few strads are referred as built from acer campestre. I never heard about a. platanoides being identified in instruments even though its usually larger tree than a. campestre.
Also I've used just few boards of red maple and they were all noticeably lighter and softer than any european maple I've ever came across. 

"I don't like using sycamore for necks though, because it doesn't have the rigidity of red or sugar
maple." he should tell that to all the violin making folks...

----------

almeriastrings, 

swain

----------


## brunello97

> "To make a long story short, if you get some maple with tight straight figure and if feels a bit on the light side, it's most probably sycamore"
> 
> BS.  This is Bosnian _Acer pseudoplatanus_.


An interesting (and informative) discussion following a fairly sloppy bit of writing (and perhaps some mushy thinking) from RS. Above all, to be constantly referring to AP as 'sycamore' after introducing 'American sycamore" (PO) into the article is maddening. Basic editing protocols come to mind. The spelling mistakes ought to be embarrassing. A rewrite seems in order....

Not to fuel the fire further, but Peter's quote though may be a bit quick on the draw (and evidence of some inverted logical thinking.)  RS does say 

"but while the figure {on AP} may be very pronounced, it is not the same wood that was used in the early Loar-signed F5s.

To make a long story short, if you get some maple with tight straight figure and if feels a bit on the light side, it's most probably sycamore, not maple (even though it's a member of the same genus)."

It really wouldn't be fair, as Peter seems to infer, that he also means the opposite, i.e. that if there is figure that it COULDN'T be AP. RS clearly isn't saying that. (Acknowledging that the question viz _weight_ here is moot.)  There's enough in the article with which to pummel the man as it stands...

Mick

----------


## Walt Kuhlman

Here is a link with a few photos referring to the woods being discussed:

http://www.wood-database.com/lumber-...ycamore-maple/

----------


## Steve Sorensen

This is the back of a mandolin that got Roger all fired up about the "Sycamore" versus "Maple" versus "Sycamore Maple" during the recent Mandolin Gathering at the Great 48 weekend of jamming in Bakersfield.  Wood was harvested in Newfoundland, Canada.



His contention was that the figure was too tight to be Sugar, Red or Black . . .

Have at it Arborists!

Steve.

----------


## Walt Kuhlman

This is true Sycamore:

http://www.wood-database.com/lumber-...oods/sycamore/

----------


## Steve Sorensen

Hmmmm...  Absolutely NO ray flecks one would expect to find in _Platanus occidentalis_ - this back is cut almost perfectly on the quarter.

Steve

----------


## Spruce

> Have at it Arborists!


No.   :Smile: 

There isn't anyone alive--including Bruce Hoadley--who would bet their house on ID'ing that wood...

Armed with the knowledge of it's harvest locale, we theoretically know it's one of the Eastern maple species, but even then I wouldn't bet on it...

That's the problem with this subject--the more you know, the less you realize how sure you are of _anything_...

----------

Mike Black, 

Steve Sorensen, 

swain

----------


## almeriastrings

Sloppy use of common names for botanical and zoological species is a real minefield and can lead to all kinds of confusion. Sycamore is only one example. Here's another.  In the United States it is commonplace to call all members of the shield reptile group 'turtles' whether they live on the land or in the water.  In Britain and most of Europe a different terminology is preferred in which tortoises are exclusively or mainly land dwellers, turtles are sea-going or marine dwellers and terrapins are freshwater aquatic species. In respect of species such as box and wood turtles however, it has generally become accepted everywhere that these should be known colloquially as 'turtles' even though they are primarily terrestrial. This situation is further confused in Australia, who call their freshwater terrapins 'tortoises'.... 

You can see the problem. 

The tree (_Acer pseudoplatanus_) has been colloquially known as 'Sycamore' in Britain since the 16th C., but it is very likely that the name arose as a result of confusion, somewhere down the line, with the Biblical sycamore tree (_Ficus sycomorus_). 

As to identifying samples, without knowing an accurate geographical origin (or resorting to lab tests) it is an even bigger minefield. Attempting to ID the various 'maple' species by figure, well, good luck.

----------


## Spruce

> Attempting to ID the various 'maple' species by figure, well, good luck.


Yeah, but that doesn't stop _some_ folks...

This weekend I'll be seeing a certain vintage guitar vendor who insists on labeling each of his "pieces"--Martins, Gibsons, Epis--with the species of spruce proudly on display on the pricetag...

I asked for a lesson on how he does this, and got the most condescending and know-it-all response, with all the generalizations known to man unfolded before my very eyes...

