New Old Saws on the Market

[Chris Griggs]

Anyone else see the Schwartz's post (http://www.popularwoodworking.com/woodworking-blogs/chris-schwarz-blog/new-sawmaker-builds-ancient-saws) about these. http://nwtoolworks.wordpress.com/for-sale-3/

If nothing else, interesting and something no one else is doing. I wonder how they'll do (probably well, since they have now officially been "Schwarzed")

What say ye Neanders? Yay or Nay?

Although, if I wanted to try one I'd be inclined to make my own. I'm intrigued by the extreme hang angles on them, one looks like a bread knife and the others are at what looks like 90 degrees to the tooth line. George, you should make a replica of these, and let us know what you think.

[Jim Koepke]

It seems strange to me that the bottom of the handles are below the tooth line on most of them.

Maybe if some folks have too much money and needs a show piece to hang on the wall of their man cave some of these will move quickly.

For my taste, I am learning more about sawing and saws by restoring old ones and using them. One thing I have learned is it is more the operator and less the pretty factor of the saw that makes straight cuts. Good teeth, straight saw plate and experience will do fine no matter the cosmetics.

Another question comes to mind of just how accurate the drawings in Moxon's original text might actually be. There may be artistic interpretations carried over into his illustrations. Nothing intentional, but the mind interprets what we see and an image of a saw with a handle at one angle could actually had a different relationship angle from handle to tooth line.

jtk

[Chris Griggs]

Maybe if some folks have too much money and needs a show piece to hang on the wall of their man cave some of these will move quickly.


I believe the newly established nomenclature is "gentleman woodworker":)

[David Weaver]

They look like re-enactor materials, but who knows, maybe someone will buy them and report they are good to use? the .3" plate might make up for the lack of a back on the joinery saws.

They look nicely made, but are a segment that you'd have to label "enthusiast's tools" (i've never read any of the moxon or roubo books, so maybe there is something i'm missing).

I wish the guy well, they look tidy.

[Chris Griggs]

They look like re-enactor materials, but who knows, maybe someone will buy them and report they are good to use? the .3" plate might make up for the lack of a back on the joinery saws.


I could see them being handy as a sorta general purpose bench saw, maybe like how one might use a small panel saw or a half-back saw. I'll never buy one, but its one of those things that that could be added to my, "maybe I'll build one someday out of pure curiosity list". That list is getting long, and I'm coming to learn that maybe often means probably not ever.

[Zach Dillinger]

I'm extremely intrigued by several of those saws. I'd like to try that Ancient-Style saw, as well as the larger bench saw (not the moxon). I've always wanted to make an ancient Egyptian style saw, even if they do cut the wrong (pull stroke) way.

[george wilson]

The ancient style looks to me like it would be a difficult handle to hang on to. I haven't seen the original illustration,but it doesn't seem practical. That taper would be hard to hang onto. And how come they all have late 18th.C. saw screws in them? The mid 18th. C.White tenon saws we reproduced from the sole surviving example example did not have those later style saw screws. They had what I can best describe as a small carriage type bolt,with square nuts. The Kenyon late 18th.C. saws we copied had the "fully developed" saw screws that were to be standard for years to come.

I am also wondering if such early type saws had saw plates that thin(.030"). Those saws would have had hand forged blades at the time they were made. Maybe that is why they could get along with no back on the bench saw.

I also wonder how the keyhole type saw is going to stay rigid with such a thin blade,unless it cuts on the pull,like a Japanese saw.

It has been many years since I studied Moxon,as it was too early for the period Williamsburg represented,so I could be wrong on several counts here. Perhaps someone who is more researched on this subject can step forward.

In googling Moxon saws,there was a mention that "the tennant(tenon) saw,having a thin blade,hath a BACK to keep it straight." So,where is the back on the bench saw,at least? And,what did "thin" mean to those in the 17th.C.? As far as I know,they had thicker blades than we do now. There is also some discussion as to whether Tennant referred to a bow saw or not. I don't see how a bow saw has a back,myself,unless they mean the horizontal bar in the frame. That just doesn't make it for me.

I just read the blog info. I can't tell from the picture of the original print whether that saw has saw screws or just nails holding the blade on. I have seen Moxon copies that used hand made nails rather than any type of screw.

As I said,it's been a very long time since I looked at Moxon. Feel free to correct me. Some of my observations are based on practical considerations,such as how thin those blades are,and how thin the compass saw can be without buckling.

[Tony Zaffuto]

I think I'll wait for an original George Wilson saw! Should that not ever happen, if I want a saw in this style, I'll make my own.

[Zach Dillinger]

I think I'll wait for an original George Wilson saw! Should that not ever happen, if I want a saw in this style, I'll make my own.

Indeed. A George Wilson saw would be a treat.

I can't say that the Ancient style saw looks comfortable, but I'm curious. Might have to to make one, just to see whats its like.

[Chris Griggs]

Indeed. A George Wilson saw would be a treat.

