Rip Tenon Saws.......

[Gary Cunningham]

I want to learn how to cut tenons by hand. Is the Lee Nielson tenon saw $60.00 "better" than a Veritas?

I am not wanting to start a ruckus.
:)

[Malcolm Schweizer]

Yes. I don't have the Veritas tenon saw, but I have the dovetail and carcass saw and I have all the Lie-Nielsen versions of the same plus a crosscut and rip tenon saw. The Lie-Nielsen advantage, in my opinion, is the brass back. The Veritas back flexes and the Lie-Nielsen is stiff. Yes, bad form would be the reason to get flex in the first place, but for me I would rather have a stiff back. Also the Lie-Nielsen handles are a work of art.

Note: certainly the Veritas saws are one of the best buys out there, and I use them for rough work and sappy wood that I don't want to use a more costly saw on. They are darned fine saws, and for a long time that was all I had until I got a deal on a used LN tenon saw and fell in love. Lie-Nielsen saws, in my opinion, are perfect. I have just completed the full set except the panel saws. I have two Wenzloff panel saw plates that I need to get off my butt and make handles for. No need for the LN if I finish those.

[Malcolm Schweizer]

This is the waste from a mahogany tenon on my Roubo build. This is straight off the saw- almost looks planed. I held it in the light at an angle that would most show the saw marks. Granted that's partly due to my awesome sharpening skills (gloat) but it's a quality saw that makes it all possible. By the way, you know your dad is a woodworker when you have mahogany building blocks. I gave all my offcuts to my child and I am proud to say they are all square enough to build tall towers- straight from the saw.

358600358601

[David Eisenhauer]

The Veritas saws are quite often called "best bang for the buck" saws or something similar and considered good saws. At $60 (new at well over $100 believe), the LN saw should be worth trying out unless it has somehow gotten solidly trashed. I would have to believe that you could always sell it on for what you paid. Oh, and they are reviewed regularly as being good saws and often as a better "bang for the buck" type saws in comparison to the truly boutique $200-$300+ saws. I would try it out because new Veritas saws should always be available if you end up not happy with the LN, a, perhaps, unlikely event.

[Derek Cohen]

I want to learn how to cut tenons by hand. Is the Lee Nielson tenon saw $60.00 "better" than a Veritas?

I am not wanting to start a ruckus.
:)

Keep in mind that the LN saw may be well used and need to be sharpened. If it is the 16" long plate, this is an excellent saw. This length is considered long for most work. I have a Wenzloff 16" which I like, but more often use a 14" Gramercy.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Malcolm Schweizer]

The Veritas saws are quite often called "best bang for the buck" saws or something similar and considered good saws. At $60 (new at well over $100 believe), the LN saw should be worth trying out unless it has somehow gotten solidly trashed. I would have to believe that you could always sell it on for what you paid. Oh, and they are reviewed regularly as being good saws and often as a better "bang for the buck" type saws in comparison to the truly boutique $200-$300+ saws. I would try it out because new Veritas saws should always be available if you end up not happy with the LN, a, perhaps, unlikely event.

I believe he is buying new and $60 is the price difference. If he were getting a LN for $60, I would have advised against it, and then asked where this saw was so I could go get it myself. :-)

[Gary Cunningham]

Keep in mind that the LN saw may be well used and need to be sharpened. If it is the 16" long plate, this is an excellent saw. This length is considered long for most work. I have a Wenzloff 16" which I like, but more often use a 14" Gramercy.

Regards from Perth

Derek

lack of clarity on my part: As Malcom said I will be buying a new saw, and the price difference is $119.00 for Veritas vs $179.00 for the LN.

[Phil Mueller]

I have a few of the smaller size rip Veritas and the LN carcass saw. I use both depending on the size of the tenon. As with many things, the skill of the user can out weigh the quality ($) of the tool. I'm sure a skilled sawer could saw a better tenon with my Veritas than can I saw right now with my LN. I tend to go for the best I can or are willing to afford if for no other reason than to eliminate one variable in the learning curve (is it the tool or is it me?).

I'm sure either saw can produce great results with practice.

[lowell holmes]

I have three Lie Nielsen saws. I would not be without any of them.
I have the dove tail, tenon cross cut, and tenon rip. They all have their place in my till.

A dove tail saw, a carcass saw both cross cut and rip.

[steven c newman]

Mine is just a Blued Steel backed Disston No.4......14", 11 ppi, filed rip.

[bridger berdel]

Here's the thing. Saw skills include sharpening the saw, not just cutting stuff with it. Buying an expensive new saw to "eliminate variables" as a short cut to sawing skills is handicapping yourself.

The current state of saw manufacture is quite poor. The very best modern saws are about on par with tradesman class saws of 100 years ago, except with exotic wood handles and very high prices. The current saws offered for tradesmen are an embarrassment.

Bad axe saw:
Bad Axe 14" Sash Saw ($265 base price); Filing: Hybrid-Cut , Pitch: 12 ppi , Gauge Plate: .025 (add $10), Sawback: Copper-Plated Carbon Steel (add $35); Species: Mesquite (add $50), Fasteners: Niter-Blued Carbon Steel Slotted Nuts (add $27.50), Hand Size: (L). Price: $387.50

From a 1917 ford motor catalog:
2 Passenger, 4 Cylinder, 20 Horsepower, streamline hood, large radiator and enclosed fan, crown fenders, black finish, nickel trimmings, fully equipped, except speedometer. Price $345 f.o.b Detroit.

[Pete Taran]

Bridger,

With all due respect, this is not a fair comparison. Modern saws, for the most part, are heads and shoulders above their 100+ year old counterparts. You can quibble about the aesthetics, but when it comes down to it, the modern, high carbon spring steel that is made today is superior in every way to the older stuff. Completely consistent hardness from batch to bactch (52R), 100% straight, mirror like finish to name a few. None of those things were possible 100 years ago. If Henry were alive today, he would be amazed at how the high carbon steel market has evolved since he started it back in the 1860s.

As to the relative value of a dollar from 1917, we can do some comparisons. The 1918 Disston catalog lists the price of a 14" Disston #4 backsaw at $18 a dozen. So, by the powers of higher math, each saw cost $1.5. There are websites that can relate what a $1.5 was worth in 1917 vs today. The first one I found reveals the following, comparing $1.5 in 1917 to 2015, the most recent data available:

Current data is only available till 2015. In 2015, the relative price worth of $1.50 from 1917 is:
$27.70 using the Consumer Price Index
$18.70 using the GDP deflator

Current data is only available till 2015. In 2015, the relative amount consumers spend worth of $1.50 from 1917 is:
$56.10 using the value of consumer bundle

Current data is only available till 2015. In 2015, the relative wage or income worth of $1.50 from 1917 is:
$99.90 using the unskilled wage
$161.00 using the Production Worker Compensation
$145.00 using the nominal GDP per capita

Current data is only available till 2015. In 2015, the relative output worth of $1.50 from 1917 is:
$449.00 using the relative share of GDP

I would argue that the value to consider is either the production worker comparison or the relative share of GDP. In one case, a modern saw costs not quite twice as much as it's 100 year old counterpart. I would argue that it is twice as good for the reasons I stated above. Using the share of GDP which I think it more accurate, it shows the modern saw is a bargain compared to 100 years ago.

