October Workbench

Thinking I should have thrown this piece of Tupelo in the burn pit before I ever got really far carving it… been about like carving a piece of oak .. makes the knife blade go “tink” when working the back of the neck.

Head alone weighs almost 1/2 lb

IMG_2333.jpeg
 
The last piece of tupelo I bought a couple of years ago to make some quail out of was as hard as a rock and I'm carving with a Foredom. The basswood I bought at the same time was wonderful. I've had some pretty good tupelo in the past, I was kind of shocked, it wasn't noticeably heavy, but it was like carving walnut or cherry. Don't you wonder if hedge would spark if you carved it in the dark.
 
I mentioned this in the past but I'll bring it up again. Often when carvers talk about tupelo they mention the wood needs to come from the base of the tree and not the trunk. I'm suspect this is myth. Has anyone who makes that claim ever compared carving wood from the base and further up the tree? I doubt it. Most folks buy whatever chunk their supplier has on hand. Many of those suppliers get those chucks from the mill who got it from the timber company. Did anyone make certain the bases were kept separate from the trunks? I doubt it. Have you ever tried milling the bell shape versus the trunk? The bell shape is a heck of a lot harder to saw than the trunk. Meaning mills won't want to fool with them and they would require custom sawing, if at all. I suspect mills don't separate the bell shape base, instead they remove the taper and saw the entire log where it goes to the middleman who sells it to carvers who have no way of knowing. I talked to a forester friend (AU grad) whose family has been in the sawmill business for decades. He said in all his experiences trees that come from swampy areas with bigger bases, like ash and oak, the bases are harder, not softer than the rest of the tree. He could think of no reason why tupelo would be any different.

This base business is just something that smacks me of internet myth. I don't think people who say it like it is gospel have any evidence. So maybe you got a chunk of tupelo that did happen to be from the base and that is why is is too hard to carve. Who knows?
 
Last edited:
Eric Patterson said:
I mentioned this in the past but I'll bring it up again. Often when carvers talk about tupelo they mention the wood needs to come from the base of the tree and not the trunk. I'm suspect this is myth. Has anyone who makes that claim ever compared carving wood from the base and further up the tree? I doubt it. Most folks buy whatever chunk their supplier has on hand. Many of those suppliers get those chucks from the mill who got it from the timber company. Did anyone make certain the bases were kept separate from the trunks? I doubt it. Have you ever tried milling the bell shape versus the trunk? The bell shape is a heck of a lot harder to saw than the trunk. Meaning mills won't want to fool with them and they would require custom sawing, if at all. I suspect mills don't separate the bell shape base, instead they remove the taper and saw the entire log where it goes to the middleman who sells it to carvers who have no way of knowing. I talked to a forester friend (AU grad) whose family has been in the sawmill business for decades. He said in all his experiences trees that come from swampy areas with bigger bases, like ash and oak, the bases are harder, not softer than the rest of the tree. He could think of no reason why tupelo would be any different.

This base business is just something that smacks me of internet myth. I don't think people who say it like it is gospel have any evidence. So maybe you got a chunk of tupelo that did happen to be from the base and that is why is is too hard to carve. Who knows?
Click to expand...
Eric, most of the Tupelo that I've used, be it very little, seem to be cut by a chainsaw. It's never perfectly square and often still has a saw marks in it.

It's always led me to believe that people were cutting off the flare of the butts and then selling that for carving.
 
Eric Patterson said:
I mentioned this in the past but I'll bring it up again. Often when carvers talk about tupelo they mention the wood needs to come from the base of the tree and not the trunk. I'm suspect this is myth. Has anyone who makes that claim ever compared carving wood from the base and further up the tree? I doubt it. Most folks buy whatever chunk their supplier has on hand. Many of those suppliers get those chucks from the mill who got it from the timber company. Did anyone make certain the bases were kept separate from the trunks? I doubt it. Have you ever tried milling the bell shape versus the trunk? The bell shape is a heck of a lot harder to saw than the trunk. Meaning mills won't want to fool with them and they would require custom sawing, if at all. I suspect mills don't separate the bell shape base, instead they remove the taper and saw the entire log where it goes to the middleman who sells it to carvers who have no way of knowing. I talked to a forester friend (AU grad) whose family has been in the sawmill business for decades. He said in all his experiences trees that come from swampy areas with bigger bases, like ash and oak, the bases are harder, not softer than the rest of the tree. He could think of no reason why tupelo would be any different.

This base business is just something that smacks me of internet myth. I don't think people who say it like it is gospel have any evidence. So maybe you got a chunk of tupelo that did happen to be from the base and that is why is is too hard to carve. Who knows?
Click to expand...
Woodcock, carved painting and done.
 

Attachments

  • 7772DB5C-08DD-450A-BD68-53A929DDC005.jpeg
    7772DB5C-08DD-450A-BD68-53A929DDC005.jpeg
    3.2 MB · Views: 3
jode hillman said:
Eric, most of the Tupelo that I've used, be it very little, seem to be cut by a chainsaw. It's never perfectly square and often still has a saw marks in it.

