Adam Cherubini Saws - Opinions? [Archive] - Sawmill Creek Woodworking Community

Jonathan McCullough

07-13-2010, 6:42 PM

I am very keen on aesthetics too. . . . There are plenty who say it doesn't matter,but those types are lacking in artistic understanding,and shouldn't be designing things on their own,either.

I am fairly convinced that all of those "designers" who design modern furniture fall into that category. A sad,sloppy meaningless mixture of styles,badly done,thrown into a mishmash of pure,unadulterated garbage.

Except the fact that "unadulterated garbage" appears to be an oxymoron, both observations are soooo true. But the second observation could open up a deep, rich vein of contemporary design critique that would range from the ridiculous to the sublimely nauseating. As the old saw goes, de gustibus non disputandem est, but so much of what passes for good taste, it seems to me, is much as you describe.

Back on-topic, that saw looks an awful lot like the one Bob Rozaieski uses, and made himself, and shows how to make, on his blog at Logan Cabinet Shoppe.

Robert Rozaieski

07-13-2010, 9:34 PM

I use saws similar to Adam's that I made myself.

http://logancabinetshoppe.weebly.com/uploads/9/4/7/5/947508/8410143_orig.jpg

See the process I used to make them in three parts here (copy and paste the addresses since SMC rules don't allow me to actually link to my site):

logancabinetshoppe.weebly.com/1/post/2009/06/18th-century-style-tenon-saws-part-1.html

logancabinetshoppe.weebly.com/1/post/2009/06/18th-century-style-tenon-saws-part-ii.html

logancabinetshoppe.weebly.com/1/post/2009/06/filing-saw-teeth.html
My saws are slightly different than Adam's though. I believe Adam's saws are based on the ones made by White while mine are based on a saw made by an unknown maker according to the caption in "Tools: Working Wood in the 18th Century" (though I think George Wilson said it was a Cartwright saw).

http://logancabinetshoppe.weebly.com/uploads/9/4/7/5/947508/8493460_orig.jpg

The main difference between my saws and Adam's is that the handle on Adam's saws is set lower, maybe by 1/2" or so, closer to the tooth line. The hang angle is about the same though.

After using my saws for awhile, I can honestly say that I like them a lot. The feel does take a little getting used to though. Not because they are harder to use, just different. The force behind the sawing stroke is more behind the teeth and forward, and less down compared to a saw like a Disston with a higher handle hang angle. Adam's theory was that this would make the saws more effecient and easier to control because all the forces from sawing were going into the forward motion. However, this would also mean that the design would be less tolerant of slightly dull teeth since there is very little downward force to keep dull teeth in the cut.

After using mine for awhile now I think Adam is spot on. The saws do cut with a little more control than my old Atkins and Disston saws, but they also require that I touch up the teeth a little more frequently to keep tham cutting at their best. This isn't a problem though since I sharpen my own saws.

Regarding Adam's saws, I'm pretty sure that his day job has him out of the country right now, or at least without a shop, so he is not likely making saws or taking orders for new saws. You might try emailing him, but I wouldn't hold my breath that he will be able to make you one any time soon. Unfortunately, I'm not aware of anyone else who is making saws in this early style.

Tony Zaffuto

07-14-2010, 7:20 AM

Bob,

Several items: first, very nice saws! I think Adam has quit making saws for sale a year or so ago. I don't know how I would like a "low-rider" handle, as for saws, for example, I like a "let-in" handle, such as that found on a Disston 16.

Second, in the second photo of your post, you showed a warrington pattern hammer that has a "swelled" handle (bottom). Several years ago, at one of the FTJ tool sales & auctions, I picked up a cross-pein hammer with a similar style handle, that Tony Murland had. I never felt a hammer that fit so well and naturally in my hand. Unfortunately I did not buy it on the spot and when I returned, it was gone. I did buy a hammer (long nose, looking almost like a leather workers) with a similar handle. When I got home, I took my Stanley warrington and shaped the handle as closely as I could to the swelled pattern. Long story short, this was a huge improvement to comfort and accuracy for the Stanley. Maybe you (or George Wilson) can add a bit of commentary to this style of hammer handle?

T.

Robert Rozaieski

07-14-2010, 7:39 AM

Sorry Tony. I really can't comment on the hammer. The picture is from a book, not tools that I actually own. I have no experience with hammers in this style. I will agree with you though that it looks like it would fit the hand very well.

george wilson

07-14-2010, 9:12 AM

I have made a long post,and erased all of it accidentally. I have not decided to re post concerning the White backsaw until I find out if anyone was ever given permission to copy it. It belongs to a private collector who only gave Colonial Williamsburg permission to copy it as far as I was ever told. There is only 1 White saw surviving. It is privately owned. Since the White saw was known to have been popular in Va. in the 18th.C.,we got special permission to use it in the museum only.

