The one caveat with a folded saw back...

[Alan DuBoff]

File this message in the FWIW department...

I first have to say that I am not claiming foul to the maker, the reason this saw is like this is my own fault, but I realized today just why exactly it is better to have a slotted back on a handsaw which can not move from the plate, opposed to a folded back which can move from the plate.

I have been carrying this saw around in my soft nylon bag with a plastic guard over the teeth. Neither of these saws have been dropped, but I have tossed the bag around a bit, and today I was over a friend music store to get some inlays, and took these saws in my bag, along with some of my saws, and other inlay material and a piece of ebony....

I took this same bag with these saws in it to the LN Hand Tool Event in Oakland, didn't notice anything different at that time in Mike Wenzloff's booth.

However, upon getting home with more inlay goodies (see my blog), I was taking the saws out of the bag, and, whoa...what is that...????

Yes, the back has been unseated and has moved from the proper position on the plate...

Now, before someone accuses me of handsaw abuse, it is true that I didn't have them in a protected hardshell case as I would a guitar, but it's only a tool, should be able to stand up to that type of abuse, IMO.

I am convinced more than ever that having the plate secured in a slotted back where the plate and back can not move from each other is the better solution. Oh, I can fix this...that's not a problem, I will. I will not stop using these saws, they own a spot in my user quiver, Mike Wenzloff made these for me.

A folded back can always move, we see it all the time on old saws, I'm seeing it here on a fairly new saw. This back was not pushed up like that at the mortise, but it is now. A folded back can move.

I know that some folks have said that the beauty of a folded back is that you can adjust and tune it up. I honestly don't believe that matters, and in most cases you will HAVE to tune it up in the future because they can and may move. Again, this is not to dis Mike Wenzloff in any way, he makes wonderful saws, I am just showing what can happen with a folded back.

Saw on the left is my rip saw, the saw on the right is my xcut. I previously took apart the rip saw, but they were both the same when I put it back together and that has been at least a year ago. I know this is not a scientific study, being in my soft nylon bag, but...

[Joel Moskowitz]

Alan,
the saw tension on that saw back is wrong. if the back can be moved with casual transport there is something wrong. On a proper back with the right tension to move it requires a mallet and a wood block. pulling at it by hand should not be enough force.

[george wilson]

I agree. None of the backsaws we made for Col. Williamsburg have come loose. The House Carpenters carry them all over town,leave them in unheated sheds,etc. The Wheelwright's shop is also unheated,as well as the Cooper's. In spite of being carried about,and temperature extremes,they hold together.

Weren't we just having a discussion in another thread about epoxied backs coming loose? I recommended Loctite. IIRC,it is 660 Loctite that is now used to cement double barrel shotgun barrels together. Think about THAT shock!!

[David Keller NC]

My thought about this is that the fact that the saw plate can be moved is actually an advantage. Were the saw plate to get warped (I've seen quite a few old saws that have a gentle curve to them), the plate can be re-tensioned. If the plate's glued/riveted to the brass back, then there's no way to re-tension the blade other than to cut the back off, make the plate shorter, and install a new back - that's a heap of work compared to re-tensioning the plate.

[Alan DuBoff]

David,

I don't consider the ability to remove the blade from the back to be an importance. I was discussing this in email with Pete Taran and he attributes some of the blade movement out of flatness on the fact that dropping the saw can have that effect.

I was playing with an old Groves & Sons saw that had a kink in it, a couple night ago. I could straighten the blade and/or get the kink out using a 3# ball pein on a small saw makers anvil.

Joel,

Here's the thing...the back is primarily used to support the plate, the back knows nothing about tension. As long as the back keeps the plate straight, it is doing it's job. I also believe it's possible for the back to become deformed, and not be completely straight. People straighten them all the time. In the case of brass, there is not much in the way of spring.

I think the old and tried method of using a folded back has worked, but there's a better mouse trap out there in the way of slotting. Not just a better mouse trap, but there are better materials and why I use bronze.

Next stop on this train, inlays...