Using your example of the car yields the following:

Current data is only available till 2015. In 2015, the relative price worth of $345.00 from 1917 is:
$6,380.00 using the Consumer Price Index
$4,300.00 using the GDP deflator

Current data is only available till 2015. In 2015, the relative amount consumers spend worth of $345.00 from 1917 is:
$12,900.00 using the value of consumer bundle

Current data is only available till 2015. In 2015, the relative wage or income worth of $345.00 from 1917 is:
$23,000.00 using the unskilled wage
$37,000.00 using the Production Worker Compensation
$33,200.00 using the nominal GDP per capita

Current data is only available till 2015. In 2015, the relative output worth of $345.00 from 1917 is:
$103,000.00 using the relative share of GDP


That puts that Ford model T somewhere between a Ford Explorer or a well blinged Range Rover in value, but which vehicle has more features? I'd rather be driving either the Explorer or the Range Rover.

Just say, they call it progress for a reason.

[lowell holmes]

I don't agree with Bridger either.

I have three LN tenon, dovetail saws. I sent them back to LN for sharpening, but I have since that time, sharpened them two times.

I also have D7 and D8 saws, crosscut and rip. I have retoothrd one of them and sharpened all of them. It is not a difficult skill to develop.

Google "Ron Herman saw sharpening"

[Pete Taran]

+1 for not being difficult. If you don't want to spend $25 for the video, just stop by vintagesaws.com and learn how to do it for free. Been educating the masses for free since 1998.

Lowell, I do hope you have a partnering agreement with Ron considering how much you shill for him. :)

[ken hatch]

Both the Veritas and the LN saws are effectively disposable saws because they each have milled spines vs. folded. Full discourse I have and use both. The milled back does not tension the saw plate the same as a folded back and if the saw plate is "kinked" or curved there is little you can do to straighten it. Mark Harrell has an excellent article on straightening saw plates at http://www.badaxetoolworks.com/retension-a-backsaw.php . Of the two saws I would buy the cheaper Veritas knowing if anything happened to it I could replace with out a big loss of investment. Then once I was ready to buy a top line saw go for a Bad Axe or other saw with a folded back.

ken

[lowell holmes]

I've only had good dealings with Ron. I was not aware I was shilling for him:)

I bought a saw kit from Ron. I had questions while putting it together. He provided me with a
16"X4" toothed saw plate and loose brass back.
I had questions during assembly and Ron not only answered the questions, he followed up.

I now have a gorgeous 16" tenon saw that I could not have if he had not been there . It cuts fast and true.
I proved I can sharpen and set saws.

I think I will go admire my 16" saw with the curly maple handle.

[Stewie Simpson]

Both the Veritas and the LN saws are effectively disposable saws because they each have milled spines vs. folded. Full discourse I have and use both. The milled back does not tension the saw plate the same as a folded back and if the saw plate is "kinked" or curved there is little you can do to straighten it. Mark Harrell has an excellent article on straightening saw plates at http://www.badaxetoolworks.com/retension-a-backsaw.php . Of the two saws I would buy the cheaper Veritas knowing if anything happened to it I could replace with out a big loss of investment. Then once I was ready to buy a top line saw go for a Bad Axe or other saw with a folded back.

ken


1-4-2017.

I agree with the other posters about the LV saws, They may not be pretty but they perform every bit as well as the high dollar saws. I have a saw till full of Gramercy, LN, Bad Axe, Adria, and even a few old Disston saws. I reach for one of the LV saws about as often as any of the others. For the cost of one Bad Axe you can fill your till with the LV's and unless you like eye candy never need any other.

My problem is I like eye candy :o,

ken

Gary C. Base your decision on the maximum $$ your prepared to spend.

[Derek Cohen]

Both the Veritas and the LN saws are effectively disposable saws because they each have milled spines vs. folded. Full discourse I have and use both. The milled back does not tension the saw plate the same as a folded back and if the saw plate is "kinked" or curved there is little you can do to straighten it. .....

Hi Ken

There are pros and cons to both types.

I have several vintage saws with folded backs as well as several modern saws with milled backs. I cannot tell the difference in use.

None of the new saws should ever come with a kinked or curved plate, and I have never caused this to happen this in many years of using backsaws. But, should one kink a saw with a milled back, I would find a way to remove it. I have made a few and the plate is held in the slot with Loctite. This can be released with a heat gun or soldering iron.

Most of the vintage saws with folded backs I have restored required resetting the backs as they had moved. This does not happen with milled backs.

I'd be interested to read what Pete Taran has to say, especially since he is the most experienced here with vintage saws and saw making. I have one of his IT dovetail saws (which became the LN dovetail saw), and this has a milled back. The other question is why are backsaws predominantly milled today? Is this because the technology was not available in years past (likely, I imagine).

Regards from Perth

Derek

[ken hatch]

Hi Ken

There are pros and cons to both types.

I have several vintage saws with folded backs as well as several modern saws with milled backs. I cannot tell the difference in use.

None of the new saws should ever come with a kinked or curved plate, and I have never caused this to happen this in many years of using backsaws. But, should one kink a saw with a milled back, I would find a way to remove it. I have made a few and the plate is held in the slot with Loctite. This can be released with a heat gun or soldering iron.

Most of the vintage saws with folded backs I have restored required resetting the backs as they had moved. This does not happen with milled backs.

I'd be interested to read what Pete Taran has to say, especially since he is the most experienced here with vintage saws and saw making. I have one of his IT dovetail saws (which became the LN dovetail saw), and this has a milled back. The other question is why are backsaws predominantly milled today? Is this because the technology was not available in years past (likely, I imagine).

Regards from Perth

Derek

Derek,

I'm sure it is cost and ease of manufacture driving most modern saw makers going to milled backs. In use I agree you would never feel the difference nor are you likely to kink one but....there is always a but:), I have knocked my Adria DT saw off the bench resulting in a slightly kinked saw plate at the toe. If it were a folded back it might be repairable or maybe not, as it is I live with the kink by losing use of about 25mm of the toe when I use the saw. Stuff happens especially to OFs who no longer move with full grace and fluid motion.

ken

[Derek Cohen]

Ouch!

It sounds as if it would be worth the effort to remove the back and hammer out the kink. Remove the handle, clamp the plate in a vise, heat the brass, and tap the ends back-and-forth. The tapping is to break the glue joint. Once repaired, use Loctite Red (loosens with heat) to attach to the brass back.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[lowell holmes]

Derek,

I Stuff happens especially to OFs who no longer move with full grace and fluid motion.

ken

I can identify with that .:)

[Pete Taran]

Since Derek asked I'll opine.

With no apologies, I'm the guy that pioneered the milled back. No one had done it that I'm aware of before I started Independence Tool with Patrick Leach back in 1996. The reason was simple. Folded backs are inferior. Show me an old backsaw with any amount of use on it, and I'll show you a backsaw with the toe driven down on the blade and the back near the handle lifted from its mortise. Harvey Peace recognized this problem, and on his perfection line of backsaws, put a bolt through the handle and spine to prevent it. It did serve to keep the spine properly located in the handle, but still allowed for the spine at the toe end of the saw to get pressed down on the blade.

The solid brass back has none of these disadvantages. Once set in the back and assembled, it's not moving, ever, not one bit. I rarely did warranty work on my dovetails saws, but the one I remembered was a guy who dropped his saw off a step ladder onto the concrete floor. It hit spine first, like they always do, and then snapped the open handle off at the narrow part of the grip. I replaced the handle, but the blade and back were as perfect as the day I put it together. A few swipes with a file to remove the spot on the back where it hit the floor and it was good as new.

As to the ease of manufacture, milling a .020" slot in a piece of solid brass is no easy endeavor. It took me quite a while to figure out the best type of saw blade and feed and speed rate to get it to cut without drift. I'm convinced that if that sort of precise machining technology was around when Disston was making saws, he would have done the same thing. There are just too many problems with a folded back to accept it as the best there is.

Finally, I don't know what people use these days for setting their saw blades, but I used the strongest industrial epoxy that was available. It was cured in an oven at low temps and it was on there for life. I once drilled some holes in the back and blade and tried to pull it apart, and the brass tore before the epoxy let go. The only way to get that blade out is to heat up the back with a torch and carbonized the epoxy and remove it while it's hot. It was not meant to be a reversible process.

To those who say that does not allow the tool to be repaired, that was not the point of the exercise. The point of the exercise is to make a high quality tool that would stand up to ordinary use and abuse and still do the job as intended. Resting an anvil on your saw blade is not ordinary use and abuse. When people drive their car into a bridge abutment and destroy the front end, you do not see people attempting to rebuild the car. It was not designed for that kind of trauma and it is sent to the junkyard. So it is with tools.

Happy Sawing!

358678358679

[Derek Cohen]

Thanks Pete.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Phil Mueller]

Thank you Pete, appreciate the insight.

[Ron Bontz]

I think both Neilsen, or Veritas would be a good choice.
Thank you, Pete, for chiming in on the folded vs milled back question. When asked, I always tell folks what I think. That is, all backs, molded, laminated, folded, or slotted have their pros and cons. So much is a subjective preference. And yes I can and have made folded backs. I am familiar with the saw style you speak of. My problem with that particular design is the tendency to crack the handle. I remedied it by incorporating a removable set screw in the toe end of the milled back. It prevents that moment about the axis, to sort of speak. That also prevents the plate from shifting back and distorting the plate. I do not consider a plates ability to shift in the back an advantage. ( another subject ) I should also note I compressed the spine a bit in a jig I made/ had made just for that. A slotted back has an advantage of a consistent reference point being designed to seat all the way down on the plate.
With regard to the comparison of vintage spring steel vs. modern spring steel....I agree the modern spring steel is superior to vintage steels in uniformity and quality control, but I would also have to ask which modern spring steel we are talking about. One can easily say they use "Swedish Spring steel" RC 52 and sometimes include "finest" The reality is "Swedish spring steel is just a generic term designed to provoke thoughts of superiority. Last time I searched I could get a spring steel of rc 52 in 1075, I believe, but not 1095. 1095 being 48-51RC. Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't the vintage saws based on 1095? So are we really comparing apples to apples? There is 107x, 108x, 1095, and other alloys out there being used. Most of which come from Japan, India, etc. NOT Sweden. Perhaps some one out there has a source I can not locate, or are buying spring steel from Sweden by the barge. :) I couldn't say, but being a cynical old cuss, I always question the validity of marketing claims. I am after all from the "show me" state. :):)

early Richardeson, I believe.
358694
358695I used a slotted brass set screws on other saws so I could sand them down flush for the sake of appearance.

[Pete Taran]

Ron,

The stuff I bought and continue to buy is indeed made in Sweden and is 1095. I have a Rockwell duplex tester for both superficial and C scales, and the claims are legit. Since I'm close to the distributor, I go and cherry pick through their stock and get the highest C scale stuff I can find. There are slight variations in the range, I always pick the highest they have.

Just say, one small advantage of living in the decaying rust belt.

[steven c newman]

Had to send my 14" No. 4 Disston out to get sharpened....just got it back today. Why send it out? I can't see 11ppi well enough to sharpen them.

Disston folded Steel back had been blued, at the factory. Handle was a bit blocky, reshaped to better fit my hand. Might give it a test run, later.

[Kees Heiden]

More opinion ;)

I think makers now and back in the day choosed the method that fitted their capabilities best. In the 18th/19th century milling machines were still a thing of the future, let alone the very thin slotting cutters used nowadays. So they folded the backs. They probably got very good at it and turned them out in rapid succesion. But it remains a labor intensive job. I have folded a couple of backs from brass and steel, with a big press, but also with hammer and anvil. Not easy, and after getting the spine nice and flat, there is still a lot of filing and sanding work to get rid of the dents.

Nowadays milling machines and good quality cutters are everywhere. I'm sure it takes a lot of experimentation to work out the process, but then it is a lot quicker to produce them. And it is cheaper then the purchase of big hyfraulic folders and presses, I'd guess. So, for a modern day boutique saw the milling process makes life easier.

What's better? No idea really. I don't think the folded backs shift under normal use. It happens when saws are dropped, or when they are shaken around in toolboxes, but that is not normal, carefull use. It is no problem though to tap them back in the original position, every craftsman can do that in their own shop. It is also nice to be able to retension the blade when a clumsy move in a tightening sawkerf buckeled the blade. No rocket science there either.

For me the only reason to go for folded backs (and qs beech) was my wish to reproduce some antique saws.

[lowell holmes]

Buy yourself a pair of +3.25 reader glasses. Then, you will be able to see them. I know!:)

[Ron Bontz]

Kees,
Are you familiar with the process of folding/ hemming steel via rollers? I have spoken to more than one fabricator/ metal worker/ machinist with regard to what type of process may have actually been used to form the vintage backs. The steel is run through a series of rollers becoming progressively tighter to roll/ fold the back. Perhaps even while still hot. This would allow a continuous feed of steel from the oven, through the rollers and then snipped off at a particular length. I have never seen any absolute verification of the exact method that was used only assumptions and conjecture. Although I have no doubt large press brakes were around then. Certainly no CNCs. If some one else has, please point me to it, as this is a topic full of subjective opinions. Once set up a relative inexpensive method of making them. ( All other things being equal. ) As one metal worker in particular pointed out, if you look closely at pretty much every vintage folded back, there is a slight arch in the back which would be normal in that process. I found this to be true on every folded back I checked. Quite a few, btw. I would also add, the modern folded backs do not tend to be as heavy a gauge steel as the vintage backs and those of the same gauge do not posess the same strength as well. ( Perhaps one of you engineers out there could test this. ) Thus reducing the spring force gained from the fold. I have often wondered if Disston and others folded them hot and then tempered them to create more of a spring steel as opposed to the mild carbon steel currently being used. Who knows for certain? I certainly do not. Just thought about it extensively while developing a small folded back process of my own. I play around with the idea of offering both from time to time, but too many irons in the fire already and life has a way of interfering.
PS. Sorry for such long post. It is a quiet day at the F.H. today. :):)

[Ron Bontz]

Ha. Just went back to the original question.. Answer....Flip a coin. :):)

[Kees Heiden]

Yea of course, rollers! Initially water powered, later with steam power and I would say more in America then in Europe. Saw manufacturing was much more small scale overhere.

I have found that you need some really big presses like I could use at work, to fold the heavy gauge brass an to get it really flat. A roller might be easier. A simple hammer and anvil works very well too!

[lowell holmes]

Ken,

My LN disposable saws are over 10 years old, shiny new looking. I do not consider them disposable saws. The backs on my saws have never needed adjustments. I have a dovetail, tenon rip, and tenon cross cut. I smile every time I cut a dove tail or a tenon. :)

[steven c newman]

Just got mine back from the sharpening service..
358868
Played around with it. The space in the middle was coping sawed out ( Millers Falls No. 43)
Gave the saw a little more work..
358869
Handle was reshaped to fit my hand better
Also got back one of my 2 D-8, 8ppi crosscut saws..
358870
Gave it a test drive..
358871
8ppi does cut a bit rough....two of those D-8s?
358872
And, I can read the etch on both of these...One is a little newer than the other..

[bridger berdel]

I have mostly old saws. My till is full of a variety of disstons and such for which I probably paid an average of $5 each. some needed a fair bit of work, most just need sharpened. I fail to see how a $300 saw could perform that much better than they do, or really any better at all. If one of you premium saw makers would wish to send me a trial saw I'll do a side by side comparison and publish the results here.

on the subject of modern steels-
crucible steel production lacked the process controls of modern analytical metallurgy, but made up for it pretty well with an intensive if subjective grading system. A quality saw from that era will have excellent quality steel appropriate for a saw. I'm sure that a modern saw with the right grade of spring steel will cut fine, but the more exotic alloys like a2 and the powder metals are not really appropriate for saws. most of the advances in steel in the last 75 years have been in machine tool cutting bits and punch forming alloys.

the current obsession with thin kerfs fails to impress me. a thick plate with a heavy back has the weight to drive the saw without much effort on the sawyer's part. I suppose that if you needed to saw a fine slot rather than remove waste a thin plate would be appropriate.

handle form is important, and not so much for aesthetic reasons. the bulky blocky shapes lacking horns and presenting corners into the palm of the hand do not make a satisfactory handle. hard point saws with tooth patterns for green softwoods are useless for any jointery cutting.

[Gary Cunningham]

Thanks for all of the comments.

I ordered the LN saw from Craftsman Studio.

[Dan Sink]

Timely thread for me, I was just going to search to see if there had been any discussion on tapered tenon saws. I'm looking to pick up (or order) a LN tenon saw at Handworks in a few weeks and was curious if anyone had an opinion on the tapered version v. regular version? I read a Chris Schwartz article where he said he prefers tapered joinery saws. However, I have to admit I just don't like the look of the tapered saw. I know its a small thing, but I'm one of those people who gives value to a tool's aesthetic. The tapered saw just looks "off" to me, but if its functionally better I'll go with it.

C.S. touts the ability to cut to the shoulder line on the toe side without overcutting on the heel side (if I was understanding the article correctly). I guess I don't see how a taper on the back of the saw assists you in keeping the heel of the teeth side elevated. Does it do something visual that just naturally makes you raise the heel?

Are there other benefits of the tapered version of the saw?

[Warren Mickley]

Timely thread for me, I was just going to search to see if there had been any discussion on tapered tenon saws. I'm looking to pick up (or order) a LN tenon saw at Handworks in a few weeks and was curious if anyone had an opinion on the tapered version v. regular version? I read a Chris Schwartz article where he said he prefers tapered joinery saws. However, I have to admit I just don't like the look of the tapered saw. I know its a small thing, but I'm one of those people who gives value to a tool's aesthetic. The tapered saw just looks "off" to me, but if its functionally better I'll go with it.

C.S. touts the ability to cut to the shoulder line on the toe side without overcutting on the heel side (if I was understanding the article correctly). I guess I don't see how a taper on the back of the saw assists you in keeping the heel of the teeth side elevated. Does it do something visual that just naturally makes you raise the heel?

Are there other benefits of the tapered version of the saw?

Cutting to the line without over cutting is a matter of experience.

On a back saw, the toe is the most vulnerable spot for wobble. The heel is more stable because the handle is farther down toward the teeth and helps greatly with stability. This is especially a concern with the modern saws because they tend to have deeper depth of cut than historic saws. Some modern tenon saws have four inches or more under the spine. Having a folded back gives a small amount of help here because the plate can be put in tension.

In traditional work, for larger tenons, the tenon saw was used for the shoulder cuts cross grain, while a handsaw was used for the rip cuts. So a great depth of cut was not necessary.

With a tapered saw, the back is closer at the toe end for stiffness, and the back is farther away at the heel end so there is clearance for the handle. The desirability for clearance is a factor in the angle of the saw handle; on small back saws the handle is up higher, so you don't bump into it when sawing.

[Dan Sink]

Thanks Warren!

[Pete Taran]

Dan,

Disston made countless numbers of backsaws, and none were tapered. I don't know of any American maker who made any either. Seems to be a British phenomenon, if it's even real. Show me a tapered saw, and I'll show you a saw that has fallen to the floor. So, don't feel like you are missing the boat if you just get an "ordinary" parallel bladed saw.

[Warren Mickley]

Dan,

Disston made countless numbers of backsaws, and none were tapered. I don't know of any American maker who made any either. Seems to be a British phenomenon, if it's even real. Show me a tapered saw, and I'll show you a saw that has fallen to the floor. So, don't feel like you are missing the boat if you just get an "ordinary" parallel bladed saw.

359023
I don't think these had "fallen to the floor"

[Pete Taran]

Did I not say that it was a British thing, if at all? But then again, those are line drawings, and not real saws. Any I've ever seen has the spine lifted out of the handle and clearly has fallen to the floor. I'm not discounting that the Brits did this for some reason, just saying it didn't take hold in America.

[Warren Mickley]

Real eight inch saw
359080

[Pete Taran]

Warren,

Like I said, show me a US made saw with a supposed tapered blade, and I'll show you one that has had the spine altered by a drop to the floor. You can see how high the spine is above the handle and the line on the blade where the steel used to be covered. If you want to believe there was a secret saw making cult that made these types of saws in the US, that is your prerogative. I've handled 10s of thousands in the last 25 years, and have yet to see a convincing example. Show me a catalog or line drawing from Disston, Atkins, Simonds or any other maker showing this feature, and I will be a believer. I have catalogs by all of them, and it's conspicuously absent. See this example from 1892 below:

359083

[Stewie Simpson]

Dan,

Disston made countless numbers of backsaws, and none were tapered. I don't know of any American maker who made any either. Seems to be a British phenomenon, if it's even real. Show me a tapered saw, and I'll show you a saw that has fallen to the floor. So, don't feel like you are missing the boat if you just get an "ordinary" parallel bladed saw.

British Saws & Saw Makers from 1660; by Simon Barley; page 57;

[Kees Heiden]

Yes there is no doubt that tapering was real in early British saws. When the Americans started to make saws, the fashion was allready over.

