# Jichi?



## dgscott (Mar 22, 2009)

I'm attaching a photo of two blanks I recently received that were identified as Jichimu. Someone else on this board told me that the person I acquired them from is sending thinwin instead of Jichi. But, I've looked at photos of both Jichi and thinwin, and the "feathered" pattern of the wood looks more like the photos of Jichimu that I see on the web. I'd welcome opinions from anyone who can clarify this absolutely as I don't want to misrepresent my pens.

Thanks.
Doug


----------



## chriselle (Mar 22, 2009)

I can't help.  In fact, I am actually in the same boat.  I have a "bunch" of boards that look exactly like Jichimu that I got from my local hardwood supplier here in Japan.  Of course the Japanese name isn't Jichimu so it's hard to identify.


----------



## DCBluesman (Mar 22, 2009)

Buying exotic wood can be a crap shoot.  Many woods can look alike and be completely different species.  Sometimes the same specie can look completely different from board to board.  Short of some very expensive DNA testing, no one can prove what a piece of wood is.  Even then, the taxonomists don't always agree on classifications.  For that reason, it is of paramount importance to know who you are dealing with.  

One other thing, it is really not possible to make an absolute statement based on a photograph.


----------



## Russianwolf (Mar 22, 2009)

and another point that should be made is that there may be a dozen botanical species that use the same common name. 

Purpleheart for instance is ANY member of the Peltogyne genus that has heartwood that is purpleish in color. All 23 of species.

Some woods use a common name based on the appearance of the grain/texture/etc. of the wood and may or may not be of the same genus. Some of the "Rosewoods" for example (term used VERY loosely), such as Bolivian Rosewood - Machaeriam Scleroxylon (not a Dalbergia, so can't possibly be an actual Rosewood).

And most botanical identifiers (Universities for the most part) can only narrow a sample of wood down to the Genus, not the exact species.


----------



## Rarest wood (Mar 23, 2009)

I also was sent some of this supposed jichi along with some supposed huanghuali from a concerned IAP member I tested both and they turned out to be Burmese padauk, Pterocarpus macrocarpus and thinwin, Milletia pendula both timbers in themselves are nice but they neither of them are Huanghuali or Jichimu. nor were they ever used in Chinese classical furniture

My timber is from antique Chinese classical furniture which pretty much is the only way to be really sure of what your getting. There was a debate as to what exactly huanghuali was as well as Jichimu they are now considered by authoritys to be Dalbergia odorifera and Jichimu an Ormosia sp.
Caveat emptor


----------



## Texatdurango (Mar 23, 2009)

Rarest wood said:


> I also was sent some of this supposed jichi along with some supposed huanghuali from a concerned IAP member I tested both and they turned out to be Burmese padauk, Pterocarpus macrocarpus and thinwin, Milletia pendula both timbers in themselves are nice but they neither of them are Huanghuali or Jichimu. nor were they ever used in Chinese classical furniture
> 
> My timber is from antique Chinese classical furniture which pretty much is *the only way* to be really sure of what your getting. There was a debate as to what exactly huanghuali was as well as Jichimu they are now considered by authoritys to be Dalbergia odorifera and Jichimu an Ormosia sp.
> Caveat emptor


 I'm curious about something. Was there no other similar wood species around while all this _"antique Chinese classical furniture"_ was being produced? Was Burmese padauk not around a few hundred years ago? Was Thinwin not around a few hundred years ago? 

Is there no chance that either of these species or other species was used in _"antique Chinese classical furniture"?_

I find it hard to believe that only a few select species were used exclusively for centuries while all other species were ignored.


