A COMPARATIVE INVESTIGATION OF READILY OBTAINABLE WOODS SUITABLE FOR END-GRAIN ENGRAVING BLOCKS
Frances Louise Bode A. B. (Mills College, 1940)
A PROJECT
Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
AT THE
SACRAMENTO STATE COLLEGE
Approved: man Russell Leroi Bohr, Chair Baxter Geeting Frederick W. Westphal
D~ s ... 'l. rt- 5'7 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE
I. INTRODUCTION. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1
The Problem ..••.••••..••..••••••••.••••••• o ••••• 1 Definition of terms used •••••••••••••••••••••••• 4
Angle of attack •• • o • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • o • • • • • • e • 4 Annual ring ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 5
Bury • •••••• o o ••••••••••••••••••••••••• o ••••• o • 5 Crumb le • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 5 Cut••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 5
End-grain •• o •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 5
Grain •• • • • • • • • • • • 0 • • • • • • • • • • • • • 0 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 6
Hard or hardness. • • • • • • • 0 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 6
Hardwood •• • • • • • • • • 0 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 6
Heartwood. • • 0 • • • • • • • 0 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 6
Heavy or heaviness. • • • • • • • • • • 0 • • • • • • • • • 0 • • • • • • 6
Life of block. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 7 Plank-grain ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 7
Sapwood • •••••••••••••••••• o o •••••••••••••• o • • • 7
Slice •••• • • • • • • • • • • • 0 • • • • 0 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Softwood. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Springwood. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Summerwood. 0 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Tear ••••••• • • • • • • 0 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • iii CHAPTER PAGE Texture••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 8 Wood block•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 8
Woodcut • •••••••••• o • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 8 Wood engraving •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 8 II. REVIEW OF OTHER PERTINENT LITERATURE •••••••••••••• 9 History of the wood block••••••••••••••••••••••• 9 History of woods used for wood blocks ••••••••••• 14
Properties of woods •••••••••••••••• ~ •••••••••••• 19 III. PROCEDURE OF INVESTIGATION•••••••••••••••••••••••• 25 Properties of boxwood ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 25 Selection of woods for investigation •••••••••••• 30 Apple wood •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 34 Ash, Japanese••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 34 Ash, Mountain ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 35 Beech •••••••••••••••...... ••••.••.••..••.•.•.• 35
Birch ••••• o ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 36 Blackthorn •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 36 Cherry, American •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 36 Cherry, Oriental •••••••••••••••••••••• o.•••••• 37 Cherry, Wild •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 37
Dogwood ••••••••••••••••••••••••• G ••••••••••••• 38
Harewood, English ••••••••• • • • 0 0 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 38
Ho 1 ly . .•• o ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• o 39 iv CHAPTER PAGE Juniper, Oregon••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 39 Lilac ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 40 Ma.drone.... • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •.• • • • 40 Mahogany•••••••••••••••••••••••o•••• o••••••••• 41 Mahogany, Mountain •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 41 Manzanita••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 42 Maple, Hard••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 42 Orange. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 44
Pear••••••••••••••••••••••••••••o••••••••••••• 44 SerYice wood•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 45 Teak...... 46 Walnut, English••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 47 Development of the design••••••••••••••••••••••• 47 Tools employed in design on page 50 ••••••••••••• 51 Elimination of variants••••••••••••••••••••••••• 52 IV. RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION.••••••••••••••••••••• 53 Wood blocks engraved•••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 53 Boxwood.•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 53 Mountain Mahogany ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 55 Manzanita••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 56 Hard Maple•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 57 Orange•••••••••• o••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 58 Beech••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 59 v CHAPTER PAGE
Birch••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••o•••• 60 Ma.drone...... • • • • • • • • 61 Japanese Ash•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 62 Amerioan Cherry••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 63 Oriental Cherry••••••o•••••••••••••••••••••••• 64
Apple•••••••••••o••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 65
Harewoed. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 0 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 66
Holly•••••••••••••o••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 67
Oregon Juniper••••••••••••···~·~···••••••••••• 68 English Walnut••••••••••••••o••••••••••••••••• 69 Conclusion •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 70
BIBLIOGRAPHY •••••• • • 0 • • v • • • • • • • • 0 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 73
APPENDIX A•••••••• 0 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 0 • • • • • • 79 CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Without exception, every treatise on wood engraving states that the end-grain block of boxwood is without peer. A search for a commercial source of boxwood blocks on the Pacific Coast proved fruitless. The need for a substitute wood for engraving blocks initiated this study.
I. THE PROBLEM
A study of the properties of boxwood that made it the pre-eminent wood engraving medium was undertaken. A search for readily obtainable equivalent or substitute woods whose properties compare favorably with those of box wood was the purpose of this investigation. The study was divided into two parts. The purpose of the first section was to determine those qualities that made a wood suitable for wood engraving. The criteria pro posed by recognized authorities in the art were used. To evaluate the findings it was necessary to determine if the traditional and contemporary techniques of wood engraving demanded identical properties. The second part of the study was the actual engraving of an identical design on fifteen different wood blocks to compare relative qualities. Identieal tools and techniques 2 were used throughout and the results compared with the qualities determined by research described above. By the time of Thomas Bewick, boxwood was considered the best wood for engraving blocks. True boxwood, Buxus sempervirens, occurs over a large part of Europe, from Nor way to the Mediterranean; across Asia to Japan, and in Africa.1 The boxwood of Crimea and the Caucasus is of excel lent quality but is no longer being exported by Russia;2 while that of Turkey is ao poorly handled in felling the trees, it is seldom without major fraetures.3 The supply of box in England is nearly exhausted. Only an occasional tree of a eize useful for block making is found today al though stands of native trees were once in Surrey, Kent and Gloucester.4 Bernard Sleigh5 tells of a cut of box trees on Box Hill, near Dorking, in 1815 that realized nearly ten thousand pounds sterling, "the wood being so
1Alexander Howard, A Manual of the Timbers of the World (London: Macmillan and Company, ~o), p. 35:-~ 2oorothea Braby, The 3jy of Wood Engraving (London: The Studio Publications,~5 , pp.-r5=16. 3J. J. Lankes, Woodcut Manual (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1932), p. 14. · 4Bernard Sleigh, Wood Engraving Since Eighteen-Ninety (London: Sir Isaac Pitman and Sons, Ltd., 1932), p. 18.
5Ibid. 3 scarce and of such great value.• Although the quantity of wood that brought such a great sum was not noted the scarcity of boxwood was apparent even at this early date. In the second decade of this century forests of box wood were discovered in South Africa that are now being made ayailable as blocks, considerably augmenting the limited supply of good quality boxwood.6 A wood from Venezuela, marketed as West Indian boxwood, is not a true boxwood and is cheaper but or inferior quality.7 In addition to the limited world supply of box trees,
- - the very quality which serves to give boxwood its value to the engraver, extremely slow growth that all but eliminates the texture of annual rings, also contributes to its scarcity. As Dorothea Braby8 so clearly states: It is a sober if romantic thought that the youngest boxwood used today comes from a tree that was blowing and robust before Bewiok was even born. It takes two or three hundred years to develop sufficient thickness of trunk to be of value to the engraver. One cannot expect even the most zealous patron of the arts among our forefathe~s to have planned for posterity by plant ing a forest to serve an art not yet invented. Conse quently the boxwood used today was self-planted.
6araby, ~. !.ll_. 7Ibid. 8Ibid. 4 Edward Whymper, a wood engraver, presented two un- usually large solid boxwood bloeks to the British Museum, one 7 3/4 by 9 inches, the other 9 by 10 inches, accompanying the• with a note that boxwood this size could be had before 1850.9 Trees being felled today rarely yield a solid end grain block exceeding five inches square.10 In little more than a eentury the available size or tree has been reduced by nearly half, and the size of block to a fourth or one obtainable before 1850. There are larger blocks to be had today made of several pieces glued together, but the ultimate depletion of the supply made an attempt to discover a wood of similar properties a worthy study. The investigation was concerned with woods available commercially in California. The design used for engraving the blocks was created for the purpose of testing as many technical characteristics of the woods as possible.
II. DEFINITION OF TERMS USED Angle 2!_ attack. The angle between the cutting or leading edge of the tool and the surface of the wood. The
9Arthur Hind, An Introduction to a History of Wood cut {Boston: Houghton-;-M1rr11n Company; T935), !, Po 13. lOEdward Gordon Craig, Woodcuts and Some Woods (Lon don: J. M. Dent and Sons, Ltd., 1923), p:-2-g:-- 5 proper angle is important in achieving the correct cut with a given tool. Annual ring. The annual ring is the layer of growth around the tree for one year. The rings appear as concentric circles in the cross-section of the trunk.11 Bury. When the tool insinuates itself deeper and deeper into the wood, making a progressively wider line, it is said to bury, whether from increasing the angle of attack of the cutting tool or due to the softness of the wood. 12 Crumble. The breaking away of small bits of wood from the sides of the line cut by the graver, sometimes the fault of the structure of the wood, other times the result of over-dry wooa.13
~. Used synonymously with sliee, cut is interpreted as the smooth, even passage of the tool through the surface of the wood. 14 End-grain. A section cut ninety degrees to the length-wise fiber, or across the trunk of the tree, produces
11Arthur Koehler, The Properties and Uses of Wood (New York: McGraw-Hill Bo~Company, 19211T; ~o:- ---- 12Desire Kauffmann, Graphic Arts Crafts (New York: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1948r;-?. 41.
13william Andrew Chatto and John Jackson, A Treat .!!!. on Wood Engraving (London: Chatto and Windus,-1839) p. 503. 14 Craig, 22.• ~., pp. 107-8. 6 the cross-section or end-grain wood utilized in blocks for wood engraving.15 Grain. The longitudinal or lengthwise position of the fibers in wood.16
~ .2!. hardness. The cellular structure and the density of the wood, rather than its botanical origin.17 Hardwood. The lumber industry identities as hard wood the colllllercial woods from any broad leaf speeies.18 Heartwood. Comprised of cells that are dead and serve only to give strength to the tree, the heartwood occupies the center or core of the tree.19 Heavy £!: heaviness. Weight of a given wood is deter- mined by the weight of one cubic foot of the wood at twelve per cent moisture.20
15william Ivins, Prints and Visual Communication (Cambridge, Massachusetts; Harvard University Press, 1953), p. 86. 16Koehler, 2£• ~., pp. 20 ff.
17 Ibid., p. 2. 18 ~., p. 6. 19Ibid., p. 17. 20compiled from the statistics published by the Forest Products Laboratory, Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture, listed in the Bibliography under Forest Products Laboratory Bulletins. 7
~ ~ block. As used in this investigation, life or the block is the number of impressions or prints that can be taken from a cut block rather than its physical durability as wood. 21 Plank-grain. The lengthwise or longitudinal grain, parallel to the trunk of the tree as in ordinary lumber.22 Sapwood. The outer region of the log in which the cells still function to conduct sap and store food.23
Slice. Slice is used interchangeably with ~· Softwood. In industry, the lumber from needle leaf trees is called softwood.24 Springwood. The portion of the annual ring made up of cells formed in the spring is called springwood. In some woods this layer is lighter, softer and weaker because spring cells are comparatively larger and thinner-walled.25 SulllDlerwood. The band of cells formed in the summer outside the band of springwood is called sWIDlerwood. This layer in some woods is darker, harder and stronger than the
21 Hind, .2£• cit., p. 25. 22Ralph Pearson, "Woodcuts and Wood-Engraving,," Ency clobaedi& Britannica (Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica,, Inc., 194 ),, XXIII, p. 720. 23Koehler,, loc. !.!l· 24Ibid., p. 6. 25Ibia., p. 15. 8 springwood.26 !!!:!_. When the tool ripped away the fibers rather than cutting or slicing through them, whether from the con struction of the wood or from dull toola.27 Texture. The size of the pores (eross-section of the fibers) and their uniformity in relation to the spring and su11111er bands of the annual rings constitute the property of texture as used in this investigation.