The truth is _we don't know what these wonderful instruments we all know and love were made out of_, and there's no way that I know of to really find out...

Yeah, we can throw out a well-educated opinion, but to say _for sure_ what wood is in the Loars or 'Bones or 'Bursts or Amatis just ain't gonna happen, and really degrades the long-term conversation...

And this thread is Exhibit A...    :Smile:

----------

swain

----------


## dcoventry

A combination of woods that produces an exceptional mandolin of unflinching tonal properties and quality is what we should all be aiming for producing and possessing.

I think.

But wow, the conversation is really, really interesting.

----------


## John Arnold

> It's "pseudoplatanus", and not "pseudoplantanus", OK?.


"Platanus" is the genus for American sycamore, or European planetree. 




> The tree (Acer pseudoplatanus) has been colloquially known as 'Sycamore' in Britain since the 16th C., but it is very likely that the name arose as a result of confusion, somewhere down the line, with the Biblical sycamore tree (Ficus sycomorus).


I always thought it was because the leaves look like a planetree (or American sycamore).




> Attempting to ID the various 'maple' species by figure, well, good luck.


Distinguishing soft maple from hard maple requires a magnifying glass or microscope, but Hoadley does outline the method. 

In the past, I have been confused by various pieces of maple, but I had no trouble distinguishing the bigleaf maple that Ted Davis had. The texture was much coarser, and the pores larger. And unlike Roger, I certainly know where bigleaf does and doesn't grow.

.

----------


## Spruce

> Distinguishing soft maple from hard maple requires a magnifying glass or microscope, but Hoadley does outline the method.


He does?
I'll have to go have another read...

I _do_ remember the ferrous sulfate test...
Not sure if this is a verbatim lift from Hoadley's book or not, but:

_"When a saturated water solution of ferrous sulfate is applied to red maple, a deep blue-black color develops;  when the same solution is applied to sugar maple, a greenish color results."_

----------


## sunburst

> ...the figure was too tight to be Sugar, Red or Black . . .


A few years ago I had a load of "mixed hardwood" firewood delivered to my shop. It showed up in the back of a dump truck and was dumped in a pile in front of the shop. I live in Virginia, where the native maples are red, sugar, silver, and some other smaller species. I haven't seen any sugar maple in the area where I live now, though I was raised where it is common. There is no black maple in this area. My "educated guess" (judging by weight, appearance, and hardness) is that this is red maple. I don't think it is likely that this firewood was "imported" from somewhere else, and if it is not red maple it must be from somewhere else.

----------


## sunburst

So anyway, if my assumption is correct based on that reasoning, this piece (that came from that firewood pile) would be red maple.

----------

Steve Sorensen

----------


## almeriastrings

> "Platanus" is the genus for American sycamore, or European planetree. 
> 
> I always thought it was because the leaves look like a planetree (or American sycamore).


The Latin name is based on that similarity, yes. It was named as such in 1753.

The common name 'Sycamore'  associated with it however, is of much more ancient origins. It is found in mediaeval French, for example, as 'sicamor' and is even in use as a family name.  One surviving tree in Britain has been dated as over 320 years old. It was certainly introduced into Britain, but estimates as to when vary widely.

----------


## Philstix

Interesting discussion.  This example is Big Leaf Maple.  I know that because i saw the tree before it was cut down.  The pieces are about 26 inches long.

----------


## sunburst

Here are some more pictures of bigleaf.

The two quartered curly backs are from the same block of wood, the flatsawn quilted back is from a different source. In each the dark grain lines can be seen, even the one with the darker satin finish.

----------


## swain

"This weekend I'll be seeing a certain vintage guitar vendor who insists on labeling each of his "pieces"--Martins, Gibsons, Epis--with the species of spruce proudly on display on the pricetag..."

I am sure that will be a great experience, Bruce.   I know a lot of folks with a lot of years in and around the eastern spruce woods, log landings, and sawmills who don't like to nail down the species without seeing the bark or cones.   

Please share the experience and information.  :Wink:

----------


## Spruce

> One surviving tree in Britain has been dated as over 320 years old. It was certainly introduced into Britain, but estimates as to when vary widely.


I'm on the road, and not near any of my books, but I seem to remember it being documented as 1100 AD or so...
Pretty cool...

EDIT:  This is an interesting read, as is this...

----------


## Bernie Daniel

> I'm on the road, and not near any of my books, but I seem to remember it being documented as 1100 AD or so...
> Pretty cool...
> 
> EDIT:  This is an interesting read, as is this...


