What do you consider a panel saw to be?

[lowell holmes]

Another string about Disston saws mentions a panel saw.

I thought a panel saw is a shorter hand saw than a D7 or D8 . My D7 and D8 saws are 26" saws.
I consider a 20" hand saw to be a panel saw and a 26" to be a handsaw.
Am I mistaken?

[Phil Mueller]

Full credit to the Disstonian Institute:

Cross-cut saws, 24 inches and less in length are termed panel saws. Panel saws are exactly like cross-cut saws in every respect except the length of the blade and the number of teeth. Panel saws usually have finer teeth than full size hand saws.

[Patrick Chase]

Full credit to the Disstonian Institute:

Cross-cut saws, 24 inches and less in length are termed panel saws. Panel saws are exactly like cross-cut saws in every respect except the length of the blade and the number of teeth. Panel saws usually have finer teeth than full size hand saws.


Except of course that there are such things as rip-filed panel saws, even in Disston's line. Remember that the Disstonian Institute is just one person's opinion, and not in any way affiliated with Disston.

[steven c newman]

Tell THAT to the four panel saws I have hanging on my saw till....8-10 ppi....20-24" length.

Unless Patrick is thinking of Tool Box Saws?

The Disstonian Institute IS the only source of info on Disston saws......much like Prof. Chase is about steel...

[Joe Bailey]

From our own Pete Taran, in an article he published in the fall of '97

"The term panel saw defines a large class of saws that varied in length from 16 to 24 inches. ... Their smaller size was convenient for working inside the shop, making cuts almost exclusively in seasoned, dressed stock. This type of saw was also popular in manual training schools for boys, where a full sized saw would be too unwieldy. Typical uses for panel saws were cutting and ripping stock to a final dimension. By far the most common panel saw found is the 24 inch 9 point. Less common are panel saws with rip teeth, although they are not rare. The most common rip panel saw is the 7 point. In addition, more and more variety of pitches were available as the saw length approached a full size hand or rip saw. For instance, in 1918, the D8 crosscut panel saw was available in 9 and 10 ppi in the 16 inch length, but at 24 inches was available in 7-11 points per inch. A favorite use for the rip panel saw was cutting tenon cheeks in work that was too big for the ordinary back saw."

found here: http://www.vintagesaws.com/library/ftj/fall97/fall97.html

[Patrick Chase]

Tell THAT to the four panel saws I have hanging on my saw till....8-10 ppi....20-24" length.

How on Earth does that disprove what I said? My point is that the Disstonian Institute is wrong when it says that panel saws are "cross-cut saws". They're made (both in Disston's time and today) in rip toothings as well.


The Disstonian Institute IS the only source of info on Disston saws......much like Prof. Chase is about steel...

The two routes by which people typically become experts in this stuff are by being either dealers or sawmakers. Erik von Sneidern (the "Disstonian Institute") is neither. He's just some random self-annointed authority who managed to squat on a domain that has the word "Disston" in it and posted what he (thought he) knew. By taking the time to do so he did a service to all of us, but he's also quite fallible and certainly not "the only source". Not even close.

To be clear I don't consider myself an expert, but I also pay enough attention to know that the real experts often disagree with Erik. I also have seen plenty of rip-filed panel saws (and own one), so it's quite clear that he's wrong.

My expertise about steel is also very relative. I have more formal training and design experience than the vast majority of people, but I'm a zero compared to the real experts (who are unfortunately too busy formulating steels to talk about them on SMC). That's why I almost always provide citations when I say anything deeply technical, as in "don't take my word for it, check the reference". As Clint Eastwood said, "A [person's] got to know [their] limitations".

[Warren Mickley]

I have always considered a panel saw as one with smaller teeth. Here is a Merriam Webster dictionary entry from 1886:

Panel saw: a saw with very fine teeth for cutting out panels. Tomlinson

The dictionary references Tomlinson, who was almost certainly quoting Holtzapffel.

We use the word panel to describe boards that are on the thin side as in frame and panel or dust panel.

Here is Nicholson (1812):

380876

[Patrick Chase]

I have always considered a panel saw as one with smaller teeth.

Would you consider a fine-toothed 26-inch saw to be a panel saw?

Now you've got me curious...

