How old is my Atkins brass backed saw?

[Kim Malmberg]

I've found a Atkins tenon saw with a heavy brass back an now I wonder if any of you might be able to shed some light on when this saw was made and why it was fitted with a brass back.


The saw has brass nuts which doesn't appear to have ever been nickel plated. I have had a few older Atkins saws which also didn't show any signs of nickel plating on the nuts, so if this is to go by, my newest acquisition could fit in this category.


But, the handle design seems a tad too archaic to me, meaning that going by the look of it I would think this saw was slightly later one.


The few Atkins back saws I have owned have all had hound's teeth at the top of the handle. This one doesn't have any.


The brass back is also a interesting feature. I believe I have seen some Atkins saws with brass backs, but if I remember correctly they were stamped. This one is not.


The saw plate displays only very faint traces of an etch, and I am unable to make out a single letter.


Pictures here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/finnberg68/sets/72157639346729044/


Comparisonal pictures of nuts and handles are here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/finnberg68/sets/72157631557134086
and here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/finnberg68/sets/72157631733079404
and here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/finnberg68/sets/72157632908778457
and there:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/finnberg68/sets/72157632172523465

[george wilson]

Compare your handle to Disston ones. It is not well sculpted enough to be really too old. I'd guess about the turn of the 20th. C.,though I was always concerned about tools 250 years old at the museum. Your handle looks like a standard old Disston style. Hope this makes any sense to you!!:)

[Jim Matthews]

Looking at the handle, I wonder if it was from a miter box kit.

Circa 1960, I would guess.

[Kim Malmberg]

In my opinion the handle looks younger than that. But I don't think it's a Disston one. The lower horn is more flared out and there's an additional notch below the top horn. Also note the rather sharp curve at the low end of the handle: http://www.flickr.com/photos/finnberg68/11727676714/in/set-72157639346729044

But the handle is odd. It doesn't look like a Atkins handle, although the nuts fit the holes in the handle perfectly.

[Kim Malmberg]

But hadn't Atkins already switched to the plain Atkins medallion by that time? And the deep blackened sheen on the saw plate would suggest an older saw. Miter box, could very well be.

[David Weaver]

strange combination of parts. Atkins saws over here usually have a steel back, even the ones that are 115 years old.

Of course, disstons do, too, and there are brass backed disston saws all over europe.

[Adam Maxwell]

The saw has brass nuts which doesn't appear to have ever been nickel plated. I have had a few older Atkins saws which also didn't show any signs of nickel plating on the nuts, so if this is to go by, my newest acquisition could fit in this category.


But, the handle design seems a tad too archaic to me, meaning that going by the look of it I would think this saw was slightly later one.


The few Atkins back saws I have owned have all had hound's teeth at the top of the handle. This one doesn't have any.

Kim, I have an early 20th c. (likely pre-WWI) Atkins No. 2 backsaw that has the features you indicate, with a fairly nice apple handle. As far as I'm aware, most or all of the standard-grade Atkins saws used brass nuts; plating was reserved for high-end saws like the 400. Also, your medallion predates the Borg-Warner buyout in the 1950s; I'm not sure exactly when the switch was, but I have a 400 with the Atkins Indianapolis etch and the later, plainer medallion that the B-W era saws have.


The brass back is also a interesting feature. I believe I have seen some Atkins saws with brass backs, but if I remember correctly they were stamped. This one is not.


The saw plate displays only very faint traces of an etch, and I am unable to make out a single letter.

Well, a weak etch is sort of an Atkins trademark in itself :). Without more info, though, I'd be tempted to think this is a Frankensaw with Atkins saw nuts, mainly because of the brass back. Have you checked the early 20th c. Atkins catalogs to compare the shape of the tote?

[george wilson]

I didn't say the handle WAs a Disston. I just suggested comparing it to them for purposes of getting an approximate date. Saw makers and other maker's products often resemble each other in the styles that were in use at those times.

After re reading my post,I didn't seem to make what I said clear.

[Jim Koepke]

The medallion has something in it that looks familiar.

It looks like it may read "Pat Dec 27, 1887." Patent dates usually were included on items for 15 years. Longer at times as old marked stock was still on hand.

Here is more on the particular patent with the second post in the thread having a link to the patent information:

http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?130440-December-27-1887

If your saw is all original, then it is likely a bit over 100 years old. We should look so good when we reach that age.

jtk

[Kim Malmberg]

I didn't even think of mentioning the patent date. Almost all my Atkins saws have patent dates and I'm pretty sure not all of them have been made during the patent date period. Although I have been told otherwise I strongly suspect that in Atkins case they stayed with that medallion and patent date well into the 20th century.

As other Atkins saws I have linked to will show, at least one other of my saws have a handle which clearly suggest a lter production.

As far as the brass back goes I can't say for sure, but if Disston sold saws adopted for the UK market, then I don't see how Atkins couldn't have done the same.

Also as one of my previous picture links shows, Atkins made the no. 2 with a nut going through the spine even on a 8 inch dovetail saw.

If the handle is a replacement it would have to have been custom made as the saw plate doesn't have extra holes. Also the saw plate doesn't show any contours of another differently shaped handle.
I only have one Atkins catalogue from 1932 and the no. 2 in that catalogue has a different and more gracious handle with double hounds teeth.

