Talk:Lumber

What about Wisconsin?

Maine, Oregon, Washington, and California? Did the Midwest suddenly disappear from the forestry history books? Wisconsin was once a great center of the lumber industry in the United States. Someone very familiar with American forestry history has to add to and edit the History and Geography subsection of the article:

[Wisconsin lumber history http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/turningpoints/tp-027/]

Removal of Merge Timber Note

I took the liberty to remove the merge timber note, because frankly, there are only a few bits and pieces in the present timber article that relate to timber. That article should be renamed to something like The History of the British Timber Trade. It is more about trade and economics than timber. It is historic and makes no mention of contemporary timbering. And it is completely Eurocentric about a worldwide topic. I would suggest that timber and lumber might well both have pages, since timber refers to the raw material and lumber to the finished product, but the current timber article isn't the one. If timber is merged with lumber, it should of course have good redirects. Pollinator 14:46, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

I still think the two pages should be merged; the word 'lumber' is not used outside of the USA (and perhaps Canada?). I agree that much of the current content of the timber page is superfluous there (and could perhaps be filtered out to British Timber Trade or something like that?), but my idea was that the content of lumber (which nearly all refers to what most people outside of the US would call timber) should be moved over to timber (as the more international title), to make one decent article, instead of having the information split between two pages. - MPF 16:46, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Glad to see that a page that was once too eurocentric has succesfully been turned into a page that has absolutely no relevance at all to someone looking up the word Timber from britain. I especially like the stated fact that "Non-American lumber" is usually sold in 300mm lengths equivalent to a foot - with the implication that we just cannot bring ourselves to part from the good old us of a's basic unit - wood isn't sold in 300mm lengths it is sold in meters (approx 1 yard). I agree with the comments about the word lumber - lumber is a word that has more to do with getting out of bed lazily than wood, it is never heard here. But really the reason I came here in the first place was to confirm the different legal status between 'timber' and 'wood' - something I would have thought was fairly encyclopaedic - but no - here we have an american trade directory page for builders - no good to me, I'm off to find a real source of information. 81.102.245.243 (talk) 23:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

timber/lumber

From User talk:Pollinator Hi Pollinator - just added a note at talk:lumber. The real problem is that the very title 'lumber' itself is strongly US-centric; the word simply isn't used in other countries (apart from perhaps Canada?) - MPF 16:51, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I didn't know that.Pollinator 03:14, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Merger

I propose that the following articles are merged as there seems to be overlap between them which creates confustion are all about the same thing.

Timber

Lumber

Dimensional lumber

This will also allow a for a better quality, more interesting article. I propose that all the articles are put under the title of Timber with their appropriate sub-headings. Hobo 04:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• Please discuss this at Talk:Timber#Merger

Lumber/Timber

The Lumber/Timber Articles Should Not Me Merged For They Have Sperate Maenings (posted by anon 24.179.67.206)

And the meanings differ, depending on where you are. In the US, "timber" refers to the forest product, or, if it refers to cut wood, only to large pieces such as beams. A "timber-framed" house would be an older-style home framed with hand-hewn beams, mortised and tenoned at the joints - or if sawn, to forms that are basically modern imitations of the older style - at least 6x6 in size. Lumber refers to smaller dimension or dressed lumber such as 2x4 or 2x6 used in modern construction. Interestingly a sawmill refers to the first machine to cut the lumber, whereas, in modern trade usage, "milled" lumber is further dressed by planing to standard dimensions, or made into molding or specialized forms for cabinet making. Pollinator 01:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• I am in favour of merging the articles, although I do use the North American usage. They are all about the same thing. How about calling the merged article Lumber/timber or Sawn wood? The different usages should be mentioned up front in the lead paragraph. Also, Hobo, why not take a gander at it on a sandbox page somewhere, so that others could see what you have in mind. I think it would help convince people. Note that according to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English, the usage should be that of "the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor (that is, not a stub) to the article." According to the edit history, Timber was created first on 25 February 2002, while Lumber was started on 25 June 2002.Timber also ceased being a stub first, on 1 October 2002 compared to more than a year later for Lumber on 13 October 2003. Dimensional lumber was created much later. So according to that rule, the article should use British usage. Also, the Manual of Style suggests:

If the spelling appears in an article name, you should make a redirect page to accommodate the other variant, as with Artefact and Artifact, or if possible and reasonable, a neutral word might be chosen as with Glasses.