[Warren Mickley]

Would you consider a fine-toothed 26-inch saw to be a panel saw?

Now you've got me curious...

Yes I would. What else are you going to use it for?

[Pete Taran]

While proving the "Institute" wrong is kind of like shooting fish in a barrel and does not bring me much satisfaction these days, I do feel compelled to actually post real data which supports reality. please consider the following photo:

380884

It's a snapshot of the D8 line from the 1892 full line catalog. If you click on the link, and blow it up full size, you will very clearly see that in the PANEL category are saws 16" to 24" long. Hand Saws are 26" long and Rip Saws are 28" and 30" long. In later catalogs, they actually made 28" handsaws which means a saw that is 28" long and had cross cut teeth as well as rip saws which started at 26" long and went up to 30" long. PANEL saws could be had in either crosscut or rip.

To Warren's point, consider the following from the 1918 catalog:

380885

You will notice that in saws as short as 20" you could get a PANEL saw in 8 point crosscut. A 24" inch panel saw could be had with 7 point teeth which is very coarse. Also notice that you could get a 24" panel saw with rip teeth as coarse as 5 points. Very coarse indeed! Seems to rebut all of which has been mentioned here. It's very unfortunate modern day experts were not around 150 years ago to set Henry straight. A travesty!

Yours in sawing truth,

Pete

[Pat Barry]

Check out those prices, were they the wholesale prices?

[Warren Mickley]

Here is a catalog from a little closer to the 150 years ago you mention, 1873; it shows 26 inch panel saws.

380896

The same catalog shows the little panel saws, called Gentlemen's Panel Saws.

380905
I can think of two good uses for a 10 point 26 inch saw, sawing panels and filling out a collection.

[steven c newman]

IF you WANTED one as a rip cut...you ORDERED it that way. Disston listed them so EVERYONE had a list of options as to what they needed.
Where did this"Disstonian Institute " is "Wrong" schtick come from? nobody died and made others master of all saw info. Hamilton et.al. sold their business to HK Porter..not to the Tarans and Baileys out there...

I also have an atkins catalog sitting on my desk..Jan. 1898 edition....should I quote from that as well? Only to have two self-appointed Gurus declare I am seeing things wrong?

A rip saw that "short" will wear your arm out, very fast....as it will take a lot more strokes to do the same as a longer Rip saw....26-30" long...

There rest of the above post^ is simply Clear? phfffft. I use the D. I as a guide to things Disston....what happens to a saw AFTER it was sold...Disston had no control over how some would-be saw person/expert would "customize " a saw....

I do check the references....Need to find one on Richardson Brothers, and maybe Bishop...Simonds wasn't around very long.

But, that's ok, keep up in your own little world....provides me plenty of laughs reading them....

[brian zawatsky]

Um, considering the fact the Pete founded Independence Tools which contributed in large part to the revival in quality USA made hand tools that we’re seeing now (or at least Tom Lie Nielsen thought so, anyway) and continues to make a living as a dealer in vintage saws, I’d say he’s earned the right to be considered an expert in the subject.

[Phil Mueller]

Pete and Warren, thank you for posting the catalog pages. Before this thread gets blocked, I find it interesting that although the “headline” in Pete’s second catalog photo says Panel, it only shows crosscut and rip saws. I wonder if the headline was just a carry over from another page or something...maybe a “misprint”, unless there is more to the page than what is shown. Also, I don’t see anything in the catalog pages that specifically identifies a group as Panel saws that have a length beyond 24”.

Just about everyone knows more about saws than I, but it seems the label “Panel” applied to 24” or less. Although...Warren, your thought on any saw with fine teeth could be considered a Panel saw, makes perfect sense, given the use of a fine tooth saw. Maybe “Panel” was just one of those terms that got muddied up along the way. Certainly not something that would occur in today’s world :eek:

Anyway, I’m enjoying the more experienced input...

[Patrick Chase]

The Disstonian Institute IS the only source of info on Disston saws.....


nobody died and made others master of all saw info.

Every once in a while the irony gods smile upon us. This is one of those times.

