Jonathan McCullough
09-22-2010, 8:05 PM
One Saw a Week: 22-inch D-8 Panel Saw 10 TPI, 1896-1917
The archetypal early- to mid-century American saw is the skewback D-8. Saws of that general shape are even in a couple of Tom & Jerry cartoons. What made them so popular?
http://i575.photobucket.com/albums/ss199/Jonathryn/One%20Saw%20a%20Week/DSC02819.jpg
This is only conjecture, but I think that the D-8 was a sturdy workaday saw with only a slight taper grinding, so it was a little more durable than a “finer” saw such as a No. 12 or No. 16. Although many people assert that there is no difference in the chemical composition between Disston’s saws, I think that’s only true to a point. This seems to me to be true from about the late 1920’s on, when the metallurgy became sufficiently competent to consistently make excellent saw steel, to the point where it didn’t make economic sense to use inferior stuff for the cheaper saws. At the turn of the century though, I think there were differences; the No. 7 was made of the cheapest rolled cast steel, dressed rough and unpolished. I’d guess the cast steel in the D-8 was more processed in that more of the impurities were beaten out of the steel before it was rolled. The No 12’s and 16’s were processed even further, had a more extreme taper grinding, were perhaps double or triple tempered, and were polished to a shiny finish. I am not stating this as fact, it is only my conjecture, but seems anecdotally supported by people who file these buggers on a regular basis. If you have better dope, drop a dime and share your observations.
http://i575.photobucket.com/albums/ss199/Jonathryn/One%20Saw%20a%20Week/Regularpattern.jpg
The D-8 then presented good value in a saw, a middle-class sawyer’s saw, and it had many imitators from Atkins’s No. 53 to the Richardson Brothers’ saucily named “No. 8” to a Bishop saw of the same general shape.
The first time I cleaned a 26-inch hand saw and tried it I didn’t like it. Maybe it was that the “lightweight” pattern didn’t seem to hang right in the hand, or that I found the sinusoidal up-and-down of the saw back distracting, but something didn’t click.
http://i575.photobucket.com/albums/ss199/Jonathryn/One%20Saw%20a%20Week/Lightweight.jpg
It is a testament to the fact that subtle changes in saws can make a huge impact then when I can say that this little panel saw may just be the best I’ve ever tried. Despite being 22 inches, it’s a full weight (instead of a somewhat vertically-challenged “lightweight” version), it hangs just right in the hand, and the skew back is somewhat less pronounced. Its back is stiff and gives it sufficient weight and authority, and while the taper grinding isn’t as sophisticated as on more expensive saws, it’s enough to give you some leeway for correction within the kerf if you take a bad stroke.
The medallion and the etching date this saw to approximately 1896 – 1917, the golden age of sawyering. I’d add that on this one I experimented by dipping it in a vinegar solution for about an hour. I’ve been having a great deal of luck with vinegar for other tool steels such as chisels and plane blades, and it did seem to do a good job on some light pitting toward the toe, but I wouldn’t do it again. Saw steel is different, and the vinegar wasn’t kind to the etch. You can use naval jelly for thirty seconds to bring an etch up a bit. But vinegar and electrolysis seem to introduce as many aesthetic problems as the number of chemical problems they eliminate.
http://i575.photobucket.com/albums/ss199/Jonathryn/One%20Saw%20a%20Week/DSC02840.jpg
Didn’t affect the function of the saw in any way though, and it’s a really nice user. One for the saw till!
The archetypal early- to mid-century American saw is the skewback D-8. Saws of that general shape are even in a couple of Tom & Jerry cartoons. What made them so popular?
http://i575.photobucket.com/albums/ss199/Jonathryn/One%20Saw%20a%20Week/DSC02819.jpg
This is only conjecture, but I think that the D-8 was a sturdy workaday saw with only a slight taper grinding, so it was a little more durable than a “finer” saw such as a No. 12 or No. 16. Although many people assert that there is no difference in the chemical composition between Disston’s saws, I think that’s only true to a point. This seems to me to be true from about the late 1920’s on, when the metallurgy became sufficiently competent to consistently make excellent saw steel, to the point where it didn’t make economic sense to use inferior stuff for the cheaper saws. At the turn of the century though, I think there were differences; the No. 7 was made of the cheapest rolled cast steel, dressed rough and unpolished. I’d guess the cast steel in the D-8 was more processed in that more of the impurities were beaten out of the steel before it was rolled. The No 12’s and 16’s were processed even further, had a more extreme taper grinding, were perhaps double or triple tempered, and were polished to a shiny finish. I am not stating this as fact, it is only my conjecture, but seems anecdotally supported by people who file these buggers on a regular basis. If you have better dope, drop a dime and share your observations.
http://i575.photobucket.com/albums/ss199/Jonathryn/One%20Saw%20a%20Week/Regularpattern.jpg
The D-8 then presented good value in a saw, a middle-class sawyer’s saw, and it had many imitators from Atkins’s No. 53 to the Richardson Brothers’ saucily named “No. 8” to a Bishop saw of the same general shape.
The first time I cleaned a 26-inch hand saw and tried it I didn’t like it. Maybe it was that the “lightweight” pattern didn’t seem to hang right in the hand, or that I found the sinusoidal up-and-down of the saw back distracting, but something didn’t click.
http://i575.photobucket.com/albums/ss199/Jonathryn/One%20Saw%20a%20Week/Lightweight.jpg
It is a testament to the fact that subtle changes in saws can make a huge impact then when I can say that this little panel saw may just be the best I’ve ever tried. Despite being 22 inches, it’s a full weight (instead of a somewhat vertically-challenged “lightweight” version), it hangs just right in the hand, and the skew back is somewhat less pronounced. Its back is stiff and gives it sufficient weight and authority, and while the taper grinding isn’t as sophisticated as on more expensive saws, it’s enough to give you some leeway for correction within the kerf if you take a bad stroke.
The medallion and the etching date this saw to approximately 1896 – 1917, the golden age of sawyering. I’d add that on this one I experimented by dipping it in a vinegar solution for about an hour. I’ve been having a great deal of luck with vinegar for other tool steels such as chisels and plane blades, and it did seem to do a good job on some light pitting toward the toe, but I wouldn’t do it again. Saw steel is different, and the vinegar wasn’t kind to the etch. You can use naval jelly for thirty seconds to bring an etch up a bit. But vinegar and electrolysis seem to introduce as many aesthetic problems as the number of chemical problems they eliminate.
http://i575.photobucket.com/albums/ss199/Jonathryn/One%20Saw%20a%20Week/DSC02840.jpg
Didn’t affect the function of the saw in any way though, and it’s a really nice user. One for the saw till!