Wondering about my new old saw

[Matt Stiegler]

I bought 4 old handsaws today, and hoping I can get some more info here about one of them. Its a big rusty 26" with no medallion and a nib. Photos below.

Instead of saw nuts, it has, uh, I'm not sure. It looks to me like little metal pegs that were beaten flat on one end? Is this common? I haven't seen that before. Does it mean its really old, or a really poor DIY?

The handle has obviously been on there a long long time, but to my inexperienced eye maybe not the original handle? I say this partly because of the extra hole in the blade just in front of the top of the handle, partly because the handle doesn't fit that well, partly because it seems small for the blade.

The teeth are cut at 5 TPI for crosscut, with some set, and the size of the teeth (the depth of the gullet) is notably uneven. I'm guessing it was last sharpened by an amateur? The aggressive tooth pattern is paired with what, from listening to Herman's handsaw talk at WIA, I believe to be a non-aggressive thrust pattern (teeth are parallel to ground when I hold out the saw).

Finally, I'm planning to fix it up -- scrape and sand the blade, figure out how to attach the handle, and, if I'm going to use it, send it off to for re-toothing and sharpening. In other words, I'm assuming this saw isn't worth anything except as a user. If someone thinks that's a mistake, I'd like to hear it.

Any insights?

[David Gendron]

Nice saw Matt. the handle seem to be old allright as is the plate... i'm sure some one better than me will be abble to give you more info than me, but here what I think, The tote probably belong to a smaller saw, like a 20 or 22 inch because of the three bolts patern usualy associated with shorter saws, it also have a flat on the lower part, bellow hand opening like old realy old tote use to be made. And the plate, with the round toe seem to be also associated with older saws like the Seathon saws!
But just my $.02. hoppe some boddy can give more accurate infos!

[Jim Koepke]

It looks like someone put together parts to make a saw.

If you can get it apart, you may be able to find some etch left after a soak in citric acid or vinegar.

I would suggest getting the appropriate files and use this to learn saw sharpening.

You may need to get some saw nuts and make a new handle.

jim

[george wilson]

There is an extra hole in the plate,suggesting that a different handle was on the saw before. Look all over the blade when it is cleaned to see if there are any little British crowns stamped into it.

The handle is certainly an early looking one. The diamond shaped washer is also the same type used in the 18th.C. sometimes. We used them in Williamsburg sometimes,on things like ladders and spinet stands. They were easier for a blacksmith to make than a round washer.

The rounded end of the blade is another early feature. Is the little "tooth" knocked off the top edge of the saw,just where it steps down? Finding any marks on the blade is important. Of course,crowns would only be found on English saws.

Also,check the thickness of the saw blade all over to see if it is taper ground thinner towards the back. If it is not,it could be an early blade. The crosscut & rip saws we reproduced were about .042" thick all over,no taper grind.Disston,I think,started taper grinding them in the 19th.C..

Perhaps you could contact Jay Gaynor at Colonial Williamsburg and email him some pictures. The main number is 1-757-229-1000,ask for Jay Gaynor's office. I encourage you to have him check the saw out. It could be an early American saw,and could shed new light on early tool making.

[Matt Stiegler]

it also have a flat on the lower part, bellow hand opening like old realy old tote use to be made.

Thanks for the reply, David. Yes, I noticed that flat part too but didn't know what it means.

[Matt Stiegler]

Great response, thanks.




Is the little "tooth" knocked off the top edge of the saw,just where it steps down?

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean.


Also,check the thickness of the saw blade all over to see if it is taper ground thinner towards the back. If it is not,it could be an early blade. The crosscut & rip saws we reproduced were about .042" thick all over,no taper grind.Disston,I think,started taper grinding them in the 19th.C..

Right you are. .042 all around, no taper grind, is what it looks like to me.


Perhaps you could contact Jay Gaynor at Colonial Williamsburg and email him some pictures. The main number is 1-757-229-1000,ask for Jay Gaynor's office. I encourage you to have him check the saw out. It could be an early American saw,and could shed new light on early tool making.

Thanks for the suggestion, I'll give him a call, and I'll report back if I learn anything more.

In the meantime, any other info or stabs-in-the-dark welcome.

[Matt Stiegler]

Here a couple of close-ups on the end.

[george wilson]

If there was a tooth(not really used for cutting) it doesn't seem to be there. It may have been chipped away.

Right where the top edge of the blade steps down to the nose,there is a tooth. Its actual use was to hook a piece of string over. The string helped hold a long stick that had a slot sawed into it. It was put over the saw teeth to protect the saw teeth,and the other tools that the teeth could damage as the tools were carried about in a chest,or sometimes loose in a basket in early times. At the handle end,there was another piece of string that was tied around this wooden strip. It was secured from the bottom loop of the handle. thus the guard stick was held onto the saw teeth.