----------



## Stephen (Mar 23, 2009)

Rarest wood said:


> I also was sent some of this supposed jichi along with some supposed huanghuali from a concerned IAP member I tested both and they turned out to be Burmese padauk, Pterocarpus macrocarpus and thinwin, Milletia pendula both timbers in themselves are nice but they neither of them are Huanghuali or Jichimu. nor were they ever used in Chinese classical furniture
> 
> My timber is from antique Chinese classical furniture which pretty much is the only way to be really sure of what your getting. There was a debate as to what exactly huanghuali was as well as Jichimu they are now considered by authoritys to be Dalbergia odorifera and Jichimu an Ormosia sp.
> Caveat emptor



Very interesting discussion on wood species. I am completely ignorant on types of wood and would like to know how to identify them. What tests and how are they done?  I have been getting my blanks from the big suppliers from the US and some members of IAP and have so far accepted the blanks as claimed by the suppliers. When the pens are sold I tell my customers in all sincerity what I believe they are. Having read this topic it is now of concern to me. Any guidance for a newbee on wood identification would be greatly appreciated.Thanks


----------



## CharlestonPenWorks (Mar 23, 2009)

great discussion.  To the moderator, I would love to see a forum devoted specifically to wood discussion, wood collection, wood identification.  It would be of great interest to me.

DJ


----------



## Dario (Mar 23, 2009)

CharlestonPenWorks said:


> great discussion.  To the moderator, I would love to see a forum devoted specifically to wood discussion, wood collection, wood identification.  It would be of great interest to me.
> 
> DJ



DJ,

What kind of traffic will you expect on that forum?  Though there are times when it comes up...it is far in between and really not much to discuss.  You can buy books about it though (and may also need a microscope).

We do have a few links at the library about wood identification if it will help.


----------



## chriselle (Mar 23, 2009)

Texatdurango said:


> I'm curious about something. Was there no other similar wood species around while all this _"antique Chinese classical furniture"_ was being produced? Was Burmese padauk not around a few hundred years ago? Was Thinwin not around a few hundred years ago?
> 
> Is there no chance that either of these species or other species was used in _"antique Chinese classical furniture"?_
> 
> I find it hard to believe that only a few select species were used exclusively for centuries while all other species were ignored.



+1  Inquiring minds want to know.


----------



## garypeck (Mar 23, 2009)

I for one would like to know how the test were done..... who did the test??  Some professional body??  Are there any test results??  Test result which they would stand by it if i went to court??


----------



## USAFVET98 (Mar 23, 2009)

garypeck said:


> I for one would like to know how the test were done..... who did the test?? Some professional body?? Are there any test results?? Test result which they would stand by it if i went to court??


 
+1
I would like to see proof of the tests as well.


----------



## marcruby (Mar 23, 2009)

What little understanding I have is that Huanghuali and Jichimu lumber didn't come from wandering around a forest looking for a handy tree but from very specific locations where the cutting was controlled.  That doesn't rule out fraud, but there were harsh penalties for that sort of thing.

My other thought is that dna testing would be rather conclusive, although the cost would be extreme if done on a blank by blank basis.  If you were looking as a pile of lumber it might make sense.  For the little bit that I keep around expert opinion works - let's face it if a piece of wood looks exactly like huanghuali under a microscope and has the right provenance, that's probably what it is.

For what it's worth, The few pictures I've seen of thinwin don't look that much like the wood I have in my stock.

Marc


----------



## Rarest wood (Mar 23, 2009)

Texatdurango said:


> I'm curious about something. Was there no other similar wood species around while all this _"antique Chinese classical furniture"_ was being produced? Was Burmese padauk not around a few hundred years ago? Was Thinwin not around a few hundred years ago?
> 
> Is there no chance that either of these species or other species was used in _"antique Chinese classical furniture"?_
> 
> I find it hard to believe that only a few select species were used exclusively for centuries while all other species were ignored.



thats a good question!  The chinese craftsmen would have used other timbers such as oak, wallnut elm, zelcova, longyan, birch, pine amonst many others its just that huanghuali is not a padauk nor  is thinwin jichimu. Chinese craftsmen made use of all types of timber but in terms of value and appreciation there were a few timbers head and shoulders above the rest and were made use of more so beacause society durning the ming and qing period was conservative this world view even affected their styles which changed little over hundreds of years until the florid styles of the late qing till the revolution the just for a point of interest the chinese viewed wallnut and elm as softwoods and huanghuali , zitan, jichimu  and hongmu as hardwoods.


----------



## dgscott (Mar 23, 2009)

I would still like to know what "testing" consists of.
Doug


----------



## DCBluesman (Mar 23, 2009)

Doug - As you know, I am not the person who has given an opinion on the blanks in question, but I can give you an idea of how I go about my _due diligence_ before I make any claims about the materials used in my pens.