Words with multiple spellings: In choosing words or expressions, there may be value in selecting one that does not have multiple spellings, if there are synonyms that are otherwise equally suitable. In extreme cases of conflicting names, a contrived substitute (such as fixed-wing aircraft) is acceptable.

hence my suggestion of a combined title (Lumber/timber) or a contrived one (Sawn wood), but I am not opposed to calling it Timber, with the appropriate redirects. Luigizanasi 19:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Per color (and its neglected cousin colour), I think it would be best to use a non-contrived non-joined article name. I agree timber was first, and should be used. However, I don't think dimensional lumber necessarily needs to be merged in (I can see it being the first thing to be split back out as the article grows), but if the decision is based on purely article size, then that's fine too. --Interiot 10:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Lumber/Dimensional Lumber Merged

Dimensional lumber merged with Lumber.

I note though that those tables are ugly. Anyone care to fix them?

Also, I'll do the merger with Timber, too, if people want.

--NaOH 05:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The question is what name would the new article have, lumber or timber? Luigizanasi 05:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Timber, with a redirect from lumber. It makes the most sense, seeing as it's a universal term, though in USA + Canada lumber and timber are different.

--NaOH 05:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

There, I just did it. --NaOH 06:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Insularity

This article does not have the international perspective that should be expected of a Wikipedia article. The world is not divided into North America and everywhere else. Rewriting to remove such insular references and provide a proper global perspective would go someway the lifting this article above its current B-Grade status.

The meaning of Baltic

This article's usage of Baltic seems somewhat confusing. It's surprising to see Norway mentioned as a "Baltic" country, and one can further suspect that Finland and Sweden, and maybe even Russia, are thought of as historically important producers of timber for Great Britain. Maybe Northern Europe should be read in most places where no stands the Baltic?
--Ruhrjung 06:30, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I agree this is confusing, go ahead and change it. Also I think in the context of timber Baltic refers to the states which produce similar timbers such as baltic pine and Norwegian spruce. Hobo 04:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Merger

I propose that the following articles are merged as there seems to be overlap between them which creates confustion are all about the same thing.

Timber

Lumber

Dimensional lumber

This will also allow a for a better quality, more interesting article. I propose that all the articles are put under the title of Timber with their appropriate sub-headings. Hobo 04:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Against merger

In the US, a timber is a piece of wood larger than what is normally used in light construction. If the articles are merged, it would confuse Americans to call it timber or confuse non-American English speakers to call it lumber. I like timber the way it is now. However, I think it would be reasonable to merge lumber and dimensional lumber. Nobody is likely to look up dimensional lumber without a link anyway. JBickner 05:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I would tend to agree, that timber and lumber are defined differently in America. Timber really is unfinished wood or raw wood, the material growing and cut in the forest. Lumber is processed timber. A timber yard would only be seen at a sawmill; a lumber yard would be found at the local hardware - Marshman 05:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I also agree. Before trees are cut, they are often referred to as "timber" (e.g. timber cruising), but not frequently as lumber. When they are cut and sawed the material is referred to as lumber. Not a hard and fast rule, but still a distinction. Jeeb 21:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. But there should be a link between these articles. Guy. February 13 2006

US and non US

As I now understand it the meanings of "Timber" and "Lumber" are different depending on where in the world they are used. Correct me if I am wrong but "lumber" in the US is the same as "timber" elsewhere. Hence the two articles are about the same thing. This causes confusion. I still propose merging the articles as they are discussing the same thing, keeping them separate just causes confusion. Prehaps we need to break the aticles into two sections each as a US and Non-US section in each. Hobo 04:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the ambiguity needs to be cleared up merger or not so if anyone else has any ideas please post them here.Hobo 05:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• I am in favour of merging the articles, although I do use the North American usage. They are all about the same thing. How about calling the merged article Lumber/timber or Sawn wood? The different usages should be mentioned up front in the lead paragraph. Also, Hobo, why not take a gander at it on a sandbox page somewhere, so that others could see what you have in mind. I think it would help convince people. Note that according to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English, the usage should be that of "the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor (that is, not a stub) to the article." According to the edit history, Timber was created first on 25 February 2002, while Lumber was started on 25 June 2002.Timber also ceased being a stub first, on 1 October 2002 compared to more than a year later for Lumber on 13 October 2003. So according to that rule, the article should use British usage. Also, the Manual of Style suggests:

If the spelling appears in an article name, you should make a redirect page to accommodate the other variant, as with Artefact and Artifact, or if possible and reasonable, a neutral word might be chosen as with Glasses.