I have seen old jointer planes that had deep impressions of rip saw teeth pressed into them from loose tools being jostled about in poorly sprung wagons,or other rough transport.

There has been a huge amount of misinformation about what this tooth was used for. Many times,the tooth was nearly flat on its top. It certainly wasn't a "front sight(!)",or a tooth used for cutting nails. It wasn't shaped to actually cut. It was used as I have said.

This tooth even appeared on early 20th.C. Disston saws. Certainly,the rounded front edge of the saw is very early.

Rolled spring steel started to be available ABOUT 1736.I can't now remember the date. It was pretty accurately rolled,not more than a few thousanths off anywhere I was able to measure on the tools in the Seaton Chest of unused tools in Col. Wmsbg.. I cant recall when Disston started taper grinding,either,not being a collector myself. I buy tools to use,and mostly made them new,myself. That was my job.

The non taper grinding is also evidence of a very early blade. That is the thickness of the Kenyon crosscut & rip saws in the Seaton chest. That might have been one of several standard gauges available from England in the 18th.C.. Thinner gauges down to .015" were used on back saws,and finally,on dovetail saws.

Now,I am wondering if this is an old English made blade. Be sure to look for the little crown stampings. They are about 3/16" square.

[Matt Stiegler]

Look all over the blade when it is cleaned to see if there are any little British crowns stamped into it.


I had been using this (http://www.vintagesaws.com/cgi-bin/frameset.cgi?left=main&right=/library/library.html) method from the vintagesaws.com website (reprinted from fine tool journal) to clean up my various $3 flea market rust saws. But I feel a good bit more reluctant to take sandpaper to a blade that old. So I suppose I'll just hold off on any blade cleaning for the time being, curious though I am to find out what's under the rust.

[Matt Stiegler]

I emailed Mike Wenzloff (http://www.thebestthings.com/newtools/wenzloff_saws.htm) and he was gracious enough to reply, although I'm a complete stranger and he's doubtless got better things to do. Anyway, here's what he said (which I'm posting with his permission):


It likely is a late 18th or early 19th century saw (1700s - 1800s). The handle as you note is a replacement. It looks to be from a panel saw but likely in the same style as the original. There were originally bolts with split nuts.
As regards the taper grinding. Mid to late 18th century better saws (like the Kenyons et al) were taper ground. George is incorrect on that point. The rust will keep from doing accurate measurements. Early saws were not as taper ground as later saws became.


And ...


A nib would have been on that saw. Actually, nearly every saw with a straight back and the drop at the toe would have had a nib, not a tooth per se. Don't ever use a nib for starting a cut. That's a prime reason they break off.

Cleaning. [This in response to my asking if I should do what he advised here (http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?t=45579).] Yes, I still do the same in general. However, on a saw with larger rust blooms or heavily scaled rust, I usually soak with repeated squirts of mineral spirits out of a Windex-like bottle. After keeping it wet for a day or two, I then use a 5-pack of safety razor blades to gently scrape the rust off, with likely more squirts of MS while scraping. Once the bulk of the rust is gone, then I start with the finest sandpaper that will accomplish getting the rust knocked back. It takes a good bit of sandpaper and once the razors begin getting nicks in them I grab a fresh one.

Also note that the saw you have does not have an etch. Etches began mid-1800s. You may well find the saw is stamped about halfway down the blade about 1" to 2" below the top. So go lightly/slowly at that point until you see the effect to sanding. You may well find out who made the saw.
Thanks again Mike and everyone who's responded here so far. This has been kind of exciting -- little ol' me, with a two-century old saw -- and doubtless dooms me to countless extra hours and dollars on the handsaw slippery slope.

[george wilson]

Sorry,we measured the saws in the Seaton Chest with Jay Gaynor,and they were not taper ground. Jay is very particular about small details,and had us make the repros with no taper grinding.

Before proceeding to post this,I have called Jay,and he agrees that there were .001" to .002" variations ALONG THE LENGTH of the blades. This from the rollers used to roll the steel out not being as perfect as todays roller mills(but,still pretty impressive accuracy!).

He has verified that those saws were measured in several places,and IF they were tapered,it wasn't enough to worry about. KEY WORDS:THE KENYON SAWS WERE NOT RUSTY.

Since the Seaton Chest saws were unused,and hardly brown,even,they are about the best examples of Kenyon saws available for studying to reproduce. There is at least 50% of bright metal left on the blades,with slight staining on the rest of the blade.

