20 



HARDWOOD RECORD 



November 2.j. 1921 



Grades and Inspection of Lumber 



By B. S. Warren 



Purchasing Agent for Berkey & Gay Furniture Company, Grand Rapids, Mich. 



I am going to take as a basis for this paper the lumber ques- 

 tionnaire which was recently sent out by the Purchasing Agents' 

 Association. In the majority of cases in our district the ques- 

 tionnaire received prompt and careful attention and showed a great 

 deal of thought in answering the questions; but in a good many 

 cases it looked as though the answers were simply guessed at and 

 many vital points were not answered at all by many members who 

 use lumber. I believe that if we are to get any good out of these 

 questionnaires they should be given very careful attention and 

 each and every question answered. 



It is undoubtedly generally known by the lumber buyers that 

 the National Hardwood Lumber Association and the American 

 Hardwood Manufacturers' Association have identically the same 

 rules. These two .associations finally adjusted the differences that 

 existed between them by the Manufacturers' Association adopting 

 the same grading rules as the National Hardwood Lumber Asso- 

 ciation, but each association still has its own inspection bureau 

 and employs its own corps of inspectors, so there is still some differ- 

 ence of opinion existing in regard to the manner in which the 

 inspectors for the two different associations use and apply the grad- 

 ing rules. This is bound to continue so long as there are two inspec- 

 tion bureaus and two corps of inspectors, and it seems only logical 

 to me that, inasmuch as both associations have adopted the same 

 inspection rules, they should have one joint inspection bureau and 

 one corps of inspectors, as this would naturally tend to bring about 

 uniformity, which we certainly all should want. 



One question that was asked in the questionnaire was to note 

 any grading rules that we have experienced trouble over. One 

 reports "selects," and one reports "would not use American Hard- 

 wood Manufacturers' rules." Balance returning questionnaire 

 answered either "no," or no answer at all. I believe that the 

 grade of selects should be entirely eliminated in all woods, as it cer- 

 tainly spoils the grade of No. 1 common. 



Selects are nothing more or less than the line boards of firsts 

 and seconds and the upper part of No. 1 common. If there was 

 too much objection on the part of the various lumber associations 

 to the elimination of this grade, there should be some provision in 

 the rules to protect the buyer, because under existing conditions the 

 concerns who make a grade of selects still sell their No. 1 common 

 grade as a grade of No. 1 common and selects, and in that way enter 

 into unfair competition with the concerns who do not make a grade 

 of selects. Therefore, if this grade is not eliminated, I believe there 

 should be some clause embodied in the rules on the grade of No. 1 

 common which would make it necessary for a combined grade of 

 No. 1 common and selects to contain at least a certain percentage 

 of selects. 



As far as I am concerned, I try to place orders with concerns who 

 do not quote on the grade of selects, but include their selects with 

 their No. 1 common and believe we get much better lumber. I 

 believe the greater number of manufacturers today would welcome 

 the discontinuance of the grade of selects. This particularly 

 applies to walnut, mahogany, birch, gum and maple. 



In the questionnaire, we were asked if there was any grading 

 rules we consider especially fair to all concerned or rules we prefer 

 in buying. Eight report National Hardwood Lumber Association; 

 balance make no answer at all. 



We also asked for any suggestions for betterment to rules, which 

 was not answered by a single member. 



With regard to the grading of oak, birch, etc., we were asked if 



• Address delivered at the Annual Convention of the National Association 

 of Purchasing Agents, Indianapolis, Ind., October 12. 



we felt that No. 1 common should permit of 3-ineh widths. I do 

 not know how serious a question this is with all buyers, but in our 

 particular case we buy all our No. 1 common on own specifications, 

 which as 6 inches and up wide. This gives us enough width, if this 

 wood is used for core stock, to rip and take the wind out, when 

 necessary. 



It does socni that the 3-inch widths could be put in a new grade 

 and used by flooring people or for other purposes, and it is possible 

 we could get the lumber association to agree to do this. 



The framing of rules to more adequately determine surface 

 checks as a defect is a big question. If there are any suggestions 

 that can be made as to how the rules might be framed to take care 

 of this I feel the lumber committee would welcome such suggestions. 



As regards the definition of sap as a defect in common grades of 

 oak, would say that the inspection rules clearly state that bright sap 

 is no defect in No. 1 common, and this rule has been in vogue 

 for years, and I do not believe it would be feasible to make sap 

 a defect in this wood, but this to my mind applies to oak only, and 

 I do think there are some woods in which this should be more clearly 

 defined, particularly in regard to red gum. This, you undoubtedly 

 know, permits of sap to the extent that it will not prevent any 

 boards from working two-thirds clear face cuttings. It would 

 seem to me that sap should be eliminated in this kind of lumber. 



I am personally opposed to making a great man}' radical changes 

 in rules, for the reason that our inspectors, as well as the inspectors 

 employed by the different lumber manufacturers, are, or should 

 be, well acquainted with the present rules and thoroughly able to 

 properly interpret them. I believe that the principal trouble, which 

 causes most misunderstandings between the buyer and seller of lum- 

 ber, is that the buyers are in a large measure responsible for them- 

 selves. 



There are some concerns in the lumber business, particularly the 

 wholesalers, who undoubtedly stoop to unethical and questionable 

 practices to obtain business, but I personally believe that the great 

 majority of sellers are men above practices of this kind. There is 

 no doubt at all but what there is a certain class of lumber manu- 

 facturers who, when they find out just how lenient a particular 

 customer may be on grades, make their prices accordingly, and the 

 sellers of good lumber — people that do not resort to this practice, 

 are just as anxious to have this practice eliminated as the consumer 

 could possibly be; but, at the same time, if the buyer of lumber 

 would think more of the quality they are getting and less of the 

 price they are paying and would secure competent inspectors, the 

 elimination of the type mentioned would soon came about naturally. 



I would like to ask you how many times you have had a National 

 inspector in your yard to go over a car of lumber. Do you ever 

 stop to realize that any inspector can rise or boost grades on any 

 car of lumber? Do you know that there are many buyers who 

 buy lumber from concerns whom they consider reliable (and in a 

 majority of cases they are) that do not put an inspector on the 

 car? They have confidence in the concern from whom they are 

 buying, rightly so in most cases, but the opportunity is there to 

 ship grades that are easy — that a National inspector would not 

 properly allow. Any time we get an idea that we arc buying 

 lumber cheaper ,than any one else, we should get a National 

 inspector to go over a few cars and verify our judgment. 



Another trouble, I believe, lies in the fact that with many of 

 the concerns whom we represent the lumber inspector is not prop- 

 erly appreciated and the compensation that he receives in many 

 (Continued on page 22) 