Sure turned out to be an interesting thread.  Those two articles cited were well worth reading.  They also illustrate the basis for all the confusion.  In these articles the tree is clearly recognized as a member of the maple genus (Acer) but it's referred to in the article (repeatedly) by the common name in the UK which is just "sycamore".  :Smile: 

Living on this side of the pond, "sycamore" means _Platanus occidentalis_ a tree I see everyday when I walk into my backyard or drive on the roads by my house.  Which was testore's point.

As it happens I was talking to a local luthier yesterday who just happened to mention that he might try sycamore as a back and side wood for a mandolin -- neither of us was thinking about _Acer pseudoplatanus_!   :Wink:

----------


## Spruce

> In these articles the tree is clearly recognized as a member of the maple genus (Acer) but it's referred to in the article (repeatedly) by the common name in the UK which is just "sycamore".


I remember going into a log yard in Yorkshire when I was first scouting out that stuff, and asked where the maple pile was...
Blank stares...     :Wink: 

And they only mill sycamore in the winter, for all applications...
Go there in March, and you'll be lucky to find any logs in log form at all...




> As it happens I was talking to a local luthier yesterday who just happened to mention that he might try sycamore as a back and side wood for a mandolin -- neither of us was thinking about _Acer pseudoplatanus_!


The indigenous sycamore can be a fabulous tonewood, with it's snake-skin medullaries and maple-esque weight...
Our own Paul Hostetter has made guitars out of California sycamore that look _amazing_.

----------

Bernie Daniel, 

Marty Jacobson, 

swain

----------


## swain

Beautiful!!  :Mandosmiley: 

Is the "California Sycamore" native to, or introduced to, CA?

Is it a hybrid?

Thanks again for posting this.   Thanks to Paul for creating the instrument.

swain

----------


## whistler

To confuse matters further, in Scotland, I'm told, the common name for _Acer pseudoplatanus_ is *plane*!

----------


## swain

> To confuse matters further, in Scotland, I'm told, the common name for _Acer pseudoplatanus_ is *plane*!


And to confuse things even further, Platanus x acerifolia is sometimes known as London Planetree.

swain

----------


## sprucetop1

....and when Platanus acerifolia (London Plane) is quarter-sawn, it is known (in the UK) as Lacewood.

----------


## tree

Seems that _Acer_ has the potential to confuse more than just woodworkers.
 :Grin:

----------


## swain

> Seems that _Acer_ has the potential to confuse more than just woodworkers.


At least it was not "p*$$ maple".

----------


## the padma

.

*VS.*  eh?

Maple vs. Sycamore  ???

From Latin versus (against, turned), past participle of vertere (to turn, change, overthrow, destroy),  to fight

So what me wanna know is ... were is dis fighting  match going down and were me get ring side tickets. :Laughing: 

maple vs. sycamore...hmmm well both are woods, with different properties and qualities...never thought of it a fight.

is funny how us two legges mess up languaging.

oh wells.

blessings
duh /adma

----------


## sunburst

From the article linked above:
"...it's a leaf from the invasive Norway maple, not the familiar sugar maple..."

One of my botany profs said the Canadian maple leaf was black maple (_Acer nigrum_).  Seems even among _Acer_ we can't get the story straight.

----------


## Bernie Daniel

> Beautiful!! 
> 
> Is the "California Sycamore" native to, or introduced to, CA?
> 
> Is it a hybrid?
> 
> Thanks again for posting this.   Thanks to Paul for creating the instrument.
> 
> swain


California sycamore (Platanus racemosa) is native to N. America -- see post #19 in this string.

----------


## swain

Thanks.   I might have been reading the post  wrong.  

swain

----------


## whistler

> ....and when Platanus acerifolia (London Plane) is quarter-sawn, it is known (in the UK) as Lacewood.


Well, I'll be danged! Those botanists have gone and changed the name since I last looked.  London plane used to be _Platanus X hispanica_.  (It was first recorded in Spain).  It is thought to be a naturally occurring hybrid between the oriental plane _P. orientalis_ and American sycamore _P. occidentalis_, both of which were widely planted in Spain.  

Thanks to the omniscient Wikipedia for some of the details.

----------


## John Arnold

Here is the passage from Hoadley's "Identifying Wood" book on separating hard and soft maples:



I have used this in the past, when distinguishing sugar maple from red maple.

----------


## Spruce

Thanks!

----------