~ block. The term wood block is used to mean any block of wood prepared and surfaced for the reproduction of a design. It can be either plank- or end-grain. Woodcut. Only those designs cut with a knife or gouge on a plank or lengthwise grain woodblock.28
~ engraving. Wood engraving, in contrast to wood out, is used to mean only those designs cut on an end-grain bloek with the graver or other engraving tooi.29
26Ibid. 27Kaurrmann, 2£• !ll,., p. 4o. 28:araby, .22.• .2.!l•i pp. 14-15. 29Ibid. CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF OTHER PERTINENT LITERATURE
. I. HISTORY OF THE WOOD BLOCK The wood block is the earliest medium known to have been used by man for the exact repetition of a design.1 A wood block with a hieroglyphics design cut in it for use as a stamp was found in the tomb of Amenophtep or Amonoph at Thebes and was supposed to be contemporary with Moses.2 Bricks exist that have stamps similar to this one impressed upon them and since papyrus was known to have been used in Egypt four thousand years ago, J. J. La.nkes 3 suggested the possibility that stamps also might have been used upon it, the first print on paper. Bricks recovered from sites of ancient Babylon show the impress of cuneiform designs, probably from wood blocks.4 The Romans, too, printed from wood blocks called "Tesserae signatoriae" that had letters and ornamental characters cut on them.5
1John Taylor Arms, Handbook of Print Making (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1934),--p'p. 79-86. 2william Andrew Chatto and John Jackson, A Treatise ~Wood Engraving (London: Chatto and Windus, 1839), p. 6. 3J. J. Lankes, Woodcut Manual (New York: Henry Holt and Company, Inc., p. 94. 4chatto and Jackson, _QE. cit., p. 7. 5Imre Reiner, Woodcut Wood Engraving (St. Ga.11, Switzerland: Zollikofer and Company, 1947), Po 8. 10
In 1890 at Achlllin in Upper Egypt the archaeologist 1
R. Forrer1 discovered a wood block used for stamping designs upon textiles which has been dated in the fourth century of our era.6 The Chinese and Copts both used wood stamps on fabric in the sixth century after Christ 1 although printed cloth from India is known to have been carried by the Phoeni cians to the Near East before the time of Alexander the Great. Through trade routes opened by the Venetians and Genoese the technique and samples of the printed cloths were carried into Western Europe1 where the craft was established as early as the twelfth century. Roger of Sicily began the manufacture of printed stuffs at Palermo in 1146 and by the thirteenth century fabric was being printed at Genoa 1 Venice and Lucea.7 8 The Chinese used wooden seals as early as 250 B. c. and are credited with the first pictorial print from a wood block on paper.9 The Chinese official record dates the invention of paper in 105 A. D. and it is possible that rub bings on paper from carvings in stone were taken before the end or the second century. In the sixth century Tantric
6Ibid.
7Douglas Percy Bliss1 ! Histor~ of Wood-Engraving (London: J. M. Dent and Sons 1 Ltd. 1 1 2'BT1 pp. 10-11.
~e iner 1 .!22,. El.
9Frank Weitenkaapf 1 How To ATpreeiate Prints (New York: Charles Scribner's sons;-~42 Ip. 165. 11 Buddhism was introduced into China and Sanskrit formulae and 10 eharms were printed on paper for distribution to adherents. Similar charms were rubbed from wood blocks in Japan between 764 and 770 A. D. by edict of Empress Shotoku, examples of which are in existence, but both these were of the written word, not pietoria1.11 The first dated picture printed on paper from a wood block is the Diamond Sutra, found in a cave in Eastern Turkestan and marked with both the date,
868 A. D., and the artist 1 s name, Wan Chieh.12 This manu script roll is on crude paper made from bamboo, printed from wood blocks and as the earliest existing example of printing on paper has special importanee.13 However, as Arthur Hind14 says, • ••• to judge from the accomplishment of its art there is little doubt that it must have had its predecessors." At any event, the first printing of wood blocks on paper has been proven to be those in China while the development in Europe was much later.15 The first paper mill in Europe was said to have been lOArthur Hind, An Introduction to a History of Wood- ~ (Boston: Houghton Mrrr11n Company,-Y9~5), I, p.-05. 11Ibid. 12Ib1d. 13nesire Kauffmann, Graphic Arts Crafts (New York: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1948r;-p'. 1. 14 Hind, !22.· !11• 15Jleiner, loc • .!.!!· 12 established in 1320 near Mainz, Germany although the first record of a paper mill was one in 1390 near Nuremberg.16 The first prints on paper were proDably playing cards. Sup posed to have been invented to soothe the mad King Charles VI of France, the game was known in France at least fifty years before.17 Wood blocks outlining the design for the playing card were printed on coarse paper with color added later either by hand or with stencils.18 The first documented record mentioned by Arthur Hindl9 of the cutting of a wood block was a record of payment to 'one Jehan Baydet, charpentier, cutter of moulds or blocks, in 1393, although it is not known whether this was for a block for playing cards or textile printing. A wood block ealled the !!2.!.! Protat, most probably for the printing of textiles, was found near the Abbey of La Ferte-sur-Grosne in Burgundy, and from the design and technique has been ascribed to about 1370 A. D. It is one part of a three part depiction of the Crucifixion and is carved on a block of walnut wood.20 With the exception of playing cards and textiles, the
16Lankes, .2E.• .2.!l·, pp. 94-5. 17chatto and Jackson, .2.£• .!!!•, p. 41. 18J. Maberly~ The Print Collector (New York: Dodd, Nead and Company, 1~8~ p. 241. 19 Hind., 2£• ~., p. 79. 20.Sliss, .2.£0 .2.!l·, pp. 11-12. 13 earliest pictorial wood block in Europe was long considered to be the St. Christopher 2f.. 1423 discovered by Heinecke in 1769 at the aonastery of Buxheim, Wurtemberg,21 but the more recent find of the Virgin !!!£ Child ~ ~ Virgin Saints, dated 1418, now in the Royal Library at Brussels,22 gives the latter this distinction. The development of wood block cut ting from this date was continuous and took many forms. Block books, where a single block contained the pic ture and the text, were produced from 1450. Large numbers of block books were printed in the Netherlands between 1460 and 1465 and examples exist from as late as 1548, even after the use of moveable type.23 Another use of the wood block was for book plates to denote ownership, the first dated one belonging to Hildebrand Brandenburg, a monk of the Carthusian monastery at Buxheim, Wurtemberg, where the .§!. Christopher waa discovered, bearing the date 148o.24 After the development of moveable type and the use of the printing press, providing illustrations for the increas ing number of books attracted the best artists of the day. The artists drew upon the blocks leaving the cutting to the
21 Reiner, .2£• cit., p. 7. 22Bliss, .2£• .2.!i·, pp. 13-14. 23Ibid., p. 17. 24 Lankes, .21?.• s.!l·, p. 61. 14 craftsmen of the carpenter's guild, the formschneider, who carved the blocks in facsimile.25 The method of cutting and the material used for the wood blocks has been the principal concern of this writer rather than a chronological record of the artists who did drawings for the blocks.
II. HISTORY OF THE WOODS USED FOR WOOD BLOCKS The earliest record of the type of wood used for blocks was that of the previously mentioned !!.2.!,! Protat of 1370, which is of walnut. The wood used for book illustration blocks was of relatively soft, close grain, such as pear, apple, cherry, sycamore and beech. These were woodcuts; the draw- ing was cut in facsimile with knife and gouge on a plank grain wood block. It is recorded that Albrecht Durer (1471- 1528) drew his designs on pearwood for the formschneider to cut26 but there is evidence that boxwood was known and used at about the same time. The block on which Hans Holbein (1460-1524) drew his Portrait .2f. Erasmus, preserved in the Oeffentliche Kunstsammlung, Basle, is of plank grain box wood. 27 Although it is a woodcut, the much harder material probably aeeounts for the delieacy of the work. It is
2~rnest Watson and Norman Kent, The Relief Print {New York: Watson-Guptill Publications, ~5), p. 9. 26Ibid. 27Bliss, .2E.• cit., p. 4. 15 suggested by Arthur Hind 28 that this block was possibly from Turkey boxwood, imported by way of Venice. Venetian wood euts of this period had a similar delicacy of linear style implying that they, too, used boxwood blocks.29 The colophon (end piece) verses attributed to the printer Johann Trechsel of the fifteenth century mentioned cutting blocks of boxwood and Vasari in 1550 spoke of pearwood and boxwood for chiaro scuro woodcuts.30 The 1672 edition of Polygraphice by w. Salmon, printed in London, spoke of beech and box for wood cutting and in the revised edition of 1706 he added pear wood. 31 Box and pear were again mentioned by J. Barrow in his Dietionarium Polygraphicum, printed in London in 1735.32
Papillon1 s Traits historigue !i_ pratigue de .!!. gravure .!U!. boia,33 published in 1766, which was actually on woodcutting rather than engraving, mentioned box, service (cormier), and pear as the best woods for blocks. He also spoke of apple, cherry, wild-cherry (merisier), and other woods.
28Hind, £.£• ~., pp. 8-9. 29.!lli_. 30Ibid.
31~.
32~.
33chatto and Jackson, £.£• cit., p. 464. 16 Dorothea Braby34 asserts that someone experimented with the burin on end-grain boxwood, probably about 1690, but cites no proof. However, Arthur Hind 35 states: Further evidence of the practice of engraving on end-grain has been recently offered by M. Pierre Gusman, who describes and reproduces a wood-engraving which appeared in an Armenian book, A~athangelos, printed at Constantinople in 1709. T~e examination of Armenian books in the British Museum, suggested by M. Gusman's notice, has confirmed his opinion, and even if it is impossible to dogmatise as to the character of the wood used, boxwood might reasonably be expected in Eastern Europe. Chronologically there appeared the Medulla Historiae Anglicanae by Howell in 1712, illustrated with wood engrav ings but accompanied by an apology that wood was used be cause it was cheaper than copper; Croxall's Fables in 1722;36 and, Ornithologia !2!!.' a history of birds with three hundred and fifty wood engravings, printed in 1743-45.37 The kind of wood used for the blocks of these three works is not known, although prior use of boxwood was documented. Papillon, writing in 1766, mentioned knowledge of a new method of en graving on end-grain service wood and pear wood blocks
3~raby, .21?.• ill.., p. 86. 35Hind, .2R.• ill.•i p. 11.
3~raby 1 1:.2£. lli· 37Robert Robinson, Thomas Bewick: His Life and Times (Newcastle: Printed for R. Robinson, Pilgrim St:";l'8l:S7), p. 72. 17 practiced by a certain Foy of Lyon.38 Papillon himself, although cutting rather than engraving, recognized the superiority of boxwood over pearwood,39 a sentiment shared by Thomas Bewick in England. Thomas Bewick, born at Hewcastle in 1753, holds undis puted place in the development of wood engraving but he did not discover the techniq~e of engraving on wood nor was he first to use boxwood for this purpose.40 In the United States, Dr. Alexander Anderson was introduced to the work of Thomas Bewick by John Roberts, a visitor from England.41 From Roberts, Anderson learned both of Bewiek's white line method and the use of boxwood for blocks.42 Anderson was a copyist but of importance primarily for being the first wood engraver in the United States. As in the United States, Thomas Bewick's influence was felt in other countries, spreading to France about 1825 where "it was taken up, as all new arts are, or newly developed arts, by the greatest of artists.a From France it traveled
38Hind, 22.· cit., pp. 10-11. 39wilfred Gregson, A Student's Guide to Wood Engrav ing {London: B. T. Batsfora tta., 1953), p": B: - 40Arms, .2E.• .!.!!.·• p. 91. 41w. J. Linton, The Histort or Wood-Engraving in Aaerica {Boston: Estes ana Iiurla ,-r882), p. 3. -- 42~. 18 to Germany where Adolph von Menzel was probably its outstand ing exponent.43 In the nineteenth century wood engraving became the prineipal method of illustrating books, periodicals and even the news sheets.44 The professional engravers, said Herbert Furst:45
vied with each other not only in cutting •racsimile 1 with painstaking accuracy; they also applied all their ingenuity in order to render the most unlikely originals, watercolours, oil paintings, etchings, pencil and pen sketches, sculpture, textiles, ceramics, and at last photographs from nature faithfully and often convincingly. The reproductive era was the supreme test of the craftsman's skill and of the extreme versatility of the boxwood bloek.46 No other wood could withstand the minute incisions, allow the variety of line and be subjected to the wear of the mechanical press. By the turn of the century the photograph and the
43Joseph Pennell, The Gra~hic Arts (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 192 ), p~. 44Gardner Teall, aThe Story of the Woodcut," The Wood cut Annual, ed. Alfred Fowler (Cedar Rapids, Iowa: Tne-Torch Press, 1925), p. 15. 45iterbert Furst, The Modern Woodeut (London: John Lane, The Bodley Head, Liiifted, 1924), p. 52. 46L. A. Doust, A Manual of Wood Engravi~ (London: Frederick Warne and Co7, Ltd., 19'3~pp. 32-3~ 19 photo-engraving had replaced the wood engraving for repro duction. 47 Under the influence of William Morris, who sought the reYiYal of medieval arts and crafts, such young artists as Charles Ricketts, Gordon Craig, Sturge Moore and Charles Shannon, took interest in the wood engraving as a creatiYe medium.-8 Rebelling against photographic realism, these artists employed severe formal design and strictest technical limitations on the aediua.49 Following the revival of interest in wood engraving came a period of ex periment, both of material and in technique. Although many woods have been used, almost without exception contemporary artists recommended boxwood, preferring stability and relia bility in the medium, leaving the experimental aspect to the technique.SO
III. PROPERTIES OF WOODS Throughout its long history the wood block's princi pal function has been one of repetition of a design. For that purpose the artist or craftsman needed wood, (1) that
47Teall, ~· ~. 48aregson, .21?.• ~., p. 10. 49Ibid. 5%raby, .21?.• El•, pp. 9-10. 20 could be cut or engraved clearly and cleanly, and (2) that would preserve the design with fidelity when subjected to either hand or machine printing a large number of impress- ions. The early formschneider, cutting with the knife on the plank-grain of pear wood, did facsimile work, reprodue ing the broad lines of the artist's drawing on the block.51 Sueh soft wood blocks had a short life because the design wore away under the pressure or printing.52 As the artist's drawings became more delicate and demanded or the rormsch neider finer cutting, plank-grain boxwood blocks were used. They were both harder and more durable.53 With the introduction of end-grain blocks, the crafts man was allowed greater freedom, both in choice or tools and in technique.54 The end-grain block permitted the cutting tool to travel in any direction without lifting the fiber as it would when crossing the lengthwise grain or the plank block. Limited previously to the knife and gouge, the cutter adopted the tools used on metal, such as the burin, and
51we1tenkampf, ~· E1,., pp. 179-80. 52Fred w. Burgess, Old Prints and E~ravings (New York: Tudor Publishing Company, 1948)-;-pp. 2-3. 53w1111am Ivins, Jr., Prints and Visual Communication (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1953), pp. 18-19.
