Rip Tenon Saws.......

[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.