A Pair of 18th Century Style Saws

[Robert Rozaieski]

Having never been really happy with my current tenon saw, I have wanted to make a replacement for some time. You might recall I made a pair of dovetail saws some months ago as practice for these bigger saws. Well I finally completed the bigger saws (except for filing the teeth) this weekend.

My inspiration for these saws was a picture of an 18th century tenon saw found in the book "Tools: Working Wood in the 18th Century" by James Gaynor and Nancy Hagedorn in conjunction with Colonial Williamsburg. I had returned the book to the library before making a copy of the picture but a fellow creeker was kind enough to scan his copy and email me the pic (Thanks David!).
121412

Based on the typical length of a dado plane, I estimated the length of the saw plate on this saw to be in the neighborhood of 18-19" long. I felt this might be a little too long for regular work and smaller tenons so I decided to make mine about 16" long. Since you can't buy a 16" length of steel, I had to buy enough for 3 saws so I made a pair, a 14" crosscut filed sash saw (bottom) and a 16" rip filed tenon saw (top).
121413

I still need to file the teeth in but all of the construction of the saws is done. The handles are walnut and currently have one coat of linseed oil. I'll put on at least three coats and leave it at that. I like an oil only finish on tools. The tenon saw will be 12 PPI filed rip with about 4-5 degrees of rake and will be used for cutting tenon cheeks. The sash saw will be 13 PPI filed crosscut with about 15 degrees of rake and about 20 degrees of fleam and will be used for tenon shoulders and other fine cross cutting tasks.

While my saws are not nearly as pretty as a Wenzloff or one of George's saws made for Williamsburg, I think they will be very servicable for my uses.

[george wilson]

The original of those saws were by Cartwright. We made a bunch of those,as well as the Kenyon saws,and some earlier ones by a maker named White. Only 1 of the latter is known to exist,as far as I know,though Whites were popular saws in Va. in the 18th.C..

Actually,the saws we made were not very finely finished,because we copied the degree of finish found on the original saws. Early makers were more "quick and dirty" than later makers. They still had rasp and scraper marks on them. It wasn't until the 19th.C. when saw handles began to be more carefully finished. Elizabethan era tools were very crudely made. We got to see a display of tools from the Mary Rose. The metal had perished,but the wood was still pink and new looking from being buried in silt.

[David Keller NC]

Bob - Glad the pic helped out. I've a question - how'd you shear the steel without (I'm assuming) a press-brake? I've considered doing something like this, but I couldn't quite figure out how to size a piece of 1095 without the typical metalworking shop equipment to do it.

[Robert Rozaieski]

Bob - Glad the pic helped out. I've a question - how'd you shear the steel without (I'm assuming) a press-brake? I've considered doing something like this, but I couldn't quite figure out how to size a piece of 1095 without the typical metalworking shop equipment to do it.

David,
It was a bit of a challenge and a lot of manual labor :D. I did my dovetail saws by scoring the steel with a file and snapping along the score line, which definitley left some deformation at the cut line as you might imagine (a little more than I liked for the thicker steel for the tenon saws). For these saws, I used a pair of aviation snips to cut the steel. Still not perfect but better than the score and snap method. However, I had to cut over 1/4" or so wide of the line with the snips and then file down the last 1/4" or so to remove the steel that was deformed by the aviation snips. It was a lot of filing and a lot of work but minimal investment in tools and materials. I probably spent about $40-$50 in materials but a lot more in time. I certainly couldn't do production saws this way or I'd have to charge $1500 apiece for them just to break even :D. But for saws for my own use, I look at it as shop time so I don't put a price tag on it.

[Mark Maleski]

Robert,

Congrats on getting this far with these saws, it all looks good from here. Once you've filed the teeth, I'd love to see a future podcast from you on their performance. Would be particularly interested in a comparison with your current tenon saw, and the differences in performance you see. I recall a Cherubini blog about the different geometries of the saw handles, and the resulting differences in application of force as you saw...wondering if you'll experience that, and any other differences.

Mark

[Mark Maleski]

[Actually,the saws we made were not very finely finished,because we copied the degree of finish found on the original saws. Early makers were more "quick and dirty" than later makers. They still had rasp and scraper marks on them. It wasn't until the 19th.C. when saw handles began to be more carefully finished. Elizabethan era tools were very crudely made. We got to see a display of tools from the Mary Rose. The metal had perished,but the wood was still pink and new looking from being buried in silt.[/QUOTE]

George, I have the CW book that Robert references, and I don't recall seeing this info mentioned in the book (though I don't have it in front of me to check), though it makes sense in the context of what *is* in there (and in other books). Thanks for adding your insight - I think I'll print it and tape into my copy of the book.