Words with multiple spellings: In choosing words or expressions, there may be value in selecting one that does not have multiple spellings, if there are synonyms that are otherwise equally suitable. In extreme cases of conflicting names, a contrived substitute (such as fixed-wing aircraft) is acceptable.

hence my suggestion of a combined title (Lumber/timber) or a contrived one (Sawn wood). Luigizanasi 19:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Moved from Talk:Lumber

I agree, in their current form the three articles have a wide overlap, and all all incomplete. njh 06:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Moved from Talk:Dimensional lumber

• I am in favour of merging the articles, although I do use the North American usage. They are all about the same thing. How about calling the merged article Lumber/timber or Sawn wood? The different usages should be mentioned up front in the lead paragraph. Also, Hobo, why not take a gander at it on a sandbox page somewhere, so that others could see what you have in mind. I think it would help convince people. Note that according to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English, the usage should be that of "the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor (that is, not a stub) to the article." According to the edit history, Timber was created first on 25 February 2002, while Lumber was started on 25 June 2002.Timber also ceased being a stub first, on 1 October 2002 compared to more than a year later for Lumber on 13 October 2003. Dimensional lumber was created much later. So according to that rule, the article should use British usage. Also, the Manual of Style suggests:

If the spelling appears in an article name, you should make a redirect page to accommodate the other variant, as with Artefact and Artifact, or if possible and reasonable, a neutral word might be chosen as with Glasses.

Words with multiple spellings: In choosing words or expressions, there may be value in selecting one that does not have multiple spellings, if there are synonyms that are otherwise equally suitable. In extreme cases of conflicting names, a contrived substitute (such as fixed-wing aircraft) is acceptable.

hence my suggestion of a combined title (Lumber/timber) or a contrived one (Sawn wood), but I am not opposed to calling it Timber, with the appropriate redirects. Luigizanasi 19:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

My edits

I've restored Dimensional lumber and Lumber for the moment after User:NaOH merged the 3 together.

The merger for Dimensional lumber to Lumber looks good, so dimensional lumber should probably be changed back to a redirect (assuming that's fine).

The merger for Lumber to Timber still looks to be under debate. I've added merge tags to everything to get a better consensus, and moved all talk here. --h2g2bob 22:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose or Move Timber into Lumber

• Timber is used for heavy construction for example say a Church. (I am an Athiest).

• Lumber is used for light weight construction for example a town house or house.

• Dimensional Lumber could be merged with Lumber, but not Timber.

• If you would see the book "Construction: Materials, Methods, and Techniques"

ISBN 0-314-20537-3 it has a seperate chapter for specifically for Timber p.539-p563.

• In the same book it states Lumber (or Dimensional Lumber) is used for Platform Framing.

• The previous contributors to the articles have messed it all up and made it seem that they are all the same. So now it would require severe clean up. --Parker007 23:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Everything

Lumber/Dimensional lumber/Timber merged with redirects.

One thing I notice is that throughout the article there is links to lumber and the like. How do I make those links point to the specific points in the article which refer to those topics instead of back to the original pages which now only contain redirects? --NaOH 06:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Say you want to point to the "Treatment" section, then you would use the code [[Timber#Treatment]], note the "#" sign betwen the article title and the section title. Luigizanasi 15:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Empty Space

Trying to eliminate it all... how can I fix those blasted tables? --NaOH 03:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Hacksaw Jim

Changing to clear up ambiguity, in that it is unclear what he has adopted the 2x4 for, his child? Building? etc. it's his weapon of choice, and i'm chainging it as so. -Coleman! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.124.112.248 (talk • contribs) .

