What do you consider a panel saw to be?

[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? 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.

Attachment 380896

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

Attachment 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

simonds_panel.jpg

[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:

atkins.jpg

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:

Grimshaw.jpg

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

[steven c newman]

Don't forget the "Table saw" used to be a handsaw...
IMG_3466 (640x480).jpg
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:

atkins.jpg

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:

Grimshaw.jpg

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...&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.