My local supply store has 3 slabs of Bubinga that are about 8' tall by 6' wide. Impressive to see them like that....
My local supply store has 3 slabs of Bubinga that are about 8' tall by 6' wide. Impressive to see them like that....
Ok, It came to me as a rush. Think about it. How old is the tree? How do you tell how old the tree is? Simple you count the rings. Take the clear area without all of the swirlies, and count from the rings from the center out. I only got about 40 growth rings. That is a rough guesstimate from the photo, but it is surpising just how well you can count them from this photo. So someone took a split piece, blew it up real large in Photoshop, and placed a person, with a convenient hand postion in the center.
Check it out, count the rings. A tree of this size would need to be older then about 40 years old.
"Fine is the artist who loves his tools as well as his work."
Already cut for a matched book project.
Have a Nice Day!
As I said it is not fake, that is the real deal. Go to the www.metacafe.com and search "largest walnut" and you will get the video of this tree being cut down. This tree was indeed over 7' across, it is totally not fake.
I stand corrected. You are right it is not fake. From looking at the video, and pausing it, then taking the run arrow to see still images, it becomes apparent that the tree started out as a multi-trunk tree if I could call it that. It almost seemed as if it was 2 trees that graphed themselves together before splitting their trunks off in different directions, because the growth rings do not show more than about 40 years of age. Seriously, start from the pith (center) and count outwards and what do you see?
"Fine is the artist who loves his tools as well as his work."
I can't find the article (at this moment) about the tree but somewhere I saw a newpaper article about the tree being cut down and the associated flack about that. It was certified and one of the largest and oldest trees in the state at the time. It was planted around 1850 along some trail and it was pretty well documented in the newspaper article. The growth "rings" you are seeing are swirls in the wood and there are actually much smaller growth rings of about 1/8" wide in the wood. If you have ever seen this type of walnut up close you will know that the grain pattern is much more convoluted than a normal walnut tree.
You can send Josh at www.hardtofindwood.com (his email will be on his web site) an email and he will tell you the full scoop and send you the information about the tree. It was on various historic registers and it caused a huge flack when it was cut down. I'm not trying to be difficult here, but the tree is far, far more than 40 years old. Counting rings is not accurate when looking at a photo that was taken 20' feet from a tree. Do some digging on line and you will find that 40 years old is a gross underestimate of this monster's age.
I just picked up a piece of walnut, and once again, you are right. I noticed the growth rings are thicker towards the outer rings, then compress as they get closer to the center, and quickly so. I guess the aged rings compress with a few years of age. Maybe that is one of the ways the tree increases its strength. About 1/8" is correct in the more compressed state.
I am enjoying talking about this. I am in no way offended, and also appreciate the way you have rebutted my assumptions without getting bent out of shape, and making it personal. You should run for office. Thank you.
"Fine is the artist who loves his tools as well as his work."
No offense taken. I am a bit of a walnut freak and have been around it a lot of my life. I have a ~24" log drying in my brother's barn in upstate NY that is from tree I planted (from a nut) when I was ~5 yrs old. That tree was in a warm place so it grew pretty well, but I am painfully aware of how slow walnuts trees grow. That darn log reminds me how old I am.