54 Bliss, ~· ~., pp. 5-6 • 21 became an engraver.55 End-grain blocks offered a certain resistance to the cutting tool which had to be forced through the resisting material, tending to give, as Pearson56 said, •a characteristic directness and rigidity to all lines, straight and curved. A slow uniformly changing curve would be more natural than a jerky, hectic, ~uickly curving one." Bewick exploited this characteristic line to the fullest in engraving his boxwood blocks by using the graver creatively to cut white lines on a black ground, rather than to repro duce black lines on a white ground.57 Following Bewick came a century of the wood block used almost exelusively as a reproductive aedium; there was no creative experiment in either medium or teehnique.58 Clare Leighton59 says, "the old professional engravers, be fore the invention of meehanical methods of reproduction, merely translated the artist's drawing into a wood-engraving." This had its pitfalls, for the artist drew upon the block
55John Buekland-Wright, Etchi~ and Engravin': Techniques and the Modern Trend (New ork: The Stud o Publi•a• tlons, 1953r;-p~03. 5~alph Pearson, "woodcuts and Wood-Engraving,• Ency eloSJedia Britannica (Chicago: Encyolopaedia Britannica Inc., 194 , XXIII, p. 721. 57weitenkampf, .2.2.• !.!!·, pp. 177-78. 5R- ""FUrs t, 2£· ~., p. 57. 59c1are Leighton, Wood-Eniraving and Woodcuts (Lon don: The Studio Publications, 19 4), p. ~ 22 with pen or brush and knew little or nothing of the nature of the material or the technical limitations ot the graver on wood. 60 In the 1890's the photo-engraving was replacing the need for reproductive wood engraving.61 Young artists began to consider wood engraving as a creative medium, and to re~ vive the principles or Bewick1 s white line.62 The early experiments ran to strictest craftsmanship, but these artists avoided the "finish" of the old commercials, simplifying and eliminating detail to attain a direetness of impression.63 The artists worked directly upon the wood rather than en trusting the engraving to a craftsma.n.64 EYery tool mark became a part of his drawing and the individual character of the lines made by the various tools was employed for a pur pose. 65 As Wilfred Gregson66 comments: The scope for experiment was unbounded, and the tech nical limitations imposed by precise tool-marks were
60Geoffrey Holme, ed., Modern Woodcuts and Litho- graphs (London: The Studio Limited, 1919), pp.-ir=B. 6laregson, .2.P.• !,!1., p. 9. 62Buckland-Wright, 22• !!!•i pp. 225-6. 63aregson, .2.P.• !!!.·, p. 10. 64Ibid., p. x. 65Doust, 2£.• !,!1., p. 3. 66aregson, ~· ,!!l., p. 11. 23 fully exploited in the variety of pattern which could be obtained by the arrangement and juxtaposition of the cuts. The old artist sought textures that would most nearly imitate nature or the medium being copied; the contemporary artist sought textures to create design, pattern and composition within the area or the bloek.67 Bernard Sleigh68 says of this new era: Wood engraving today is an amazingly wonderful thing to one who was trained in the old school; wonderful in its endless fertility of idea, and amazing in its inventiveness of tool work. This variety of tool work demanded the artist's concentra tion on both tool and materia1.69 Standing alone, each line represents not an imitation of another medium, but a vital part of the total pattern, premeditated and gauged.70 The result should be peculiar to wood engraving to justify the work inYolved.71 Hans Mueller,72 a wood engraver of power, states the case for the contemporary approach when he says,
67 Doust, .21?.• .2£1., p. 36. 68s1eigh, .2£· cit., p. 77. 6~raby, loc. ~· 70Furst, .2£• .£,!!., p. 244. 71Kauffmann, .2£· ~·, p. 38. 72Hans Mueller, Woodcuts and Wood Engravin~s: How I ~ ~ (New York: Pynson Printers-;--w39), p. 3 • 24 •the wood engraving is in its element when it employs the countless variety or effects afforded by the hard wood of the box and the rich choice of implements." CHAPTER III
PROCEDURE OF INVESTIGATION
The investigation involved engraving the same design on fifteen blocks of different woods and comparing them with a control block of boxwood. It was felt that (1) the prop erties of boxwood must first be established; (2) the method of selecting the fifteen woods must then be standardized; .. (3) the design developed must be suitable for testing the quality of the woods; and, (4) the variants must be eliaitnated.
I. PROPERTIES OF BOXWOOD Box trees are indigenous to several areas throughout the world.1 Papillon2 in 1766 knew of Turkey box but declar ed that the boxwood of Provence, Italy and Spain was of supe rior quality. Edward Gordon Craig3 in 1923 again mentioned Italian box from which he made his own blocks. Most writers spoke of Turkey, England, South Africa or America as sources of boxwood, although the order of preference in which they
1Alexander Howard, A Manual of the Timbers of the World (London: Macmillan and Co., Lta.-;-1"926), p. j3'.- 2 Arthur Hind, An Introduction to a History of Woodcut (Boston: Houghton Mif?Tin Company, l9j3°)7 I, pp. 8~.
3Edward Gordon Craig, Woodcuts and Some Words (London: J. M. Dent and Sons, Ltd., 1923), p. 2~ ---- 26 put them varied considerably. Chatto4 declared that "from my own experience, English box is superior to all others," yet another Englishman, John Beedham5 recommended Turkish box, as did Bernard Sleigh.6 Hans Alexander Mueller7 listed American, African and Turkish box, in that order or prefer ence, although this writer found that the only true native American box, Buxus calirornicus, has not been cut commercially. The wood that has been marketed as American boxwood was in reality dogwood, Cornus florida, which resembled boxwood closely in its properties.8 The African box or which Mueller spoke also was cited by Dorothea Braby9 who told of the dis covery or forests of boxwood in South Africa in the 1920 1 s, its appearance in England and subsequent use. It is the same variety as Turkey box, Buxus sempervirens, and has been found
4william Andrew Chatto and John Jackson, A Treatise ~Wood Engraving (London: Chatto and Windus, 18!9), p. 563. 5John Beedham, Wood Engraving (London: Faber and Faber Limited, 1921), ~9. 6aernard Sleigh, Wood E~ravinf Since Eighteen-Ninety (London: Sir Isaac Pitman and ons, L d., 1932), p. 18. 7Hans Alexander Mueller, Wood Cuts and Wood Engraving (New York: Pynson Printers, 1939r:--P"P~-~ ---- 8H. s. Betts, Flowering Dofwood, Forest Service, For est Products Laboratory, United S~ates Department of Agri culture (Washington, D. c.: Government Printing Office, September 1945), pp. 1-4. 9Dorothea Braby, The Way of Wood Engraving (London: The Studio Publications, 1953), 'PP.-rt'5'-16. 27 to be very good for engraving. The reason for differing preferences may be due in part to the time when the authors wrote their books. In 1839 when ChattolO wrote his Treatise .2!!. ~ Engraving, English boxwood was still available; now it is rare. In 1953 when Dorothea Brabyll wrote !!!.!, Way £!.. ~ Engraving, Russia had ceased to export Turkey or Caucasus box; South African box wood had become available. Regardless of the type of boxwood reeo11mended, there was complete agreement as to the properties that eonstituted a first quality end-grain boxwood engraving block. The best boxweod is heavy and hard, making blocks that are able to withstand the pressure of printing, whether by hand or machine presses.12 The box tree is very slow growing, with barely distinguishable annual rings, giving it an even grain in the cross-section. There is no noticeable difference between the summer and spring bands of the annual ring.13 The combination of hard, heavy, smooth, even-grained wood that allows crisp cutting by the tools, eliminates burying and irregularities
lOchatto and Jackson, ~. ~· 11Braby, loc. £!!. 12Ernest Watson and Norman Kent, The Relief Print (New York: Watson-Guptill Publieations, 1'91f5), p. 25. 13uoward, ~· !!!· 28 of line makes boxwood outstanding for wood engraving.14 Dorothea Braby15 likens the end-grain boxwood block to ivory in grain and consistency. Hans Mueller16 says that a hard, fine-grained polished block "no longer resembles wood, but rather some plastic composition.a Paul Landacre17 comments, "such a block is much superior even to metal in wearing quality." Thomas Bewick calculated that one or his boxwood blocks had yielded nine hundred thousand prints and was still sound.18 However, Arthur Hind19 says that the average life of a box wood block is difficult to estimate for it is dependent on several factors: the hardness of the wood, freedom from warping and variations in technique. J. J. Lankes20 states that the method or printing and the care given the block con tributes to the life of the block. The pressure of the press and the hardness of the paper affected the printing surface
l4Wilfred Gregson, A Student's Guide to~ Engraving (London: B. T. Botsford Lta., 1953), p. 16. 15araby, ~· ill_., p. 17. l~ueller, loc. !.!1· 17watson and Kent, ~· ill.· 1 ~raby, 2P.• ill_., p. 69. 19 Hind, 2£.~., p. 25. 20J. J. Lankes, Woodcut Manual (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1932), p. 46. 29 of the block. William Chatto21 claims boxwood makes a more durable engraving block because the wood is poisonous and therefore not subject to the attack of worms. A clear creamy yellow color throughout the surface
is a reliable visual test of the quality of the boxwood block1 22 although insufficiently dried or over-dry blocks can only be
tested by engraving.23 Variations in eolor1 as1 for example 1
fading from yellow in the center to white at the outer edges 1 indicates inequalities of texture. The wood becomes softer as the color lightens. It is difficult to cut and to gauge the pressure needed upon the tool when there are variations in hardness. The softer areas absorb and retain the ink causing imperfect impressions.24 When bands or streaks of
red occur in the wood 1 they indicate greater hardness. The tool will rise imperceptibly when crossing the hard bands and cause a rainbow effect in the print.25 William Cha.tto26 men tioned white spots in the red wood that dropped out when a
21chatto and Jaekson1 .2E.• !!l·i p. 565.