It's always led me to believe that people were cutting off the flare of the butts and then selling that for carving.
Click to expand...
My only experiences with tupelo lead me to believe that Jode's observation is a valid one.
Years ago, one of my sources for basswood timbers was a local supplier & milling operation called Paxton Beautiful Woods. They are still in business, but have closed down the fine woodworkers shop that used to be the walk-in part of the operation. Now they deal in bulk orders with contractors and supply all sorts of intricate moldings, etc. Years back ( mid '80's ?) I was in Paxton's selecting some basswood and asked if they ever dealt with Tupelo. The owner took me into a room where the did a lot of re-sawing and showed me a HUGE tupelo flitch standing in a corner. Obviously cut from the bowl end and had been re-sawn flat on the side that had faced out. Had to be over 6' tall and tapered from 4.5' wide at the base to 2.75' up top. Was a fairly uniform 5+" thick. There were spots in it that were kind of "punky", but overall it looked in decent shape.
I asked what they wanted for it, expecting to be given a ridiculous price, but the owner said: "If you'll take the whole damn thing out of here, you can have it for 10 bucks."
Loaded it up, took it home and studied it for a week. I drew on it with chalk to determine where I could get the most useable carving blocks out of it. Well, I carved on that flitch for a few years! Probably ended up with enough prime blocks to do about 15 full-size birds and a whole bunch of miniatures. Was very smooth to carve and took detail well. This was about the time I stopped doing decoratives for contests and switched over to doing all gunning birds. In fact, I think the decorative mallard with the carved & painted acorn in its bill was the final decorative I did back then.
TupeloFlitch (5).JPG
TupeloFlitch (4).JPG
TupeloFlitch (2).JPG

A pair of spatter painted gunning Wigeon from that tupelo:
TupeloFlitch (8).JPG

A pintail "smoothie" done for my wife; also spatter painted:
TupeloFlitch (9).JPG
 
Last edited:
Jode and Bob

I have no doubts some suppliers in fact sell wood from the bell and you've found that wood good to work with. What I'm saying is I've not heard anyone definitively state their observations after having carved wood from the bell versus the rest of the tree and I have some doubt that the wood is GREAT from the bell and SUCKS from the trunk which I've seen suggested many times over the years from people with no comparative experience. Further the tupelo I see online appears to be cut from 6x6 or similar beams and as both of you described that's not how wood from the bell looks. My hunch is a lot of folks are carving wood that isn't from the bell and like carving that wood because it too has good carving properties. That's my hunch and when someone steps forward that says "I've carved plenty from both ends of the tree and...." I'll definitely be listening to their experience.

Thanks to both of you for contributing your experiences, and Bob, wow, that mallard is spectacular.
 
Last edited:
Eric Patterson said:
Jode and Bob

I have no doubts some suppliers in fact sell wood from the bell and you've found that wood good to work with. What I'm saying is I've not heard anyone definitively state their observations after having carved wood from the bell versus the rest of the tree and I have some doubt that the wood is GREAT from the bell and SUCKS from the trunk which I've seen suggested many times over the years from people with no comparative experience. Further the tupelo I see online appears to be cut from 6x6 or similar beams and as both of you described that's not how wood from the bell looks. My hunch is a lot of folks are carving wood that isn't from the bell and like carving that wood because it too has good carving properties. That's my hunch and when someone steps forward that says "I've carved plenty from both ends of the tree and...." I'll definitely be listening to their experience.

Thanks to both of you for contributing your experiences, and Bob, wow, that mallard is spectacular.
Click to expand...
True that I can't speak to working with wood up the trunk. In talking with the older guys who loved working in Tupelo, I always thought they considered wood harvested from the bell end was the standard, and that they were very particular about dealing only with suppliers who could provide it. Some of them cut their own, and would search out stumps where the top ends had been cut & hauled away. I also recall hearing from the Cajun carvers that wood up to 4' from the water line was the best.
 
MLBob Furia said:
True that I can't speak to working with wood up the trunk. In talking with the older guys who loved working in Tupelo, I always thought they considered wood harvested from the bell end was the standard, and that they were very particular about dealing only with suppliers who could provide it. Some of them cut their own, and would search out stumps where the top ends had been cut & hauled away. I also recall hearing from the Cajun carvers that wood up to 4' from the water line was the best.
Click to expand...
Eric,

I will second what Bob said. My understanding is that many of the Louisiana carvers went into the swamps with chainsaws and cut the blocks as they stood. What I have heard but have not verified is that they could cut the blocks to decoy size, green, without worrying about checking.

I also know that there was a company in Heber Springs that used tupelo to turn objects (usually fruit like apples, etc.) that were scented as house decorations. They used the logs, as they were harder and were better for lathe turning - the butts or lower ends of the "first" logs on the boles were regarded as too soft and would tear out.

As a forestry student it makes no sense that the bell would be softer, due to the stress, but...that "flare" is a lot of volume. I don't know if it counters the flooded, soft soil by flexing rather than being too stiff and being windthrown, or???

I think tupelo also has more of a "woven" or lattice style fiber than straight...I think some of the Populus spp and maybe even willow have the same thing.

I have carved tupelo that was taken very obviously from the bell, and it was good and soft, but every now and again the grain would get really weird (assume the curve of the bell does things similar to burls, etc.), and/or I would hit hard "rays" similar to oak, and the bird would ripple as sanding uneven hardnesses caused waves. Most of it was really nice, some was a royal pain.

I do know that at some point, the softer wood does transition to very hard. My father hit that on a wood duck - within the length of the body, it went from good carving to more like oak or elm. I know because his knife slipped and he put the blade into his leg (an Xacto knife, so not deep, just bloody).

I have tried unsuccessfully to get permission to cut a few here in Arkansas; I keep trying and will let you know if you want to do some actual testing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top