Here's a Top-Quality Saw I Can't ID

[Bob Smalser]

This was sold as a Disston #16 for $9.99, which I didn't think it was at the time.

Now I think perhaps it is. The saw has its original factory teeth still sharp, a pre-1928, high-end polish, and measures .028-.022" at the back and .034-.033" at the edge, which puts it well within the range for Disston #12's and #16's.

But the handle isn't right, and the seller badly hacked it up trying to add a large Disston medallion and large saw nuts. There's no room for even the small Disston medallion they put on #16's.

Could this have been made by Disston in Australia? The handle sure looked and worked like apple, though. Or did Disston make special handles on request for hardware store contract clients?

This is an excellent saw. Better than the #120 Acme, IMO.

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL12/1104763/17398617/270336866.jpg

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL12/1104763/17398617/270336869.jpg

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL12/1104763/17398617/270336808.jpg

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL12/1104763/17398617/270336807.jpg

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL12/1104763/17398617/270336804.jpg

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL12/1104763/17398617/270336803.jpg

Compared with a real Disston #16. Everything is close but the handle profile, and the Stiletto's handle is let in a tad deeper:

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL12/1104763/17398617/270336801.jpg

[Jim Dunn]

Bob,

I'm bumping this thread up because I can't believe that with all you contribute someone can't answer these questions for you.

Maybe they can't believe that you, of all people, have a head scratcher :)

Wish I could be of some help.

[Bob Smalser]

Thanks, but Don McConnell ID'd the saw as a 1919-vintage Atkins 48. I don't get to see a lot of Atkins or Simonds saws:

http://www.planemaker.com/photos/AT48.gif

Which makes this one another conundrum saw like the Disston #16. Conundrum because Atkin's most expensive saw was the #400, yet this one is every bit the saw the #400's I've measured are, just like the #16 easily equals the #12 and is a better saw than Disston's #115, which was billed as Disston's best saw.

[Mike K Wenzloff]

Jim, the post was on several different sites, it was simply answered first elsewhere.

Bob, as long as you intend on writing an article, I urge you to consider more than simply thinness of saw plate as the main criteria for what was a quality hand saw.

I suspect you might have other, equally weighted criteria, but in all the posts you make on the subject here and elsewhere those ideas don't come through clearly. Mainly the thinness issue does.

Also, make sure when you do your analysis, skew backs are not compared to straight and vice versa (at least in regards to the thinness issue). In your post, it appears like you are equating/comparing two straight backs (#12/#16) with a skewback (D-115). Disston billed many different models as their "best." It's not hard to figure out it was marketing hype and not reality.

Historically thinness was but a part of the developing craft of hand saw making. It really was about making better, more consistent steel. Later, making a saw lighter (skew backs) and thinner may not have been so much a good thing for all hand saw users, but rather the largest segment...people sawing lumber for building purposes.

Take care, Mike

[Jim Dunn]

Glad Bob got the answer he was looking for.

While I'm no neander, and not much of a woodworker for that matter, I find the depth of hand tool design astounding. The handles on the saws are what first drew me to them but the acid? etching is first rate.