[Ron Bontz]

Hmmmm. Quite the quandary within opinions. I myself was not around 200 years ago to verify anything and can only consider what seems useful to me. The 22" panel saws I made for myself were 8ppi. One rip and one cross cut. Seemed about perfect to me for use in my little shop, which was very limited. They were also 0.035" thick before tapering. Straight back, of course. I have always considered skew back saws to be nothing more than hype to save on steel cost. I am sure there are some that would disagree. After all, the writings of the time certainly boasted the superior balance of the skew back saws. :):) I also wonder what the folks in the 18th century considered "traditional joinery saws". Saws from the 1700s perhaps???? Even 200 years ago there was a lot of marketing hype surrounding any thing "new and improved". So I take any thing I read with a grain of salt, both new and old.
My opinion, as worthless as it may be, is that a panel saw is 16 to 24" long filed rip or cross cut. Depending on the intended use. Another consideration is setting the smaller teeth on a thicker plate. When is the last time we tried to set 12ppi teeth on a 0.042 plate? :eek: That screams for hammer setting. The 26" 28" and 30" saws would make sense to be filed rip 4.5" to 7" for those long boards those guys use to rip. ( My hat is off to them ) Imagine doing that all day! A question for Pete and Warren...... Do the saw marketing fliers always state the thickness of the saw plate? A 26" saw with an 0.035" thick plate would strike me as more of a panel saw. Where as a 26" with a 0.042" thick plate would strike me as a heavier duty rip saw. I suspect there were as many opinions then as there are now. Of course, back then they could only debate with each other on the job site with what they had. No internet forums. The information age is truly a wonder. So I always value opinions and facts as they are presented. Even if not in my favor. Thanks for posting, guys. :)

[Pete Taran]

IF you WANTED one as a rip cut...you ORDERED it that way. Disston listed them so EVERYONE had a list of options as to what they needed.
Where did this"Disstonian Institute " is "Wrong" schtick come from? nobody died and made others master of all saw info. Hamilton et.al. sold their business to HK Porter..not to the Tarans and Baileys out there...

I also have an atkins catalog sitting on my desk..Jan. 1898 edition....should I quote from that as well? Only to have two self-appointed Gurus declare I am seeing things wrong?

A rip saw that "short" will wear your arm out, very fast....as it will take a lot more strokes to do the same as a longer Rip saw....26-30" long...

There rest of the above post^ is simply..BS. Clear? phfffft. I use the D. I as a guide to things Disston....what happens to a saw AFTER it was sold...Disston had no control over how some would-be saw person/expert would "customize " a saw....

I do check the references....Need to find one on Richardson Brothers, and maybe Bishop...Simonds wasn't around very long.

But, that's ok, keep up in your own little world....provides me plenty of laughs reading them....

A few thoughts. First, not sure how you can argue something that is in black and white. It is history and it is real, not an opinion, just a statement of facts. Profound apologies if it contradicts your "narrative". Further, Disston would not have sold saws in the pitches and lengths he did if no one wanted to buy them.

On contradictions, While Disston was sold in 1955 to HK Porter, Hamilton had nothing to do with it as he killed himself in 1896 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamilton_Disston). But again, don't let the facts of history creep into the debate.

Happy Sawing,
Pete

[Pete Taran]

Here is a catalog from a little closer to the 150 years ago you mention, 1873; it shows 26 inch panel saws.

380896

The same catalog shows the little panel saws, called Gentlemen's Panel Saws.

380905
I can think of two good uses for a 10 point 26 inch saw, sawing panels and filling out a collection.

Warren, an interesting observation. I have that catalog and the 1876 catalog. I have seen and been confused by the same citations, Hand and Panel on the 26" page, and then panel only in lengths less than 26" on another page. Same as the 1876 catalog. I have always thought (and many forget), that since Disston was originally from England, and American Saw traditions were initially modeled after those in vogue in England, that must be the reason for the discrepancy.

I imagine that the market coalesced around the convention shown in the pages I posted earlier, and became the American standard, just as those in England remained the English standard. Not hard to imagine since everyone in America started as a subject of England in the beginning.

Another data point, but from later. See the excerpt below from the Simonds 1923 catalog. They clearly and unambiguously state (well, for everyone but Steve) that panel saws are in lengths less than 26"

Pete

380910

[Tom M King]

I never worried about what one is called. I cut Cypress siding, marked with a Preacher, with a 10 pt. 26" handsaw.