[Adam Maxwell]

As far as the brass back goes I can't say for sure, but if Disston sold saws adopted for the UK market, then I don't see how Atkins couldn't have done the same.

Also as one of my previous picture links shows, Atkins made the no. 2 with a nut going through the spine even on a 8 inch dovetail saw.

Sure, Atkins could have done that, but I think we'd see more of them. You might try the oldtools list and see if one of the UK galoots has seen one. As far as the bolt through the spine, it looks like that was done only on the 8" because it didn't have room for the more typical placement. The 10" and larger saws I've seen do not have that, which is an additional reason for thinking your saw is customized.


If the handle is a replacement it would have to have been custom made as the saw plate doesn't have extra holes. Also the saw plate doesn't show any contours of another differently shaped handle. I only have one Atkins catalogue from 1932 and the no. 2 in that catalogue has a different and more gracious handle with double hounds teeth.

Really? From the picture, it looks like you have 3 holes in the plate and one in the spine, for a total of 4 holes and 3 bolts. Your other No. 2 saws are more consistent with Atkins catalogues, I think, though my copy of Schaffer's work is at home. It's not impossible that you have a rare Atkins saw, but I think it's extremely unlikely.

Your other Atkins saws are very nice, by the way. I don't claim to collect them, but I have and use a few that were my great-grandfather's, and my primary dovetail saw is the 10" Atkins No. 2.

[Kim Malmberg]

Blast. Adam, you are quite right. How did I not see that I have four holes. This changes everything. This saw might just about any 14 inch English tenon saw fitted with just about any handle. Sorry folks but at least we know this one isn't changing the history of the Atkins saw production. And we know I have once more bought something that isn't what it pretends to be.

[Kim Malmberg]

I have been pondering my saw. I'm not saying my saw is a Atkins saw. Most evidence is against me and I'm OK with having been naive with this purchase as with others I've done. But some things do strike me as odd. Even if this saw has four holes plus a rectangular hole in the saw plate against three holes in the handle, how come do the used holes in the saw plate line up with the handle angle? And why doesn't the saw plate show two handle contours instead of one? I'm not trying to will you people into believing my saw is a Atkins saw, I'm just trying to understand how this saw became what it is.
I have restored more than a hundred hand saws and sometimes made saws from vintage parts. Very seldom have I been able to fit a handle to two out of three holes in a saw plate intended for another saw. And if I have, the handle angle has been incorrect in respect to the hang angle.
Just out of curiosity, if this saw is a English made backsaw, which I think is most likely, then why does the saw plate have four holes when only three are needed? And if this English saw would have been fitted with another handle, then why did this happen? The replacement must have taken place very early as no traces of another handle position can be found. And why were Atkins saw nuts chosen? 3/4 inch nuts were made in the UK as well as in the US, but why switch to another handle early in the saw's life and why use the nuts from another saw?
Please bear with me. Again, I'm not trying to force you to say this saw was what I wanted it to be. I am trying to find good reasons for why it became what it is. And I am trying to learn more about saws, saw modification and what to look out for when I purchase saws in the future. Also, being a Atkins devotee, I have a notion that too little is known of their saw production and quite frankly I don't think we know anywhere as much as we need to know about this excellent saw maker. So I'd like to learn more and one of the best ways of learning is to ask questions - even to the point where I am annnoying.
Final notion, which has no point. The saw plate and brass back are old. Not quite 19th century, but certainly early 20th century. The handle seems younger than this, but is made of apple. The brass back is unmarked, which is odd if this saw is made in the UK. Most English brass backed saws I have seen have had their back marked. Atkins did this on some of their saw, but most of them were unmarked. Could this have been a shop assembled saw where a plate and back was ordered and the rest was made from parts?

[Rick Whitehead]

I took a quick look through the only Atkins catalog I have, a reprint of the 1919 catalog.
It showed several back saws, but didn't mention the material the backs were made from, either steel or brass. And none of the back saws illustrated had a screw that went through the back. That feature was a characteristic of Richardson Bros. saws. I'm not saying that your saw is a Richardson, just that they used a screw through the back.
My interpretation is that this is a saw of unknown manufacture, with an Atkins medallion applied.
Rick

[Kim Malmberg]

From the picture, it looks like you have 3 holes in the plate and one in the spine, for a total of 4 holes and 3 bolts. Your other No. 2 saws are more consistent with Atkins catalogues, I think, though my copy of Schaffer's work is at home. It's not impossible that you have a rare Atkins saw, but I think it's extremely unlikely.

Adam,
I have spent some time asking around. I posted my questions on UKworkshop and backsaw.net without getting much information. Then I turned to Michael Merlo who is one of very few persons I know with a deeper knowledge of the Atkins production. He tells me this saw is a Atkins saw and that he has rehabbed one for a customer and owns another one himself.

Since I have no pictures of his saw, it didn't happen. But if we look at it this way. Ever since I started asking about this saw most people have told be this saw isn't the real deal. Still, no one seems to be able to say anything else than that the saw plate has one extra hole. And three holes in the plate match the handle perfectly. I would have expected more holes in the saw plate if another handle had been fitted.

[Kim Malmberg]

I just received a message from an English woodworker who tells me he too has a identical saw, with the same brass back. He also told me that the back is chamfered which means the saw plate is not only stiffened by the brass back, but actually locked in place and unable to slip, which would explain why my back had slid at the front which they very often do.