Featured Book Stand, ancient?

Bottom line? if your stand was early (17th century), it would be made from riven oak which your stand is not, therefore it must be post industrial age (1850) in america.

 

LOL, sorry you didn't get the stand you wanted! You're correct, life isn't fair! however, it's better than the alternative!

 

what are those lighter things not following the direction of the grain on the riven or split wood?

 

Life being fair?

 

Point well taken. The same could be exhibited if straight sawn as well. The riven boards exhibit the cross-sections of the medullary rays in the oak. Oak can be sawn this way as well (known as quartersawn). However, James is right. The riven boards should exhibit the structures.

Here is some information on medullary rays.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medullary_ray_(botany)

 

Its the "figure" in the wood you get when riven, similar to "quarter sawn" oak only much more figure in riven. Look at your second pic at start of thread, that should have the same figure as riven oak but does not, therefore it's cut by a saw and not riven. And, if early or 17th century it should be riven, not sawn.

 

LOL, nooooooooooooooooo, the alternative to life is.....death.

 

Yes it can however, there is MUCH more figure in riven than quarter sawn because with riven, it's split perfectly along it's "radial plane" where quarter sawn is not.

 

Do they always appear lighter or also darker sometimes? the thing has some weird patterns on the beams inbetween the legs.
I am here to learn after all...

The light is leaving me now, maybe better pictures tomorrow...

 

Well, difficult to see much in this last pic but, you probably have some quarter sawn oak somewhere on your stand and it is similar to riven, just not near as much figure or near as wide.
Look at this drawer side, riven white oak, look how wide the "bands" of figure are whereas the bands of figure in quarter sawn are much narrower



and another

 

Is it just me, or is this thread getting more existential by the minute? Hold on, Opoe!

 

LOL, YEAH! we have gone pretty far afield here! and, i have made more than my share of trips to photobucket to resize pics!
This happens to me A LOT when talking to peeps who are not familiar with this sort of thing, the information is just not readily available, it's a lost way of doing things almost. But if you are familiar with it, when you see it, you know it immediately.

 

My phone's camera takes better pictures than my 6-year-old "point and shoot" Canon does. People who say their phone's cameras are not good must have rather old phones!

 

Agreed, my samsung galaxy takes great pics i think. That said, furniture does not photograph well, i don't know why.

 

OP is most concerned with the actual age of the piece, and a lot of information has come out, which is good. Hopefully he isn't under the impression that age and market value are directly related; many people new to antiques have that faulty belief. There is a relationship between age and value but it is far from direct and many other factors are more important. This is an extended explanation of why most rocks are almost worthless.

 

Absolutely, they made junk in the 17th century, just like we do today.

 

My nokia lumia something something and my huawei ?? apparently do not...

Well aware of that, I am not a seller, I am a collector. I am building my own time capsule, the older stuff is, the better.

 

Great information all, from folks that KNOW what they're talking about .. I've learned so much from this board, Thank You All, Joy.

 

Brad, i don't see any saw marks either but more importantly, i do not see any riven oak and there should be if an early piece.

 

Thanks for reading! I am always willing to bore people to death talking about old furniture!