close
more_vert

Harryshill wrote:
Off hand, what would you say was the easiest wood to carve
Check this out HH as it explains a lot and collectively accurate.
http://www.bushcraftuk.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-6319.html
For me it all depends on what I am carving, which is very little these days. As a joiner during my time it was mainly housenames/numbers often with scrolls surrounding them. We would carve panels to affix to the side of staircase strings if not on the stringers themselves.
If you want to practise carving on a decent hardwood then use green oak as it doesn't rip up the grain like it can when seasoned. Then you need high speed cutters preferably.
Holly is my favourite if I make a stick with a horned handle as the grain is so tight it pares beautifully. The secret though is SHARP TOOLS coupled with a close grain. It's pretty poinless using softwood from a timber merchant as in the main it is forced grown and open grained which tears up easily and never gives you a decent finish unless a high speed tool is used.

Very interesting Mr S.

Actually, and going off at a tangent, the ball and socket joints at Stonehenge are ball and socket joints because of the material (stone) that needed ‘jointing’. Put another way, it would be pointless (and far more time consuming) to attempt creating the angular mortise and tenon joints found in the woodworking tradition. Ditto trying to carve ball and socket joints into wood – it would be both pointless and difficult because the different materials of wood and stone lend themselves to different jointing solutions.

Which brings us to the important point that the ball and socket joints at Stonehenge might not have evolved from an earlier (wood-based) mortise and tenon tradition at all but were there right from the beginning – perhaps even preceding the (wood) mortise and tenon tradition itself?

Would it be fair to say that it's likely that erecting a wooden post, is easier than erection a standing stone.

And carving soft stone is easier than carving wood?