Mark

[David Keller NC]

"I certainly couldn't do production saws this way or I'd have to charge $1500 apiece for them just to break even :D. But for saws for my own use, I look at it as shop time so I don't put a price tag on it."

Based on your description, I'm wondering if it'd be a lot easier to just take the steel to a machine shop and pay them to shear it. Don't know for sure, but I'm betting that'd be pretty cheap. I've used a press-brake before, and it's really quick (probably why most machine shops have one!).

[David Gendron]

They look realy good! they look a lot like the one that Adam Cherubini makes!
Great work!

[Dave Anderson NH]

Great saws Bob. I wish I had the time to indulge, but things have been busy with travel, day job, demo committments, and the CTW. Are you going to file them all rip like the Williamsburg saws?

Maybe George can address Mark Maleski's comments, but I know that the book only touches the surface since it is a survey and was written as the companion to a conference quite a number of years ago.

[Mike Hutchison]

I'm still working on use and maintenance of saws I have.
Making 1 from scratch is commendable.

[Jim Koepke]

Looks good, can't wait to see how they turn out.

jim

[Robert Rozaieski]

Thanks guys!


Robert,

Would be particularly interested in a comparison with your current tenon saw, and the differences in performance you see. I recall a Cherubini blog about the different geometries of the saw handles, and the resulting differences in application of force as you saw...wondering if you'll experience that, and any other differences.

I do expect the handles to make some difference as my current saw handle has a hang more like a dovetail saw, with the force directed more downward, than a true tenon saw, with the force directed more forward. However, I think the bigger difference will come from the different tooth geometry. My current tenon saw is filed 14 PPI rip with about 8 degrees of rake. This provides for a smooth but slow cut and the higher tooth count causes the teeth to clog with sawdust quickly in longer cuts. The longer length of the new saw will help with this some, however, because it will have less, larger teeth at 12 PPI, it will be able to clear more sawdust from the kerf. Also, I'm reducing the rake to a much more aggressive 4 degrees so the saw should cut much faster but not as smooth.

The crosscut saw likely won't perform much differently than my current one. The PPI and rake angles will be the same at 13 PPI and 15 degrees. The handle on the new 14" saw does have a slightly lower hang angle than my current Atkins crosscut saw but I don't think that alone is going to make a big difference. I expect the most difference to be seen in the tenon saw since that's where the most changes from my current setup are being made.


Based on your description, I'm wondering if it'd be a lot easier to just take the steel to a machine shop and pay them to shear it.
Yes, it would be much easier :D.


They look realy good! they look a lot like the one that Adam Cherubini makes!
Great work!
Thanks David! They are somewhat like Adam's in appearance as a result of the rounded front edge of the handle and the canted saw plate but that's really where the similarities end. The cutting geometry, which is the most important part when it comes to a saw's performance, is different from Adam's saws. Adam's saws were based on the White saw. His handles sit closer to the tooth line and the saw back sticks up above the handle. I don't really like the look. His handles are also more ornate and the horns are different. I'm not really crazy about the White style handles he uses. The styles are from around the same time period however.


Are you going to file them all rip like the Williamsburg saws?

Nah! I've tried crosscutting with rip filed saws and don't really like it. I'm filing the 16" saw at 12 PPI rip and the 14" saw at 13 PPI crosscut.


Thanks for the compliments everyone!

[george wilson]

Dave,I'm not sure which of Mark's comments you want me to address. The saw shown was the model I mentioned,Cartwright. I think I have one,and need to go measure its blade. The backs of those early saws were rather cheap looking,and thin. IIRC,we used sheet steel not quite 1/16" thick for the backs,just like the originals. Later on,in the era of the Kenyon saws,the backs were much more substantial,and brass.

I have observed over my many years of studying old objects in general,that people were pretty stingy with metal in earlier periods. Probably because the metal was hand refined and hand processed,and much more valuable than it was later on, when they had rolling mills in the latter 18th.C.. Compared to a 19th.C. Disston back saw,the earlier saw backs looked absolutely cheap. Their plane irons were thinner,too,requiring very careful fettling so they didn't chatter.