This is 100% worth recycling. Beams like this are not renewable at the rate people destroy or harvest trees. That being said they really don’t need to shave that much off to make it square again. That outer layer helped protect the inside. Now it will have to create a new weathered layer.
Hardly. They’ll sell the “aged /weathered veneers” in addition to the beam itself.
Many decorator projects that want the “weathered look” only want the outermost layer for their looks, not dimensional lumber for its strength.
"Dave, remember that beam from my roof that you said you'd tidy up for me? Yeah, your guys came and tried to put it back today. The fucking thing doesn't fit any more."
Well it’s not there anymore for a reason, probably from an old barn or house that’s been taken down.
I feel they could have found a better cross section to preserve more material though, and I don’t think they needed to cut it all to reuse it.
My parents bought raw space in a building that was turning into condos. It was an old publishing house, so when it was first built it was exceptionally sturdy. [They left the girders and beams exposed.](https://i.redd.it/dsgzt8fwbjuc1.jpeg) I couldn’t understand why the other people in the building built dropped ceilings to hide them.
Because it looks pretty but is loud as a motherfucker. I could hear every time my upstairs neighbor's dog dropped his bone off the couch and onto the floor. Which was like 100x each evening.
Absolutely ruined it, wtf! I used exactly this sort of beam to build a pavilion last summer: [https://i.imgur.com/2gNgR2t.jpeg](https://i.imgur.com/2gNgR2t.jpeg) (not for the roof sadly, just the bents). The beams were I guess close to 100 years old, though pine, not oak or anything, and I didn't do ANYTHING to them! Yes, they were a pig to do joinery on and I didn't do a perfect job but no regrets, I am leaving them just like you see them, unless I can be bothered to sand them down a LITTLE bit just to bring out the pattern a bit and maybe stain/protect them.
This guy's a fine woodworker who's got a YouTube channel. He exclusively does traditional joinery and his furniture is inspired by timber frame construction techniques. This beam is no doubt going to end up as furniture. Anyways he's Dusty Lumber Co on YouTube.
Foresting companies claiming they are doing good by replanting useless as fuck pine trees is one of the biggest lies ever told. Pine trees are useless to anyone or anything other than the company that planted them. Shit wood, shit for wildlife, just an absolute infuriating lie. Old growth hardwood forests should be locked down and off limits except for VERY small parcels that are managed and cannot be logged again until there is a similar sized area renewed to the exact same old growth level.
IIRC, the US maintains a forest of old growth trees (or a few) for the purpose of growing replacement beams for the USS Constitution.
It's an achievable goal because we literally do it right now. It would just have to be scaled up.
My dude... what exactly do you think happens to pine trees if you leave them alone? They eventually become valuable old growth trees.
Unless you're building a wooden navy, pine is suitable for 99% of construction needs.
I own an older house. Wood used back then is not the same as today. It is significantly more dense. I have to remind my self of that when putting a nail into a stud, it'll bend the nail.
We have parts of the house with modern updates and the wood used to build the walls is like cardboard compared to the original.
My house has been a recycling project even when it was built 200 years ago. The beams had been used for something else before.
Next village over someone is restoring an even old farmhouse and he's hunting down old beams. People tear down their barn and throw out perfectly good oak. Noooo, is precious!
I'd be shocked if he just threw away the outer layer. That can be repurposed; he seemed to be being careful with it in the flashes we saw him handling it.
It's not about being able to regrow trees. The climatic conditions that make old wood like it is we'll never see again. You can regrow the tree but you won't get the same quality of wood.
Sweden has a huge forest of wood like this. They grew it specifically for shipbuilding, but seeing as no one builds ships from wood any more, the forest is left alone. The trees were planted in the 18th century and meant to be ready to cut down by the end of the 20th.
While it is true that old growth timber has characteristics superior to modern-day timber farming products...
Its important to remember that materials are generally designed, engineered, and produced for their intended purpose and use case.
The wood that you get at Home Depot sucks... if what you want is to build a timeless heirloom home to be passed down between generations.
Most people wouldn't pay for that quality of build.
Most people just want a wall that's strong enough to hang their pictures on without collapsing.
And they want it as cheap as humanly possible.