I stand by my statement,at least as to the saws we copied. Jay says that Mike did not examine these saws,at least not in the way we did.

P.S.,Jay mentioned that you had called him.I encouraged Jay to take a close look at this old saw-not that he needed encouraging!

[Mike K Wenzloff]

I won't get into a verbal pi$$ing match with you George.

Here are the measurements of the Seaton chest hand saw-sized saws done by TTHS.

26" flat (the "pannel" saw)
Toothed edge 0.042" -- 0.048"
Middle 0.041" -- 0.047"
Back 0.0345" -- 0.0435"

26" rip (the half-rip saw)
Toothed edge 0.0395" -- 0.043"
Middle 0.037" -- 0.041"
Back 0.035" -- 0.0425"

I could graph out what this means as relates to a taper-ground saw, but in essence it is similar to how it is represented in other literature. And while certainly not as taper ground as later hand saws--something which predates Disston by many, many decades--the data TTHS arrived at coincides in the mean with the other Kenyon hand saws from the Chest period, and prior to the 1790s, I have been fortunate enough to examine.

I do mostly agree about the back saws. Most of the small variance you cite is due to rolling vageries. Though in some shops the plate was still ground/polished to even out rolling marks. This could account for the 14" sash saw being so wildly varient in thickness. However, I do not know if Kenyon in particular ground their gauged plate or not.

btw, the rust I mentioned to Matt concerned measuring his as found rusty saw. It is too rusty to take accurate measurements. I never wrote that the Kenyons from the Seaton chest were rusty.

Take care, Mike
who is now going back to work and avoiding the forums once again...

[David Gendron]

It's sure getting realy interesting! Matt, please keep us updated on what you find!
I am realy interested in the size of the tote, like opening size, thikness, distance between horns and wood!
hoope fully you will be abble to find out more about this great score!

[Matt Stiegler]

I just spoke with Jay Gaynor from Colonial Williamsburg. (I'm continuing to be amazed at how generous these talented folks are with their time to help me figure out what I've got.) After looking at the photos, he agreed it looked like a late 18th or early 19th century saw. He pointed out the rounding on the top of the toe was more abrupt than on the Seaton saws. The non-original handle may be of the same vintage, but he said he's seen London Pattern handles on saws as late as the mid-1800s, so its hard to be sure.

I'm on the fence about whether to try to clean the saw up any. I'm quite curious to know if there's a manufacturer's mark hiding under the rust. But I don't want to blunder up a cool old saw through my inexperience. Hmmm.

[David Gendron]

I would say and this is only my thought... Clean it, but just enough to find out some info... Maybe you can sale it on the bay for more money than you payd for to find out that the next owner will clean it and use it... Now it's yours, you could do a nice restoration and if not to be use, it would be a nice saw to look at!
Just my $0.02

[george wilson]

Mike and all: It was never my job to research the tools we made. We were supplied with old tools or drawings to work from. Research was done by the curator. The curator of tools,Jay Gaynor, gave me the specifications to work to on the saws,with drawings of the handles. I went by what he told me at the time,and was highly relieved that I did not have to build a machine to taper grind the saws.

So,you are saying the half rip had a variance of .004" max taper,only at the tip end of the saw? Then only the other saw had a real taper? The fact that the toothed edge varies so much (.006") in itself makes me wonder if Jay just considered those rather random thicknesses as inaccuracies in the 18th.C. rolling mill. Maybe that's where he was coming from?

I happened to be down to Williamsburg today(The first time in months.The employee sale was on),and saw Jay. He said he hadn't seen the pictures yet,as he had been in a meeting. He did repeat that he did not think there was enough of a taper to confirm that it really was one. And,apparently only the "pannel" saw actually has much taper to it. I am not sure what that means since the cutting edge itself is so tapered.

This is not a pi$$ing contest. It is a discussion. Jay just said that we had months to examine the Seaton chest,and TTHS only had a day. He trusts his findings,but will review his figures and get back to me. I did look at the Seaton saws,and put a dial caliper on them here and there,but ultimately the decisions were his as curator. Of course,I was interested in all the tools in the chest,not just the saws. There were saw files still wrapped in their original paper.Chisels too. I was intrigued by the carpenter's pencil,unused,that looked like a modern one,except the graphite did not go clear through like modern ones.

[Mike K Wenzloff]

Hello George,

The findings of TTHS are similar to the Kenyon hand saws I have examined at length. I do not know how to reconcile the differences between Jay and theirs.