22watson and Kent 1 loc. !!1·
23John Buckland-Wright 1 Etching and Engraving {New York: The Studio Publications 1 1953) 1 p~30. 24 chatto and Jaekson1 .21?.• ~. 1 pp. 563-4. 2 5watson and Kent 1 loc • .:.!!.• 26 chatto and Jackson1 --loc. cit. 30 line was eut adjacent to them, leaving white spots in the print. Only experts or actually engraving can determine when a wood is too wet or too dry.27 Over-dry wood will crumble when cut. Small bits will break away along the edge of the cut and result in irregularities in the contour.28 Insuf ficiently dried wood made into engraving blocks will warp as the drying process advances. The changing contour of the surface sometimes alters the engraved design, and the pressure of the press often cracks the block during printing.29
II. SEIECTION OF WOODS FOR INVESTIGATION Three criteria determined the fifteen woods selected for blocks in this investigation: (1) those woods mentioned by artists, art historians and art eritics writing on the subject of wood engraving; (2) those woods whose character istics as reported by the Forest Products Laboratory and the Fine Hardwoods Association indicated their suitability for engraving; and, (3) those woods from groups one and two that were commercially available. The reports on American and Foreign Woods published by the Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, Wisconsin (a part
27cra1g, 22.• £!1., pp. 107-8. 28chatto and Jackson, .2.2.• !J:l., p. 567. 29Mueller, ~· ~· 31 of the Forest Service, United States Department of Agricul ture), and the Fine Hardwoods Selectorama, published by the Fine Hardwoods Association, were used to identify and to establish factors for the selection of woods. Many char acteristics of each wood were noted, four of which were of importance in determining the quality of a wood for an end grain engraving block: texture, grain, hardness and weight. Weight was stated as the weight of one cubic foot of a wood at twelve per cent moisture along _a comparative scale of eight steps from light, through fairly light, moderately light, medium weight, fairly heavy, moderately heavy, heavy, to very heavy, and representing a range from twenty pounds per cubic foot to ninety pounds per cubic foot.3° The lumber industry identified "hardwood• as the lumber from any broad leaf species of tree; "softwood" as lumber from any needle leaf tree.31 For the purposes or this investigation the density of the wood and its cellular structure, and not its botanical origin, was considered as hardness. A scale or seven degrees of hardness was adopted: soft, f&irly soft, moderately soft, fairly hard, moderately
30coap1led from statistics on weight given in the bulletins of the Forest Products Laboratory, Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture, listed in the bibliography under Forest Products Laboratory Bulletins. 31Arthur Koehler, The Properties and Uses of Wood (New York: McGraw-Hill Bo~Company, Inc:;-1~,-p.~ 32 hard, hard, and very or extremely hard.32 Grain indicates the longitudinal or lengthwise posi tion of the fibers of the wood. In this investigation there were two grain characteristics needed for consideration, whether the grain was straight or crossed, and whether the fibers were parallel or interwoven. Grain determines the sur face charaeteristics of the cross-section or end-grain wood. In straight grain the cross-section would sever the fibers at ninety degrees and expose the pores of the wood; in oross grain the cross-section could have the fibers lying at an angle to the cut.33 Cross grain wood, then, could have semi- plank grain characteristics that would impede the action or the graver. This condition was stated in five degrees: straight, generally straight, variable, slightly crossed, cross grain not unoomm.on.34 Interlocked grain was not a detrimental factor in this study because interwoven fibers somewhat retarded the tendency to split or •heck while
32compiled from statistics on hardness given in the bulletins of the Forest Products Laboratory, Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture, listed in the Bibliography under Forest Products Laboratory Bulletins.
33Koehler, ~· .:,!!., pp. 20 ft. 34compiled from statistics on grain given in the bulletins of the Forest Products Laboratory, Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture, listed in the Bibliography under Forest Products Laboratory Bulletins. 33 parallel fibers checked most severely.35 Texture, the surface characteristic of the cross section of the wood, was extremely important in selecting the woods for engraving blocks. Two elements constituted the property or texture. Either one could Y&ry and alter the quality of the wood.36 First, the size of the pores (cross seetion of the fibers) was established in a range of six steps: very fine, fine, moderately fine, rather coarse, moderately ooarse, and coarse. Second, the uniformity of these pores and the relation of spring and aUllller wood in the annual ring were determined in three degrees: uniform or even, fairly uniform or moderately even, and uneven.37 More than sixty woods were examined and are included in the 11at of woods, Appendix A, with their characteristics noted. Only fifteen woods were selected for engraYing be cause they compared most favorably with boxwood. Boxwood is hard, heavy, straight grained, very fine and uniform in texture, an ideal combination of factors that is rarely duplicated in other woods. Mone of the engraved woods ranked
35Koehler, J:.2!. • .!.!!.• 36Ibid., p. 21. 37compiled from statistics on texture given in the bulletins of the Forest Products Laboratory, Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture, listed in the Bibliography under Forest Products Laboratory Bulletins. lower in any single property than moderately hard, moderately heayY, generally ~traight grain, moderately fine or moderate- ly even and uniform. The final criterion for selecting woods for engraving was availability. Available woods were those that could be purchased through private or colllllereial sources in this area. Apple !.2!!• Papillon38 in 1766 first mentioned the use of apple wood for blocks in his own woodcutting. It also was the principal wood uaed by the wood engravers or Normandy. Clare Leighton39 stated that apple was a possible material, but Dorothea Braby4o claimed that it could not be relied upon to cut cleanly. Apple wood has a close, eYen grain, moderately heavy and moderately ha.rd.41 It was obtained collllleroially, and a bloek of it was engraved. !.!£, Japanese. Japanese ash had excellent properties: hard, moderately heavy, very close grain and strong for its
38 Chatto and Jackson, .2!.• !!1·• p. 464. 39c1are Leighton, Wooa-Enlraving and Woodcuts (Lon- don: The Studio Publications, 19 4), p. ~ 4C>araby, .2!.· ~., p. 14. 41Fine Hardwoods Selectorama (Chicago: Fine Hardwoods Assoeiation, 1956), p. 16. 35 weight.42 The wood was regularly available through commer cial outlets. A block was engraved. Ash, Mountain. In speaking of the series of prints, !!!_ Escadrille, engraved by M. Busset, Malcolm Salaman43 stated that the artist used mountain ash wood. Mountain ash, which is also known as Tasmanian ~ or argento, was found to be durable, strong, straight grained and works readily, according to the!..!!!.!. Hardwoods Selectorama,44 but was not &Y&.ilable commercially for investigation. Beech. It was rated aoderately close and moderately uniform in texture, heavy and .bard.45 Salaman also stated that beech was used by the Frenchman, M. Busset, although this was probably the indigenous European beech with prop erties very similar to those of American beeeh.46 A block was engraved.
42E1oise Gerry, Sen or Sem, Forest Products Laboratory, Forest Service, United ~tes Department of Agriculture {Washington, D. c.: Government Printing Office, 1954) Report Number 1979, pp. 2-3. 43aeoffrey Holme, ed., Modern Woodcuts and Lithography {London: The Studio Limited, 1919), p. 95. ~ 44!!!!!_ Hardwoods Selectorama, pp. 26-27. 45H. s. Betts, Beech, Forest Products Laboratory, Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture {Washington, D. e.: Government Printing Office, October, 1945), pp. 6-7. 46 Holme, loe. ,2.!1. Birch, also called sweet or cherry birch. Heavy, hard, close and uniform in texture, it was noted particularly for taking a beautiful polish,47 an advantage in the preparation or an end-grain engraving block. A block was engraved. Blackthorn. Speaking or the necessity of importing box, the cost and scarcity of it for engraving bloeks, John Beedham48 said that properly seasoned and prepared black thorn and holly were "quite g0od for end-grain work and, though not as hard as boxwood, made a very fair substitute." Blackthorn was found to be Prunus spinosa, native to Europe and Western Asia and reaching a height of ten to twelve feet.49 Since the wood was not &Y&ilable through any com mercial source it was not examined. Cherry, American. Cherry was mentioned by a number of English and American authors. Ernest Watson50 states that the American engraver, Allen Lewis, uses cherry. Desire Kauffmann,51 also an Aaeriean, says cherry can be used
47a. s. Betts, Birch, Forest Products Laboratory, Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture (Washington, D. C.: Governiaent Printing Office, July, 1945), pp. 6-7. 48seedham, ~· cit., p. 53. 49H. L. and Ethel Zoe Bailey, Hortus Second (Mew York: Macmillan and Company, 1949), p. 602. 5°watson and Kent, .2.E.• !,!!., p. 33. 5loesire Kauffmann, Graphic Arts Crafts (New York: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1948T;-p. 4o. 37 successfully for engraving blocks. It was assumed that they referred to American or possibly Oriental cherry; both are more readily available in the United States than wild cherry. American cherry was rated moderately heavy and moderately hard although only fairly uniform in texture.52 A block was engraved. Cherry, Oriental. Oriental cherry is widely available in the United States. It is the traditional wood used for the plank-grain Japanese woodcuts.53 Alexander Howara54 identifies Japanese cherry as Prunus pseudo-eerasus var. spontanea and said that it was used by the Japanese for wood engraving. It was found to have characteristics almost identical to those or American eherry and, being ayailable, a block was engraved. Cherry, Wild. Native to Great Britain, Europe and Asia Minor, wild cherry was assumed to be that referred to by John Buckland-Wright55 and Clare Leighton,56 both English
52H. s. Betts, Black Cherry, Forest Products Labora tory, Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, October, 1945), p. 3. 53 Lankes, .2.2•. .!!.ll_., p. 21. 54 Howard, 22• ~., p. 38. 55:Buckland-Wright, loc. ~· 56 Leighton, ~ • .:1:1· wood engravers. The only eharaeter1st1cs for wild cherry noted by the ~ Hardwoods Seleetorama.57 were that the pores were fine and numerous and that the wood was rare. It was not available for investigation. Dogwood. The wood called American boxwo0d by Desire Kauffmann58 and Hans Mueller59 was found to be flowering dogwood, Cornus florida.60 Bwcus californious, also called Buxus simmondsia, is the only true box native to America and is found as a small chapparral shrub of the Chuchawalla Mountains, San Jacinto Mountains, San Diego County to Arizona and Mexico.61 This variety has not been a wood or commerce. Dogwood was found to have excellent properties for engraving, fine and uniform texture, very heavy, very hard and with annual rings that can be distinguished but not sharply dif ferentiated. 62 Dogwood was not available for investigation. Harewood, English. Also known as sycamore maple, planetree maple and English sycamore, this was the wood men tioned by Clare Leighton63 for plank-grain woodcutting blocks.