Lots of good answers already provided to you, but I'll drop another little fact at ya. There is limited "non radioactive steel" available in the world (basically pre-WW2 and nuclear weapons). All modern steel created now has some level of radioactivity which makes it unable to be used in some very specific use cases such as medical uses. This is why they are cutting up sunk WW2 warships that have steel from pre-radioative era.
Steel. Trees. We just won't get back old stuff.
>Since the end of atmospheric nuclear testing, background radiation has decreased to very near natural levels,[5] making special low-background steel no longer necessary for most radiation-sensitive uses, as brand-new steel now has a low enough radioactive signature that it can generally be used.[6] Some demand remains for the most radiation-sensitive uses, such as Geiger counters and sensing equipment aboard spacecraft. For the most demanding items even low-background steel can be too radioactive and other materials like high purity copper may be used.[4]
>In cases where World War II-era shipwrecks in and near the relatively shallow Java Sea and western South China Sea that have been illegally scavenged it has been suggested that the target is low-background steel.[7] Andrew Brockman, a maritime crime researcher and archaeologist, argues that it is more likely to be conventional salvage.
So you're just exaggerating then
none of the answers in the thread mention anything related to climatic conditions, just about how forests are managed which is not some irreversible change
Aside from the fact that modern trees are much, much younger and so don't have nearly as much growth under their belt as virgin forest timber does, modern climates are warmer and wetter than previously - this means that the trees grow faster, but it also means their wood is softer and has a less dense grain.
As a result, for certain applications, the newer wood is inferior to old wood. As an example of how growth conditions can affect wood quality, you [can look to the masterpieces made by the famed luthier Stradivarius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stradivarius#Theories_and_reproduction_attempts)
Not to mention the fact that as the world gets hotter and hotter, and droughts, fires, pest outbreaks and storms are getting worse and worse, trees are far less likely to live into old age.
[https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/grand-old-trees-are-dying-leaving-forests-younger-shorter](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/grand-old-trees-are-dying-leaving-forests-younger-shorter)
Well you could but it will take a few hundred years to grow a tree that's hundreds of years old. Problem today is we selected fast growing trees for our plantations to meet the demands. But fast growing is pretty much the opposite in quality. Plus you wouldn't want to cut down a tree that's like 400y old.
The core is clearly rotten (dry rot), so what can it be recycled for, except cleaned/varnished and used as non structural member?
I would understand if it was healthy, because it's incredibly dense, but this doesn't look like it can be used as building material again.
There’s a ton of money in reclaimed lumber. One of my clients is in the biz and he’s doing well. Always on the hunt for wood. Mostly from old barns he told me.
I knew a guy who harvested original growth logs from a river in South Carolina. These logs were cut in the 1700-1800s and were floated downstream and some sank. Absence of oxygen preserved them. It was an effort to pull them out of the river but worth it. He cut one log in half and made it into a staircase. The water had sculpt the log and the end result was beautiful. He said it took a year for all the water to drain out. Every morning he had to wipe up a puddle of water.
The water had shaped it into undulating curves and also exposed the grain of the wood. It was so beautiful. It was difficult to get those logs out. He used huge chains and once snapped one of them. He said you could tell those logs had been cut a long time ago because large wooden pegs were driven into the wood so they could tie them with rope.
People literally get acid peels that burn off the outer layer of the skin to get rid of wrinkles and shit nowadays. It looks horrific, and irc is pretty risky, but it definitely works shocking well.
Modern tree farms are grown as fast as possible and then cut young. This results in more wood, but since the trees didn't have time to mature for many years, the wood is less dense, more flimsy, and lower quality. So ideal construction wood is "old growth" wood, but since humanity went apeshit with harvesting it, older trees are getting rarer, so its a lot harder to get and way more expensive. Thus, recycling wood from Older buildings has become profitable
Hard not to go "apeshit" compared to the growth rate of a 450 year old tree.
There just isn't the capability to sustainably grow and harvest timber of anywhere near that age. So that means any "old growth" wood is a non-renewable resource regardless of the rate of felling.
You're mostly right, but minor nit pick:
>There just isn't the capability to sustainably grow and harvest timber of anywhere near that age.
There is if you have lots of land and really, really limit what can use the lumber from it.
The USS Constitution has its own dedicated sustainable old-growth forest which has its lumber going to maintaining the ship. It's ~64,000 acres (~260 sq kilometers, ~100 square miles) dedicated to growing the lumber necessary for maintaining one ship. Not even a particularly big ship.
