^ g^^^c/x>:^^^^>^;;X/^wy^w^;gi:i i^j;k!A;>t;5^;? .^ 



Oak in the Planing Mill 



Differences of opinion make many other things than horse races. 

 For example they may make for or against the use of certain kinJs 

 of lumber for a given work. Opinions, not backed up by supporting 

 facts to justify, have been responsible for a share of substitutes for 

 wood in car building, in millwork, in furniture and in many other 

 lines. Most of these opinions originate outside the lumber fraternity 

 itself, but now we have before us a case where opinions within the 

 lumber fraternity may offer some handicap, for instance in the use 

 of oak in the planing mill. 



At a recent meeting of the Ohio Retail Lumber Dealers' Associa- 

 tion there was an interesting blackboard talk by the newly elected 

 president, S. S. King, of Dayton, Ohio, in which he presented the 

 results of two calculations of cost in millwork, one of working yellow 

 pine and the other of working plain oak. 



These two I'alculations were as follows: 



Yellow Pine 



Cost, 1,01)0 I'eet $36.50 



Handlin;; 1.50 



Itipping and cutting 2.00 



Cross-cutting 2.00 



Loss in ripping and cutting 4.20 



Sticker work 4.50 



Sandlns 4.S5 



Bucdllng 1.00 



(Jverhead. including delivery 5.47 



'fotal $62.02 



Plain Oak 



Cost, 1,000 feet ? 60.00 



Handling .placing on sticks) 2.50 



nipping nud dressing 5.00 



Cross-cutting 2.00 



Loss in ripping and cutting (300 feet) 20.00 



Sticking 3.15 



Siinding 4.00 



Uundling , 1.00 



Overhead 9.00 



Kiln drying and loss through drying 8.00 



Total (cost of 700 fctt left to sell) ?114.65 



These figures should be carefully studied and compaved b_v those 

 interested in the manufacture and sale of oak lumber because there 

 is room for a difference of opinion. Xo one will question that it costs 

 more to work plain oak, quartered oak or any other hardwood in the 

 planing mill than it does to work pine. Pine is about the easiest of 

 all our native v, oods to v.ork and is acknowledged to work with less 

 waste than almost any other wood. The difference in opinion is 

 likely to come as to the amount of difference which should be figured 

 up for working oak and pine. 



Taking the items of the original lumber cost from the totals in 

 these calculations we have a cost of $25.52 for working pine and a 

 cost of $54.65 for working oak. This makes the cost of millwork in 

 oak figure more than double the cost in pine. If this is not a fair 

 estimate and the cost applied to oak is disproportionate it indicates 

 an unfair handicap against oak in planing mill work. That is why 

 those interested in oak should study and analyze these figures and 

 set themselves about correcting any errors that may appear in the 

 comparison. 



Taking the first item in the list, we find a charge of $1.50 for 

 handling pine, whereas the charge for handling oak and placing it 

 on sticks is $2.50. Then we have ripping and dressing and cutting 

 made into two items and totaling $7 per thousand for oak, whereas 

 the ripping and cross-cutting of pine shows a total of only $4. The 

 presumption here is that pine is received already dressed, which is 

 true in some instances. In many other instances, however, pine for 

 planing mill work is purchased rough, consequently there would be a 

 dressing charge. The next item to note is that the loss in ripping and 

 cutting on the pine is figured at $4.20 while the loss in ripping 

 and cutting on oak is figured at .$20. That is a difference that looks 

 too wide or else the original cost of the oak is figured too high, A 

 waste of this kind would indicate a low-grade oak, whereas the figures 



of cost suggest oak of a good quality which should not waste a 

 great deal more than pine of the same quality. 



The next two items on the list shov,- favor to oak and they are the 

 only two which do. The sticker work and the sanding both show 

 cheaper on the oak than on the pine. The overhead charges on the 

 oak is given at .$9.00, whereas the overhead charges, including de- 

 livery, on pine is given at $5.47. Evidently this overhead is figured 

 ou a percentage basis charging in relation to the total charge for 

 work, which of itself offers room for a difference of opinion. 



The final item in the list of oak cost, that of $8.00 for kiln drying 

 and loss through drying, is deserving of some special attention. There 

 is no charge whatever for kiln-drying pine. This charge is evidently 

 omitted on the theory that the pine is kiln-dried at the sawmill 

 before shipping and the drying cost is included in the original sell- 

 ing price. Sometimes oak may be kiln-dried at the mill, too. That, 

 however, is not the important point for consideration in this instance. 

 The important point is found in the fact that the oak is given a 

 thorough kiln-drying before it is used in the planing mill or at least 

 the kiln-dr^-ing should be thorough with this charge against it. This 

 puts it in much better shape for cabinet w^ork and for interior trim 

 than one usually finds pine. The millmen manufacturing and ship- 

 ping yellow pine go through the motions of kiln-drying and some of 

 them do the work more thoroughly than others, yet it is seldom in- 

 deed that one receives what is called kiln-dried yellow pine lumber 

 that can be depended upon for doing first class joinery. As a manu- 

 facturer of oak flooring puts it, when the pine folks are through 

 kiln-drying they are just at the point where the oak man is beginning 

 his serious work of thorough drying, which means that to qualify 

 l)ine for comparison with oak in millwork or any other high grade 

 joinery it should be thoroughly kiln-dried at the planing mill and 

 have substantially the same charge for this work put against it as 

 is given for oak. 



There is no question of the earnest intent of the men who presented 

 these figures and discussed them, but there is room for questioning 

 their fairness to oak. Those taking part in this discussion were not 

 thinking anything about the welfare of oak as compared with pine, 

 but were earnestly concerned with impressing upon all present the 

 idea that costs often mount higher than they are figured up at. That at 

 least has been the purpose of most association cost figures and demon- 

 strations—to stimulate higher charges for cost items to the end that 

 better prices will be asked for the finished product. It is a com- 

 mendable idea and the lessons were undoubtedly needed, but there 

 should be a way to get the lessons without being unfair to oak or 

 any other kind of wood. 



The mauufaeturers of hardwood doors of the veneered type have 

 for years been boosting these in competition with the cheaper solid 

 pine doors, not only because of their better appearance and their 

 superior qualit.v, but they have sought to impress time and time again 

 by illustration that the e.\'tra cost ot the hardwood door is so small 

 that it will not amount to an item of more than $20 or $25 in the 

 equipment of an ordinary home. Had they figured on the same basis 

 of the figures shown above their calculations would easily show the 

 hardwood doors costing twice as much as those made of pine. 



There is a whole lot in the view point. If a man sets out to show 

 that it costs a millnian more to work oak than it does to work pine, 

 he can easily find incidents and figures to back up his argument and 

 to show that he is right. On the other hand, if he is interested in 

 boosting oak he can easily find a way to make these figures show 

 radically different results. This would make a wide difference in 

 opinion and each case perhaps result in error. The right way to 

 figure these things is to take the middle or unbiased ground, study 

 each analytically and without a desire to prove any special point, but 

 with the one purpose of finding out exactly what is what. 



Admittedly it costs more to work oak or any other hardwood than 

 it does to work pine. It is a harder wood and requires a little more 

 care in handling and it calls for a higher order of finish than is ex- 

 pected on yellow pine. When it is finished, and when it is finished 



—33— 