I can't say that the Ancient style saw looks comfortable, but I'm curious. Might have to to make one, just to see whats its like.

You seem to suffer from the same affliction as I.

[Sean Richards]

I believe the newly established nomenclature is "gentleman woodworker":)

Nothing new about that term Chris - has been in common usage for 200 years or so.

[David Weaver]

We did recognize today that it applies to us only in the negative sense. That we are gentlemen woodworkers, but not gentlemen in general.

[Sean Richards]

We did recognize today that it applies to us only in the negative sense. That we are gentlemen woodworkers, but not gentlemen in general.

Either way the term has been providing sniggering material for working stiffs since the 18th C.

[Jim Matthews]

Let us not forget that the magazine form requires monthly contributions from staff members.

- he's got to write about something. That said, I'm at a loss for what these saws can do for me that a well tuned D-7 panel saw can't.
If a basic saw is good enough for Ron Herman, it's good enough for me.

These things are the natural extension of what I have said before - you can spend your time making tools, or making furniture.
It's nice when the two come together, but all too often - that's rare.

[Tony Zaffuto]

Let us not forget that the magazine form requires monthly contributions from staff members.

- he's got to write about something. That said, I'm at a loss for what these saws can do for me that a well tuned D-7 panel saw can't.
If a basic saw is good enough for Ron Herman, it's good enough for me.

These things are the natural extension of what I have said before - you can spend your time making tools, or making furniture.
It's nice when the two come together, but all too often - that's rare.


Patricians versus the plebeians? I've seen lots of reasons why expensive tools are purchased, but few that actually deal with the actual use.

I have to wonder how many of the Lunn saws ever saw wood, let alone needing resharpened? How many buying the WP winding sticks actually know how to use them? As far as the magazine form, it goes without saying they must sell ad copy and have you really ever seen a tool panned?

[Chris Griggs]

Either way the term has been providing sniggering material for working stiffs since the 18th C.

Touche... Hence the terms "gents saw" and "gents plane", I guess.

I was being a goof and referencing a thread from earlier today or yesterday regarding what Dave mentioned.

Can we at least claim a renaissance of the term???

[Mike Holbrook]

Schwartz is a professed fan of just about anyone who makes hand tools, as a devote of this type tool might well be.

Dang, I wanted to be the one to mention to Chris that it seems like someone could just make one of those saws!

[Tony Zaffuto]

This is more of a questions for George Wilson but if anyone else knows the answer, please provide it!

For 18th & 19th century saws, panel, table and backsaw, what was the typical saw plate thickness and about when did filing crosscut become commonplace?

[george wilson]

It has been a long time,but the Kenyon crosscut saws we copied were .042" at the tooth line. The dovetail saws we made were.015. The carcass saws were about .020". Tenon saws I can't recall,but have saw steel out in the shop. They might have been.030".

The Kenyon saws we copied were never sharpened by the owner(a gentleman would be wood worker). I looked at the cross cut saws' teeth,and they looked to me like they were filed about 10 degrees,or half what we file them today.

I am waiting for someone to shoot me down over the Moxon copies. Everything I said was from DISTANT memory and conclusions based on practicality.

[Paul Saffold]

Perhaps the term "artistic license" may be appropriate here. How boring life would be if we all marched to the same drummer.

[george wilson]

Well,if one is professing to make copies of old tools,I think they should be as accurate as possible. When I made them,which was my job,we even left rasp or scraper marks on the saw handles. Saw handles in the 18th.C. were not as carefully finished as they were later on in the 19th.C.. We had to deeply mark our tools lest they became antiques after several years use,especially when used at out door sites.

I heard about a number of "antiques" that were discovered in shops,or were innocently offered to Williamsburg,which turned out to have been made there many years ago.

[Trevor Walsh]

Maybe not to some people's tastes, I'm a little bit disheartened that the consensus seems to be against this guy.

Late 18th and 19thC western saws seem to be the only thing getting talk/techniques. Japanese saws have come into popularity a bit, but perhaps there are places for these ancient ones as well. I can certainly see the keyhole saw being useful, does anyone even know of a manufacturer of keyhole saws that aren't those junk drywall saws? Reading a tool test about the performance of one would be a much better article than a blurb introducing them, but all that remains to be seen.

[Sean Richards]

Maybe not to some people's tastes, I'm a little bit disheartened that the consensus seems to be against this guy.

Late 18th and 19thC western saws seem to be the only thing getting talk/techniques. Japanese saws have come into popularity a bit, but perhaps there are places for these ancient ones as well. I can certainly see the keyhole saw being useful, does anyone even know of a manufacturer of keyhole saws that aren't those junk drywall saws? Reading a tool test about the performance of one would be a much better article than a blurb introducing them, but all that remains to be seen.

Don't count me as part of the consensus - I was having a little poke at the gentleman woodworkers. Look quite nicely made and more to my taste than anodised red alloy winding sticks and titanium fret saws.