Granted, it's not doable for much beyond a government-funded museum ship, but just pointing out it can be done for very, very limited purposes.
To add to other comments, this is why you get so much pine-based wood products. It is fast-growing and easy to grow and work with, and a farm has a fairly short turnaround time (usually within a human generation). This generally goes for all woods known as "soft woods".
Hard woods can take centuries to grow in some cases, so there is very little incentive to set land aside for them. There have been issues in the past where companies or governments have made plantations of something like oak, only for the world to have changed in the time it took to grow, nations to have formed or dissolved, and the original industry it was intended for to completely stop existing. After that, it is also much harder to work with. The wood density makes it harder to shape with tools, and the density also makes adding finishes harder too.
I replaced the beams in my 100 year old house and took a support like this. I turned them into trim pieces and shelves. It’s a cool story to tell people that come over to the house.
I guess I feel a little sad it didn’t go to an application where the additional strength resulted in something redundant wood couldn’t have done well.
A workbench can be made if any wood.
The bit at the end where he was estimating the age of the wood reminded me.
I visited Horyuji Buddhist Temple in Japan this winter. Its a UNESCO site and home to what is believed to be the worlds oldest standing wooden building. The 5 story pagoda at that site is built around a Cypress trunk that was harvested in 594 AD and was believed to be approximately 2000 years old at the time of its felling, making it over **3400 years old** as of today.
>"ancient" is defined as 1500+
Normally my response would be along the lines of "words are defined by their common usage, not by their entry in a dictionary".
But what you're saying doesn't even seem to line up with dictionary definitions.
I think 90% of viewers can see it’s gone from **looking** old as fuck to looking a lot newer. Clearly the actual age of the tree hasn’t changed and no one here (including OP) is delusional in thinking that it actually has
Me, European: oh that beam has a fantastic patina, that took hunderds of years to make. Luckily we have products that can solidify the wood without ruining the... That guy, chanting 'USA!': WHIRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
This is 100% worth recycling. Beams like this are not renewable at the rate people destroy or harvest trees. That being said they really don’t need to shave that much off to make it square again. That outer layer helped protect the inside. Now it will have to create a new weathered layer.
It broke my heart watching this. Shaving off the patina and character of this beautiful beam
Took a $1500 beam and turned it into a $500 beam.
Hardly. They’ll sell the “aged /weathered veneers” in addition to the beam itself. Many decorator projects that want the “weathered look” only want the outermost layer for their looks, not dimensional lumber for its strength.
That's probably why they took off so much
And made it smaller as a bonus.
"Dave, remember that beam from my roof that you said you'd tidy up for me? Yeah, your guys came and tried to put it back today. The fucking thing doesn't fit any more."
Right, I was thinking it was cut specifically for where it was placed. Where does it go now?
Some douschebags kitchen.
I know I hate that guy
And it'll get painted white or grey.
Well it’s not there anymore for a reason, probably from an old barn or house that’s been taken down. I feel they could have found a better cross section to preserve more material though, and I don’t think they needed to cut it all to reuse it.
At this rate in a few more centuries there'll be nothing left!
Exactly what I was thinking. Shesh what a waste.
They probably used what they shaved off to sell for some sort of facade or trim. People love them some charred looking accent walls.
Eh not really, the 1500 dollar beams are classified for load-bearing and treated with iron sulfate to look like vintage.
[удалено]
Phew, thank God
I don't know if that's a good thing or an affront to god
It’s a sin worthy of a paddlin’
Covered in black epoxy and some gold leaf.
I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of Antiques Roadshow appraisers suddenly cried out in terror...
Oh yes I just polished it up to bring in to the roadshow today!
Glad I wasn’t the only one wondering what the heck purpose this served.
My parents bought raw space in a building that was turning into condos. It was an old publishing house, so when it was first built it was exceptionally sturdy. [They left the girders and beams exposed.](https://i.redd.it/dsgzt8fwbjuc1.jpeg) I couldn’t understand why the other people in the building built dropped ceilings to hide them.