Indian Timber

The section on Indian timber feels out of place, given its level of detail regarding a relatively minor area that is highlighted seemingly without reason. Should it be moved into a new article? --Frostyservant 07:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It should go on its own page, linked from Trees_of_the_world. Anyone feel free to move it. I would but have to go now. DrVeghead 02:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've moved the section to List of Indian timber trees, but I wouldn't link it from Trees of the world because it doesn't list all the trees native to India, only those that are used for lumber. SCHZMO ✍ 12:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I have linked it from List of woods, which seems to be the most appropriate article. Luigizanasi 18:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Grading Lumber

This article needs a section on the terms used to grade dimensional lumber -- and a dicussion of knots, bark, cracking, listing the typical defects. 69.87.194.162 23:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

FAS – Highest grade 83-1/3% or better clear cuttings. 6” or wider, 8’ and longer. Some species allow for narrower boards and shorter lengths (Walnut and Cherry for example).

FEQ – First European Quality – Roughly equivalent to FAS

FAS 1F – FAS grading requirements are met on one face or one face and portion of the second. Second side must be #1 Common or better.

SELECTS – Selects are 4” and wider and 6’ and longer. Primary face grades FAS reverse side grades #1 common or better.

>#1 Common – #1 common yields 66-1/3% or better in smaller (than FAS) clear cuttings, 3” and wider and 4’ and longer.

>#2 Common - #2 Common yields 50% or better in small clear cuttings. Typically used for flooring and production furniture, or where component parts, and the required clear cuttings, are small.

I agree with needing a grading section. It will also need to note the difference in grading softwoods or hardwoods as it is different. I think a link to the NHLA (National Hardwood Lumber Association) should be added, as they have written a rule book on grading lumber which many in the Hardwood industry use as standards for the selling/buying of lumber. Their rule book also clearly defines the grades of lumber as well as terms for standard defects such as wane, pin knots, pith, etc. I am interested in helping with this page, but I am still quite new at wikis. Busfault 04:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Content??

There is a line that says "Leading International Producers ??????? ??????? ??????" at the end of the "Softwood" section of "Dimensional Lumber". Shouldn't this be on the discussion page instead of the article itself? I'm not going to remove it until I can at least get a second for removal or an explanation.Marvtixx 16:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I say go ahead and delete the line. Looks like a previous editor may have left a note for themselves and forgot it. No issue there. JungleCat talk/contrib 16:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

DoneMarvtixx 17:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Engineered Lumber

I'm a builder, not a framer or lumber salesman, but I noticed that there was nothing at all concerning an important part of lumber, which are engineered products; I can't build a home without them. I may have missed something and if someone who is a framer or is a lumber sales rep could add to that section or correct any inaccuracies it would help.Marvtixx 17:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Citations/Sourcing Needed

I added a source for my Engineered Lumber section. It doesn't source everything I added as I didn't have the time/desire to search for one at the moment, but I'll add one later or someone else can gladly do it. It shouldn't be a problem at this point as the entire article is lacking sourcing citations and at least I did provide one for about 85% of what I added.Marvtixx 17:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Clarification

I think that the Classifications section need clarity. I am not quite sure what was trying to be conveyed before. I am not quite sure what the author originally meant by “actual sizes” it is a little too vague considering that lumber is sold as the thickness of the board before kiln drying and planing. Boards are cut, at least in hardwoods, to quarter thickness ie 6/4 5/4 4/4 (inches) and are sold as thus even though some of the thickness is lost in the kiln and will be planed off. Busfault 21:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Modern size of a 2x4 is smaller than '2x4'

I don't have a decent source for this, but my understanding of the reason behind modern lumber being smaller than its name is that the old 2x4s were actually sawn to 2inches by 4inches. Modern buildings do not require as heavy cuts due to better quality control in sawing it, and better design and building methods. Anyone have a dependable source, one way or the other, on the matter?--Talroth 00:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

From what I have seen is that the lumber is sold as the rough cut green size (with tolerances). Once it has gone through the kiln significant mass can be lost due to high moisture content in the green lumber. As a source, I did work as a lumber inspector and sawyer in a hardwood lumber mill. I would assume that there would not be much difference in practices (hardwoods v. softwoods). The other loss of wood could occur with planing. I don't think that quality sawyers could be a reason either as the timber is much smaller and not as good quality as it was in the past. Though there is a possibility that companies cut lumber smaller to increase profit, softwood lumber really goes for volume of production. Hope this helps. Regards, Busfault 02:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

