Nolan wrote:
... Just because one burl created less figure doesn't make it "not burl."
While I completely agree with this statement, I believe the real issue in Louis' OP is this:
Is ... it correct to refer to figured wood or crotch wood as burl, if it looks like burl?
My answer is a definitive NO.
I don't know what raised this discussion but it's similar to the discussion
we had long ago on whether it's okay to call an unknown source of Olive wood "Bethlehem Olive wood."
Further, I'd suggest that it's flat out wrong to refer to wood as Burl unless the supplier
KNOWS for a fact the wood came from a true burl.
I own a roughly 20" diameter Redwood burl cap; it's all eyes.
I have a slice of redwood that's AAA birdseye. I don't know if it's from a
burl yet the wood looks similar.
My supplier wasn't sure;therefore I can't call it a burl.
Here's how I look at it:
My word is my bond.
My credibility makes me a better vendor than an unknown vendor.
IF someone selling me something is willing to stretch the truth, they're putting my credibility at risk.
IF I find someone doing that, it's the last time I deal with them.
So:
Can a burl lack figure?
Sure.
Does figure make a burl?
No.
Can you call something burl because it has lots of figure, therefore it likely came from a Burl?
No. Just call it highly figured.
:wink: