An Atkins it is, but which model?

[Kim Malmberg]

Hello everybody,
This being my first post I believe I owe you all a short introduction. The name's Kim. Being Finnish this also makes me a male, just so no one needs to ask. I share this very interest with all of you since about a year ago, and like most, I'm very badly bitten by the bug. Being a journalist I am used to research, but still I have come up very short with finding information about Atkins saws. Yes, I do know the company story and I am able to identify certain models, but I also happen to own a saw that I have never seen anywhere before.

The saw was found in a shed and could possibly have belonged to my wife's great grand father. It also so happens that this saw was the first vintage saw I have put my hands on. The saw is not in a very good shape, the handle is cracked at three places, the etch is long gone and the tooth line was awful and still needs to be corrected.

But main point is, this saw has a smaller Atkins medallion, with the patent date and with the nickeled steel nuts. I own five Atkins saws including a no. 2 back saw, and all the others have larger medallions than this one. This saw is 28 inches long with a high saw plate, straight back and plain handle made of what I believe to be beech. The handle is surprisingly uninteresting and plain and unlike others I have seen. The medallion is positioned as the last of the four nuts, which I haven't seen on any other Atkins saw. The saw is currently filed 6 TPI crosscut, as marked on the saw plate, so at least it has been sold with 6 TPI, although I cannot say if it originally was RIP or Xcut. But the whole experience of this saw is that might have been made as a economy model for people in need of a sturdy all-round saw.

The saw plate and handle are clearly a couple as the plate fits the handle very well and there are no extra handle holes in the plate.

Any information would be highly appreciated.


Kim

[Jonathan McCullough]

Looks like an Atkins 59 Reliable handle but with a straight back.

[Jim Koepke]

Howdy Kim and welcome to the Creek.

The patent date refers to Grovers patent for the saw nuts. This would date your saw in the late 1887 to ~1903 time frame.

That is about the extent of my knowledge on the subject.

Looks like a good saw to learn to sharpen a saw and use without concerns for the pedigree.

jtk

[Kim Malmberg]

Jonathan, jim,
Thanks very much for the replies. I agree that the handle does share similarities with the handle of a later no. 59. And the placement of the medallion is identical. Yet the handle is different, at least on those I've seen

Here's one no. 59 on sale. (http://www.ebay.com/itm/VINTAGE-E-C-ATKINS-SAW-RELIABLE-SPECIAL-STEEL-BLADE-NO-59-GOOD-CONDITION-/320901801982?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4ab73ce7fe#ht_1046wt_97)


Now as fares the medallion goes, I have understood that the patent date on the medallion only relates to the patent itself and the date it was issued and that the patent date was stamped onto the medallions of Atkins saws long after the patent was granted. Also, I have read that Atkins didn't start making hand saws for carpentry or woodworking before the 1920s. And indeed my oldest Atkins catalogues ranging from 1894 to 1900 doesn't utter a word about hand saws. But hand saws do feature in the 1931 edition, which is the next catalogue I have. Also, searching for E.C. Atkins on Google Books does return many a hit, but hand saws are advertised from 1929 and forward.

The thing about the no. 59 is that in old ads the saw is portrayed with the medallion as the third nut from the top, as is typically the case with Atkins saws. So, I can't quite figure this out.
232662

[Jim Koepke]

I have understood that the patent date on the medallion only relates to the patent itself and the date it was issued and that the patent date was stamped onto the medallions of Atkins saws long after the patent was granted.

Since patents were only active for 15 years and it wasn't an Atkins patent, I doubt they would have used it beyond the length of the patent.

Here is something found in a quick search:


Elias C. Atkins started business under his own name in 1855. The following year he moved from Cleveland, OH, to Indianapolis, and formed a partnership with W. Knippenberg. An 1858 ad shows that he had licensed and manufactured patented designs for muley saws and crosscut saws. The partnership incorporated as "E. C. Atkins & Co." in 1885. It lasted until at least 1944.

As far back as 1860, Elias C. Atkins received patents for sawblades and for machines for manufacturing saws.

