(5 customer reviews)


SKU: QNW Category: Tag:


Queenwood Polyhedral DiceQueenwood is a Peruvian wood whose color ranges from a yellowish tan color with an abundance of blood red to purple veins running throughout the wood. It can also take on a warmer tone with red orange and blood red veining. Whatever color it takes on, Queenwood has a wonderful luster when polished.

Additional information

Type of Dice

, , ,

5 reviews for Queenwood

  1. Lauren

    I’m going to buying a couple of full sets, but it’s difficult to tell what some of the larger grain woods will look like when there’s only a picture of the full piece of wood. Are there pictures available that aren’t on the site?

    • Charlie Brumfield

      not currently lauren. you might dig though the photos on our facebook page though. i think there might have been a queenwood set uploaded over there.

  2. Clarence miethe

    Can you make the d6 ‘s in a larger version like 18 mm

    • Charlie Brumfield

      our dice are 3/4″ scale which is approximately 19mm.

  3. Ryan

    I was interested in a set of polyhedral Queenwood dice. However, I don’t see the “add to cart” function nor the “restock alert.” Also curious on the price listings, or the availability of the Queenwood.

    • Charlie Brumfield

      hi ryan, we’ve pull queenwood from the site for the time being as the red striping in out stock is to far apart and half of the sets are coming out very plain.

  4. reptile skin clutch purses

    I would like to thank you for the efforts you have put in writing
    this blog. I’m hoping to view the same high-grade content from
    you in the future as well. In truth, your creative writing
    abilitis has encouraged me to get my own, personal site now 😉

  5. Kyle

    Hi Thomas,I deleted one of your comtnems, it was submitted twice.Does Ellis explain, or know, what he means by:”an approach to theory validation that is adequate where insubstantial evidential support has to be supplemented by other principles of inference.”He doesn’t explain. That’s the last sentence. I hope he knows.which to me sounds … well, insubstantial. If I can try to translate:”String theorists have to find a way of judging their theories without paying attention to experiment because experiments probably won’t tell us anything.” Well, I don’t think he meant to say that it’s solely the string theorists who should judge… which is both crazy and defeatist, particularly if in the first place he criticizes string theory for being too divorced from experiment. Well, we know that theories can be invalidated without doing experiments, e.g. if they make no mathematical sense. In fact huge efforts have already been devoted to finding out if string theory does make sufficient mathematical sense, and that may still lead to many models being ruled out. Yes, this is one aspect, but this is a quality control that certainly is there. I don’t know what Ellis had in mind, but to me it’s a good question: if you have a theory that has no experimental verification, how do you decide whether it’s mathematics or physics? And how highly rated should be closeness to experiment? On which timescale?And how many scientific advances has ‘serious effort to engage with the philosophy of science’ ever led to?Has it ever been necessary? If such effort has never lead to anything, does that mean it can’t lead to anything?Best,B.

Add a review

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.