57Fine Hardwoods Selectorama, p. 24. 58Kauffmann, ~· !.!!.·, p. 39. 59Mueller, .!2!..· .!!l• 60aetts, Flowering Dogwood, p. 4. 6laailey and Bailey, ~· ~., p. 124. 62Betts, Flowering Dogwood, pp. 3-4. 63Le1ghton, 1.2.!• !.!!• 39 Harewood64 was round to have a close, uniform and moderately fine texture, moderately heavy and moderately hard. A block was engraved. Holly. As previously mentioned, John Beedham65 recom mended holly, probably English holly, for engraving blocks. The same wood was mentioned by Bernard Sleigh66 and John Buckland-Wright,67 all English wood engravers. Because its properties seemed very similar to those ascribed to English holly by Alexander Howara68 and because it was more readily available, American holly was selected for investigation. American holly was found to have a uniform and close texture, and to be both heavy and hard.69 A block was engraved. Juniper, Oregon. Although not a commercial wood in terms of large scale production, Oregon juniper was found to be a favorite wood for wood turning. Identified botanically
64Eloise Gerry, Planetree Ma§le, Forest Products Laboratory, Forest Service, Unitedtates Department of Agriculture (Washington, D. c.: Government Printing Office, 1954), Report Number 2004, pp. 3 and 6. 6~eedham, loc. ill· 66sleigh, --loc. cit. 67Buckland-Wr1ght, 12!· ~· 68Howard, !R.• .2..!1•1 p. 98 • 69H. s. Betts, American Holly, Forest Products Labora tory, Forest Service, United States Department of Agrieulture (Washington, D. c.: Government Printing Office, September, 1953), p. 3. 40 as Juniperus eommunis,70 this variety has wood that was moder ately hard, moderately close-grained and fairly uniform in texture. A block was engraved. Lilac. J. J. Lankes 71 states, n lilac wood would be fine--either as an end-grain or as a plank, if one could come by it in large enough pieces." The lilae, Syring& vulgaris, is a garden shrub or small tree, rarely reaching a size use ful for block making.72 Alexander Koward73 described the wood as very firm and hard with an excellent texture and knew of its use for inlay and turnery. The wood was not listed by either the Forest Products Laboratory or the Fine Hardwoods Association and was not available commercially for investigation. Madrone. Available in limited quantities, madrone exhibited excellent characteristics for engraving blocks: close and straight grained, even and uniform in texture, hard and moderately heavy.74 A block of ma.drone was engraved for
70i3ailey and Bailey, ~· !.!l•i p. 399. 711.ankes, ~. !.!!.· 72Bailey and Bailey, 22.• !.!l•i p. 718. 73Howard, ~· cit., p. 122. 74aeorge Sudworth, Forest Trees of the Paeific SlCQe Forest Service, United States Departmen~o~grleulture ash ington, D. c.: Government Printing Office, 1908), p. 418. 41 the investigation. Mahogany. Bernard Sleigh,75 who has done a great deal of experimenting with woods for engraving blocks, mentioned mahogany for bolder work sueh as posters and end papers. Twenty-one woods are listed by the Fine Hardwoods Assoeiation76 as various types of mahogany but there were only three authen tic commercial species of mahogany, Cuban mahogany (Swietenia mahogani}, Tropical American mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla} and African mahogany (Khaya ivorensis}. The properties assign ed to Cuban mahogany appeared most suitable as it is heavier and harder than other mahoganies, extremely durable, close grained and takes an exceptionally smooth surface and fine silky texture.77 A block was made but upon investigation was eliminated without engraving as not being any where near comparable to boxwood in quality. Mahogany, Mountain. Not a true mahogany, the wood known as mountain mahogany was found to be Cercocarpus ledi folius, a native of the western and northwestern parts ot the United States. Slow and even of growth, mountain maho gany was very hard, very heavy, very fine and uniform of
75sleigh, loc. ~· 76Fine Hardwoods Seleetorama, pp. 36 ff. 77 Ibid., pp. 36-7. ~ 42 grain with an all but indistinguishable annual ring pattern.78 A block or mountain mahogany was engraved. Manzanita. Manzanita has been used to indicate any one of several varieties native to the western United States but the great-berried manzanita, Arctostaphylos glauca,79 was found to reach a height of thirty feet and has been cut ror its wood. Commercially available in limited quantities, the wood had properties almost identical to those of mountain mahogany. A block of manzanita was engraved.
Maple, ~· Mentioned more often than any other woGd as a possible substitute wood was maple. The American engravers J. J. Lankes,80 Paul Landacre,81 Allen Lewis82 83 and Thomas Nason all use maple blocks, although Rudolph Ruzicks84 recommends its use only for broader work. Wilfred
78 Sudworth, .QI?_. cit., p. 338 and ~Hardwoods Selectorama, pp. 23::ir. ~ 79a&iley and Bailey, .2£• cit., p. 69.
80Lankes, ~· .2.ll_. 81watson and Kent, .2£• ~., p. 25. 82Ibid., p. 33. 83Ibid., p. 39. 84Rudolph Ruzicka, "A Note on the Technique of Wood Engraving, •The Woodcut Annual for 1925, Alfred Fowler, ed., (Cedar Rap1d~Iowa: The Torch Press, 1925), p. 25. . 43 Gregson85 ealls maple: an excellent substitute which lends itself admira bly to fine work. In the actual process of engrav ing there is a slight difference in the •reel• be tween maple and boxwood, but the engraver has little difficulty in adjusting himself to the temper of the former. Bernard Rice,86 while in Bosnia, engraved on maple blocks which he had made himself. Desire Kauff'mann87 noted that varying qualities of maple could be had which might account for the differences of opinion regarding it. There were tour varieties ot maple of commercial importance listed in two groups, sugar maple and black maple in the group called hard maples; silver maple and red maple in the group called soft maples.88 Soft maple may have been the subject of Clare Leighton's co1111ent89 that maple was suitable only for sorter, plank grain blocks for woedeuts. John Buckland-Wright 90 said, "maple is apt to be unpleasant in that there is more difference in hardness between the spring and autumn rings, making the cutting uneven.•
85Gregson, .2.E.• .!.!!_., pp. 16-7. 86Geoffrey Holme, ed., The Woodcut of To-Da~ at Home and Abroad (London: The Stud1o-i;fmited, 19~), p. 7-;- ---- 87 . . Kauffmann, .2£• ~., p. 40. 88Fine Hardwoods Selectorama, pp. 40-1. 89Leighton, --loc. cit. 90.Suckland-Wright, loe. cit. 44
The properties or the maple known as hard or ro~k maple were: hard1 heaYy1 strong1 resistant to abrasive wear1 fine and uniform in texture.91 Those or sort maple were slightly lower in all factors.92 For this reason 1 only a block of hard maple was engraved tor the investigation. Orange. Although not available through ordinary com mercial sources 1 specialty or rare wood dealers had limited quantities of orange wood. Paul Landacre 1 93 the California wood engraver1 suggested the possibility of using orange wood for engraving blocks. Orange or sweet orange was iden tified botanically as Citrus sinensis by Van Rensselaer.94
The wood was round to be heavy1 hard 1 fine and uniform in texture but had a slight oiliness that made gluing difficult. A block of orange wood was engraved. !.!!!:.• Pear is one of the earliest or the woods used for wood engraving 1 and has been repeatedly mentioned by
91H. s. Betts1 MS~1t 1 Forest Products Laboratory1 Forest Service1 United a es Departaent of Agriculture (Washington~ D. c.: Government Printing Otfice 1 September 1945)1 pp. ts-9.
92Ibid. 1 pp. 9-10.
93watson and Kent 1 ~. ~·
94Maunsell Van Rensselaer1 Trees of Santa Barbara (Santa Barbara1 California: Schauer PrintTng Studio1 Inc.1 1948) I p. 39. 45 writers on the subject. Imre Reiner95 recommended pearwood 96 unconditionally while John Buckland-Wright and Clare Leighton97 called it a "posl!lible" wood. Bernard Sleigh,98 Rudolph Ruzicka,99 Dorothea Braby,lOO Desire Kauffmann, 101 and J. Maberly102 concurred that the softness of pearwood made it only suitable for broader work. Although pearwood was not available commercially for this investigation, a re view of the properties of pearwood did not warrant extensive search. Pear was termed moderately soft, moderately heavy, fine and close grained, not meeting the limitations estab lished for the woods to be engraved.l03 Service ~· Mentioned by Papillon104 and Busset105
951mre Reiner, Woodcut/Wood En,raving (St. Gall, Switzerland: Zollikofer and Company,947), p. 18. 96auckland-Wright, loc. ~· 97Leighton, --loc. cit. 98sleigh, 12!.· .!!!.· 9%uz1cka, loc. ill· 100- ~tsraby, loc. ill· lOlKauffmann, loo. fil. 102J. Maberly, The Print Collector (New York: Dodd, Mead and Co., 1880), p~42. l03Fine HardwGods Selectorama, p. 45. 104chatto and Jackson, loe. ~. 105 Holme, --loe. cit. 46 as suitable for wood blocks, service was identified as Pyrus terminalis, a relative of Pyrus eommunis, pearwood. Alex ander Howard106 contributes the only information found about service wood. He describes it as hard and close-grained, with a smooth texture comprised of numerous pores which were very small and quite regular, but very scarce. No local source, private or commercial, stocked service wood, elimi- nating it from the investigation. !!.!.!• An experimental block of teak wood was engraved by Bernard Sleigh and was reproduced in his book,~!!!::. graving Since Eighteen-Ninety.107 In his own words: The wood is somewhat gritty and unresponsive to the tool, but otherwise seems sound and firm. It is a wood, too, in which the grain would always print, I think; an interesting and often useful 'quality' re sulting therefrom. Upon investigation it was found that teak wood was heavy, hard, coarse and uneven in texture, oily but extremely durable. 108 The coarse and uneven texture was due to the band of large pores at the beginning of each ring of seasonal growth and precluded any comparison to box. A block was made
106Howard, £1?.· L_.,it p. 256. • l07Sleigh, loc. ~· 108w. D. Brush, Teak, Forest Products Laboratory, Forest Service, United !tires Department of Agriculture (Washington, D. c.: Government Printing Office, March 1945), pp. 7-8. 47 but not engr&ved. Walnut, English. Commonly thought of as a very "hard" wood, it was considered necessary to engrave a block or English walnut as a representative of many woods with the same properties: black walnut, oak, Spanish cedar, mahogany in variety, and teak. The surviYing block, ~ Protat of 1370,109 attested to the durability of walnut and suggested its choice tor engraving rather than another or those woods mentioned as similar. In properties, walnut was found to be heavy, hard, normally straight grained, although somewhat uneven in texture. The annual rings were marked by the presence of many pores at the beginning of each year's growth and the denser growth at the end of the season, a character- 110 istic also noted for teak wood.
III. DEVELOPMENT OF THE DESIGN The design engraved on the blocks in this investiga tion was developed to make use of the four types of basic tools, alone and in combination, for a maximum testing of the characteristics of the woods. Types !2!. tools. The basic wood engraver's tools are
l09John Taylor Arms, Handbook of Print Making and Printmakers (New York: The Macmillan ~mpany, 1934), pp. 86-1. llOFine Hardwoods Selectorama, p. 54. 48 essentially the same four types used for metal engraving: gravers or burins, spitzstiekers, tint tools and scaupers. All tools are available in a variety of sizes, the size increasing with the number. The section of steel gives the tool its special character although the handle and angle of the shank are the same for a11.111 To insure the minimum angle of attack between the cutting edge of the tool and the surface of the block, the shank or the toel is bent and the handle partially out away for finger room. 112 The tools divide into two main categories, one for cutting lines, the other for clearing areas.113 Gravers and spitzstiekers are for cutting lines of varying width, while the tint tool is used for lines of un varying width. Gravers, in section, are of two shapes, square and lozenge. Because of the greater angle presented by the cutting edge of the square graver a wider line results; the sharper point of the lozenge graver cuts a finer line. The sides of the spitzsticker are formed by two elliptic sections meeting at a point. Capable of cutting very fine lines, the spitzstieker permits gradual thickening of a line by increasing the angle of attack.
111Braby, .2£• .2.ll•i p. 34. 112 Kauffmann, .2£.• cit., p. ~n. 113araby, .12£. cit. 49 The section of the tint tool presents two nearly parallel sides allowing the tool to cut a relatively deep line without widening it. Held at a minimum angle when engraving, the tint tool can be used to create an even, regular surface texture of deep, clean incisions.
Scaupers are ~sed for clearing spaoes intended to print as white areas in the finished impression. There are two types of scauper, both having flat sides in section, one with a rounded base, the other with a squared base. The square seauper is particularly suited to clearing along straight lines and toward square corners. The round scauper cuts more readily and is useful for elearing to curved edges. As ean be discerned from the foregoing descriptions, each tool cuts a line of individual character. In develop ing a design, one was created that demanded all four types of tools. The cut of each tool was represented alone and in combination with that of others. On page fifty the eompleted design has been gridded in order to identify the tools used and their characteristic incisions.
51 TOOLS EMPLOYED IN DESIGN ON PAGE 50 1-A. #8 Spitzsticker texture. 1-B. #2 Spitzsticker over #2 Spitzsticker crossing #2 Graver. 1-C. #2 Graver crossing #2 Graver. 1-D. #55 Tint Tool over #4 Spitzsticker. 1-E. #4 Spitzsticker texture and lines over #2 Spitzsticker. 2-A. #55 Tint Tool lines laid parallel. 2-B. #2 Spitzsticker over parallel line of #55 Tint Tool. 2-C. #2 Spitzsticker crossing #2 Spitzsticker over parallel lines of #55 Tint Tool. 2-D. #2 Graver texture and line. 2-E. #55 Tint Tool over #2 Spitzsticker. 3-A. #55 Tint Tool cork; #5 Grayer "s" eurve line. 3-B. Wide line of #55 Round Scauper oYer multiple cross- hatching. 3-C. #45 Square Seauper clearing oYer multiple cross-batching. 3-D. #5 Graver line aver multiple cross-hatching. 3-E. Four crossings of #2 Graver. 4-A. #7 Graver line of varying width. 4-B. #5 Graver line of varying width. 4-c. #2 Graver crossing #2 Graver. 4-D. #2 Graver lines of varying width. 4-E. #40 Square Scauper clearing oYer #2 Graver crossing #2 Graver. 52 IV. ELIMINATION OF VARIANTS The boxwood control block and each or the fifteen experimental blocks were all engraved with the same design. tools and technique, as nearly identical as possible. Two technical factors in the process of engraving were watched with particular care: the angle or attack or the cutting edge or the tool, and the sharpness or the tool. If the angle or attack were to increase, the line widened, but if the line thickened without changing the angle it indicated a softer wood. Tools were sharpened at the beginning of each period of engraving. Slipping and tearing could have been a result of dull tools114 and whenever these occurred with frequency, the tool was tested and sharpened if necessary. If, after sharpening the tool, slipping and tearing persisted, irregularities in the wood were assumed. Variations that occurred due to the character of the wood have been explained in the results in Chapter IV.