There are quite a few reference books and articles relating to furniture from China, particularly relating to period pieces.  There are also a number of recognized experts in the field who have written extensively.  Furthermore, there are a few highly rreputable dealers in antique furniture from China.

By reading and viewing available photographs of items described by these experts, I either determine that my wood is real or not.  I also employ my own experience through visual, smell, taste, weight, sound, etc. of the piece in question.  The frequency of offers that I find reputable leads me to either trust or distrust a source.  My trust or lack thereof is not something that should be used to refute a claim as I am not an expert.

While I do not have my comprehensive list of sources, here are a few which should prove valuable for anyone who wishes to do the research.

*Acknowledged experts*
Curtis Evarts
Sarah Handler
Michael Beurdeley
Yang Yao
Robert Ellsworth
Camille Fung
Edward H. Schafer
Sandra Lok Fu Chin

*Reference Books and other publications*
-Liangyi Collection 
-A Treasury of Ming and Qing Dynasty Palace Furniture from The Palace Museum Collection
-Splendor of style : classical furniture from the Ming and Qing dynasties
-Chinese Furniture: A Guide to Collecting Antiques
- Classical Chinese Wood Furniture

*Websites and links*
http://www.theimixclub.com/ 
http://www.shimu.co.uk/ 
http://www.orientations.com.hk/php/index.php 
http://www.wctg.net/


----------



## garypeck (Mar 23, 2009)

I dont think anyone ever said that Huang Huali was Padauk or Jichimu Thinwin...... 

Below website has a wealth of information on these timber....... 

http://www.chinaculture.org/classics/2008-03/26/content_129464.htm

http://www.chinese-furniture.com/cg...ndex.shtml&id=$1237872888-203.126.11.37-10408

Huang Huali table recently sold at Sotheby..... 
http://www.sothebys.com/app/live/lot/LotDetail.jsp?sale_number=N08464&live_lot_id=215
http://www.antique-chinese-furnitures.com/chinese-furniture/index.htm


----------



## flyingmelon (Mar 23, 2009)

Wondering if this is why Skiprat uses bolts from the hardware store?


----------



## wdcav1952 (Mar 23, 2009)

Anyone have some spalted balsa for sale????


----------



## gawdelpus (Mar 24, 2009)

Having read through all the posts here ,I still feel relatively unenlightened ,I like to think that the people we deal with are honest and reputable ,as I buy most of my pen supplies from E-bay and some of the pen kit suppliers , plus swaps and trades I take on face value the kind of materials I receive. I find in my own collection woods from the same tree can vary greatly, so as to be almost a different material altogether ,at least to me . I recently had a request for a "bone " pen, I made it from chicken drumsticks and told the customer so, If I made it from rabbit bones or some other small animal,and told him it was chicken legs ,he would have loved it just as much,but I would have been fraudulent and felt guilty about it.Point is If I believe something is so because I trust what I have been told ,then that is what it is unless I know for sure it's not. Sometimes commercialism creeps in and colors thinking ,when a subject is only a matter of opinion then every one is right until proved wrong ! Sorry to ramble but its a big subject hehe cheers


----------



## marcruby (Mar 24, 2009)

I think that's two challenges - spalting balsa, and managing to make a pen out of it.  Soulnds like a contest for next year's bash.

Marc



wdcav1952 said:


> Anyone have some spalted balsa for sale????


----------



## marcruby (Mar 24, 2009)

The more I think about it the more I think the issue is moot.  As long as I buy the wood from a source I consider trustworthy and really believe that I'm getting what I think I'm buying I see no reason to grind the issue into the ground.  My belief is built from asking questions and the use of my own senses.  

Could I be fooled, sure.  But my biggest concern is that I don't sell a rare wood pen with any real doubt that it is that wood.  When I sell such a pen my statement is that, to the best of my knowlege it is what I say it is.  Then the buyer can decide on my own credability.  Which is fine by me.