Here is a shot of page 84 & 85 from the 1895 catalog:

232663

Not sure of Atkins, but I do know that at times not all products appeared in all catalogs.

jtk

[Kim Malmberg]

Hi Jim.
You're right, of course. It all makes sense. And of course; I had the same saws in the same catalogue, would you believe it. It was just a matter of opening my eyes. Well, it also places my saw in a time frame more suited to it's demeanor and overall appearance.

What would be nice to know is exactly how many models Atkins made. The only straight back version I've seen listed is the 65, but whatever this model is, it sure ain't a 65. The relation to the 59 is the closest, because this clearly was made as a all-round saw around the farm, sturdy and solid, yet made without the bells and whistles.

[Kim Malmberg]

This is going off topic, but I can't resist to add something about my no. 53 rip saw. This is the only Atkins saw I own without a patent date on the medallion. But the saw plate has the patent date of July 7, 1896. So am I right in thinking that there can be two alternatives. Either my saw has been assembled after 1897 + 13 years, meaning the nuts are made in 1910 or later and the saw plate was left hanging around for this saw for at least 14 years before it was fitted with an handle and nuts. Alternatively, could it be that the saw nuts were made prematurely, knowing that the patent would pass, but not knowing the exact date of the patent? This again, would date the saw to pretty much late 1896 or 1897.

232692232693232694

[Jonathan McCullough]

You may want to check if the saw handle on the first saw matches the saw, or if it's a replacement. I think the patent on the second saw was for the decorative "Damaskeened" finish, which is most likely not visible any more due to oxidation. Saw manufacturers made large inventories of saw nuts or didn't want to pay for new dies, so sometimes the patent dates lingered on after the patents ran out. The second saw looks to my eye like an early no. 53, before they started stamping a floral pattern on to the handles.

[Michael Ray Smith]

Don't overlook the possibility that the nuts aren't original. For example, could somebody who was sharening a few saws at the same time have switched nuts? But your theory about the medallion without a date being made before the patent was issued is also entirely possible. Nothing at all wrong with filing a patent application and proceeding to make and sell the invention before the patent is issued. Happens all the time, and I assume it did then, too.

[Kenneth Speed]

Atkins saws seem to be relatively poorly documented for Neanderthals and tool collectors compared to Disston saws. Atkins was in business for a very long time and made lots of saws at different times. Just today a gentleman showed me an old Atkins catalog which had teflon coated circular saw blades so it was clearly a late twentieth century publication. The catalog still had an extensive selection of handsaws.

I, for one, can't explain the location of the medallion nor its small size. My guess is this saw was manufactured close to the end of the hand saw era. It looks somewhat similar to an Atkins 54 straight back saw but it may have had a different model number when it was made.

Part of what I like about Atkins saws is the detective work they frequently demand.

[Kim Malmberg]

You may want to check if the saw handle on the first saw matches the saw, or if it's a replacement... The second saw looks to my eye like an early no. 53, before they started stamping a floral pattern on to the handles.

I've checked the handle once again (see image) and to me it's clear that the handle was made for this saw. The first and most conclusive evidence is that the saw plate fits snugly into the handle and that there are no traces of an other handle being used on the saw (see image). The other is that this saw must have spent a very long time in my home country Finland, a land who never made any good saws and when woodworking skills were restricted to a small number of people.

232816

[Kim Malmberg]

I, for one, can't explain the location of the medallion nor its small size. My guess is this saw was manufactured close to the end of the hand saw era. It looks somewhat similar to an Atkins 54 straight back saw but it may have had a different model number when it was made.

Part of what I like about Atkins saws is the detective work they frequently demand.

Now as far as the medallion goes, I was wrong, it is the same size as the backsaw medallion, but yet, I haven't seen another Atkins handsaw of this size fitted with a medallion this small. I also own a 20 inch no 65, which is a quite small saw, and the medallion is still a lot larger than this one.

As far as it's age goes, It's clearly not made late in the Atkins era. If it would have been, the handle would have been different and the medallion would have been the ugly plain "Atkins" one (see below).
232815