114 Beedham, .2.£• El•, p. 38. CHAPTER IV
RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION The fifteen woodblocks engraved were rated on a six step scale: excellent, very goed, good, average, fair and unsuitable. Woods were rated for (1) cutting crisply and surely, (2) withstanding repeated crossing of lines, and (3) clearing cleanly compared with these same processes on the boxwood control block. One important property or box wood, length of life, was a factor not possible to test with the means at the writer's disposal.
I. WOOD BLOCKS ENGRAVED Boxwood. Control block. Close and uniform in tex ture, boxwoed engraved with dependability. Extremely hard, a consistent, even pressure and angle of attack insured smooth cuts of even depth and width. No tearing or crumbling occurred in either the multiple crossing of lines or deeply cleared areas. See page 54. 54
Boxwoed 55
Mountain mahogany. Rating: excellent. Properties almost identical to those of boxwood. Proved outstanding when engraved. Capable or taking the finest line cleanly and holding well in the most severe crossing. It engraved with a consistent, even pressure on the tool. The block was made or both red heartwood and creamy-white sapwood. A very slight difference in hardness was noted when crossing from one color area to another. The red heartwood, although harder, was more brittle. It was felt that an entire block of sapwood would be the equivalent or boxwood for the purposes or engraving. 56
Manzanita. Rating: excellent. Another slow growing native wood like mountain mahogany, manzanita proved its equal. Smooth, even euts with uniform depth, durability in multiple crossing or lines and clean clearing characterized the engraving qualities or m.anzanita. This block was also made of two colors, brownish-red heartwood and yellow-white sapwood. Again it would be recommended that the entire block be of sapwood, eliminating the slight variation in hardness felt when crossing from one color area to another. 57
~maple. Rating: excellent. Smooth, even cutting with either tint tool or graver. Firm, clean clearing emphasized the uniformity of texture and hardness of the hard maple block. As in the case of the other very hard woods, such as box, mountain mahogany and manzanita, the tools required frequent sharpening. In both clearing and texture areas, hard maple exhibited great durability. 58
Orange. Rating: very good. Although orange was heavy and had a fine, uniform texture and straight grain, it was noticeably softer than the excellent woods. The heel of the tool bruised the wood when cutting although the tool was followed by a cardboard protector on curves. There was a tendency for the tools to bury even when the angle of attack was carefully watched. Nevertheless, orange was adaptable to most or the delicate tool work and to cross hatching with varied tool combinations. Utmost control had to be exercised in clearing due to the toughness ot the fibers. 59
Bee•h. Rating: very good. Slightly softer than the exeellent woods, beech was very even and uniform in texture, allowing firm, smooth cutting with the various tools. There was no crumbling or tearing in either clearing or crossing or lines. Inherent toughness or the wood necessitated fre quent sharpening of the tools. Readily available, true and accurate in cutting, beech would have qualities adaptable for use as a student engraving medium. 60
Birch. Rating: good. Cutting a great deal like beech. this wood had occasional variations in hardness that caused tools to slip and lines to vary in width. Whenever the tool crossed trom a hard to a soft area. the point dropped and insinuated itself deeper into the wood. The tool was stopped abruptly or the line widened. Although the hard spots were more infrequent in birch than in other woods investigated. their presence was an undesirable teature of birch. 61
Madrone. Rating: good. One of the finest and most uniform textures of all the woods inYestigated, madrone would have rated excellent if it had greater hardness. Although there were no variations in its hardness, the tools tended to run deep even when the angle between the tool and surface of the block was kept at the minimum. Lines cut consistently deeper and, therefore, wider, but they cut smoothly and with aecuracy. It was felt that madrone would be excellent for bolder effects and extremely interesting for experimental techniques. 62
Japanese !!J!. Rating: good. With the exception of very rare harder spots, cutting a Japanese ash block was easy, smooth and reliable. There was no noticeable differ ence between the spring and summer bands in the annual rings. The harder spots only occurred in occasional late season or summer growth bands. The wood did not tear when lines of various tools crossed, but a little crumbling resulted on the side of deep cuts and on the lowered surface of cleared areas. As in the case of madrone and birch, it was felt that Japanese ash could be used for bolder effects and ex perimental techniques. American cherry. Rating: average. Somewhat soft for the purposes of engraving1 American cherry had the addition al disadvantage of a grainy quality and varying hardness. The tool rode deeper in the softer wood. There was little possibility of cutting very fine lines because differing hardnesses caused slipping and burying. The grainy character of the wood made clearing difficult although it held sur prisingly well in multiple crossing of lines. 64
Oriental eherry. Rating: average. Although similar to American cherry in other characteristics, Oriental cherry did not have its grainy texture. Considerable variation in hardness within the annual ring caused irregularities of contour both in lines and textural areas. Although workable, it was not possible to achieve Yery fine nor very smooth inM eisions, and engr&Ying results were unpredictable. For this reason it was felt that Oriental cherry could not be recom mended for students. 65
Apple. Rating: average. Apple was somewhat softer than desirable. Unlike madrone, however, it also combined irregularities in hardness that caused the tool to ride out, to slip and to bury. Although durable in cross-hatehing and clearing, the uneveness of texture disrupted smooth, continuous contours on sweeping cuts. Moderately difficult to obtain, apple was not recommended, even for broader work. 66
Harewood. Rating: fair. Definite variations in hard ness between the spring and summer woods caused considerable difficulty in cutting smooth lines. When cuts by tools of different types crossed, the fibers twisted and broke out. Tools were sharpened frequently but the condition persisted. Harewood was determined only fair by comparison with boxwood. It could not be recollllllended for mueh except very bold work, such as posters. 67
Holly. Rating: fair. Instead or cutting cleanly, the tools tended to tear away the fibers even though the sharp ness of the to0ls was tested repeatedly. In textured areas, cuts crossing from different directions caused the remaining fiber to drop out. The softness of the wood allowed tools to ride deeper, to bury easily and to bruise the surrounding raised areas. Despite this, however, the uniformity or tex ture would suggest the successful use of holly for book plates or Christmas cards where a bold approach could be utilized. 68
Oregon Juniper. Rating: unsuitable. Oregon juniper was one of the most difficult blocks to engrave. The wood was so soft that the tool rode deep. Greater pressure was needed to cut these wider lines as well as to force the tool through the extremely "gummy" pores that seemed to "grab" it. When parallel lines were laid very close or when several lines crossed, the fibers twisted and dropped out. The tools did not cut accurately for the fibers seemed to push aside rather than slice, and to return after the passage of the tool to alter the line contour. 69
English walnut. Rating: unsuitable. Diffieult to engrave, English walnut exhibited considerable variation in hardness, open pores, and a pithy band in the annual ring. A decided granular sound and feel as the tool cut through the wood characterized the textura.l quality of the wood. Walnut crumbled severely in clearing and crossing lines for textureso Excessively frequent sharpening of tools was nee• essary to cut the pithy bands that delayed engraving. It is not recommended that walnut, or any of the woods of similar characteristics, be used for engraving blocks. CONCLUSION
Boxwood has always been accepted as the finest wood for end-grain wood engraving blocks. It is hard, heaYy, straight grained, very tine and uniform in texture, with a consistent light yellow color and cuts with accuracy and de pendability. Against this high standard, other possible substitute woods were rated by engraving each with the same design, using the same tools and, as nearly as possible, the same technique. Sharpness of tools and angle of attack were carefully watched to eliminate results that were not due to the properties of the wood. Three woods were rated excellent by the investigator: mountain mahogany, manzanita and hard maple. Each engraved with the same facility as boxwood and was entirely depend able. All three were found to be at least, hard, heavy, straight grained, fine and uniform in texture, some rating higher in individual properties. Mountain mahogany and manzanita were less readily obtainable, since only rare or unusual wood dealers supplied them, but hard maple was found to be a standard item of most large lumber companies. By this point alone hard maple aehieved unconditional recom mendation, although it was felt all three woods could be used interchangeably with boxwood. Good end-grain blocks with quite dissimilar 71 characteristics were obtainable from madrone, birch and Japanese ash. Ma.drone had the finest, most uniform texture of any of the woods investigated but was not sufficiently hard. Crisp, clean and smooth cutting, Japanese ash had very occasional harder spots. Of the three woods, birch was the least reliable, having the most noticeable variations in hardness. Apple, American cherry and Oriental cherry were rated average. All had inconsistencies or hardness that made en graving on them undependable. The tool slipped or buried easily and lines could not be cut with smooth, regular con tours. Both holly and harewood were rated fair in as much as they exhibited considerable tendency to crumble or tear in multiple cross-hatching. Holly had a uniformity or texture lacking in harewood, which exhibited definite hardness vari ations. Eliminated as unsuitable woods, Oregon juniper and English walnut were extremely disagreeable to engrave. The "gUllBly" quality or juniper and pithy bands in walnut made them undesirable for any end-grain engraving purpose. Upon completion or the engraving or the boxwood eon trol block and fifteen experimental blocks, the investigator would make the following recommendations:
, 72 1. Mountain mahogany, manzanita and hard maple could be substituted for boxwood and be entirely reliable. 2. Beech and orange would make desirable end-grain blocks for student's use. 3. Japanese ash and birch could be used for bolder or broader techniques. When not rated in comparison with boxwood, Japanese ash, birch and ma.drone exhibited indiYidual qualities that would lend them to experimental techniques. 4. Except holly and harewood, woods rated less than good: apple, American cherry, Oriental eherry, Oregon juniper and English walnut, cannot be recommended for use as end grain engraving blocks. Both harewood and holly were suffi ciently adaptable to engraving to suggest a limited use, such as Christmas cards or book plates.
- BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Arms, John Taylor. Handbook of Print Making and Print Makers. New York: The Macmillan Company,~34. 255 pp. Bailey, L. H. and Ethel Zoe Bailey. Hortus Second. Re vised Edition. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1949. 778 pp. Beedham, R. John. Wood EngraYing. London: Faber and Faber Limited, 1921. ~p. Bliss, Douglas Percy. A Histort of Wood Engraving. London: J. M. Dent and Sons; Ltd., 9~. 256 pp. Braby, Dorothea. The Wat of Wood Engraving. London: The Studio Publica"tlOn, 9°5!.~pp.
Buckland-Wright, John. Etching and Engravin~: Techniques and the Modern Trend. New York: T e Stu io Publications, ~3~40 pp. Burgess, Fred w. Old Prints and Engravings. New York: Tudor Publishing Company,~48. 281 pp. Chatto, William Andrew and John Jackson. A Treatise on Wood Engraving. London: Chatto and Windus,-1839. 664 pp.---- Craig, Edward Gordon. Woodcuts and Some Words. London: J. M. Dent and Sons, Ltd., 1923:-1"2~. Douet, L. A. A Manual .2!! Wood Egsraving. London: Frederick Warne and ~o., Ltd., l~ 7 pp. Farleigh, John. Graven Image. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1940. 388 pp. Fine Hardwoods Association. Fine Hardwoods Selectorama. Chicago: Fine Hardwoods Association, 1956. 59 pp. Forest Products Laboratory Bulletins. Foreign and American Woods. Madison, Wisconsin: Forest Products Laboratory, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture. Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Offioei 75 1. Betts, H. s. American Basswood. August, 1945. 2. Betts, H. s. American Beech. October, 1945. 3. Betts, H. s. American Holly. Revised September, 1953. 4. Betts, H. s. American Sycamore. August, 1945. 5. Betts, H. S. Birch. July, 1945. 6. Betts, H. s. Black Cherry. October, 1945. 7. Betts, H. s. Black Locust. July, 1945. 8. Betts, H. s. Black Walnut. September, 1945. 9. Betts, H. s. Blaek Willow. September, 1945. 10. Betts, H. s. Eastern Redcedar. Revised September, 1945. 11. Betts, H. S. Flowering Dogwood. September, 1945. 12. Betts, H. s. Hickory. October, 1945. 13. Betts, H. s. Magnolia. July, 1945. 14. Betts, H. s. Maple. September, 1945. 15. Betts, H. s. Oaks. October, 1945. 16. Betts, H. s. Osage-Orange. Revised September, 1953.