Time change, some folks adapt, and some hold on to their roots. The choice is for us all to decide. There are better mouse traps out there, not in reinventing the wheel, but in building a better mouse trap.

Who knows, maybe nickel will turn out to be better than bronze.

OTOH, maybe it won't. Either way, the pioneers will be the ones with arrows in their backs...it's easy to use them as a target...

[David Keller NC]

"I was playing with an old Groves & Sons saw that had a kink in it, a couple night ago. I could straighten the blade and/or get the kink out using a 3# ball pein on a small saw makers anvil."

Alan - What I'm referring to isn't a kink that can be hammered out - the whole length of the blade is gently curved. I suspect you'll get some disagreement about the role of the back in holding the tension of the blade as well - as I understand it, backsaws are not tensioned in the manner of a panel saw. There's a description in one of my books (wish I could remember which one) about how British folded-back saws were made. The brass back was closed, and placed with the slot facing upwards on the bench. The blade was then placed at right angles to it at the toe, and gradually driven home and parallel to the brass back by starting at the toe of the saw and finishing at the heel. Doing this tensioned the saw plate.

[Joel Moskowitz]

Joel,
In the case of brass, there is not much in the way of spring.

that's because they have been improperly annealed. A good back provides good tension, and really grips the blade. This allows you to use thinner material for a blade.

I think the old and tried method of using a folded back has worked, but there's a better mouse trap out there in the way of slotting. Not just a better mouse trap, but there are better materials and why I use bronze.

I have nothing against slotted backs. They are far easier to make than a folded back, cheaper, less failure and you get a decent saw. I find a properly made folded back to be stronger, lighter, and more work to make. My issue here is not that you can make a good back with a slot, it's just the idea that because the idea is new that it must be better than an old idea.

[Joel Moskowitz]

here's a description in one of my books (wish I could remember which one) about how British folded-back saws were made. The brass back was closed, and placed with the slot facing upwards on the bench. The blade was then placed at right angles to it at the toe, and gradually driven home and parallel to the brass back by starting at the toe of the saw and finishing at the heel. Doing this tensioned the saw plate.

I don't know which book but that's exactly how we do it and our kit instructions (which are on-line) describes it and how Flinn in England does it.

[Ray Gardiner]

That's pretty much how I do it as well, but with a slit back, and the slit squashed up a bit. however I am confused as to "tension" in this context, there seems to be two factors here.

The first is the tension in the back itself, as to how tightly it grips the saw plate.

The second which Dave seems to be referring to is the tension in the saw plate itself that is the tension along the saw plate. I imagine that the slight compression at the back would put tooth line under tension, making the saw slightly stretched on the tooth line. Sort of like hammering a panel saw to tension it.

The first I understand, but I'm not sure I fully understand the second..?

It would be an obvious point of difference however between glued backs and clamped backs.

Regards
Ray

[Alan DuBoff]

My issue here is not that you can make a good back with a slot, it's just the idea that because the idea is new that it must be better than an old idea.

I don't know that is true for me, I don't believe a slotted back is better just because it is new. It offers several advantages for me, as a maker, and for the user, and that is what I base my view on.

As you, I don't have anything against the other technology (i..e., folded in this case for me), although I have had to reposition a great deal of vintage ones and I don't see that changing with newer, more modern folded backsaws.

All of this tension talk makes me wonder how important the tension is that folks like you speak of. A slotted back does it's job at keeping the blade straight. With better materials such as bronze that is 50% stronger than Brass, the use of smaller and lighter materials is also possible.

Like Ray, I have to wonder about the tension, I have yet to see a really wavy slotted backsaw, even the old IT saws are still in good shape, at least the ones I have seen. One could say that this method hasn't been tried and tested enough, but I have a saw at the top of this thread that is not as old as some of the slotted saws I have seen and used. I am also not sure I could characterize the tension of the saw back being wrong, the saw functions and cuts just fine.

[Alan DuBoff]

Alan,
the saw tension on that saw back is wrong. if the back can be moved with casual transport there is something wrong. On a proper back with the right tension to move it requires a mallet and a wood block. pulling at it by hand should not be enough force.