[Ron Bontz]

I am sure the Nielsen saw will work just fine.

[Stanley Covington]

+++1 to what Pete wrote about steel. Modern steel is far far superior to what was generally available back when Henry Disston was still punching teeth. There are rare exceptions, no doubt, but I think we are talking about mass-produced products.

It was very interesting to read Pete's explanation of the slotted sawback. I have always thought the modern milled-slot sawback he introduced on the Liberty saws could only be superior in every way possible to the folded sawback.

I think it would be difficult even nowadays to get that very narrow slot cut precisely. How does one make it? A rotary slotting saw in a mill?

Henry had no way to accomplish it back in his day short of using watchmaking techniques and craftsmen at horrendous cost, but if he could have used a slotted sawback at a decent price, I wager he would have.

[Ron Bontz]

+++1 to what Pete wrote about steel. Modern steel is far far superior to what was generally available back when Henry Disston was still punching teeth. There are rare exceptions, no doubt, but I think we are talking about mass-produced products.

It was very interesting to read Pete's explanation of the slotted sawback. I have always thought the modern milled-slot sawback he introduced on the Liberty saws could only be superior in every way possible to the folded sawback.

I think it would be difficult even nowadays to get that very narrow slot cut precisely. How does one make it? A rotary slotting saw in a mill?

Henry had no way to accomplish it back in his day short of using watchmaking techniques and craftsmen at horrendous cost, but if he could have used a slotted sawback at a decent price, I wager he would have.


Maybe, maybe not. We'll never know. Brass tends to be more expensive than carbon steel. It would have been a bad business decision for Henry to make solid 0.125" thick folded brass saw backs or slotted when he could make carbon steel backs and hot blue them in his own factories. After all, he did make his own steel. It was up to the marketing folks to convince you the steel back was better than the brass backs found on many British saws, etc. These days we can cut cost, to some extent, by plating carbon steel as well, as opposed to the solid stuff. Like any thing else, once a process is set up, it can certainly cut cost. Clarinet keys, for example were once made with more nickel, then went to chrome plating. Cheaper to make, but they sure were shiny and more easily kept that way as long as the plating held up. So enough said. If a vintage saw works for you, kudos. If a modern saw works for you, kudos too. It's a predominately subjective choice. It's the end results that count. And yes it is a slitting/ slotting saw that cuts the precise slot in a slotted back. On either a horizontal mill or vertical mill.

[Warren Mickley]

Three of my saws are Disston saws over 100 years old. They are certainly adequate for professional cabinetmaking. One can read on these pages that the steel is far superior today, but I have seen guys take the toe of 100 year old saw and bend it around and through the handle without any fear of consequences. Next time I go to a Lie Nielsen event I'll ask if they can do that. Maybe they can.

I am currently using chisels that were made when Henry Disston was a boy in England. I have often read of the inconsistency and the inferiority of the steel in these chisels. Experience suggests otherwise.

In the 18th century backs of smaller saws tended to be brass, larger saws steel.

[Kees Heiden]

When I read a typical composition chart of 1095:

Chemistry Data : [top] (http://www.suppliersonline.com/propertypages/1095.asp#top)

Carbon

0.9 - 1.03


Iron

Balance


Manganese

0.3 - 0.5


Phosphorus

0.04 max


Sulphur

0.05 max



Then I see quite some variation! Nice on the low sulphur count. The English used coal to heat up their steel, so had to cope with higher values, unless they were so smart to use Swedish steel.

Here are some values from Disston saws:




model
carbon
silicon
manganese
chromium
nickel


backsaw
1.343 %
0.1862 %
0.3877 %
0.1656 %
0.0436 %


No. 7
0.860
0.2487
0.3223
insig.
0.0127


D-8
0.774
0.2104
0.1881
insig.
0.0244


No.12
0.706
0.2103
0.2424
insig.
0.0191


D-23
0.742
0.1661
0.3271
0.1500
0.636




The backsaw has a very high Carbon content, while the handsaws are more like a 1070 steel, without the Manganese. Sulphur probably so low that it didn't register in the analyser. The No7, the D8 and the No12 show very similar values, while the D23 suddenly has a lot of nickle. Scrapmetal?

Anyway, the majority of late 19th/early 20th century saws are just pretty damned good. In handsaws I would even say that nobody reached that level yet.

[Pete Taran]

Warren,

I think you are looking at your experience incorrectly. SURVIVING Old tools have gone through a 100+ year old natural selection process. If a saw or chisel was sold that had soft steel, do you think it's owner would polish it daily and carefully maintain it so someone 100 years later would find it and also discover it's shortcomings?

Life is short, and it was even shorter 100 years ago. Those tools got trashed or otherwise saved for "odd jobs" which hastened their end. They just aren't around today. So to imagine that the tools you have today are representative of the total population made back then just isn't accurate. Tools were stamped with "warranted" for a reason. Makers can and did make faulty tools. They knew this which is the reason they were stamped "warranted" which had the effect of a formal guarantee of quality.

[Warren Mickley]

One of my saws was bought by my grandfather in 1906. I first used it in 1956. I can assure you that nobody "would polish it daily" (saws that are used daily do not have to be polished daily). I did not "find it 100 years later". My grandfather was an engineer; I think he only ever owned one saw. Maybe you are the one who is looking at my experience incorrectly. I think you are making up a story to support your ideas.

[Pete Taran]

You're entitled to your opinion Warren and you miss the entire point. My point is, that what we see today is altered by natural selection. I don't think it's far fetched at all to posit that good stuff sticks around and crap ends up in the scrap heap. If that concept is lost on you, I'm sorry.

[steven c newman]

Nicely hijacked thread...fellows...

[Kees Heiden]

Warren,

I think you are looking at your experience incorrectly. SURVIVING Old tools have gone through a 100+ year old natural selection process. If a saw or chisel was sold that had soft steel, do you think it's owner would polish it daily and carefully maintain it so someone 100 years later would find it and also discover it's shortcomings?

Life is short, and it was even shorter 100 years ago. Those tools got trashed or otherwise saved for "odd jobs" which hastened their end. They just aren't around today. So to imagine that the tools you have today are representative of the total population made back then just isn't accurate. Tools were stamped with "warranted" for a reason. Makers can and did make faulty tools. They knew this which is the reason they were stamped "warranted" which had the effect of a formal guarantee of quality.

Nice theory, but of course you know that it is just a theory. You have no idea about numbers, how many were trashed, were they really bad or not. I've heared the reverse theory too, all the duds were set aside and survived, the really good tools were used up!

The very small sample of Disston saws I posted above tells a different story. The backsaw is clearly a dud, too much carbon and according to the text on the disstonian website it was brittle but still not very hard, this is a very old saw. The 4 handsaws are remarkably consistent, also in hardness. The D-23 is a post WW2 model and has a bit more nickel mixed in which could just be scrapmetal or it was added to get a bit better wear resistance. Of course, just a very small sample indeed.