The copy seen at the top of this thread is an approximate reproduction of the White,with several things incorrect.

The hammer belongs to Williamsburg,and the original is in the Gentleman's tool chest in their collection. It has that handle,which is the original.

The second saw mentioned is indeed a Cartwright from about 1770. The White was more 1760's,and looks more under developed and primitive. We made copies of these and the Kenyon saws,and a little dovetail saw by Dalaway for use in the Historic Area.

The Cartwright,Kenyons,and Dalaway dovetail saws are owned by Col. Williamsburg. They also own the copy rights to these saws,and these should not be reproduced,especially for sale by others.

Dave Anderson NH

07-14-2010, 12:41 PM

George, I'm sure many here would like to hear more about both the legal proprieties (and improprieties) and the ethics involved vis a vis museums and their collections. I know you are not a lawyer and can't give us chapter and verse of the law, but a good overall view might be quite enlightening.

David Weaver

07-14-2010, 1:01 PM

It would be especially enlightening for those of us building our own tools, which are admittedly not going to be that original. Not necessarily for issues with our own use of them, but should they ever be sold if we become deceased, or if we give them away to someone and then they show up on the market.

I had a brief discussion with Karl Holtey before I decided how I was going to try to build an A13, and before that, I wouldn't have been aware that a lot of the design items I really liked were Karl's and not original norris or public domain. Karl was very kind in extending an offer to discuss making the plane, but at the time I realized the importance of permission even though Karl never took the discussion in that direction.

george wilson

07-14-2010, 1:20 PM

In the case of my own creations posted here,I have always offered them freely to whoever wanted to use them. I even have posted the original pattern for 1 plane handle. I only make 1 offs,anyway,and don't have a product line.

My only concern is that someone not take my design,and do a terrible job of reproducing it. I put my design skills at the top of my other skills. There are so very many craftsmen who have developed high skills,but who do terrible work because they don't know how to design.

I INFREQUENTLY copy anything given the choice. I was paid to do just that as Toolmaker. My own planes,or whatever,are my own designs that look like they would be at home in a past period of time.I don't see the point of just copying Norris planes,or whatever,no matter how accurately. They don't have especially great handles and other details anyway. I prefer to create. A copyist never gets credit in history anyway. Only the originator does that.

Jared McMahon

07-14-2010, 1:49 PM

So much for a simple thread about how a given saw behaves. :o

Clearly I have some reading to do about copyright and fair use, there are a ton of questions floating around in my mind.

* How different does an item need to be to not be a "copy"?
* If a person/entity merely inherits an item, can they enforce copyright on something they didn't actually design?
* If I make a tool that uses one saw's tote and another saw's plate/back, am I potentially infringing on two people's rights, or neither?
* If I make a tool for my personal use and never sell it, does it violate the letter and/or spirit of the law?
* Should some of the current producers of backsaws be worried that their products are too derivative of certain individual tools?

Please note, these questions are rhetorical. Unless, of course, one of you is actually a lawyer. I won't turn down free legal advice. ;)

And a question specifically for George: you clearly dislike the White saw, but is that based on your taste or on your experiences with the original artifact, which clearly seems to be less than user-friendly?

EDIT: It appears that while a lot of things can be protected under copyright, sightings of Elvis cannot: http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html#elvis The fact that the US government felt a need to specifically call this out in their FAQ on copyright is going on my mental list of reasons why I dearly love this country.

David Weaver

07-14-2010, 2:02 PM

They don't have especially great handles and other details anyway.

Inevitably, those are the parts that get changed after a test infill on a plane, anyway, unless a user has no regard for their own comfort.

On the design issue, the shame of good design is that 99% of the population will never notice when a design is good - they'll just fail to be offended by it because it's not bad.

The few of your designs that I've seen, I've enjoyed, partly because they were pleasing to the eye, but mostly because they were thoughful enough that no part of them wasn't.

george wilson

07-14-2010, 2:09 PM

It's just not a well developed design. The designer didn't really know how to terminate the back,etc. as said. Peculiar handle shape. The back was a cheap looking piece of thin sheet. Has nothing to do with how the saw worked. Just looks ugly to me.

It was even worse farther back in history in England. The tools from the Mary Rose were VERY crude. England finally came into its own in the Industrial revolution. In earlier times,it was the last place in all of Europe where new information took hold. Henry XIII had to import FLEMISH armor makers to begin armor making in London. And that was pretty much during the last gasp of wearing parade,or jousting armor at all. later,they just wore breast plates and helmets.