See also below. If our article doesn't cover this age-old question well, it should. (As of today, it definitely covers it; I'm going to spend some more time making sure it covers it well.) —Steve Summit (talk) 23:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

According to most people I talk to, it was more of an accounting issue then anything else. Read these last two enteries, this can't be sourced but two people confirm the 'make more profit' story: http://www.oreillynet.com/databases/blog/2002/10/were_2x4s_ever_really.html 74.77.241.148 (talk) 11:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I apologize in advance

Hey everyone. I own a directory of lumber and wood related companies. It is not the only one of it's kind, but I thought you might be able to give me some direction and ideas to put in more categories for the site. It is located at www.lumberjakk.com. Any response would be greatly appreciated, email me at torkildson@gmail.com Sushilover boy 20:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

on you're site, what would be the definition of Flooring/Domestic Lumber?

I would catagories Flooring into

- Prefabricated flooring (small pieces of wood or wood planks glued together into panels ready to lay down on a floor).

- Veneer paneled flooring (with a veneer covering a engineered wood, or eaven a print-on)

- Hardwood flooring (traditional {and the best} flooring)

- Industrial flooring (wood flooring especialy built for industrial use, e.g. car garage, production line, workshop, ect., charakteristic of this type would be that the wood is placed with axial wood face up)

I would also include information about engineered wood, e.g. Plywood, MDO, HDO, CDX, multilayered, I know they're not necessarily "Lumber", but these Wood products do make up a large amount of the wood used in carpentry. And maybe also veneer products.

---Lumber Jack- (talk) 22:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response Lumber Jack, I will make those changes, if I understand correctly: Add the category of flooring with prefab floor veneer floor hardwood floor industrial floor Sushilover boy (talk) 17:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

puchase your product..................

Dear Sir,

Introducing Ourselve as the import, export Company in Bangladesh. We like to deal import all kinds of timber-teak,pine wood and other related materials.

If you feel interest in this sector, please send me your measege as soon as possible with your product and full details.

Regards, Mukarrom Hossaen Banron & Co., A. R. Khan Trade Centre. 40/1 Naya Palton(4th floor) Mail:mukarromh@yahoo.com

puchase your product..................

Dear Sir,

Introducing Ourselve as the import, export Company in Bangladesh. We like to deal import all kinds of timber-teak,pine wood and other related materials.

If you feel interest in this sector, please send me your measege as soon as possible with your product and full details.

Regards, Mukarrom Hossaen Banron & Co., A. R. Khan Trade Centre. 40/1 Naya Palton(4th floor) Dhaka. Bangladesh. Mail:mukarromh@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.148.56.6 (talk) 12:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Lead secn

The lead section is presently (lks omitted):

Lumber or timber is a term used to describe wood, either standing or that has been processed for use — from the time trees are felled, to its end product as a material suitable for industrial use — as structural material for construction or wood pulp for paper production. In the U.K. and Australia, "timber" is a term also used for sawn wood products (that is, boards), whereas generally in the United States and Canada, the product of timber cut into boards is referred to as lumber. In the United States and Canada sawn wood products of five inches (127 millimeters) (nominal size) diameter or greater are sometimes called "timbers".

Lumber is supplied either rough or finished. Rough lumber is the raw material for furniture making and other items requiring additional cutting and shaping. It is available in many species, usually hardwoods. Finished lumber is supplied in standard sizes, mostly for the construction industry, and is primarily one of a few coniferous (needle-bearing) species such as pine, cedar, hemlock, fir or spruce.