[steven c newman]

Bare in mind.....Disston made those "Dud" No. 4 backsaws for use in mitre boxes as well.....and a I have a pre-WW1 5" x 28" saw for my No. 358 Mitre Box. And the post 1928 version. Both are very good at what they were designed to do. Can't really tell much difference between them ( other than the handles) or the Disston/HK Porter 4"x 24" saw I use in my Stanley #2246 Mitre box. Maybe the "dud" backsaws were made differently, because they were getting a back to them?

BTW, one of the two saws I use for joinery, like box joints and dovetails..is a Disston 14" No. 4,,,,,,,Just had it sharpened....works just fine.

[Kees Heiden]

Of course, just this example was not so great! Others were probably a lot better. It's better explained on the website where I nicked the numbers: http://www.disstonianinstitute.com/steel.html

[steven c newman]

Mine say they were made by Disston & Sons expressly for a Stanley Mitre Box. I also looked up MY saws on the Disstonian Institute site. I really could NOT care less about the steel in the saws, all I ask is that the saws do the work they were designed to do. One of those saws I just listed was made 100 years ago....the other is almost 90 years young....the "baby" of the bunch is from the 1950s.....and..they all work as needed.

Maybe you should read up on the trick Henry Disston himself used to sell his saws. He would walk into a store selling other makers saws, proceed to show how brittle they were, and dare anyone to break any saw of his. And, all he did was to slam the other's saw down onto a countertop, where the saw shattered. Might be more interesting a read than what someone THINKS those saws were made from.

[Pete Taran]

Just a theory, that's true for sure. Add to that though probably handling 50,000 vintage saws in the past 25 years...either looking at them at tool meets, sharpening them up for use or sale.

Disston did make bad steel. I bought a hardness tester to be able to do analytical work on this stuff. The early steel is all over the place. The later stuff is much more uniform. That was my whole point of this witty repartee. Later steel is better because it has statistical process control built into the manufacturing process. Not magic pixie dust that is thrown in from one lot to the other.

Are there excellent examples of early steel? Yes indeed. Was bad steel produced? Yes indeed. Is bad steel produced today? Maybe, but it is not released for sale because we have the ability to measure how it's made and analyze the attributes we are after.

[Kees Heiden]

So you do have the numbers! Makes your theory much more plausible then.

[Pat Barry]

Just a theory, that's true for sure. Add to that though probably handling 50,000 vintage saws in the past 25 years...either looking at them at tool meets, sharpening them up for use or sale.

Disston did make bad steel. I bought a hardness tester to be able to do analytical work on this stuff. The early steel is all over the place. The later stuff is much more uniform. That was my whole point of this witty repartee. Later steel is better because it has statistical process control built into the manufacturing process. Not magic pixie dust that is thrown in from one lot to the other.

Are there excellent examples of early steel? Yes indeed. Was bad steel produced? Yes indeed? Is bad steel produced today? Maybe, but it is not release for sale because we have the ability to measure how it's made and analyze the attributes we are after.
The early steel is all over the place. I can see no other possibility than this since the early tool makers had no effective controls over all the variables involved. Somedays they would be good and other days not so good and when the main guy who did the work was out sick or died and his replacement took over the recipe changed and the results showed it. This is the way ALL manufacturing was until the middle of the 20th century when things like process control and became accepted in the workplace. Back in the day they had no analytical tools to look at chemical percentage of carbon in their steel. They used simple methods to assess the steel - bend flex, try to break it, hit it and listen for a tone it gave off, etc.
I buy into the concept that the bad tools vanished - most likely given away to provide materials that could be melted down to make into useful instruments for war (tanks, ships, artillery castings, etc). I wasn't alive then but I hear the stories of collecting metal to support the American war effort - thats a fact.

[Kees Heiden]

All that doesn't change the fact that there are still loads and loads of very good tools from the early to late 19th century. They must have had some kind of a clue, also when you see what they made from wood with those "inconsistent" tools!

[lowell holmes]

Mine is just a Blued Steel backed Disston No.4......14", 11 ppi, filed rip.

I have two Disston No. 4's, one is re-handled. I also have a 10" X 2 1/4" Hinsdale that thinks it is a LN dovetail saw. The sawplate is about the same size.
I have re-toothed several of my saws, one is the the D-4. If you are timid about undertaking a re-tooth, don't be. Just file the old teeth off and get started.
It only takes a little determination. I can provide free tooth patterns for you to print if you need help. Just send me a private message.

[lowell holmes]

Does this material control issue apply to both handsaws and backed saws?

[Derek Cohen]

All that doesn't change the fact that there are still loads and loads of very good tools from the early to late 19th century. They must have had some kind of a clue, also when you see what they made from wood with those "inconsistent" tools!

This argument comes up all the time, in one disguise or another. It misses the point that is made by Pete. I do believe that tool steels would have been inconsistent. At the same time, it would not have prevented the poorer tools from being used - they would just have needed sharpening more frequently. The quality of furniture in the past was not evidence of better tools, but rather evidence that there were excellent woodworkers in that period.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Mel Fulks]

Sure many were inconsistant. But many who post here have said they find the 19th century PREMIUM brands to be consistently superior to modern stuff. The modern PM-11 seems to be consistently rated higher,but that has not made the old stuff undesirable in the market. Skill can make for consistency .

[Stanley Covington]

Steel quality is something I have spent a lot of time and money confirming via scientific methods over the years because lives were at stake.

These tests were performed by trained professionals, not me, and included methods such as microscopic grain analysis, hardness testing, strength (destructive) testing, impact testing, corrosion testing, magnaflux testing, dye testing, x-ray testing, ultrasound testing, and gas chromatography.

The items tested by volume were mostly structural steel, but also included tons of bolts and fasteners. The most informative was gas chromatography tests on investment-cast steel structural connectors made in China. China has lots of quality problems. GC lets you reliably and precisely know the chemical composition in advance, no guesswork, no intuition, no "master craftsman's experience" involved. We tested connectors with chemical composition that fell outside our established parameters, and confirmed that they always failed one or more of the later gauntlet of tests.

We know what chemical composition results in consistently high quality steel only through such trial and error, but those comparisons are only possible because we can have modern testing means and methods.

100 years ago, the only QC tests available were destructive testing, spark examination testing, and the Mark-1 eyeball, which methods are not a reliable means of confirming the quality of large quantities of steel in a production setting. They tell little about the chemical nature of the steel.

Henry Disston doesn't get the credit he deserves. He set up the very first large-scale industrial steel mill outside of Europe, not to make steel rails or boilers, but handsaws. The Brits and Birmingham forever lost their monopoly on tool steel in the Americas when it decided to support the Confederacy by boycotting steel sales to the North, and Henry consequently decided he would make his own steel dammit. He did the very best testing he could, but there is only so much you can learn from stretching, dimpling, breaking, bending, grinding, filing, hammering,and visual examination. Chemical problems remained in some of the tools he sold despite his best efforts.

Modern steel is generally of much more uniform quality than steel was even 70 years ago. Of course, this applies to the steel used to make sawblades. The pre-hardened Swedish steel sold in rolls which most quality saws today are made from is exquisitely high-quality steel. There has never been anything of higher quality and consistency available in large quantities in prior human history.

Where modern production saws fall short of the quality of older saws is craftsmanship. Modern saws are not truly taper ground. Few are hammer tensioned. But these techniques do not matter in the case of backsaws.

