The dining chairs looked correct. The end grain gave them away.
Illustrative example This case is written from the patterns we see in furniture export orders, and the figures are representative rather than from a specific client file. It shows how a check works and what it finds. We will replace it with a real, anonymised case as soon as we can publish one with the buyer's permission.
The situation
An Australian importer ordered 320 solid wood dining chairs in ash, matched to an approved sample. The specification said *solid ash*.
The chairs arrived and looked right. Grain pattern was consistent, the finish was even, and the colour was within the range the buyer expected.
They were not ash.
What gave it away
Three on-site observations, none of which require a laboratory:
- **End grain.** Rubber wood has a visibly more open, more porous structure. Ash shows a tighter, denser grain with less open pore structure. At the cut end of a leg, the difference is straightforward to see under good light.
- **Density.** Rubber wood is noticeably lighter for its size. Two chairs of identical dimensions from different batches will not balance the same way.
- **Odour.** This is the least reliable but fastest check. Ash has almost no characteristic smell; rubber wood has a faint, slightly sweet or flat woody odour that becomes noticeable when the wood is freshly cut.
Why the sample comparison is the decisive test
Colour and photograph comparison will not catch this. Both species finish to a similar pale colour, and a photograph under warm lighting hides the difference entirely.
A **physical end-grain sample** will. If you have a piece of the approved wood, the comparison takes seconds. If you do not, the identification above still narrows it, but it remains indicative rather than conclusive.
Visual identification is indicative, not conclusive. Where doubt remains after on-site comparison, core sampling for laboratory species identification is the only reliable answer. We tell buyers this rather than giving a clean tick we cannot support.
The report position
The inspector's report did not state that the wood *is not ash*. It stated what was observed: the end grain structure did not match the approved sample; the density was lower than the specification for ash; the factory's own species documentation, when requested, was for a different species.
Those three statements together support a finding. The buyer took the case back to the factory, who replaced the chairs at their cost.
**This is why report wording matters.** *"The wood is not ash"* is a conclusion the inspector cannot support without laboratory analysis. *"The end grain does not match the approved sample"* is an observation that speaks for itself.
Where to go next
Have an order you need verified? Send us your PI and factory address. Three levels, published prices, $149 per man-day from.