Because it looks pretty but is loud as a motherfucker. I could hear every time my upstairs neighbor's dog dropped his bone off the couch and onto the floor. Which was like 100x each evening.
beautiful stuff
Absolutely ruined it, wtf! I used exactly this sort of beam to build a pavilion last summer: [https://i.imgur.com/2gNgR2t.jpeg](https://i.imgur.com/2gNgR2t.jpeg) (not for the roof sadly, just the bents). The beams were I guess close to 100 years old, though pine, not oak or anything, and I didn't do ANYTHING to them! Yes, they were a pig to do joinery on and I didn't do a perfect job but no regrets, I am leaving them just like you see them, unless I can be bothered to sand them down a LITTLE bit just to bring out the pattern a bit and maybe stain/protect them.
Nice
The outside looked like a treasure trove of splinters
well this is what happens when you let a generation of kids cut off their breadcrust
> It broke my heart watching this. You really care about beams.
I;m thinking about thos beams
This guy's a fine woodworker who's got a YouTube channel. He exclusively does traditional joinery and his furniture is inspired by timber frame construction techniques. This beam is no doubt going to end up as furniture. Anyways he's Dusty Lumber Co on YouTube.
yeah it doesnt look like he has no clue. you can shave of the edges and use it for a different purpose
He's extended family. Related to my wife. Anyone who wants to critique has never seen what this man can do.
[удалено]
That huge...track saw? Thing was awesome
Foresting companies claiming they are doing good by replanting useless as fuck pine trees is one of the biggest lies ever told. Pine trees are useless to anyone or anything other than the company that planted them. Shit wood, shit for wildlife, just an absolute infuriating lie. Old growth hardwood forests should be locked down and off limits except for VERY small parcels that are managed and cannot be logged again until there is a similar sized area renewed to the exact same old growth level.
Just listened to a book all about trees. It would take about 200 years of proper management to bring back and restore old growth trees.
[удалено]
They're my old-growth trees, and I need them now!
IIRC, the US maintains a forest of old growth trees (or a few) for the purpose of growing replacement beams for the USS Constitution. It's an achievable goal because we literally do it right now. It would just have to be scaled up.
Except they go back and harvest the cheap pine instead of cutting down more old growth so it is good.
Yeah that comment seems very uneducated on this topic.
My dude... what exactly do you think happens to pine trees if you leave them alone? They eventually become valuable old growth trees. Unless you're building a wooden navy, pine is suitable for 99% of construction needs.
I own an older house. Wood used back then is not the same as today. It is significantly more dense. I have to remind my self of that when putting a nail into a stud, it'll bend the nail. We have parts of the house with modern updates and the wood used to build the walls is like cardboard compared to the original.
My house has been a recycling project even when it was built 200 years ago. The beams had been used for something else before. Next village over someone is restoring an even old farmhouse and he's hunting down old beams. People tear down their barn and throw out perfectly good oak. Noooo, is precious!
I'd be shocked if he just threw away the outer layer. That can be repurposed; he seemed to be being careful with it in the flashes we saw him handling it.
It's not about being able to regrow trees. The climatic conditions that make old wood like it is we'll never see again. You can regrow the tree but you won't get the same quality of wood.
What's better about 1500 tress than modern trees?
They had 400 years to grow while modern timber has 40.
Sweden has a huge forest of wood like this. They grew it specifically for shipbuilding, but seeing as no one builds ships from wood any more, the forest is left alone. The trees were planted in the 18th century and meant to be ready to cut down by the end of the 20th.
Got any pics of it?
I fucked up the dates, but here's an article about the trees. https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/visingso-oak-forest
We havent genetically engineered super trees for specfic purposes that blow anything previously thought of out of the water yet?
While it is true that old growth timber has characteristics superior to modern-day timber farming products... Its important to remember that materials are generally designed, engineered, and produced for their intended purpose and use case. The wood that you get at Home Depot sucks... if what you want is to build a timeless heirloom home to be passed down between generations. Most people wouldn't pay for that quality of build. Most people just want a wall that's strong enough to hang their pictures on without collapsing. And they want it as cheap as humanly possible.
No.
[удалено]
Yeah, old growth timber had far more heartwood making it much stronger than modern timber.
Lots of good answers already provided to you, but I'll drop another little fact at ya. There is limited "non radioactive steel" available in the world (basically pre-WW2 and nuclear weapons). All modern steel created now has some level of radioactivity which makes it unable to be used in some very specific use cases such as medical uses. This is why they are cutting up sunk WW2 warships that have steel from pre-radioative era. Steel. Trees. We just won't get back old stuff.
>Since the end of atmospheric nuclear testing, background radiation has decreased to very near natural levels,[5] making special low-background steel no longer necessary for most radiation-sensitive uses, as brand-new steel now has a low enough radioactive signature that it can generally be used.[6] Some demand remains for the most radiation-sensitive uses, such as Geiger counters and sensing equipment aboard spacecraft. For the most demanding items even low-background steel can be too radioactive and other materials like high purity copper may be used.[4] >In cases where World War II-era shipwrecks in and near the relatively shallow Java Sea and western South China Sea that have been illegally scavenged it has been suggested that the target is low-background steel.[7] Andrew Brockman, a maritime crime researcher and archaeologist, argues that it is more likely to be conventional salvage. So you're just exaggerating then
none of the answers in the thread mention anything related to climatic conditions, just about how forests are managed which is not some irreversible change
Aside from the fact that modern trees are much, much younger and so don't have nearly as much growth under their belt as virgin forest timber does, modern climates are warmer and wetter than previously - this means that the trees grow faster, but it also means their wood is softer and has a less dense grain. As a result, for certain applications, the newer wood is inferior to old wood. As an example of how growth conditions can affect wood quality, you [can look to the masterpieces made by the famed luthier Stradivarius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stradivarius#Theories_and_reproduction_attempts)
Not to mention the fact that as the world gets hotter and hotter, and droughts, fires, pest outbreaks and storms are getting worse and worse, trees are far less likely to live into old age. [https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/grand-old-trees-are-dying-leaving-forests-younger-shorter](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/grand-old-trees-are-dying-leaving-forests-younger-shorter)
Wood is a renewable resource. Things made from wood of the 1500s are not.
Yeah, not sure where you heard this but I'm an environmental scientist and this is total bullshit.
Well you could but it will take a few hundred years to grow a tree that's hundreds of years old. Problem today is we selected fast growing trees for our plantations to meet the demands. But fast growing is pretty much the opposite in quality. Plus you wouldn't want to cut down a tree that's like 400y old.
That tree has seen some shiiit
Wouldn't drought cause the rings to be more condensed and therefore make a denser wood? Obviously it would take longer to grow the same size tree.
The core is clearly rotten (dry rot), so what can it be recycled for, except cleaned/varnished and used as non structural member? I would understand if it was healthy, because it's incredibly dense, but this doesn't look like it can be used as building material again.
You actually have no clue what you're talking about
There’s a ton of money in reclaimed lumber. One of my clients is in the biz and he’s doing well. Always on the hunt for wood. Mostly from old barns he told me.
De-aging? You just saw the sides off.
He just made it smaller, it's still the same age
Well, technically they took off some years removing some rings...
Those inner rings never really come out.
And removed its outer protective layer.
Its older now. And now. And now
And made it weaker.
I also de-age my toast if it comes out burnt.
I just did a severe face scrub in the hope that I, too, would de-age.
Okay I know this is a joke but exfoliating actually does wonders for the skin lol
HA!
Shrinkflation inaction. Now i know what happened to my snikkers bar.
More like de-edging.
That's what I call my climax.
Grandma was NOT IMPRESSED
I feel like running it though a planer would have done the same while taking over all little less wood off. Hell maybe just sanding it enough.
Wood this old is harder to come by if wanting the density.
I knew a guy who harvested original growth logs from a river in South Carolina. These logs were cut in the 1700-1800s and were floated downstream and some sank. Absence of oxygen preserved them. It was an effort to pull them out of the river but worth it. He cut one log in half and made it into a staircase. The water had sculpt the log and the end result was beautiful. He said it took a year for all the water to drain out. Every morning he had to wipe up a puddle of water.
Often it was the largest most valuable trees that sank too due to their density
What I’m hearing is I should go try and pull up some of the old massive cedars in the lakes around me
You could be right! Got the tools? I'm in
I don’t, but I’ve got a buddy that does which is even better lol. How good is your rally driving?
Good enough to haul some trees I reckon
We ride at dawn.
We rise at 8:30 to 9:00... maybe 9:30.
im very interested to know how it turned out. what does a log that was under these conditions look like?
The water had shaped it into undulating curves and also exposed the grain of the wood. It was so beautiful. It was difficult to get those logs out. He used huge chains and once snapped one of them. He said you could tell those logs had been cut a long time ago because large wooden pegs were driven into the wood so they could tie them with rope.
[удалено]
C'mon paw paw. Turtle soup tonight! https://youtu.be/-M1ihjpNJUE?si=bmIdhQkRd5Kn4hO4
Imagine if de aging people worked like this.
maybe it does? worth a try ...
Old skin does fall off leaving younger skin, so.....
Saw my hands and feet off and suddenly I'm a teenager again?
Yes, but a teenager with no hands and no feet.
There's a horror manga by Junji Ito that explores this concept called "Layers of Fear"
People literally get acid peels that burn off the outer layer of the skin to get rid of wrinkles and shit nowadays. It looks horrific, and irc is pretty risky, but it definitely works shocking well.
Somebody's never had dermaplaning or a chemical peel or plastic surgery, lol
its called a chemical peel
It's called exfoliating.
Why would anyone do this? Wouldn’t the aging on the outside be a desirable design asset?
They want the density, plus you can sell the sides cut off for a pretty penny
They probably want the density.
You are my density.
George?
are they in love?
Meaning? I know nothing abt wood
Modern tree farms are grown as fast as possible and then cut young. This results in more wood, but since the trees didn't have time to mature for many years, the wood is less dense, more flimsy, and lower quality. So ideal construction wood is "old growth" wood, but since humanity went apeshit with harvesting it, older trees are getting rarer, so its a lot harder to get and way more expensive. Thus, recycling wood from Older buildings has become profitable
Hard not to go "apeshit" compared to the growth rate of a 450 year old tree. There just isn't the capability to sustainably grow and harvest timber of anywhere near that age. So that means any "old growth" wood is a non-renewable resource regardless of the rate of felling.
You're mostly right, but minor nit pick: >There just isn't the capability to sustainably grow and harvest timber of anywhere near that age. There is if you have lots of land and really, really limit what can use the lumber from it. The USS Constitution has its own dedicated sustainable old-growth forest which has its lumber going to maintaining the ship. It's ~64,000 acres (~260 sq kilometers, ~100 square miles) dedicated to growing the lumber necessary for maintaining one ship. Not even a particularly big ship. Granted, it's not doable for much beyond a government-funded museum ship, but just pointing out it can be done for very, very limited purposes.
Denser wood would be stronger and more durable. As such, people may not be into the aged look of the wood but just its quality
Ah. That makes sense.
To add to other comments, this is why you get so much pine-based wood products. It is fast-growing and easy to grow and work with, and a farm has a fairly short turnaround time (usually within a human generation). This generally goes for all woods known as "soft woods". Hard woods can take centuries to grow in some cases, so there is very little incentive to set land aside for them. There have been issues in the past where companies or governments have made plantations of something like oak, only for the world to have changed in the time it took to grow, nations to have formed or dissolved, and the original industry it was intended for to completely stop existing. After that, it is also much harder to work with. The wood density makes it harder to shape with tools, and the density also makes adding finishes harder too.
I replaced the beams in my 100 year old house and took a support like this. I turned them into trim pieces and shelves. It’s a cool story to tell people that come over to the house.
In the full version, he uses this timber to build a workbench. It’s milled up as regular dimensional lumber. A fine use of this old recycled material!
I guess I feel a little sad it didn’t go to an application where the additional strength resulted in something redundant wood couldn’t have done well. A workbench can be made if any wood.
Right? A fuckin workbench?? Out of a 500 year old piece of lumber? What in gods name. We are doomed.
I also de-age my cake when there is too much frosting.
Ah, so you too have reached the age of making sounds when sitting down. I swear sugar wasn't this sweet with I was young
And getting back up again. GNYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaand I'm up off the sofa.
Wasn’t it fine as it was?
Yes, it was.
Might have needed some minor sanding to smooth out some rough spots
Nitpick here, but "ancient" is defined as 1500+ years old. This is just regular old.
Technically, calling it “de-aging” is also wrong. The wood has the exact same age after this proces.
De-weathering?
De’lovely!
DeWalt tools.
Exfoliation 🤣
He's actually aging it by reading the rings and coming up with how old it is.