[Tony Zaffuto]

Maybe not to some people's tastes, I'm a little bit disheartened that the consensus seems to be against this guy.

Late 18th and 19thC western saws seem to be the only thing getting talk/techniques. Japanese saws have come into popularity a bit, but perhaps there are places for these ancient ones as well. I can certainly see the keyhole saw being useful, does anyone even know of a manufacturer of keyhole saws that aren't those junk drywall saws? Reading a tool test about the performance of one would be a much better article than a blurb introducing them, but all that remains to be seen.

Trevor, I also don't think this thread was necessarily against this guy, but like Sean said, targeted more towards the "me to's" that will grab every tool produced as soon as one of the current talking heads mentions he/she uses it. As I also mentioned, I question how much use many of the "me to's" use their latest, greatest tool, and are more interested in the purchase than the use or application.

I would have more interest in seeing something true historically, hence my post to George Wilson about saw plate thicknesses, etc. I, for one, would have an interest in a keyhole style saw or a table saw. We've seemed to have plenty of backsaws and panel saws already.

[george wilson]

I readily admit that I may be a bit rusty on my information regarding Moxon. I studied his work in 1970 IIRC,and haven't been able to get Jay Gaynor to refresh my information yet.

The things I have mentioned were based on practical considerations,not necessarily a condemnation of the fellow's work. I'm not aware if any of these 17th.C. saws survive(except a few that were dug up at Jamestown,I think,and were in exceedingly rusty condition,without handles or saw screws,nails,etc.).

I do not know if anyone except die hard re inactors would want saws that have extremely thick blades,which I believe those early saws did have.

I think I have heard Jay say that those early saws were complained about in their day as not holding an edge. To me this means low carbon,which means softer metal,which means thick blades so they wouldn't buckle,etc.. Also,hand forged,before the days of rolled sheet(in the 18th.C.),the blades were thicker than those that came later.

That said,I feel sorry for those poor earlier people who had to make do with bronze blades!!

Anyway,I hope someone will step up with better information than I can offer on these very early saws.

[David Keller NC]

Some may be interested to know that a "bench saw" was indeed produced in the 19th century by "modern" saw makers, at least modern compared to White, Kenyon and others. In particular, Disston made quite a few of them, and they are generally 12" -15" long, "backless", and with the bottom of the tote projecting below the tooth line. While a number were produced, they are nowhere near as common as the #8s, #7s and #12s, and are therefore hotly pursued by collectors, with corresponding high prices.

There is a discussion of the thickness of the saw plates in the Seaton chest in "The Tool Chest of Benjamin Seaton" (pg 42), with measurements at the tooth line, middle, and back that can be used to construct a "map" of the taper grinding.

[David Weaver]

Maybe not to some people's tastes, I'm a little bit disheartened that the consensus seems to be against this guy.

I don't think that's the case. I think the consensus is that most of us hope he succeeds, but are not necessarily interested in buying any of his saws because they are designs that are effectively before saws matured.

[Tony Zaffuto]

I'm going to have to get home to the shop and dig through my accumulation of saws (and such). Seem to remember having a "table" saw, with a fairly thick saw plate. If I don't get distracted (read: told I have something else to do), think I'll sharpen it today.

[Jim Koepke]

Maybe not to some people's tastes, I'm a little bit disheartened that the consensus seems to be against this guy.

Late 18th and 19thC western saws seem to be the only thing getting talk/techniques. Japanese saws have come into popularity a bit, but perhaps there are places for these ancient ones as well. I can certainly see the keyhole saw being useful, does anyone even know of a manufacturer of keyhole saws that aren't those junk drywall saws? Reading a tool test about the performance of one would be a much better article than a blurb introducing them, but all that remains to be seen.

I think the saws look great. I also think they are not practical for my shop. I can only think of two saws in my shop that cost me more than $10. They were both less than $50.

Most of my back saws are only used on top of my bench. I do not want an open handle to be below the tooth line. Barking your knuckles against a bench hook is not a pleasant experience.

I am hoping to make some of my own saws in the near future. Even with good saws from Veritas costing less than $100, my thoughts are that I can have fun and save some money by making my own.

Making a saw is a time intensive endeavor. I can see why some charge a lot for their work. If that much money is spent for one of my tools, it better be very good and very useable.

Maybe if I win the Lottery some "show off" tools will be acquired.

jtk

[Dave Anderson NH]

I just took down and measured my Geo. H. Bishop & Co keyhole saw made in Cincinnatti probably about 1890-1910 (guess only). The handle is rather basic and it came with 3 blades measuring .0595" x 13.5" long, and 2 blades measuring .0475" x 12.5". All of the lengths stated are the length of the toothed part of the blade. All 3 blades are filed rip and have about .009" of set on each side. The heavy set would be normal for a keyhole saw to allow a wide kerf and steering of the blade.

[george wilson]

Yes,I think they'd have to have thick blades unless you are a very careful keyhole saw user.