1. While "a good lead 'graph usually starts with a dict-def", it should focus on the thing the title refers to, not the words of the title. (If it helps you sleep at night, think of the word "is" in any WP article as "[in the sense this article intends] is".) Thus "a term used to describe" should go.
2. "Timber" (as a mass noun, as opposed to the stout timbers later discussed) indeed has as its primary American meaning "standing timber" or at least "unsawn timber", and either that or the impulse (just discussed) to thoroughly discuss the words, may explain "... either standing or...". But the article is not about standing timber, so those words should also go.
3. " ...from the time trees are felled, to its end product as a material suitable for industrial use..." is probably not bad content for the article, but its focus on terminology suggests to me putting it of for later use, perhaps in a "Terminology" section. The same is true for the remaining two sentences of the lead 'graph. (But for the record, i'll note that the bolding of both "Lumber" and "timber" at the head of the lead sent is not a matter giving equal prominence to the American, British, and Canadian terms, but rather to respect the principle of least astonishment by being sure that users who arrive here via the important Rdr Timber (over a thousand articles use it, in contrast to fewer than 40 using Dimensional lumber) immediately see that word prominently placed. Thus the bolding of "timber", in the last sent of the lead 'graph, is redundant, and distracting for experienced users.)
4. As to the second and final 'graph of the secn, IMO the most important thing to say is that the shortening of the first 'graph that i've suggested opens up the question of whether the first could include it or otherwise be longer.

Having stated my reasoning for those changes, i'm going to edit boldly by doing that much, and counting on colleagues to fix it if i've overlooked something in that reasoning. (And someone is likely to find a better place for the two sentences i moved.)
--Jerzy•t 07:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Rem of Misc secn

I'm removing

==Miscellaneous==

• The term TIMBER! is used as a warning call to alert others working in the area that a tree is being felled and that they should take care to be out of the way.
• The term "sending up timber" is used in some religious circles to signify sending up prayer and/or sacrifice to God.

because these are not about the topic, but merely about what superficially appears to be the same word. The first item looked likely to fit on Logging if not covered there, and i reworded it and used the result in Logging#Logging and safety. The second seems unencyclopedic to me.
--Jerzy•t 07:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

rough vs. finished dimensions

I just removed this paragraph:

The timber industry states that finishing and drying the lumber results in the nominal size differing from the actual size, however, you will find that many houses built prior to 1950 usually have timber where the actual size and nominal size are the same. This has allowed new construction to become less expensive without having to modify municipal, state, and national building codes.

Now, it's true that many buildings (say, ca. 1900 in the U.S.) do use rough-cut lumber, with the "real" dimensions, i.e. a 2x4 is actually 2"x4". However, it's also clear that this wood is rough (not planed) -- run your hand along it and you'll get lots of splinters.

I have no doubt (though I can't supply a source) that modern building codes are based on the strength of dimensional lumber using today's finished dimensions.

Certainly, there's been some cost-saving along the way; I'll bet that a precision, modern sawmill can get away with planing down to a 2x4 from a rough cut that was smaller than 2" x 4". But it's also true that the planing (which, believe me, for the most part we'd all rather have the benefit of) is an additional expense.

I'm not sure what, if anything, to replace the uncited paragraph with. Certainly, the existence of old houses with "real" 2x4's is a fun fact, but I'm not sure this is the article for it. —Steve Summit (talk) 23:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

In the UK there are two basic types of timber 'sawn' and 'prepared' if you buy, for instance, a 2x1 sawn peice of timber you get something close to 2x1 (allowing for tolerance of cut and shrinkage etc, still pretty close to 2x1). if you buy a length of 2x1 prepared you are buying the same size of stock, but one that has been subsequently planed smooth, so of course it is smaller. having said that 2x1 is actually 25mm x 50mm (sawn) which when planed comes out more like 21mm x 46mm. perhaps this helps to explain some of the speculation about 'good old sizes' above, nothing has changed it is just more convenient to work with planed timber, especially if the price difference is negligable. 81.102.245.243 (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

timber trade

On reading about the problems that seem to have dogged this page regarding the terms timber and lumber - and some of the glaringly biased decisions regarding what should stay and what should go.

I have to agree that making a 'british timber trade' page was a good idea - unfortunately what is left is an 'american timber trade' page called 'Lumber' - why not go the whole hog and strip out all of the really trade specific stuff and make an 'american timber trade' page. perhaps then we could make a generic page that dealt with the subject more evenly, perhaps even one that got to the bottom of the different usage, and had room for some historical a and even legal detail (these are aspects of timber too). as it is the page is a real frightener. 81.102.245.243 (talk) 23:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

How are timber are grow?

How are timber are grow? 76.205.75.44 (talk) 22:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)