It was Hugenots from France that settled in England,and got English gunmaking out of being crude,ugly dog locks.

Harpsichord making came last to England. Elizabeth I's virginals were Italian pentagonal spinets. It began in Italy,then France,Flanders,Germany,finally England.

As for who gets to copy things,if a museum has a unique item like the White saw,it is their right to direct its use. If there are many floating around,I'm sure it would be public domain. How could it not be?? I'm very certain that it would not be appreciated if someone made and sold a copy of the Speaker's Chair in the capitol building in Wiliamsburg. That piece is the ONLY signed piece from Williamsburg.

george wilson

07-14-2010, 3:55 PM

I have decided to delete my posts about the saw. It wasn't reproduced closely enough to most likely be a problem. Apparently that was intentional.

Jonathan McCullough

07-14-2010, 3:57 PM

It seems to be a fact that museums do own the right to say yes or no to those who want to copy their artifacts. You aren't supposed to just walk in and decide to copy,AND SELL reproductions. Williamsburg contracts with authorized sources to do that,and sells such items in their retail outlets.

Um, no. A museum can own the artifacts. They can control whether images of the artifacts can be taken (photos). They can create museum trinkets, or slides of the artifact, or postcards, or facsimiles, or what have you. And they have the right to say yes or not to those who want to copy their artifacts. But if they say no, and someone does it anyway, they would have absolutely no standing in a court of law. There is no law or legal mechanism to prevent anyone from copying the design of that saw. It doesn't come under copyright. It's not patented or patentable. It has no demonstrable properties that make that saw more efficacious. If anything applies to it, it would be considered "prior art." Although the saw may be unique in certain respects, and privately owned, there's no stopping anybody from putting it into production. They can even say, "this is just like the saw in the XYZ collection."

george wilson

07-14-2010, 4:04 PM

Well,whats the purpose in museums even saying that they have copyrights on objects? Seems like no purpose at all? I think it depends upon there being a unique item,rather than having a bunch of them around everywhere. I googled it,and you are supposed to get permission to copy images or objects,except where its public domain. You aren't supposed to just copy anything you see on the internet,apparently.

I think it may come down to wether the museum wants to pursue the matter legally. It's also big time illegal to copy movies off TV,etc.,with big punishments. Everyone does it,though. Depends if the owners of the material wants to make a case of it,doesn't it?

Williamsburg has locked up in a big,caged room,left over unfinished reproductions from Kittenger,who used to make their repro furniture for sale in Williamsburg. They won't sell them,or destroy them. They just sit there. If some use is found in finishing one up for the museum's use,that is allowed. They sure make a big fuss over those parts. I wanted to buy parts of a library table to finish for myself,but no go.

Jonathon,I don't know who you are. With what authority do you cite these statements?

In any case,I'm retired from the museum business.

Eric Brown

07-14-2010, 6:40 PM

I contacted Ed Paik about this thread and Adams saw, and he informed me that some of the customers Adam could not accomodate went to him and he is making some saws in that stlye. If interested contact him. I know that he is going to be at the Oct show in Cincinnati. He does good work and it is all custom. Don't see it just ask.

Eric

Joel Moskowitz

07-14-2010, 7:13 PM

Um, no. A museum can own the artifacts. They can control whether images of the artifacts can be taken (photos). They can create museum trinkets, or slides of the artifact, or postcards, or facsimiles, or what have you. And they have the right to say yes or not to those who want to copy their artifacts. But if they say no, and someone does it anyway, they would have absolutely no standing in a court of law. There is no law or legal mechanism to prevent anyone from copying the design of that saw. It doesn't come under copyright. It's not patented or patentable. It has no demonstrable properties that make that saw more efficacious. If anything applies to it, it would be considered "prior art." Although the saw may be unique in certain respects, and privately owned, there's no stopping anybody from putting it into production. They can even say, "this is just like the saw in the XYZ collection."

Most museums will require you to sign something saying you won't any pictures you take or things like that before you get access to the archives. So if you do you would be violating the terms of permission you signed to get access. I had at least one case where someone asked to copy one of my tools because they didn't want the restrictions that CW would impose. By the same token I have lots of photos in my collection of stuff that I can't post or publish because I signed a document saying I would not.

Most museums also have signs posted saying you can take pictures for personal use but not for publication.

However if you go to a museum, and don't sign anything and guesstimate stuff you are safe copying all you want. By the same token if you don't sign anything, take pictures, and then don't publish the pictures but reproduce the piece you are probably on safe ground unless you say it's a copy of the one in the XXX collection. The reason for that is at best it's a UNAUTHORIZED copy and at worst mentioning XXX in print would be a trademark violation.