They write they took measurements every 3" down three lines. The graphic below shows their mean findings and how it relates to the measurements in the Seaton Chest book:

http://www.wenzloffandsons.com/temp/taper_seaton_rip.jpg

You'll note that the teper ground pattern is typical of any hand-ground taper saw. While not as consistent as late 19th century saws, is bascially the same grinding result.

Early Disstons were very similar in degree of taper grinding as were Sorby, S&J, et al. Disston bought raw punched plate from England and had a neighboring business grind them until he had the ability.

Take care, Mike
off for the remainder of the day...

[george wilson]

Mike,this thread has taken a rather sour turn,and I find myself caught between you and Jay Gaynor,which is not where I wish to be.

My job was to receive information on what to make,how many,and to do so. Making saws was just 1 responsibility that came along. I made a great variety of things from a fire engine to a surveyor's compass,planes,etc.. Everything they handed me for the last 23 years.

Now,I have spent some trouble trying to help a fellow creeker,and have sort of been accused of getting into a pi$$ing contest,which was never my intention.

I suggest you take up the matter with Jay,if it is so important to you. As of now he stands by his words,though I think it has been quite a while,over 20 years, since he gave the saw thicknesses his attention. At the time,I did what I was asked to do,and did not taper the blades.

My primary occupation since 1954 was making musical instruments.Being the toolmaker came along,and I was drawn into it after 3 years of urging by my director.

I never wanted to be a slavish copyist,as some are. I was paid to reproduce tools,and I did it well. It was an exceedingly varied job. I did not wish to become a tool historian,or a collector.

When I make things for myself,unless it is a very pleasing antique that I feel like reproducing,I never copy much of anything. My biggest pleasure is to design things,because the creative process is the most important process of all. Things like my bronze drill are not copies. They are my original design. It is also the failing point of many otherwise fine craftsmen,who never become able to properly draw or design.

I don't think this help I gave has played out well. I have high regard for your work,and I urge you to henceforth be more careful of your choice of words,please.

[David Gendron]

George, I think you did what you had to or tought was good info... I did exacly the same in my first post on this thread, but since I'm a nobody here, no one realy react at my writing! I also think that we are all just here to give our opinions on things and if they are different(opinions) because of different sources(both relyable in this case) then that's how it is! I'm sure on all the saws made in between 1700 and now, they were a few "twins" that were actualy quite defferent. This saw here might as well be a saw made on a bad Friday...

[george wilson]

David,everything you say is true.

[Mike K Wenzloff]

George, please note I did not say it *was* a p-match, just that I did not desire to get into one. I did not accuse you of starting one, either. I stated, once again, I did not desire to get into one.

I wrote to Matt in an email what I knew would conflict with what you have been spreading around on the forums for a few years--i.e. that 18th century saws were not taper ground.

When Matt asked if he could post my email, I didn't think about the ramifications of the one statement about your views the email contained.

Jay is more than welcome to print or post his findings as regards the measurements he took some odd 20 years ago. They may be different to those Jane et al took. I don't know because he has never to my knowledge put his into print.

Jane is/was working on a revision to the Seaton book. Though I believe it is mostly a revision to the genealogical information. If Jay has or takes exception to the prior documented measurements in the book, he has had opportunity to set the record straight--and may still have time to do so.

Repeat: I did not make up those measurements. They do both indicate the hand saws were taper ground and also coincide close enough to those of other examples that I have examined. Again, Jay is more than welcome to publish his measurements. And again, if they differ in substance to those in the Seaton chest book, the academic argument is not with me, it is with TTHS.

I do not agree the thread has taken a sour turn. Why? Because someone disagrees with you or Jay? I am only going off of scholarly published data that happens to conflict with what you and or Jay says.

As I have written to you in the past and on forums, George, your work appears impeccable. I have not had the opportunity to ever hold something you have made in my hands, but I am pretty certain it would not disappoint--on the contrary, I am pretty certain it would surpass the pictures.

I have said all I need to about this subject--which is mostly just regurgitating what the published data shows. If someone disagrees about the Seaton chest saws, disagree with TTHS, not me. But there should be data about something that is measurable.

I would welcome reading other published data on 18th century saws.

I will not post in this thread again. Heck, I intend on going back to not reading the forum. I get more work done and am still sorely behind.

Take care, Mike

[george wilson]

Mike,I just got caught in the middle of other people's findings I have already expressed what my job responsibilities were. Jay is not upset about anything. He's going to check his old data,but I'm not holding my breath until he gets around to it.

The post went sour because of your rather gruff word choice.