[Pete Taran]

When you are on a roll, why stop? From the Atkins 1906 catalog:

380919

And finally, from "Grimshaw on Saws". Yeah, he literally wrote the book on saws in 1880, so what does he know? Probably just another chucklehead who got it all wrong:

380921

Ron, take note. He does indicate that smaller PANEL saws did have thinner plates.

Pete

[Patrick Chase]

This may also be a case where the term "panel saw" came to be used for something other than simply "a saw that you might use to cut panels".

Several people have mentioned that they understand a panel saw to refer generally to a compact saw that you might use in tight quarters. As Pete points out, some parts of Disston's literature appears to support this usage, while others support the more restrictive usage.

Language is a tricky thing that way.

[Phil Mueller]

Oh, for Pete’s sake (pun intended), now you’ve gone and introduced two new distinctions: fine panel, and ​chest saw :rolleyes:

[steven c newman]

Don't forget the "Table saw" used to be a handsaw...
380930
My four Panel Saws....two are Disstons, one is an Atkins, and the other a WS....8-10ppi....

[Ron Bontz]

When you are on a roll, why stop? From the Atkins 1906 catalog:

380919

And finally, from "Grimshaw on Saws". Yeah, he literally wrote the book on saws in 1880, so what does he know? Probably just another chucklehead who got it all wrong:

380921

Ron, take note. He does indicate that smaller PANEL saws did have thinner plates.

Pete

Thanks Pete. I do have at least part of the Grimshaw writings, but have not had much time to read much. I will have to go back and look a bit to see if there was a distinct ratio involved. Time is just not my friend these days. I have only piddled in my humble little shop experimenting and once in a great while I have an "AH HAH" moment. Opps. Just enlarged the page and noticed the gauges. Thanks.:)

[Patrick Chase]

Do the saw marketing fliers always state the thickness of the saw plate? A 26" saw with an 0.035" thick plate would strike me as more of a panel saw. Where as a 26" with a 0.042" thick plate would strike me as a heavier duty rip saw.

My rip saw has a 0.037" plate at the toothline (tapered). Of course it's a D12, so the sawplate is made of hard, highly tensioned steel.

My Pax panel saws are about that same thickness, but they're nowhere near as refined as my D12s. They're perfectly decent saws with properly tapered blades, and they've performed well ever since I started sharpening them myself, but they rely more on brute thickness and less on tension and steel quality as compared to the D12s.

Pete, do you happen to know how thick the sawplates were on the smaller 12/D12 versions?

[Stewie Simpson]

I have communicated with Eric from the Disstonion Institute a number of times in the past via email, and he is a gentleman to deal with.
regards Stewie;

[Warren Mickley]

I have used Disston saws since 1956. I like them. However I am much more interested in saw use before Disston's time. (Henry Disston was born in 1819 in England, but he learned saw making in Philadelphia. The table saw was already in use for cutting panels when Henry was born, and was near universal in furniture factories during eras discussed in this thread.) Because I do hand work exclusively, I tend to follow the terminology from before 1819.

Ron asked about plate thickness. There are four back saws in the Seaton chest and two other saws. Both of these two are Kenyon saws, 26 inches long. In the inventory made on the day they were purchased in 1796 they are designated hand saw and pannel saw, and each cost 7 shillings 6 pence. One has 7 teeth per inch and is roughly .042 plate and the other has 5 teeth per inch and is roughly a .047 plate. The thickness is a little irregular and some feel they were ground by eye. Their thicknesses may have been dictated by available technology and may not be significant for today. I have read old accounts that coarse rip saws had heavier plates than hand saws.

In the 18th century they tended to use coarser saws for a given task than we would think optimal today. Part of this may be skill related.

[Pat Barry]

I have used Disston saws since 1956. I like them. However I am much more interested in saw use before Disston's time. (Henry Disston was born in 1819 in England, but he learned saw making in Philadelphia. The table saw was already in use for cutting panels when Henry was born, and was near universal in furniture factories during eras discussed in this thread.) Because I do hand work exclusively, I tend to follow the terminology from before 1819.