Eric Brown

07-14-2010, 7:32 PM

It is my understanding that anything in the pulic domain may be copied freely, even for commercial purposes. Patents are designed to protect the original maker and then when the patent runs out it is then considered to be in the public domain. Museums are typically not considered to be owned by the public but instead they are only open to the public. This gives them certain rights to make legally binding rules. Usually they are protected by copyright law and they think the best way to generate revenue is having sole access to the images and information.

To twist it around a little, I suppose that if I own a rare one-of-a-kind tool that only I can reproduce it? I'm sure the museums would cry foul if they wanted to make a copy and I tryed to prevent them.

Eric

Ben Reser

07-14-2010, 8:29 PM

First of all I'm not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, but as someone who has spent a great deal of time studying copyright, patent and trademark law I can answer these questions to a certain extent.

In this particular case this object is almost certainly not copyrighted. Mostly due to the age. Copyrights expire, the original design is so old so as to have long since been expired even under the rather lengthy copyrights that we have today. However, in the era this was made copyright terms were much shorter.

In general a tool is probably covered by copyright as a sculptural work. An image or design plan of the tool would be covered as a pictoral or graphic work.

It's also almost certain that the design is not patented again due to the age. Patent terms are significantly shorter than copyright terms.

Trademark might be a situation where there could still be restrictions on this design. However, trademarks must be actively defended and asserted. I somewhat doubt that a museum owns the trademark on an object and is asserting it.

Trade secrets would not apply to anything displayed in a museum.

Lastly, a museum may through contract (often on the back of your ticket) place restrictions on you. They may require that you not take pictures of objects and so on. If the museum that has this object has such restrictions and the copy was made from a photo then they may have an argument of breach of contract. However, I don't think they'd have an ability to go after anyone else making copies based on the copies that whoever visited the museum made.

* How different does an item need to be to not be a "copy"?

In copyright law terms the difference doesn't matter. What matters is if it is actually a copy. Two people can independently create the same work and both own copyrights on the work and both be able to make copies of it. This is different from patent law where independent invention is not a defense.

Beyond the source, you have to look at the use and the impact on the holder of the copyright. How substantial is the copy. Does the copy impact on the business of the copyright holder.

* If a person/entity merely inherits an item, can they enforce copyright on something they didn't actually design?

Depends on what they inherited. If they inherited the entire estate of the creator and owner of the copyright then yes. However, what I think you're actually asking is if you end up with say the sole remaining copy of an item that probably passed through multiple hands. The answer is no. You can only claim copyright on something you created or that someone explicitly granted you the copyright to.

The Copyright Circular has this to say:

Mere ownership of a book, manuscript, painting, or any other copy or phonorecord does not give the possessor the copyright. The law provides that transfer of ownership of any material object that embodies a protected work does not of itself convey any rights in the copyright.

* If I make a tool that uses one saw's tote and another saw's plate/back, am I potentially infringing on two people's rights, or neither?

This would likely be a deriviate work of both saws. It depends on what you're taking from the saws, is it artwork or is it just a mechanical design. There may be a great deal of overlap here between artistic expression and mechanical design.

* If I make a tool for my personal use and never sell it, does it violate the letter and/or spirit of the law?

Letter almost certainly, but it might be considered fair use and thus even though you have violated the copyright there may be no relief granted by a court.

* Should some of the current producers of backsaws be worried that their products are too derivative of certain individual tools?

Hard to say, would depend very much on the specifics.

It's worth nothing that specifics of the design that are designed that way out of necessity of the function would very likely not be subject to copyright protection. There needs to be a level of artistic expression in order for the work to be subject to copyright. I'd say that within the subject area that we're talking about here, there is a sufficiently large gray area as to what is a necessity of the function vs artistic expression.

So I would say if you're making tools based on someone elses design that you should ask for permission and if you can't ask for permission, you might want to talk to a lawyer.

Joel Moskowitz

07-14-2010, 8:41 PM

"
Trademark might be a situation where there could still be restrictions on this design. However, trademarks must be actively defended and asserted. I somewhat doubt that a museum owns the trademark on an object and is asserting it."

the trademark is on the name of the museum - you can't put out commerical copy that states "this is a copy of a something in museumX" unless museumX gives permission because the name MuseumX would be a trademark which cannot be used without permission. You can say (and people do) "THis is a copy of something in a famous museum"

Ben Reser

07-14-2010, 8:46 PM

"
the trademark is on the name of the museum - you can't put out commerical copy that states "this is a copy of a something in museumX" unless museumX gives permission because the name MuseumX would be a trademark which cannot be used without permission. You can say (and people do) "THis is a copy of something in a famous museum"

Certainly the museum can have a trademark on their name. But I wasn't speaking to that. You can actually trademark the shape of an object. The famous contour bottle shape that CocaCola uses is trademarked.