I have old backsaws that I love and prefer to use for some purposes. My little Jackson dovetail saw with its beechwood handle and folded steel back is not elegant, but it when I grip it, it is like my hand has turned into a saw, and without conscious thought, a straight kerf of the right depth and angle appears exactly where I want it. The results are consistently good. But much as I love my old Disston, Bishop, and Jackson saws, the Liberty and LN backsaws I own are of overall higher quality and craftsmanship.

Stan

[Kees Heiden]

Yes of course and I do agree in all respects. We have wonderfull materiology these days.

It is still remarkable though how good the old cast steel is (and similar variations from for example Germany). You can buy old tools pretty much sight unseen and easilly hit a 90% score of good solid stuff (if it hasn't rusted too much). Of course there is variation, some are softer, some even too brittle, but overall, pre 1900 stuff is pretty damned good. Did all the bad ones dissapear quickly in the scrapheaps? Maybe, we don't really know. You could also say that the really good ones were used up, nobody would dispose good tools!

So, how did they do that? Without knowledge about the chemistry of the steel? I think a big part of the answer is in the continuum of the process. No job hoppers, long apprentenships, sticking to what you know, not too many experiments with new fangled stuff, well known reputations of the suppliers and the validity of these reputations, intimate knowledge of the demands of the professional clients.

Stan, you mentioned the higher overall quality of the new top end saws like from LN. I think that has to do with the clients who buy these tools. When I look at vintage tools I also see small details that aren't as perfectly crafted. The overall design is great, but for example the polish isn't perfect, a bit of tearout in the corners of the wooden handles, a misstruck namestamp in the blade, etc. Todays clients are really gentleman woodworkers, used to machine perfection, with a lot of diposable income. Yesteryears clients were workman who needed good functional stuff, comfortable and looking nicely, but still as cheap as possible. Given that most of these tools were made by hand, they had to be made expediently, so no time to fret too much on the details.

[Stanley Covington]

Yes of course and I do agree in all respects. We have wonderfull materiology these days.

It is still remarkable though how good the old cast steel is (and similar variations from for example Germany). You can buy old tools pretty much sight unseen and easilly hit a 90% score of good solid stuff (if it hasn't rusted too much). Of course there is variation, some are softer, some even too brittle, but overall, pre 1900 stuff is pretty damned good. Did all the bad ones dissapear quickly in the scrapheaps? Maybe, we don't really know. You could also say that the really good ones were used up, nobody would dispose good tools!

So, how did they do that? Without knowledge about the chemistry of the steel? I think a big part of the answer is in the continuum of the process. No job hoppers, long apprentenships, sticking to what you know, not too many experiments with new fangled stuff, well known reputations of the suppliers and the validity of these reputations, intimate knowledge of the demands of the professional clients.

Stan, you mentioned the higher overall quality of the new top end saws like from LN. I think that has to do with the clients who buy these tools. When I look at vintage tools I also see small details that aren't as perfectly crafted. The overall design is great, but for example the polish isn't perfect, a bit of tearout in the corners of the wooden handles, a misstruck namestamp in the blade, etc. Todays clients are really gentleman woodworkers, used to machine perfection, with a lot of diposable income. Yesteryears clients were workman who needed good functional stuff, comfortable and looking nicely, but still as cheap as possible. Given that most of these tools were made by hand, they had to be made expediently, so no time to fret too much on the details.

Well said. I agree with all points.

Stan

[Warren Mickley]

Pat Barry suggested earlier that steel became consistent and reliable in mid 20th century. But somehow that did not translate into finer saws. Almost all of us would rather work with a saw from 1896 than one from 1968. The problem is the vision of what a good saw should be. What are the makers aiming for?

When I look at videos of back saws from LN and LV I see guys who look like beginners with sawing. If they are representative of the company, if the company experts can even stand to watch the videos, you have to wonder about their ability to judge a saw. "Intimate knowledge of the demands of professional clients?" Maybe not so important in this market. Things are improving; it was certainly worse in 1968.

I am currently using chisels that were made when Henry Disston was a child. The steel is extraordinary. The performance is extraordinary. Could manufacturers make better chisels today? Perhaps they could, but that is not what they are aiming for. They are aiming for a nasty chisel rather than a sweet chisel. They are designing for lesser skilled people to bash and abuse, not so much for highly skilled to baby and coax.

[Derek Cohen]

Pat Barry suggested earlier that steel became consistent and reliable in mid 20th century. But somehow that did not translate into finer saws. Almost all of us would rather work with a saw from 1896 than one from 1968. The problem is the vision of what a good saw should be. What are the makers aiming for?

When I look at videos of back saws from LN and LV I see guys who look like beginners with sawing. If they are representative of the company, if the company experts can even stand to watch the videos, you have to wonder about their ability to judge a saw. "Intimate knowledge of the demands of professional clients?" Maybe not so important in this market. Things are improving; it was certainly worse in 1968.

I am currently using chisels that were made when Henry Disston was a child. The steel is extraordinary. The performance is extraordinary. Could manufacturers make better chisels today? Perhaps they could, but that is not what they are aiming for. They are aiming for a nasty chisel rather than a sweet chisel. They are designing for lesser skilled people to bash and abuse, not so much for highly skilled to baby and coax.

I think that you are missing the point, Warren. The difference between a dovetail saw of 1896 and 1968 is not simply the steel - it is in the manufacture. With the exception of Disston, who was making dovetail saws in the USA to the same quality of filing and handle shaping? One of the reasons for the introduction and rise of Japanese saws was because they were the only reliable saw at that later time to work out of the box. I am not a student of the history of saw manufacture, but my subjective impression is that post WW saws appear to have dwindled in manufacturing quality around the world - the shaping of the teeth, the set, and the shaping of the handle - the steel has not changed. I would go so far as to say that it was Pete Taran along with Patrick Leach who rejuvenated the manufacture of dovetail saws when they started Independence Tools in 1996, with a return to a design by Grove. Again, it was not about the steel, it was about the finer points of design and construction - a return to designs of 1896.

By the way, denigrating woodworkers on the forums ... what on Earth has that got to do with this discussion .. unless you are trying to suggest that modern saw making sucks. There are more mature ways to make a point.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Pete Taran]

Stanley,

Extremely well said. I appreciate your comments very much and agree 100%.

The reason later saws are not as valued as earlier saws is the electron. When hand held saws came into vogue, the hand saw was doomed. Just look at the timeline. Disston folded in 1955. That is at the same time hand held electric tools were coming into their own.

I think what everyone is talking about is the aesthetics of the saw. The finest saw steel in the world fitted to a blocky handle is not going to win many converts. Those aesthetics cost money. It should come as no surprise that those features disappeared rapidly as Disston tried to cut costs to stay in business.

[Kees Heiden]

Not aesthetics, allthough nice aesthetics never hurt of course. It's about what makes a really good backsaw and with that question we are back to the OP of this thread (if he is still around ;)).

I don't think the quality of the steel is the most important aspect of what makes a really good backsaw. It's more about the balance of all factors, a back that isn't too heavy but also not too light, about the hangangle of the handle and how the horns embrace you hand. It's about the thickness of the blade and especially about the setup of the teeth. It's about the depth of the blade below the spine, not too little, but certainly not too much.

