From one that has been trained in traditional materials conservation as well as a bureaucrat interpreting the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for (Restoration, Rehabilitation, Preservation, a lot of different levels of interpretation), my experience says the Standards are much more reasonable (and open to interpretation, of course). They call for "inkind replacement" Now, there are levels of interpreting what "in kind" means. With reason, "in kind" merely means " replace wood with wood" most of the time. (Honestly and Simply.) If you're concerned about longevity, then you're not going to use the cheapest wood (fast growth, etc.) on the market.understandably. You will most likely strive for the "best available" (and yes, as somebody said in this thread, document the fact that you are striving for the best quality available and how you reached your decision.cost can be a factor but you don't have to go matching grains.that is totally unreasonable and costly.no restoration - for museum quality work - or preservation - to keep the building standing - requires exact match of grain or history.totally uncalled for and unreasonable. This is the kind of thing that gives historic preservation a bad name and makes it look expensive.) I totally admire you for all the research you've done and the efforts you've taken to reach an accurate match. You have to realize that many places do not even know what dendrochronology is.nor do they have access to Ponderosa Pine or any other good quality wood. Most of society (and we bureaucrats in State Historic Preservation Offices deal with "most of society" and varying degrees of abilities to restore or preserve or be educated in any of those realms) cannot achieve any level of this good work. You are an artist and the best trades mind available. Most of us do not (in my case, did not) have access to the kind of talent and knowledge that you have. Your work is commendable and absolutely the most perfect level of research to strive for. But my suggestion is that you take it easy and enjoy what you're doing. You don't have to achieve perfection. It'll cost you and the property owner dearly. Most of the time "blending" and "the best available" is as good as it gets. By the way, as I look at your last question, one of the hardest Standards to interpret is the one about making new work stand out as new. Architects hate this standard because it's hard to interpret for a designer and I can easily say that it's hard to interpret for a bureaucrat. (and this point goes to your effort to match material exactly). New work should show up as new work.your wood can vary and achieve compliance with this standard. Just like an addition onto a historic structure should look new and not like it's been there historically. (I always call this the "honesty" standard.it's dishonest to make an addition look historic and like it's been part of the early history of the property forever.it should read as modern and part of the evolution.) Now, it shouldn't stand out as totally and unabashedly different (stainless steel shiny on to a stone or brick for example.just an extreme illustration that BPers wouldn't do anyway). Again, as with the above Standard, it should "blend" with the existing. An addition should have similar colors and material, window heights similar, rooflines similar, etc. etc. (Whole conferences go on for days and days on this subject.I cant cover it all.) Wood repairs, again, should be the "best available" wood. Blend but it's ok to read as a repair. That's what it is. And that's the most honest approach to the repair. From: The listserv where the buildings do the talking [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Cuyler Page Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2013 1:21 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: [BP] A Material Question I am currently working at restoration of the machinery in the Grist Mill at Keremeos. http://www.keremeos.com/gristmill/ and http://www.oldgristmill.ca/ During the packhorse era here, except for imported iron items most of it was made of wood, local Ponderoas Pine. I am now filling in the missing parts, mostly carpentry. Since the original was all whipsawn and hand planed, in the past I purchased rough sawn local lumber with real inch dimensions and hand planed it for use to match the original in dimmention and finish. Due to the massive infestation of BC's pine forests by the Pine Bark Beetle in recent years, no one is cutting pine at this time. Wood from the dead pine trees has a blue tinge due the the beetle chemistry, and it has made local pine lumber unfashionable. The only mills cutting the pine are using young uninfested trees that are still white, but they yield nothing larger than 2x6. I need 2x8 and larger. At a commercial wood specialist company, I can purchase Eastern White Pine boards brought here for the furniture industry. They are already planed to a fat 7/8" which is close enough to the originals to blend in and I can distress them enough to give the impression of hand planing buy a master. They are a bit whiter in colour than the yellowish Ponderosa and the grain is slightly different. All wood in the Mill is unfinished. Since 90% of the mill is historic original, I made the decision to allow new wood to be new and old to be old in order to highlight the amazing quantity of original material present and to showcase the use of traditional tools and skills in the restoration and the care applied for preservation of the structure. Dendro ID and dendrochronology was applied to all the original wood parts, and everything is Ponerosa Pine except for 330 finely carved little paddles (flights) on a 16' long auger. Those are Sycamour and are the only non-local wood bits. The researcher noted that it was a vartiety commonly used back east in the 1800s for packing crates. It carves beautifully, which a skilled builder of that time might well have known or noticed. The Mill's cleaning machine came from Silver Creek, NY near Buffalo. My question is: Since the available boards are not local Ponderosa Pin and are truly a modern import, from the perspective of a historic preservationist - restoration/museum/historic site person who either visits now or cares about such things 100 years from now, will the use of the White Pine be acceptable or a disgrace of judgement that will cause desires to replace the stuff to be more authentic and put my name on a black-list? Cheers, Cuyler -- **Please remember to trim posts, as requested in the Terms of Service** To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html -- **Please remember to trim posts, as requested in the Terms of Service** To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to: <http://listserv.icors.org/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>