Marc


----------



## dgscott (Mar 24, 2009)

Good sense, Marc. I once was introduced as an "expert" at a conference, and the individual who introduced me remarked that "an expert is a SOB from out of town with slides." Unfortunately, I have no expertise in identifying Chinese woods (I can't even identify all the ingredients in Chinese food), and have to rely on the word of others.  Since I can only confidently identify the woods that I take from trees I fell myself, I have to depend on the integrity of others. I am forced to accept their "expertise" on their say-so. What little "evidence" I have personally comes from comparing one wood sample to another.

Still, I have a marketing problem. Ultimately, I don't want to be like one of those guys who are selling Rolexes on the street corners of New York City for $40. I suppose my only recourse is to avoid selling anything that I am not certain about, or simply not to represent what it may be. 

Doug


----------



## wdcav1952 (Mar 24, 2009)

Doug,

I think Marc makes some good points.  If I may, I would like to take it one step further.  I would suggest that you and the person who made the statements as to whether the wood was identified correctly PM Curtis with any information that both of you have, including from whom the wood was purchased and why it is thought the description might be fraudulent.  I would hate to think that wood is being misrepresented here on the site.  If misrepresentation is proved, I would suggest banning the person from selling on the site.  If it is not proved, I would suggest accusations cease.

FWIW,


----------



## woody350ep (Mar 24, 2009)

+1 Cav


----------



## Gary Max (Mar 24, 2009)

I am going to toss my 2 cents worth in here.
The only person that I get my HHL from is David Lee----very honest---ships fast.
I have to buy from someone who knows what the heck they are doing not some fly by night outfit.
For me to be able to sell the high end pens I must use the real thing.


----------



## garypeck (Mar 24, 2009)

wdcav1952 said:


> Doug,
> 
> I think Marc makes some good points. If I may, I would like to take it one step further. I would suggest that you and the person who made the statements as to whether the wood was identified correctly PM Curtis with any information that both of you have, including from whom the wood was purchased and why it is thought the description might be fraudulent. I would hate to think that wood is being misrepresented here on the site. If misrepresentation is proved, I would suggest banning the person from selling on the site. If it is not proved, I would suggest accusations cease.
> 
> FWIW,


 

Hi Cav,

I think thats a good idea...... but if accusation not proved ..... i dont think it should just cease.....

I still would like to see how those "test" were done..... and how they were done.....Misrepresentation is not as bad as Defamation.....or is it??


----------



## Russianwolf (Mar 24, 2009)

I am not an expert on wood identification. Heck, I'm barely a novice at the art. But this thread is changing my opinion on the matter somewhat.

When I try to identify a wood I am attempting to discern the scientific botanical name, regardless of the common names. Common names which in many cases are based on the appearance of the wood or a characteristic of the tree that may be shared with dozens of other woods or trees of the same genus or not.

Short of having each lot of wood identified using DNA testing (cost is around $200-250 per sample from what I've gathered) by unbiased third parties, I see no way of discerning what people on this site (myself included as I have not had the Bog Oak tested that I import) or elsewhere are truly offering.

I honestly don't know what to do in regards to all this, but some of the posts in this thread are leaving a bad taste in my mouth that makes me question continued participation.


----------



## marcruby (Mar 25, 2009)

wdcav1952 said:


> I think Marc makes some good points.



You're beginning to scare me.  I even agree that accusations and intimations need to be arbitrated off line.  Finger pointing serves very little purpose and disrupts this group as well.

Even respectable dealers to make mistakes or get misled so we need to be thoughtful when taking umbrage at what seems to be misrepresentation.  So keeping the noise level down and allowing a seller an opportunity to correct an honest mistake are important factors.

This discussion keeps coming up concerning these woods and I'm becoming convinced that some individuals are so invested in casting doubt that no effort at explanation or discussion is going to change their minds.  I think it's time we simply acknowledged that some people will pay for rare woods and others won't.  And that each individual has a right to buy or not to buy.  And leave it there.

One of my own pens is huanghuali - it's a lovely wood and I'm delighted to have it.  That's why I buy woods anyway - because they're beautiful.  If I see a piece of wood that is compelling I'm going to buy it if I can, and make something of it.  Price or provenance is secondary.

Marc


----------

