: Well actually in the better lumber yards in the states you pay the same way,
: by the board foot ie: 12" wide by 12" long by 1" thick. If
: the wood is a smaller dimmension you just do the math and pay for what you
: get.
: Bill H.
That would be a nominal measure, though. They figure the wood at the rough-cut size, but what you get is "finished" size. What you lost in the "finishing" is sawdust somewhere, but you are paying for it. With softwoods you lose the most, and sizes are more standardized with construction and softwood lumber. While there are industry standards for hardwoods, all too often a hardwood dealer will sell something that is slightly off spec., particularly if they mill it themselves.
Cedar is sometimes considered a construction material and cut to common softwood sizing specifications. But some lumberyards consider it a hardwood, and the size of the boards will vary. Clear cedar, being an item that is used more like a hardwood (for finished products) as opposed to common cedar boards, such as those used for decks and siding, may be sized, and priced more like hardwoods. At the same time you'll probably encounter oak, maple, and poplar (all hardwoods) being sized the same as pine, spruce, and fir. You'll see this most often at the big-box homecenters.
For example, nominal 2-inch boards (softwood) are finished to an actual 1 1/2 inches, and nominal 1-inch boards (softwood) are finished to 3/4 inch. With hardwoods you get a thicker piece, and it will vary.
The width of the boards can vary as well. With softwoods a nominal 12-inch-wide board is going to be 11 1/4 wide. You seem to lose 3/4 of an inch here.
Continued in next message..
Messages In This Thread
- Strip: Cedar thickness
Tim -- 10/24/2007, 8:56 am- history of wood thickness *LINK*
Paul G. Jacobson -- 10/27/2007, 3:25 pm- Re: history of wood thickness
Bill Hamm -- 10/28/2007, 1:46 am- Re: history of wood thickness
Paul G. Jacobson -- 10/28/2007, 7:56 am- Re: history of wood thickness
Mike Savage -- 10/28/2007, 11:14 am
- Re: history of wood thickness
- Re: history of wood thickness
- Re: Strip: Cedar thickness
Bill Hamm -- 10/25/2007, 12:36 am- Re: Strip: Cedar thickness
Acors -- 10/25/2007, 9:07 am- Re: Strip: Cedar thickness
Bill Hamm -- 10/26/2007, 1:25 am- Wood thickness
Paul G. Jacobson -- 10/27/2007, 1:27 pm- wood thickness pt 2
Paul G. Jacobson -- 10/27/2007, 1:34 pm- Re: wood thickness pt 2
Bill Hamm -- 10/28/2007, 1:43 am
- Wood thickness Pt 1
Paul G. Jacobson -- 10/27/2007, 1:31 pm- Re: Strip: Cedar thickness
TOM RAYMOND -- 10/27/2007, 12:41 pm- Re: Strip: Cedar thickness
Bill Hamm -- 10/28/2007, 1:39 am
- wood thickness pt 2
- Wood thickness
- Re: Strip: Cedar thickness
- Re: Strip: Cedar thickness
Kurt Maurer -- 10/24/2007, 6:58 pm- Re: Strip: Cedar thickness
Ken Blanton -- 10/24/2007, 6:00 pm- Strip: Cedar thickness
Jay Babina -- 10/24/2007, 2:19 pm- Re: Strip: Cedar thickness
Acors -- 10/24/2007, 1:20 pm- Re: Strip: Cedar thickness
Mike Scarborough -- 10/24/2007, 9:01 am- Re: Strip: Cedar thickness
Glen Smith -- 10/24/2007, 11:08 am
- Re: history of wood thickness
- history of wood thickness *LINK*