Ron asked about plate thickness. There are four back saws in the Seaton chest and two other saws. Both of these two are Kenyon saws, 26 inches long. In the inventory made on the day they were purchased in 1796 they are designated hand saw and pannel saw, and each cost 7 shillings 6 pence. One has 7 teeth per inch and is roughly .042 plate and the other has 5 teeth per inch and is roughly a .047 plate. The thickness is a little irregular and some feel they were ground by eye. Their thicknesses may have been dictated by available technology and may not be significant for today. I have read old accounts that coarse rip saws had heavier plates than hand saws.

In the 18th century they tended to use coarser saws for a given task than we would think optimal today. Part of this may be skill related.
Partly because they couldn't make or maintain finer pitches perhaps? Maybe because they couldn't make decent saws with thin plates with the steels that were available? Who knows?

[Pete Taran]

I have used Disston saws since 1956. I like them. However I am much more interested in saw use before Disston's time. (Henry Disston was born in 1819 in England, but he learned saw making in Philadelphia. The table saw was already in use for cutting panels when Henry was born, and was near universal in furniture factories during eras discussed in this thread.) Because I do hand work exclusively, I tend to follow the terminology from before 1819.

Ron asked about plate thickness. There are four back saws in the Seaton chest and two other saws. Both of these two are Kenyon saws, 26 inches long. In the inventory made on the day they were purchased in 1796 they are designated hand saw and pannel saw, and each cost 7 shillings 6 pence. One has 7 teeth per inch and is roughly .042 plate and the other has 5 teeth per inch and is roughly a .047 plate. The thickness is a little irregular and some feel they were ground by eye. Their thicknesses may have been dictated by available technology and may not be significant for today. I have read old accounts that coarse rip saws had heavier plates than hand saws.

In the 18th century they tended to use coarser saws for a given task than we would think optimal today. Part of this may be skill related.

It is most certainly technology related. In studying saw patents for the past 25 years, you come across not only breakthroughs in saw design, but also in the machines and methods that make the blanks. In Disston's time, the standard process for making a blank was to take plate steel and grind the taper in it, a very time consuming process. He devised a method to roll the hot steel into that shape to start with, so only a minimal amount of work was required. You can read his invention here: http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?PageNum=0&idkey=NONE&SectionNum=3&HomeUrl=&docid=0181650

It's interesting to note, that already in 1876 Disston was supplying blanks to other, smaller makers. These kind of efficiencies contributed greatly to the reason Disston put all his competition out of business. Disston also has many patents for improvements in hardening and heat treating steel. So, I think it's pretty clear that if you are grinding a blank freehand over a large mill stone like they did in the 18th and early 19th century, you are going to have a lot of variation in the result. Compare that to a mechanized process to get the same result, it's no wonder that Disston's saws were so uniform and consistent.

[steven c newman]

Panels saws I have..
380936
An Atkins, 2 Disstons, and a WS. 10 ppi mainly.
And the "panel saw" I used yesterday....
380937
And..it iS a Vintage one..
380938
Had to find a 6" saw blade, with a diamond knockout....running a 5-1/2" blade now...a 6-1/2" will NOT fit.

[Ron Bontz]

Hey Warren,
What part of the world do you live in, anyway?

[Patrick Chase]

Partly because they couldn't make or maintain finer pitches perhaps? Maybe because they couldn't make decent saws with thin plates with the steels that were available? Who knows?

File-making was already fairly well advanced by then, so I don't see any reason why they couldn't have done finer toothings.

Your point about plate thickness is very astute. Modern sawplates (including Disston's) are made from solid high-Carbon steel, typically something along the lines of 1095. That wouldn't have been remotely economical at the time of the Seaton Chest.

[Patrick Chase]

Replying to Pete's point about Disston's blank-making advancements:

One thing that I've noticed is that in both of my D12s the taper attenuates towards the handle, leaving a flat-sided profile where the blade meets the handle. Do you happen to know why they did that?

[Mel Fulks]

....to make the saw fit the slot?

[Pete Taran]

Patrick,

I've not noticed the feature you suggest, and I do have a lot of #12s. Having said that, considering that Disston advertised the #12 as being one full gauge thinner than their other saws, it would not surprise me if they used the same roller set up and just used thinner stock. That would leave part of the profile parallel, as there wasn't enough steel to complete the profile. Just a theory.