As far as using the trademark of the museum in saying "This is a copy of something in museumX," I don't think that's as clear of a trademark violation as you think it is. Trademarks prevent misrepresentation of the source of the product. So long as what you're doing isn't creating confusion about the source simply mentioning someone else's mark doesn't equate to a violation of their mark. Using a mark to accurately describe some aspect of your own product or to reference the owner of the mark are defenses to trademark infringement.

george wilson

07-14-2010, 9:18 PM

I decided earlier that I shouldn't care what is copied from Williamsburg. They laid me off after 39 years,and they can take care of their own trouble. Whatever I might do to help them would not even be known by the big shots who are running the place into the ground now. They laid off 140 of their most experienced personnel(those making the most money from long service),and have closed some trade shops,making the place less interesting for the tourists,and giving them less for their ticket price.

To heck with it all!!!!:) I don't miss having to go to work there,and I'm lucky I was 67,past retirement,so I didn't get ruined financially.

Joel Moskowitz

07-14-2010, 9:37 PM

As far as using the trademark of the museum in saying "This is a copy of something in museumX," I don't think that's as clear of a trademark violation as you think it is. Trademarks prevent misrepresentation of the source of the product. So long as what you're doing isn't creating confusion about the source simply mentioning someone else's mark doesn't equate to a violation of their mark. Using a mark to accurately describe some aspect of your own product or to reference the owner of the mark are defenses to trademark infringement.

I would have to disagree with you on this because we are talking about a commercial use of the trademark. To say in catalog or advertising copy that a piece of furniture is based on an original in MuseumX is pretty much a good way to get into trouble because MuseumX would say that it's not a copy and you are using their good name and reputation to sell your cruddy bit of furniture. And a court would agree because with a trademark MusuemX has the right to determine who can use their name for commercial purposes.

By the same token if a poster on this forum puts up a picture of a piece they made and says in the caption "I copied this from a piece I saw in MuseumX", it's a non-commercial post and they are on much safer ground although not 100% safe if the museum can show that their brand was damaged by association with the piece.

All of this of course assumes that MuseumX will follow through on a lawsuit and some institutions I guess will and others not. And of course it depends on lots of other factors.

In NYC the owners of the Chrysler Building trademarked the image of the building and are trying to prevent people from using the image in advertising because they want to control the perceived iconic brand the picture of the building projects. This of course sounds ridiculous but supposing someone decided to make an ad for discount shopping using the building as a backdrop? Would you as the owner of the building really want people to associate your fancy building with a discount store?

Jonathan McCullough

07-14-2010, 9:49 PM

My this is getting into the weeds. First, copyright, trademark, and patent law are three different and distinct things.

Trademark protects a producer's reputation in the marketplace. It comes from the marks that craftsmen and/or companies would use to distinguish their wares from everybody else's. The earliest example I can think of--and maybe George could comment here--would be silverware. Every manufacturer had a unique "trade mark" stamped on every fork, spoon, knife, etc. to carve out a name brand recognition in the marketplace. If someone produced silverware and put Paul Revere's trade mark on it, trade mark law allows Paul Revere to sue that producer because it's Paul Revere's mark in the trade, it's his reputation, it's his brand to sully or build up or do with what he likes. The harm he suffers from the competition is that they can create an inferior product, use his trade mark, and make his reputation and subsequent sales suffer in the marketplace. There are surely other examples and curious nooks and crannies but these are the basics.

Patent law protects discreet, new, mechanisms, processes, alloys, unique applications of already-existing examples of the same, etc. It's kind of like DA's and indictments: you can usually patent (or indict) a ham sandwich, and the privilege is often abused with all sorts of frivolous patent applications. An example: You cannot patent a donut-shaped magnet that's polarized horizontally; the patent has run out or they've been common in industry to the point where it is considered "prior art." But if you put two such donut (toroid) shaped magnets, stack them on top of each other, and put a twist-switch on the top one you get a very strong, mobile magnetic means of affixing things, like the very popular MagSwitch, and you Can patent that. And someone has. "Prior art" is useful in that it also keeps people from patenting things like, saws, because they've been around since forever and it's impractical and unfair to grant a patent to someone now just because they want to sue everybody for money.

Copyright protects a unique expression. If you write a poem, that is your unique expression of a poem. Same with a tune, song, photograph, software program, play, news or sports broadcast, etc. So who gets the Right to make a Copy of your unique expression? To whomever the original creator transfers that Copy-Right, usually with a contract. Copyright law protects a unique expression the moment its creator considers it complete. You do not have to apply for copyright with the copyright office in order for it to have effect. But in order to prove that it is yours, or that you are the creator and sole owner in a court of law, it would sure help. I did publishing contracts for many years.

