Define Rosewood

Signed-In Members Don't See This Ad
Russianwolf

Russianwolf

Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2007
Messages
5,690
Location
Martinsburg, WV, USA.
I was under the impression that the only true rosewoods were from the Dalbergia family, but I'm always open to corrections.

I've looked around at some rosewoods and was surprised to see that they were not identified as Dalbergia species.
 
Signed-In Members Don't See This Ad
All true rosewoods are dalbergias - although there are many dalbergias that aren't rosewood (like blackwood, kingwood, etc.). I love them all even though they make me sneeze.

Marc
 
Marc,

You are teaching me something, here.

I agree Rosewoods are Dalbergia, but why are some Dalbergia NOT rosewoods??? I did NOT know that!
 
And Mike, ROSEWOOD sells well, so some vendors come up with "rosewood" in the name, true or not!

(Egads, DECEPTION??????)
 
I'm with Ed, you're going to have a hard time convincing me that African Blackwood isn't a True Rosewood. Just because the color is so dark as to be NEARLY black, shouldn't disqualify it. So what disqualifies a Dalbergia from being a True Rosewood?
 
To my knowledge, all Dalbergia species are considered true rosewood.
A lot of other wood are sometimes called rose woods, but they're not.
I learned this many year before I started turning pens from a wood collector.
 
Gary, et al,

Evolution of the language has become a REAL problem.

I'm sure if you take Wiki, "definitions on-line", even Websters will probably confirm that rosewood can be used to describe any wood that is red (or some other NEW definition).

Look at the forestry dept. of the noted Universities (Wisconsin is one of the most reputable). I BELIEVE they will adhere to the original "dalbergia" means rosewood.

But, if it helps you market the product, carry a Wikipedia definition with you and you can call a zebra a horse with stripes, if you like. All depends on HOW accurate you really WANT to be.

I believe I originally read the dalbergia information in the "Woods of the World" book, still sold in WoodCraft. I have the CD, but I have not tried to confirm.

FWIW --
 
Honestly, The nomenclature isn't my fault. I'm just telling you what's in the book. Keep in mind that Rosewood isn't a scientific term, just a common name which used to signify the flowery smell that Brazilian Rosewood sometimes has. It's more marketing than real. Dahlbergias aren't rosewoods, they're some kind of legumes. Imagine trying to sell someone a $50,000 table made from a bean tree. But call it Brazillian Rosewood and everyone gets excited. Do you know how many pens I could make out of our boardroom table!!!

In all probability any dalbergia you will find in wood supply could be called rosewood. But don't go into a store and ask for black or striped rosewood and expect ebony or zebrawood. Nor do I think you'll accept a twisted piece of vine as 'rosewood' There are some 200 to 600 different trees, shrubs, and bushes in the family. Only a handfull actually get sold as rosewood.

But I don't think nomenclature is much of an issue anyway. I pick blanks for their looks and only then do I check the nametag. I do have some stuff that got sold as Hungarian Rosewood. I'll be glad to cut that up and sell it to you for a fortune per blank. >:-p

Marc

ed4copies said:
Marc,

You are teaching me something, here.

I agree Rosewoods are Dalbergia, but why are some Dalbergia NOT rosewoods??? I did NOT know that!
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Marc,

I meant it when I said I was ready to be retrained.

IF there is a definition from a reputable source in botany, I am willing to accept it. It's just NOT what I learned when I started studying this stuff. (When I started making pens, BEFORE common access to the internet ---- YES, I AM an ANTIQUE, thank you for noticing!!:curse::curse::curse::curse:)


BTW, I DO accept the world is round and the sun the center of our solar system. (See, I'm making progress since we knocked off Galileo)
 
Last edited:
scientists would have you believe in the dogma that every plant has a definitive classification in a nomenclature this is only partly true each plant is distict but the botanist favoutite game has been to argue amonst themselves about what exactly is a dalbergia or should it be placed in the genus say pterocarpus? so this proves that so called botaicle names are no real benchmarch as species are moved around this nomenclature often and then moved again. the other world view is that plant species and by definition product are classified by use this is often the craftsmens view what does it work like how does it smell how durable is it and what is it best used for?
hence we come to the term rosewood. Looking at this term in a historicle sense timbers like brazilian, D.nigra Indian,D.latifolia Honduran, D,stevensoniiand burmese rosewood D. olveri come to mind also the rare Huanghuali D. Hainensis (sic)which in my mind has all the criteria for being a rosewood they fit the bill as being truly rosewoods why ? because they are historicaly defined, other timbers which are named rosewoods but clearly are not under the scientific or colloquial terminology are african rosewood which is really Bubinga, santos rosewood which is pau ferro and a varity of others including mexican rosewood codia spp these are just trade invented psudonyms invented to make you part with your money. The veneer trade has been the most guilty party in this naming game. is african blackwood a rosewood according to the historicle test No the fact that it is desirable and a high quality timber and also a member of the dalbergia tribe does not make it a rosewood is cocobolo a rosewood most would say yes is mexican kingwood a rosewood yes! is tulipwood a rosewood no is kingwood a rosewood no is shisham/sisso D.sisso a rosewood no its just a poor cousin to indian rosewood

all that from 30 years in the high class furniture restoration buisness

in the end do I still enjoy them you bet!!!!!:biggrin:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom