Very interesting (and useful).

American oak suffers in the comparison. However, it is a fairly large place. One wonders about the primary source of 'American' oak which lead to that statement.

Linnaeus described only five species of oak from eastern North America, based on general leaf form. These were White oak, Q. alba, Chestnut oak, Q. Montana, Red oak, Q. rubra, Willow oak, Q. phellos, and Water oak, Q. nigra. Because he was dealing with confusing leaf forms, the Q. prinus and Q. rubra specimens actually included mixed foliage of more than one species. For that reason, some taxonomists in the past proposed different names for these two species (Q. Montana and Q. borealis, respectively), but the original Linnaean names have now been lectotypified with only the specimens in Linnaeus' herbarium that refer to the species the names are applied to now.

I would guess that there were several species in Europe, and they had been under management for some hundreds of years. I know nothing of the oaks of Norway and Sweden, having assumed their forests were coniferous.

It seems that it is not accurate to speak of wood with too broad a brush.

Regards, BaldJim