You can copy, recreate, reverse-engineer something for *personal use* such as a saw design. If for instance you copied Lee Valley's dovetail saw and bragged about it, they could sue you for damages: the cost of the sale of one $70 (?) saw. Would it be worth it to them in legal fees? Probably not. Would it be worth it to you to invest in vacuum-plastic molding technology, bulk composite materials, and everything else it would take to make one copy of their patented saw? No. Would it be worth it to Lee Valley to sue to prevent a boatload of dovetail saws exactly like theirs show up on the marketplace from a competitor? You bet it would.

Could someone sue you for copying one of their 17th-century saws? I'd like to see them try. You could probably countersue, importune the board of directors and donors with literally years of endless interrogatories, and would in the end, probably win. Would anybody want to devote years of their lives to that? It wouldn't be like having a flame war on the internet, that's for sure!

As to museums. Museums where the price of access to their materials and artifacts is to not be able to use any of your research seems more like private collections in search of favorable tax code. What social function would a museum otherwise serve? Not allowing people to write about a museum's or archive's collection or provide illustrations would be in my estimation petty, and usually only requires written permission, which is usually granted. Or should be. If on the other hand, you want to reproduce one of their pieces of art for *commercial* use, say, a reproduction of Warhol's Marilyn Monroe series on the cover of Time, it's only fair to negotiate use of that copyright.

The long and the short of it is that I don't think you should feel constrained in making your own backsaws.

Steve Schoene

07-14-2010, 11:26 PM

I fail to understand how an 18th century design can have copy rights that can be protected. All such objects are clearly in the public domain. Ownership of an object doesn't imply copyright ownership. Owners of objects can, of course, restrict access to an object making it hard to copy physically, but that is not the same as control over the intellectual property.

Jack Camillo

07-15-2010, 5:34 AM

Jack Camillo

07-15-2010, 5:38 AM

By the way, I bought a saw from Adam a couple years ago. It's the best handsaw I own and I'm glad I bought it. Wanted a Wenzloff, but at the time I needed it, they were not available. (Happy to see just yesterday that Mike and sons are open for business again after catching up - Might get me one afterall)

(ooops, don't know how to post a picture of my Cherubini)

george wilson

07-15-2010, 9:29 AM

Thank you Jack,we did often see 3000 people a day in the busy season. I think I have always been lucky. I lived in the "golden years" in Williamsburg,when we had a decent leader,and the Historic Trades shops flourished,staff were added each year,and we got good raises. New shops came along,like the Music Teacher just before me,and the Musical Instrument Maker in 1970.

We had many interesting little stops,like marbling paper,paper making,candle making(the women liked it), chair seat weaving from split oak(can't think of the right name!),and several others. These were later dropped because the museum weenies decided they weren't done here in the 18th.C..(if it wasn't written about,it didn't happen) there were puppet shows and magic acts for the children. Kids could shoot blanks from a musket. All those things went. I think to the detriment of an interesting experience for the visitors.

I started out with just Marcus,slowly grew to 5. At one time I also ran the Cabinet Shop for a year or 2 while they looked for a new master.

I had a good life there,and did pretty much what I pleased. What more can you ask?

Now the emphasis is being put more on actors,and we all hate that. Someday,will actors be pretending to be craftsmen?

This is what happens when business men with no comprehension of what having a group of genuine highly skilled craftsmen run the place.

The public was always curious about technical things(for the most part).

Have the leaders in Wmsbg. noticed the growing number of "how it's made" type TV shows on the air? Ultimate Factories,How It's Made,and the others MUST tell SOMEONE about the enjoyment that many get from seeing things made.

David Weaver

07-15-2010, 9:36 AM

Now the emphasis is being put more on actors,and we all hate that. Someday,will actors be pretending to be craftsmen?

Probably.

I went there often as a kid in the '80s. Being from Gettysburg, my parents thought it was something we should see as kids, but without describing what we should get from it.

I don't recall a lot, but I would've liked to have been able to go back when it was running full steam. Even back then, though, we spent our time in the trade shops - especially anything gun related if I had a choice, and I thought as a kid that the actors running around were annoying and pointless.

The one thing I do recall, and I hope they take note of things like this, is that in the mid 1980s, it cost $1 to get a *can* of soda on the premises. It's probably $2 now - or more. It seemed like it was always 95 degrees there. When you travel to go somewhere, and you pay to be there, it's a real piss off when someone really tries to nail you for a nickel and dime amount on something stupid like a drink.

george wilson

07-15-2010, 9:56 AM

I'm afraid that soda prices are set by the vendors who are contracted to vend there. They were just as high in the lunch room in the maintenance area.