17. Betts, H. s. ~Alder. August, 1945. 18. Betts, H. s. Sweetgum. Revised July, 1954. 19. Betts, H. s. Yellow-poplar. Revised February, 1954. 20. Brush, w. D. Lignumvitae. March, 1938. 21. Brush, w. D. Mahogany. April, 1954.
22. Brush, w. D. ~. March, 1945. 76 23. Gerry, Eloise. ApitO!!S• Report Number R 1920. 24. Gerry, Eloise. Imbuia. Report Number R 1924. 25. Gerry, Eloise. Limba. Report Number R 1778. 26. Gerry, Eloise. Planetree Maplf!. Report Number 2004. 27. Gerry, Eloise. Primavera. Report Number 2021. 28. Gerry, Eloise. Sen or Sem (Japanese Ash). Report Number 1979. - - 29. Kryn, Jeannette M. Degame. Report Number R 1949. 30. Krynl Jeannette M. Spanish Cedar. Report Number R 1948. Fowler, Alfred, ed. The Woodcut Annual for ,!2!2. Cedar Rapids, Iowa: The-it'Orch Press, 1925.~ pp. Furst, Herbert. The Modern Woodcut. London: John Lane The Bodley Head Limited, 1924. 271 pp. Gregson, Wilfred. ! Student's Guide 12. Wood Engraving. London: B. T. Batsford Ltd., 1953. 7~. Hind, Arthur. An Intreduction to a History of Woedcut. 2 vol. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company-;-1935. Vol. I, 270 pp. Holme, Geoffrey, ed. Modern Woodcuts and Litho,raphs. Commentary by Malcolm c. Salaman. -r;Qndon: he Studio Limited, 1919. 204 pp. Holme, Geoffrey, ed. The Woodcut of To-Day at Home and Abroad. Comraentarj"1)y Malcolm-C. Saiaman. -i::OtidOii: The Studio Limited, 1927. 182 pp. Howard, Alexander L. A Manual of the Timbers of the World. London: Ma•millan and co., tta:-;-1920. 440"Pp:-- Ivins, William M., Jr. Prints and Visual Conununication. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1953. 190 pp. Jepson, Willis Linn. Flowering Plants of California. Berkeley, California: UniYersity of~alifornia Press, 1925. 1238 pp. 77 Kauffmann, Desire. Graphie Arts Crafts. New York: D• . van Nostrand Company, Inc., ~. 244 pp. Kistler, Aline. Understanding Prints. New York: Associated American Artists, 1936. 2 7 pp. Koehler, Arthur. The Properties and Uses of Wood. MeGraw Hill Book Company, Inc., 1924:--g"5irpi).~ ---- Lankes, J. J. Woodcut Manual. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1932. 122 pp.
Leighton, Clare. Wood-En,ravin~ and Woodcuts. London: The Studio Publications, 944. 6J)p. Linton, w. J. The History of Wood-En,raving in America. Boston: Estes--and Liuriit, 1882. 1 pp. ~ Maberly, J. The Print Collector. New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 18'8'0. 336 pp.
Mueller, Hans Alexander. Woodcuts and Wood En~ravin~s: How !. ~ ~· New York: Pynson l>rinters, 1 39. 1 8 pp:-" Pearson, Ralph. •woodcuts and Wood-Engraving," Eneaclopaedia Britannica, XXIII, 720-24. Chieago: Eneyclopae . ia Britannica, Inc., 1946.
Pennel, Joseph. The Gra~hic Arts. Chicago: The University of Chicago Priii, 19 1. 3~p.
Reiner, Imre. Woodcut~ood Engravini. St. Gall, Switzer land: Zollikorer an Company, 19 7. 112 pp. Robinson, Robert. Thomas Bewick: His Life and Time. New castle: Printed for R. Robinson;-P!"!gri~t., 1887. 328 pp.
Sleigh, Bernard. Wood Engravin~ Sinee Ei~hteen Ninet{• London: Sir Isaac Pitman an Sons, Lt ., 1932. 15 pp. Sudworth, George B. Forest Trees of the Pacific Slope. Forest Servieet United States l5epartment of Agriculture, October 1, 190~. Washington~ D. C.: GoYernment Printing Office, 1908. 441 pp. _ Taylor, Norman. Taylor's Encyclopedia of Gardening. Boston: American Garden 1FPL indieates Forest Products Laboratory Bulletin, listed in Bibliography; arabic numberal refers to specific bulletin. . 2FHS indicates Fine Hardwoods Selectorama, listed in Bibliography, page num~refers to wood description. 81 ASH, MOUNTAIN. (Eucalyptus regnans). Also called argento; Tasmanian .£!:..!.. Properties: Straight-grained; durable and strong; works readily. (FHS, pp. 26-27). Investigation: unavailable for examination. BASSWOOD. (Tilia americana). Also called linden; American whitewood; 11mewood. Properties: fine grain; little or no ~rain character; very lisht (26 pounds at l~ moisture); fairly soft. (FPL, 1). Investigation: block made; too soft and light for en graving. BEECH. (Fagus grandifolia). Also called American beech; sweet beech. Properties: comparatively close and uniform in texture; heavy (45 pounds at 12~ moisture); hard; strong. (FPL, 2). Investigation: block made; engraved. Rating: very good. BIRCH. (Betula lenta). Also called sweet birch; cherry birch. Properties: hard; strong; close srain; uniform texture; heavy (43 pounds at 12~ moisture). (FPL, 5). Investigation: block made; engraved. Rating: good. BLACKTHORN. (Prunus spinosa). Also called sloe. Properties: unayailable. Grows in Europe and Western Asia. (Bailey, Hortus Second, p. 602). Investigation: unavailable for examination. BLACKWOOD, AFRICAN. (Dalbergia melanoxylon). Also called Mozambique ebony. Properties: Hard; close; free from pores. (Howard, A Manual of!!!!_ Timbers £!~World, p. 33.) 82 Investigation: wood examined; cheeked and split too badly to make block. BOXWOOD, AMERICAN. See Dogwood, Buxus ealiforniea or Buxus simmondeia, native boxwood, not a commercial variety. BOXWOOD, ENGLISH. See Boxwood, Turkey. BOXWOOD, TURKEY. (Buxus sempervirens). Also called English boxwood; Abasian boxwood. Properties: very hard; very heavy (70 pounds at 12~ moisture); of dense, most uniform texture and very fine grain. (Howard, A Manual of the Timbers of the World, p. 35) (FHS, p. ~O). -- -- Investigation: block made; engraved. Control block. BOXWOOD, WEST INDIAN. (Teeoma pentaphylla). Properties: color is yellowish-white, rather brighter than Turkish boxwood; close, firm and smooth grain; pores exceedingly small and ill-defined. (Howard, A Manual£.!.~ Timbers of the World, p. 39) {FHS, p-; 20). Investigation: unavailable for examination. BRAZIL-WOOD. (Caesalpinia eehinata). Also called pernam- ~· Properties: strong; when planed it ha.s a bright, metallic, lustrous sur:t'a.ce. Used for violin bows be cause of resilient spring. (Howard, A Manual of the Timbers 2f.. ~World, PPo 40-1). - ~ ---- Investigation: block made; too much hardness variation in the a.nnual rings for engraving. BURMA TEAK. See Teak. BUTTONWOOD. See Sycamore, American. CEDAR, RED. See Cedar, Tennessee Redo CEDAR, SPANISH. (Cedrela mexicana). Also called Brazilian cedar; eedrela; cedro; Honduras cedar. Properties: medium texture with coarser darker areas; commonly straight grain; moderately light (30 pounds at 12~ moisture); moderately hard. (FPL, 30). Investigation: block made; texture too coarse and too light in weight for engraving. CEDAR, TENNESSEE RED. (Juniperus virginiana). Also called aromatic red cedar; eastern red cedar; pencil cedar; red cedar; southern red cedar. Properties: fine and uniform texture; generally straight grain except where deflected by knots which are common; moderately heavy (33 pounds at l~ moisture). (FPL, 10). Investigation: block made; too soft for engraving. CERCOCARPUS. See Mahogany, mountain. CEDRELA. See Cedar, Spanish. CHERRY, AMERICAN. (Prunus serotina). Also called black cherry; .!:.!:!!! cherry; wild black cherry. Properties: fairly uniform texture; moderately heayy (35 pounds at 12~ moisture); moderately hard. (FPL, 6). Investigation: bloek made; engr&Yed. Rating: average. CHERRY, ORIENTAL. (Prunus pseudo-cerasus). Also called Japanese cherry. Properties: similar to American cherry. Large tree (60-80 feet); valuable wood. {Bailey, Hortus Second, p. 602). Investigation: block made; engraved. Rating: average. CHERRY, WILD. {Prunus aviwn). Properties: close, firm texture and capable of a very smooth surface from the tool; annual rings conspicuous; pores exceedingly fine and numerous. {Howard, A Manual of ~ Timbers of !ill!. World, p. 61). {FHS, p. ~4). Investigation: unavailable for examination. CUCUMBER TREE. See Magnolia. 84 DAMO. See Ash, Japanese. DEGAME. See Lemonwood. DOGWOOD. (Cornus florida). Also called American boxwood. Properties: comparatively fine and uniform texture; annual rings can be distinguished but are not sharply . differentiated; very heavy (51 pounds at l~ moisture); very hard. (FPL, XI). Investigation: unavailable for examination. EBONY, BLACK. See Ebony, Gaboon. (not to be confused with black ebony, Dios¥yros tomentosa, Diospyros ebenum and Diospyros ass1m11 s from Northern India and Himalayas). (PRs, p. 25). EBONY, GABOON. (Diotiyros dendo). Also called black ebony; Calabar; Gabun; gos. Properties: very indistinct grain; hard. (FHS, p. 25). Investigation: block made; too knotty, ehecked and split too badly for engraving. EBONY, MACASSAR. (Diospyros melanoxylon). Also called marblewood. Properties: dense, close grain; grain markings largely from brown streaks on black background. (FHS, pp. 25-6). Investigation: block made; checked and split; wood too unstable for engraving. EBONY, MOZANBIQUE. See Blackwood, African. FEIJOA. (FeiJoa sellowiana). Also ealled pineapple guava. Properties: very hard; heavy; fine and uniform grain. Investigation: block made, engraved. Excellent wood but extremely rare. GUM, RED • .(Liquidambar styraciflua). Also called sweetgum; red gum is heartwood; sap gum is sapwood. Properties: moderately heavy (34 pounds at 12~ moisture); 85 uniform in texture; moderately hard. {FPL, 18). Investigation: block made; too soft for engraving. HAREWOOD. (Acer pseudotlatanus). Also called En~lish hare wood; pliiiitree map e; sycamore maple; Englis sycamore. Properties: close, uniform and rather fine texture; medium weight (34-40 pounds at l~ moisture); nearly equal to sugar maple in hardness. (FPL, 26). Investigation: block made; engraved. Rating: fair. HICKORY. (Carya ovata). Also called sha,bark hickort. (Some 16 to 20 varieties of hickory o which shag ark hickory is the most important commercially). Properties: very heavy (50 pounds at 12% moisture); very strong; very hard; annual growth rings distinct. (FPL, 12). Investigation: block made; irregular grain made wood unusable for engraving. HOLLY, AMERICAN. (!lex opaca). Properties: uniform and compact texture; moderately weak; hard; heavy (40 pounds at 12% moisture). (FPL, 3). Investigation: block made; engraved. Rating: fair. HOLLY, ENGLISH. (Ilex aquifolium). Properties: close texture capable of very smooth and hard surface; pores exceedingly small and very regular; color white to grey, white most valuable; close grain. {Howard, A Manual~~ Timbers~~ World, p. 98). Investigation: unavailable for examination. IMBUIA. (Phoebe porosa). Also called imbuya; embuia; Brazilian walnut. Properties: fine texture; moderatel¥ hard; moderately heavy (43-47 pounds at 12% moisture); mostly etraight ~rainedl occasionally contorted or gnarled grain. (FPL, 2~). 