Right now from TTHS data,I think it more accurate to say that 1 saw is taper ground,as the half rip doesn't have enough taper to matter,unless .003" is considered a taper,or is it imperfect 18th.C. rollers? That may be why Jay reached his conclusion,I don't know. Mike apparently thinks that a taper the width of a BLONDE HAIR is a taper. And it is,in terms of precision machine shop modern fits. Is it a noticable taper in woodworking terms? You be the judge.

[Matt Stiegler]

Look all over the blade when it is cleaned to see if there are any little British crowns stamped into it.

Three of them. Clear as day, right where Mike said to look. I can't make out the maker's mark clearly, only a couple fragments. Very faint. I've sent a hi-res picture to the British saw expert Jay Gaynor put me in touch with (thanks again, George) and maybe he'll be able to figure it out and date it more accurately.

Fun fun.

[David Gendron]

geting more and more exciting!!

[Matt Stiegler]

Well, I seriously doubt anyone out there is on the edge of their seats, but just to provide some closure to the tale here it is. It looks like my saw has been identified. Simon Barley in Sheffield, England looked at my photos of the faint maker's mark and recognized it as a saw made by Samuel Newbould. That dates it to 1816 or later. Mike Wenzloff explained to me that the three crowns indicates the saw was probably made before 1820, but perhaps as late as 1830.

This has been a fun experience for me. I'm planning to clean up the rest of the blade and hang it on the wall in my shop. I'm no collector, but restoring this saw to use would destroy some history and probably bear imperfect fruit anyway. (Instead, I believe I'll start saving up for a Wenzloff.)

Buying this saw has been some of the most interesting $5 I ever spent. I'm immensely grateful to George, Jay, Mike, and Simon for helping me get to the bottom of this.

[Matt Stiegler]

And here's a picture of the maker's mark, with SAML NEWBOULD GERMAN STEEL and crowns to left, right, and top.

[Richard Niemiec]

Interesting thread. I don't think George or Mike meant any harm. But opinions are like bellybuttons, everybody's got one, and some are innies and others are outies.

[george wilson]

It really was Jay Gaynor's opinion. I just did as he asked.I didn't spend my time doing research. Mine was to figure out how to make everything,and in a reasonable length of time. Few know the breadth of varied projects we worked on. I have posted a relatively few pictures of some projects. Most are still on slides which I'll have to get put onto a disc sometime.

I'll see if Jay gets back to me with his measurements.

This has been the second time I have gotten tangled with either what Jay told me,or what he DIDN'T bother to tell me. I think I'm leaving out what he said from now on. Not to say he's wrong on this at all,I just don't need to get into a situation over what HE said. Jay thinks these forum conversations are a no win situation,and he is probably right.

And,it isn't bellybuttons you refer to,is it, Richard?:)

[Richard Niemiec]

And,it isn't bellybuttons you refer to,is it, Richard?:)

Oh, yes, absolutely, as that was a favorite saying of my dear departed Aunt, Sister Mary John, a Bernadine Nun. Perhaps SHE meant something else...... :)

[Ray Gardiner]

Hi Matt,

Interesting find especially for a $5 saw, you are in good hands with Simon Barley, he is pretty much the best authority around on British Hand Saws.

Samuel Newbould and Co are one of those rare Sheffield saw making firms that survived in business for more than 80 years or so, I think that of the many hundreds of saw makers in Sheffield in the 19th Cent only 5 or 6 had such a long history. This makes dating a bit problematic and more a question of looking at indirect evidence like how rounded the toe is and how the blade was stamped. Without the original handle it becomes even more difficult.

Struck marks would generally indicate a date prior to widespread adoption of acid etching, so that can put an upper bound of 1850 ish on the date. The stamped crowns (as Mike has already indicated) were used (in some cases at least) to indicate loyalty to the crown, and perhaps as a quality indication, the usage tended to phase out after the ascension of Queen Victoria in 1837, so maybe 1830's is not out of the question. The original handle would most likely have been the flat bottomed "London Pattern" (made from beech) and fixed with split nuts.

Samuel Newbould and Co, also made a wide variety of files and edge tools.

Here is a Later Samuel Newbould trademark entry (1901), they evidently went in for elaborate etching.

http://www.backsaw.net/pics/Newbould.jpg

On the subject of tapered ground saw blades, some of the earliest saws had tapered blades, this one was dated to the 1200's

http://www.backsaw.net/images/stories/earliest_british_saw.jpg
British Push Saw from 1200's found in a midden at Windcliff "Story of the Saw" P.d'A.Jones and E.N.Simons.

You can see the tapered blade profile on the left. So tapering saw blades is hardly a new practice.

Regards
Ray