Id get annoyed when an actor would walk by me and say something "in character". Give it a rest,I work here was what was on my mind. The craftsmen were always annoyed by actors.

In the gunsmith's shop,if an actor came in to order a gun,they would act back,and pretend that the guy owed money from his last business there,and refuse to deal with him!!!:)

David Weaver

07-15-2010, 10:04 AM

When I was in college, the school sold the rights to sell drinks on campus to pepsi exclusively for $13 million. Needless to say, options were limited, and the price in the drink machines went up.

I would guess that coke pays williamsburg a fair price and then some to be set up there, but I guess you never know.

As annoying as it was to get stuck on the soda cost as a visitor, I'd be a lot more annoyed were I in your shoes working there and getting gouged.

Rick Markham

07-15-2010, 11:56 AM

George I was one of those little kids standing there enthrawled by the Blacksmith shop, the tool makers, the ship makers working hard at building the replica (can't remember of which ship), and the gunsmith. You deserve a big "thanks" from me, in more ways than what you share on this forum you have influenced me. (I can probably place some of the blame of my obsession of tools and current studies in mechanical engineering on you) I hope you sleep well at night... :D

george wilson

07-15-2010, 5:16 PM

Thank you,Mark. It isn't my conscience that keeps me awake. t's my back!!

Dave Anderson NH

07-16-2010, 8:47 AM

I go and have gone to Williamsburg each year since the start of the January 18th Century conferences on furniture making some 11 or 12 years ago. For years I was also a confributor to the foundation. No longer. I stopped giving 2 years ago as I saw the deterioration of the historic trades program and the major cuts in the hours of operation and days open of the various shops. Somehow the future isn't learning from the past.

Brian Kincaid

07-16-2010, 10:06 AM

In the gunsmith's shop,if an actor came in to order a gun,they would act back,and pretend that the guy owed money from his last business there,and refuse to deal with him!!!:)

That's hillarious. The actors have some use then! Comic relief!
-Brian

george wilson

07-16-2010, 11:29 AM

Dave "that the future may learn from the past" is the motto of the museum. The bitterly funny thing is,they never learn from their own past. In the many years I was there,I can't tell you how many times they'd try and re use the same ideas that were used some years before,and still fail!! And we'd have to go and do it again.

Dave Anderson NH

07-16-2010, 12:51 PM

I knew you'd get the reference George. I just couldn't resist using the motto. To me there were programs other than historic trades which could have been cut and done less damage to the overall visitor experience. I'll never understand how they expect to keep visitor days and income up while they eliminate what visitors come to see. They are reducing value for the dollar and will end up paying dearly for it. I also always viewed part of Williamsburg's mission as maintaining a core of well trained people to exercise and then pass on the skills from the 18th century. As a nation we don't have an institution like the French have at Ecole Boule that trains people formally in the old skills so that the arts don't die and there remains a group able to restore and maintain centuries old antiques in an authentic and safe manner.

george wilson

07-16-2010, 2:44 PM

When they put up a stage half way across the main historic area street,and actors began to use LOUD microphones(and have continued to do so) we all knew that new lows have been hit.

Eric Brown

07-16-2010, 3:43 PM

Anymore my wanting to visit Williamsburg is moving so far down the list it may soon fall off. There are two basic reasons for this. The first is I am a person of many questions. I want the questions answered by people who know. Second reason is that they think they have copyrights on everything and the saw one of the earlier posters showed is an excellent example. By their limiting access and study of the one-of-a-kind saw I would have to conclude it was a failure. If they were smart they would actually make copies and sell them to the public. I might go just to buy one. But without people like George there they would probably be imported from China.

What I really appreciate about people like Adam is that they are questioning the past and trying to relearn the reasons. And they share what they learn openly. Thanks to all the teachers.

Eric

David Weaver

07-16-2010, 3:57 PM

If you guys are wanting to try a saw with the tote in a position of some of these older saws, get yourselves a beater and move the tote on it, drill some holes, and affix the tote where you want to try it.

I'm going to guess that some folks who are used to and comfortable with the way the tote is on a disston #4 might not be that excited when they get the feel of a saw with a tote that far down.

If you like to work fast, you can't muscle the saw through a cut- the same being true for a panel saw - how much different a D8 feels vs. a #7 or #12. You can get a lot more down pressure on a D8. Never timed cuts, but I would think that most people would cut faster with a d8 because of that.

I kind of wonder some, too, that if there are functional improvements in a saw after that point, why people are swept up in using really old designs just to use them. If it floats your boat, then everyone can do whatever pleases them in their shops, but if the thought is always that the oldest design works as well or better for most people and that all changes are reductions in quality, that doesn't quite resonate.