86 Investigation: block made, apparently a satisfactory material but not included in fifteen seleoted woods. Would merit investigation by engraving. JUNIPER, OREGON. {Juniperus communis). Also called common Juniper. Native to northwestern Pacific Coast. Properties: even, close texture; moderately hard; moderately straight grain; gummy substance to pores. (Bailey, Hortus Second, p. 399). Investigation: block made; engraved. Rating: unsuitable. KORINA. See Limba. (Korina is copyrighted trade name for limba, Registered u. s. Patent Office). (FHS, p. 32). LAUAN, RED. See Mahogany, Philippine. LAUREL, CALIFORNIA. See Myrtle. LEMONWOOD. (Calyeophyllum candidissimum). Also called degameo Properties: uniform and fine texture; usually straight grain; heavy {50-64 pounds at 12~ moisture); strong. lFPL, 29). Investigation: block made, cheeked when surface was prepared making it unsuitable for engraving. Extremely sensitive to heat, as when sanding. LIGNUMVITAE. (Gu&iacum officinale; Guaiacum sanctum). Properties: very fine and uniform texture; fibers much interwoven; distinctly oily or waxy feel; extreme ly hard; extremely heavy {80-90 pounds at 12~ moisture). (FPL, 20). Investigation: block made, interwoYen fibers caused swirly grain, oily quality made gluing difficult, un suitable for engraving. LILAC. {Syringa vulgaris). Properties: very firm and hard; excellent texture; resembles slightly bleached tulipwood; beautiful for inlay and turnery. (Howard, A Manual of the Timbers £!:~World, p. 122). --- 87 Investigation: unavailable for examination. LIMBA. (Terminalia superba). Also called Korina. Properties: pores scarce but large; texture varied from close to rather coarse; moderately heavy (35 pounds at 15~ moisture); moderately hard. (FPL, 25). InYestigation: block made; too soft for engraving. LIMEWOOD. See Basswood. LINDEN. See Basswood. LOCUST, BLACK. (Robinia pseudoacacia). Also called yellow locust. Properties: very hard; very heavy (48 pounds at l~ moisture); straight grain not common as trees are limby; prominent grain. (FPL, 7). Investigation: block ma.de; unsuitable for engraving as irregular grain made wood defective. MADRONE. (Arbutus menziesii). Also called madrono. Properties: heartwood, reddish brown; thin sapwood whitish; rather heavy; dense grain; exceptionally fine and uniform texture; moderately hard. (Sudworth, Forest Trees£!. 1h!. Pacific Slopes, p. 418). Investigation: block made; engraved. Rating: good. Special qualities would warrant experimental techni ques. MAGNOLIA. (Ma,nolia grandiflora; Magnolia aeuminata; Magnolia v r~iniana) All three varieties cut for commerce. A so ealled cucumber !.!:!!.· Properties: close, uniform texture; annual rings dis tinct; generally straight-grained; moderately hard; moderately heavy (35 pounds at 12~ moisture). (FPL, 13). Investigation: block made; not selected for engraving as properties nearly identical to poplar, holly, etc. 88 MAHOGANY. There are 21 woods listed as mahogany. An often misused name, mahogany applied to many woods not of the true mahogany family. The three authentic commercial species are Cuban mahogany, Tropical American mahogany and African mahogany. All true mahoganies are of the Meliaeeae family, genera Swietenia or Khaya. (FHS, p. 36) MAHOGANY, AFRICAN. (Khaya ivorensis)o Properties: slightly larger pores than other mahogany species; relatively hard; polishes well; durable. (FHS, p. 36) (FPL, 21). Investigation: not examined in deference to Cuban maho gany• s properties. MAHOGANY, BRAZILIAN. See Mahogany, Tropical American. MAHOGANY, CUBAN. (Swietenia mahogani). Also called West Indian mahogany; Jamaica mahogany; Puerto Rico manogany. Properties: heavier and harder than other mahoganies, extremely durable; close-grained; works well; takes an exceptionally smooth surface and fine silky texture. (FHS, pp. 36-7) (FPL, 21). Investigation: block made; open pores that would print made the wood unsuitable for engre.ving. MAHOGANY, MOUNTAIN. (Cercocarpus ledifolius). Also called Cereocarpus. Properties: very dense; fine and uniform texture; exceedingly heavy; very hard. (FHS, pp. 23-4). (Sud worth, Forest Trees£! the Pacific Slopes, p. 338). Investigation: block made; engraved. Rating: excellent. MAHOGANY, PERUVIAN. See Mahogany, Tropical American. MAHOGANY, PHILIPPINE. (Shorea negrosensis). Also called !.!!.2. la ua n • Properties: coarse texture; large pores; somewhat heavier and stronger than average mahogany. (FPL, 21) (FHS, p. 46). Investigation: block made; coarse texture and open 89 pores unsuitable for engraving. MAHOGANY, TROPICAL AMERICAN. (Swietenia macrophylla). Also called Peruvian mahogany; Brazilian mahogany. Properties: generally straight grain; lighter and softer than Cuban maho,any; works well; durable. (FPL, 21) (FHS, p. 37 • Investigation: not examined in deference to better properties of Cuban mahogany. MANZANITA. {Arctostaphylos glauca). Also called Great berried manzanita. Properties: hard; hea.vy; dense; fine and uniform tex ture. One of several varieties of manzanita native to Pacific slope, Great-berried reaches a height of 30 feet, yielding wood for limited commercial use. {Jepson, Flowering Plants of California, pp. 746-51). Investigation: block made, engraved. Ra.ting: excellent. MAPLE, HARD. (Acer saccarophorum and Acer n1~rum). Also called ~maple; sugar maple; bl~map e. Properties: fine and uniform texture; heavy (44 pounds at 12~ moisture); hard. (FPL, 14). Investigation: block made, engraved. Rating: excellent. MAPLE, SOFT. {Acer saceharinum, Acer rubrum, Acer negundo and Acer macrophyllum all classed as sort maples). Also callecr-i'ilver ma!le; white maale; swamp maple; !!2. maple; river map e; cut-leave maple. Properties: wood resembles hard maple but is not as heavy, hard or strong. (FPL, 14). Investigation: blook made; similar to magnolia, holly and poplar, not warranting inclusion in investigation. MARBLEWOOD. See Ebony, Maeassar. MYRTLE. (Umbellularia californica). Also called bay.!!:!!.; California laurel. Properties: hard; strong; pores the size and distribution 90 of walnut. (FHS, p. 41). Investigation: block made; too soft and coarse for engraving. OAK, RED. (Quercus borealis). Properties: conspicuous a.nd broad pith rays; hard; old growth is finer grained but softeri generally heavy (47 pounds at 12~ moisture). (FPL, 15J. Investigation: block made; coarse grain and pith bands unsuitable for engraving. OAK, WHITE. (Que re us !:.!!:!!.) • Properties: annual rings distinct; closer grain than red oak; generally hard; heavy (47 pounds at 12~ mois ture). (FPL, 15). Investigation: block made; open pores unsuitable for engraving. ORANGE. (Citrus sinensis). Also called sweet orange. Properties: heavy; hard; fine and uniform in texture; slight oiliness that made gluing difficult. (Van Rens~ selaer, Trees of Santa Barbara, p. 39). Investigation: block made; engraved. Rating: very good. OSAGE-ORANGE. (Maclura pomifera). Properties: close-grained; very hard; very heavy (55 pounds at 12~ moisture); growth characteristics make large pieces of straight grain wood uncommon. (FPL, 16). Investigation: block made; irregular hardness of grain and tendency to split made wood unsuitable for engraving. PEAR. (Pyrus co1111unis). Also called common pear. Properties: fine texture; close grain; pores are very fine and indistinct. (FHS, p. 45) (Howard, A Manual of ~Timbers of~ World, p. 209). Investigation: unavailable for examination. 91 PERNAMBUCO. See Brazil-wood. PINEAPPLE GUAVA. See Feijoa. PLANE TREE. See Sycamore, American. PLANETREE MAPLE. See Harewood. POPLAR, YELLOW. (Liriodendron tulipifera). Also called tuliptree; whitewood. Properties: generally straight-grained; comparatively uniform texture( moderately light in weight (28 pounds at 12~ moisture); moderately soft. (FPL, 19). Investigation: block made; too soft and block checked from heat of polishing surface, unsuitable for engraving. PRIMAVERA. (Cybistax Donnell-smithii). Also called durango. Properties: moderately light in weight (28-40 pounds at 12% moisture); medium to coarse texture; moderately hard. (FPL, 27). Investigation: block made; too soft and light for en graving. RANGOON TEAK. See Teak. ROCK MAPLE. See Maple, Hard. ROSEWOOD, EAST INDIAN. (Dalbergia latifolia). Properties: small to medium pores in wavy lines; firm; hard; close grain; oily. (FHS, p. 48). Investigation: block made; difficult to glue due to oiliness, impractical for engraving blocks. SATINWOOD, CEYLON. (Chloroxylon swietenia). Also called East Indian satinwood. Properties: hard; dense; interlocking grain; inclined to check. (FHS, p. 49). Investigation: block made; checked so extensively it was unusable before it could be engraved. 92 SERVICE. {Pyrus torminalis). Also called cormier. Properties: hard; close grained; smooth, even texture; numerous pores but very small; yellowish-red with light er colored streaks. {Howard, A Manual of the Timbers £!. !h! World, p. 256). --- Investigation: unavailable for examination. SILVER MAPLE. See Maple, Soft. SNAKEWOOD. {Piratinera guianensis). Properties: very ha.rd and heavy; swirly grain; fairly close grain; somewhat oily; generally of faulty description and supplies are growing more scarce. {Howard, A Manual of~ Timbers of !!2!, World, pp. 258-9). Investigation: block made; hard to glue, swirly grain unsuitable for engraving. SUGAR MAPLE. See Maple, Hard. SWEETGUM. See Gum, Red. SYCAMORE, AMERICAN. (Platanus occidentalis). Also called buttonwood. Properties: close texture; moderately heavy (34 pounds at 12~ moisture); moderately hard; withstands splitting because of interlocking grain. (FHS, p. 51). Investigation: block made; too soft for engraving. SYCAMORE, ENGLISH. See Harewood. SYCAMORE MAPLE. See Harewood. TAMO. See Ash, Japaneseo TASMANIAN OAK. See Ash, Mountain. TEAK. {Tectona. grandis). Also called Burma teak; Rangoon teak. Properties: coarse and uneven in texture due to a band of large pores at the beginning of each ring of 93 seasonal growth• rough and oily feel; heavy (40 pounds at 12~ moisture); hard; strong; dulls tools. (FPL, 22) (FHS, p. 52) • Investigation: block made; difficult to glue, open pores unsuitable for engraving block. TULIPTREE. See Poplar, Yellow. WALNUT, AMERICAN. (Juglans nigra). Also called black walnut. Properties: heavy (39 pounds at 12~ moisture); hard; normally straight grained; annual rings of growth marked by presence of many pores at the beginning of each year's growth and by denser growth at the end of the season. (FPL, 8) • Investigation: block made; irregular hardness in annual rings and open pores unsuitable for engraving. WALNUT, BLACK. See Walnut, American. WALNUT, BRAZILIAN. See Imbuia. WALNUT, CALIFORNIA. See Walnut, Claro. WALNUT, CIRCASSIAN. See Walnut, English. WALNUT, CLARO. (Juglans hindsii). Also called California wa.lnut. Properties: moderatel¥ heavy; hard; rather open grained. (FHS, p. 54). Investigation: block made; open pores made wood un suitable for engraving. WALNUT, ENGLISH. (Juglans regia). Also called Circassian walnut. Properties: heavy (39 pounds at 12~ moisture); hard; normally straight grained; uneveness in density of pores in the annual ring; not as strong nor as hard as American walnut. (FHS, p. 54) (Howard, A Manual or the Timbers of!!:!!, World, pp. 300-304). - ~ ~ Investigation: block made; engraved. Rating: unsuitable. 94 WHITEWOOD. See Poplar, Yellow. WILLOW, BLACK. (Salix nigra). Properties: quite uniform in texture; somewhat inter locked ~rain; light in weight (26 pounds at 12~ moist ure). lFPL, 9). Investigation: block made; too soft for engraving. ZEBRAWOOD. (Microberlinia brazzavillanensia or Brachystegia !li·). Also called zebrano, zingana. Properties: heavy; hard; somewhat coarse texture; pronounced fine stripes. (FHS, p. 55) (Howard, A Manual .Q!.~ Timbers of the World, p. 316). - Investigation: block made; texture proved too coarse for engraving.