Joel,

If Mike Wenzloff sees this thread, I'm curious if he has comments. Maybe the back was improperly annealed, but the chunk of ebony I was carrying around with it weighs much more than a mallet, I'm not trying to guess.

I just knocked down the back again, and the toe and heal seem to measure and look more like it did, but I had to hit it pretty hard with a wood mallet to get it to seat, FWIW. Seems to cut fine also. The back doesn't seem real loose, certainly not the way I had to seat it. I just tried to pull the rear portion off the back, I can't seem to budge it. I don't know, I know the back was high, I know I seated it and how hard it took to seat it, and I can't pull it off by hand.

Me thinks it's hard to speculate over the inet...based on the information, I don't even seem to have all of it yet...

[Mike K Wenzloff]

Man, I been away a while. Have a tad of reading and some PMs to take care of--sorry about that.

There is a bit of misinformation in this thread. We do not anneal the brass for the folded backs. If annealing is being done, someone is not folding the brass properly. Further, one can *never* get it back to its original hardness outside a proper furnace nor can work-hardening *ever* take the fold back to the brass' original ability to hold spring. It simply isn't possible.

We once bought a sheet (3'x5' size that we use) of half-hard that turned out to be full-hard. That sheet we annealed and partially rehardened once the first bend was in. The work-hardening of folding the remainder seemd that it was sufficient to produce good backs. I didn't like it nonetheless and scraped the entire sheet.

Joel made the following comment:

They are far easier to make than a folded back, cheaper, less failure and you get a decent saw. I find a properly made folded back to be stronger, lighter, and more work to make. My issue here is not that you can make a good back with a slot, it's just the idea that because the idea is new that it must be better than an old idea.

Which is about as uninformed a comment I have read concerning sawmaking for a while.

For one, if one considers the economics, material cost and labor, slotted versus folded backs come out in favor of the folded brass. Weight differences? Bah. We are talking a tenth or maybe two of an ounce if the backs are of the same size and relative finished thickness. Wood selection for the handles account for a bigger difference. Black Walnut is about the lightest, less dense of wood one can use for a saw.

As regards efficacy of folded versus slotted? Both have their pros and cons. Most of these issues have been covered here because all they amount to is affixing the blade and or what one can do *if* there is a blade issue down the road.

Geez, I better get to the shop. I'll get to PMs once the shop settles into work later this morning. And the belatted email to Ray...

Thanks for the laughs this morning, Joel.

Take care, Mike

[Joel Moskowitz]

Man, I been away a while. Have a tad of reading and some PMs to take care of--sorry about that.

Joel made the following comment:

Which is about as uninformed a comment I have read concerning sawmaking for a while. ...

Thanks for the laughs this morning, Joel.

Take care, Mike

Glad to be of entertainment value Mike. If you can make a folded back with all the chamfers and brass work we do and have it look the same as a milled back with all the same decorations and do it for less I'd be happy to have you bid on the work. For us milling a slot is a doddle because it's just a profile milling cutter and a slotted saw and you are done. There's also a lot less finishing needed on a slotted back - fewer operations. A milled back as narrow as our folded back wouldn't work as well and would need to be wider, thicker and heavier. But each to his own.

you might think that after a few thousand saws or so I might have learned something - but I guess I'm just thick.

[John Dykes]

Hey Joel & Mike, WIA was just announced!

Don't be giving all the good stuff away for free!

[Mike K Wenzloff]

Well, actually, machine time and labor time is more intensive for the slotted backs versus folded. For either, we use a chamfering machine which makes chamfering easier than using the mill. Post processing time is about the same (clean-up, etc.).

All in all, it cost more in our shop to produce a folded back if *all* the costs are added up, not just the price of brass.

You use 0.093" brass right, Joel? We use that on lightweight saws. Pretty much the same as 3/16"--certainly close enough. For slotted-backed lightweight saws, that's what we use. With some shorties using slotted brass, we have gone down to 1/2" wide. Pretty strong when all is said and done.

Nice little insult there, Joel.

Take care, Mike