Robert Rozaieski

07-16-2010, 7:10 PM

you can't muscle the saw through a cut- the same being true for a panel saw - how much different a D8 feels vs. a #7 or #12. You can get a lot more down pressure on a D8.

David,
I think you hit the nail on the head as to why saw makers changed their designs. You are correct, the higher hand angle of saws like the Disston #4 or the D8 does permit more downward force. What this does is allow a dull saw to continue cutting until it is REALLY dull. I think this was done for carpenters on job sites who weren't sharpening their own saws, so they could continue working all day (or all week) without sharpening.

Saws like Adam's and mine with lower hang angles are less tolerant of somewhat dull teeth. As the teeth dull, the teeth don't engage the wood as much because all the effort is on the forward motion, very little downward. However, with a freshly sharpened saw, I think the older style saws offer slightly more control (i.e. for keeping the saw plumb) than the later style saws. I think this is important in a joinery saw; maybe not as important in a hand saw or panel saw.

Harlan Barnhart

07-16-2010, 9:42 PM

As a nation we don't have an institution like the French have at Ecole Boule that trains people formally in the old skills so that the arts don't die and there remains a group able to restore and maintain centuries old antiques in an authentic and safe manner.

I have heard the Japanese government special orders tools to keep the toolmaking craft alive. As a result of that mentality they have tradesmen with hundreds if not thousands of years of history behind their practice. Here in the US we are far to pragmatic for that. If a skill or trade doesn't produce steady investment opportunity, it will be trampled.

Tony Zaffuto

07-16-2010, 10:14 PM

I may try the suggestion of changing the position of a saw handle: however, I'm thinking of doing it to the handle of one of my miter saw handles. May be a help in releasing the saw and starting a cut. Any opinions?

Eric Brown

07-16-2010, 10:23 PM

There is more to a saw than the handle or its position. For instance if you assume that the lower handle is slower, then you must concur that there is less pressure for the same tooth profile and blade thickness. Is it possible that the original had a thinner plate? Did it have a different profile? And what about Roy Underhills thoughts on mutton as a lubricant? I think everything should be question and tested.

Eric

David Keller NC

07-17-2010, 2:41 PM

There's another implication of more/less downward force on the tooth line of a saw in use. Specifically, there are implications for the temper & wear characteristics of the metal.

I'm speculating here, but I would guess that a higher hardness saw plate might be more prone to tooth snapping when cutting hardwood and that has a high hang angle relative to the tooth line - sort of like chopping with a high-hardness O-1 chisel with a heavy mallet vs. paring with that same chisel.

Moreover, one could also speculate about the wear on the teeth of saws with high hang angles vs. lower hand angles. My guess would be that a saw with a good deal of downward force might require sharpening earlier than otherwise, given the same steel alloy and hardness.

If that's true, then that might in part explain the lower hang angles of 18th century saws - files in the day were all hand-made and were very much more expensive than in the 19th century, where steel was much cheaper and files were cut with machines.

Adam Cherubini

07-17-2010, 8:24 PM

I'm not sure who's saws George is talking about, mine or Bob's. I like the look of Bob's and I looked at the White saw when I made mine. But I also looked at the Jennion Trade card and a bunch of other images. I made several handles and tested them in different sized hands. I made changes to my designs based on comments from Deneb at LN among others. So my handle isn't a copy of any particular saw.

Bob's hands aren't real big. Mine are long but fairly slender (like Schwarz' actually even tho he says he has girl's hands). The problem I encountered was with knuckle room in the upper portion of the handle.

The overall design of having the spine punch thru the top of the handle may be crude esthetically, but using saws like these is pretty nice. The line of effort is more in line with the teeth (more like a Japanese saw actually) so the saw is easier to control, and the response stiffer, and this faster cutting. I think it's a superior design.

I believe I was the only saw maker to file teeth by hand, a none too insignificant factor. Filing by hand allowed me to push the envelope and make exactly the sort of teeth I felt would be best for each saw. I never felt I got the attention or accolades for these saws. It may be that Schwarz downplayed my work since i was working for PW. Or maybe he and others simply didn't like my saws. I've used pretty much everybody's saws and I didn't prefer every model I made. But some specific models seemed to be head and shoulders above the rest. It was my hope that these saws would receive more attention and their unique features would find their way onto the LN's of the world. What I wanted to do and didn't was to make saws for Mike Wenzloff and the other makers.

It's true that I've stopped making saws because I'm away. The only person I sent my customers to was Mike and only because I have a great inexplicable affection for him and I'm a great admirer of his work. That said, I love Joel's DT saws and I have a pretty kick butt LV as well.

Adam