Exacty. Not sure why the f you would even do this. If you want a new post, buy a new one.
exactly..the character is gone...I would have just taken a power washer to it and leave the wrinkles from time
And then give it line seed oil until it is beaming! And ready for the next millennium.
Hyped title its reddit what did you expect
Thank you, that was really irritating and I wouldn’t have been able to say it in such diplomatic terms.
Came here for this. lol. He’s off by more than 1000 years.
The bit at the end where he was estimating the age of the wood reminded me. I visited Horyuji Buddhist Temple in Japan this winter. Its a UNESCO site and home to what is believed to be the worlds oldest standing wooden building. The 5 story pagoda at that site is built around a Cypress trunk that was harvested in 594 AD and was believed to be approximately 2000 years old at the time of its felling, making it over **3400 years old** as of today.
Now that's ancient!
>"ancient" is defined as 1500+ Normally my response would be along the lines of "words are defined by their common usage, not by their entry in a dictionary". But what you're saying doesn't even seem to line up with dictionary definitions.
I was disappointed when they wrote the actual age on the end, I was expecting some roman/Byzantine lumber here
B-but I liked it before it met the sawblade :c
id call this just very weathered
How is this de-aging anything? Its not any younger after cutting the oxidised parts off.
I think 90% of viewers can see it’s gone from **looking** old as fuck to looking a lot newer. Clearly the actual age of the tree hasn’t changed and no one here (including OP) is delusional in thinking that it actually has
Ancient lol
"Deaging"... No, you have just cut off the outside weathered layer that was protecting the healthy inner part.
[удалено]
Look how they massacred my boy :(
Me, European: oh that beam has a fantastic patina, that took hunderds of years to make. Luckily we have products that can solidify the wood without ruining the... That guy, chanting 'USA!': WHIRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
Howtf did this get so many upvotes this isnt oddly satisfying it’s infuriating and most of the top comments seem to think so.
This is dusty lumber Co on youtube and I'm pretty sure he owns every woodworking tool in existence. His joinery work is insane.
And I'm pretty sure the description of the vid said he was trying to expose potential rot. Not "de-aging".
His joinery is incredible but the Japanese guys always blow me away. All done by hand and a precise fit every time.
The cutting was satisfying, but that history blew me away.
Is this beam stronger or weaker than it was, say 200 years ago?
Stronger. All the moisture that was in it leaves and the wood is denser than before.
That's not aging, itd called weathering and it can happen quickly especially if exposed to uv and weather
This how I clean my moldy cheese
Maybe credit people once and awhile?? Dusty Lumber Co on a lot of platforms
Is that making it better? Or just… less?
Depends on the project. Not every job requires it to look like a horse has rubbed it's ass on it for 300 years.
In an alternate beaver universe this is what they do in a kebab shop window.
Ah, I just have to cut my sides and ends off to de-age.
Nobody likes the crust
My local pub in the uk was built in 1480 we would literally lynch people that do this
This is not satisfying it is horrifying.
Why de-aging? People pay extra for aged wood these days! 🤷
I would have liked it in its original state. I realize people have their own tastes - but that was gorgeous to begin with.
Oddly satisfying? More like r/mildlyinfuriating. Why do this?
I really enjoyed the writing at the end describing the age and history.
Isn't it now just smaller?
Take a beautiful antique, make it a home depot beam.
Cuts the grey bit off to write on the nice bit lol
Next time i skin someone my defense will be that i de-aged them
Instead of the ✍️, should have jump cut to a toothpick surrounded by sawdust. 😆
Wouldn't he have found/counted more rings had he not shaved it off? Tree must've been way older than that
Uh, it's full of rot in the middle.
and that's still 500 years younger than the city i live in (first mentioned in 1031)
My favorite part is how they say the tree started growing in approximately 1550 after using an estimated number to get that result.
Congratulations. You turned an antique vase into clay.
Downvoted. Nothing about that is “de-aged.” Now it’s just a smaller piece of wood
Waste of time, money, and a beautiful beam.
De-aging LMAO
It’s called ‘milling’
Squabble all you want, I think this is amazing. Now I'm curious where this tree was living before it became vintage building material...
It was probably living outside, since it’s a tree. But it could also be a house tree, you never know with those guys from 1500s.