I am afraid that the current makers of mass produced western saws really have no idea what they are making, despite labels telling us that their plastic handle is so "ergonomic".

[Ron Bontz]

"Where modern production saws fall short of the quality of older saws is craftsmanship. Modern saws are not truly taper ground. Few are hammer tensioned."
It is unfortunate any of you would feel that way toward modern saw makers. Enough said. I will go back to my cave now. :)

[Jim Koepke]

Not aesthetics, allthough nice aesthetics never hurt of course. It's about what makes a really good backsaw and with that question we are back to the OP of this thread (if he is still around ;)).

I don't think the quality of the steel is the most important aspect of what makes a really good backsaw. It's more about the balance of all factors, a back that isn't too heavy but also not too light, about the hangangle of the handle and how the horns embrace you hand. It's about the thickness of the blade and especially about the setup of the teeth. It's about the depth of the blade below the spine, not too little, but certainly not too much.

I am afraid that the current makers of mass produced western saws really have no idea what they are making, despite labels telling us that their plastic handle is so "ergonomic".

Mass produced saws are sold on the mass market of the borgs and other local hardware stores. Mostly the target customer isn't someone looking for a saw worthy of fine joinery or being handed down for generations. A century ago many saw owners knew how to sharpen their saws.

My father told me how when he was young many farms had landing strips and a lot of rural folks owned their own airplanes. When it came time to run the machinery for planting or harvest they couldn't afford a two week delay for shipping a part to keep their vital equipment running. Likewise a person couldn't take time to run into town to buy a new saw so they could fix a barn door or a broken gate.

A century ago, saws were sold in mass to people who were either making a living or were maintaining their farms and businesses with the tools they were buying. Many of them didn't have the luxury of 15 minute trip to the nearest store to grab a new saw if their old one wasn't doing the job.

A $10 saw in 1900 was a much bigger (and better) investment than a $10 saw in 2000. In 1900 the average saw buyer wasn't looking for the least expensive saw. In 2000 the average buyer was likely looking for a saw to help his daughter or son build a doghouse or some other weekend project and then hang it in the garage on a nail. Many modern saws even come with a hang hole for this purpose.

Never forget the power of 'the race to the bottom' on the quality of tools. If a company is losing sales to a less expensive product, then either the company needs to find a way to cut cost or fail. For some reason the idea of getting the quality for which you pay has been forgotten. It may have started with nonreturnable bottles and disposable lighters.

Remember the words of John Ruskin:


There is hardly anything in the world that some man cannot make a little worse and sell a little cheaper, and the people who consider price only are this man's lawful prey.

jtk

[Pete Taran]

Ron,

I'm sure you've heard the end of the quote, but have you ever read the beginning? Comes to mind in times like these....

“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better.
The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly.
So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.” Theodore Roosevelt

[Tony Wilkins]

My point is, that what we see today is altered by natural selection?

Then how do you explain the platypus? Huh, huh? Also, how many of the saws you checked were from the Galapagos? ;) jk

[Graham Haydon]

Derek, I might be wrong but I know you've been critical, sometimes strongly of Paul Sellers at times, perhaps others too and even other posters on forums. I think we all have, that's the nature of heated discussions. I'd be wary of too much virtue signalling. I'm pretty sure I have been critical in equal measure too.

In reference to marketing videos https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Te3VuCoTLvE is an example, "spoiling the ship for a ha'p'orth of tar" springs to mind. The tool maker featured in the video is excellent in regards quality and customer service, but it is a poor demo. But perhaps Warren has a point with how tools have been developed in recent times. I tip my hat to Lie-Nielsen, Mr Taran, Mr Leach who have tried to revive what was a close to apocalyptic state of some tools into a viable business. However I do also try and listen to those that have immersed themselves in methods from the zenith of hand tool woodworkers. After all it's those professional woodworkers who have valuable insights about being better woodworkers.

[steven c newman]

Ok, Picked this "thing" up Friday for $7...
359292
4" x 24" WS. Thing weighs a ton. 11ppi, teeth have quite a bit of set. Teeth looked like they have been recently sharpened.
Might be a little big for a Tenon saw. Thinking this was amde betwen 1945 and 1953.....
359293
Handle is a bit on the blocky side. IF it is going to be in my shop as a user, the blockiness will have to be "fixed".
Sooo, what kind of steel would this old saw have? Compared to my 5" x 28" C.1917 backsaw?

[Derek Cohen]

Derek, I might be wrong but I know you've been critical, sometimes strongly of Paul Sellers at times, perhaps others too and even other posters on forums. I think we all have, that's the nature of heated discussions. I'd be wary of too much virtue signalling. I'm pretty sure I have been critical in equal measure too...

Graham, of course I have disagreed with others on this forum ... and other fori - that is what fori are about - discussion and debate. What I ask of others - and I attempt to follow this "rule" as well - is that one provides something to back up a statement, and not just disagree or offer up generalities.

Now I do not intend to take this any further in this thread. If you wish to discuss it with me, then PM. I am more than happy to exchange thoughts with you.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Stewie Simpson]

Derek, I might be wrong but I know you've been critical, sometimes strongly of Paul Sellers at times, perhaps others too and even other posters on forums. I think we all have, that's the nature of heated discussions. I'd be wary of too much virtue signalling. I'm pretty sure I have been critical in equal measure too.

In reference to marketing videos https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Te3VuCoTLvE is an example, "spoiling the ship for a ha'p'orth of tar" springs to mind. The tool maker featured in the video is excellent in regards quality and customer service, but it is a poor demo. But perhaps Warren has a point with how tools have been developed in recent times. I tip my hat to Lie-Nielsen, Mr Taran, Mr Leach who have tried to revive what was a close to apocalyptic state of some tools into a viable business. However I do also try and listen to those that have immersed themselves in methods from the zenith of hand tool woodworkers. After all it's those professional woodworkers who have valuable insights about being better woodworkers.

+1 on your comments Graham. You can add David Barron to that list.

[Graham Haydon]

No problem Derek. It seems I've been offered to "take it outside" woodworking forum style :). I'll finish my pint and meet you there :D

[michael langman]

The metal in the saws of the past worked fine for their intended purpose.
Most of the saws today do not compare to the past saws, unless one is willing to part with his money.
The metal used today in the tool and die shops is by far a superior metal because their is always a need for a better type off steel for the problem at hand. And someone is willing to spend the money to make that better type of steel.
Spring steels today are so refined they make the steels of the past seem crude.
AS the population increases so do the production runs of tools stamping out parts by the millions. Only because of better metal.
Follow the money. Most of it is in military spending in this country. The need for superior weapons has led to superior metals. That is why we have better saws today.

[Stewie Simpson]

Follow the money. Most of it is in military spending in this country. The need for superior weapons has led to superior metals. That is why we have better saws today.

I need to organise a new makers stamp for my backsaws. M.O.A.B. (Mother Of All Backsaws). :o

[Malcolm McLeod]

I need to organise a new makers stamp for my backsaws. M.O.A.B. (Mother Of All Backsaws). :o

Will that have GPS? ...I may need one.