Wondering about my new old saw

[george wilson]

Mike and all: It was never my job to research the tools we made. We were supplied with old tools or drawings to work from. Research was done by the curator. The curator of tools,Jay Gaynor, gave me the specifications to work to on the saws,with drawings of the handles. I went by what he told me at the time,and was highly relieved that I did not have to build a machine to taper grind the saws.

So,you are saying the half rip had a variance of .004" max taper,only at the tip end of the saw? Then only the other saw had a real taper? The fact that the toothed edge varies so much (.006") in itself makes me wonder if Jay just considered those rather random thicknesses as inaccuracies in the 18th.C. rolling mill. Maybe that's where he was coming from?

I happened to be down to Williamsburg today(The first time in months.The employee sale was on),and saw Jay. He said he hadn't seen the pictures yet,as he had been in a meeting. He did repeat that he did not think there was enough of a taper to confirm that it really was one. And,apparently only the "pannel" saw actually has much taper to it. I am not sure what that means since the cutting edge itself is so tapered.

This is not a pi$$ing contest. It is a discussion. Jay just said that we had months to examine the Seaton chest,and TTHS only had a day. He trusts his findings,but will review his figures and get back to me. I did look at the Seaton saws,and put a dial caliper on them here and there,but ultimately the decisions were his as curator. Of course,I was interested in all the tools in the chest,not just the saws. There were saw files still wrapped in their original paper.Chisels too. I was intrigued by the carpenter's pencil,unused,that looked like a modern one,except the graphite did not go clear through like modern ones.

[Mike K Wenzloff]

Hello George,

The findings of TTHS are similar to the Kenyon hand saws I have examined at length. I do not know how to reconcile the differences between Jay and theirs.

They write they took measurements every 3" down three lines. The graphic below shows their mean findings and how it relates to the measurements in the Seaton Chest book:



You'll note that the teper ground pattern is typical of any hand-ground taper saw. While not as consistent as late 19th century saws, is bascially the same grinding result.

Early Disstons were very similar in degree of taper grinding as were Sorby, S&J, et al. Disston bought raw punched plate from England and had a neighboring business grind them until he had the ability.

Take care, Mike
off for the remainder of the day...

[george wilson]

Mike,this thread has taken a rather sour turn,and I find myself caught between you and Jay Gaynor,which is not where I wish to be.

My job was to receive information on what to make,how many,and to do so. Making saws was just 1 responsibility that came along. I made a great variety of things from a fire engine to a surveyor's compass,planes,etc.. Everything they handed me for the last 23 years.

Now,I have spent some trouble trying to help a fellow creeker,and have sort of been accused of getting into a pi$$ing contest,which was never my intention.

I suggest you take up the matter with Jay,if it is so important to you. As of now he stands by his words,though I think it has been quite a while,over 20 years, since he gave the saw thicknesses his attention. At the time,I did what I was asked to do,and did not taper the blades.

My primary occupation since 1954 was making musical instruments.Being the toolmaker came along,and I was drawn into it after 3 years of urging by my director.

I never wanted to be a slavish copyist,as some are. I was paid to reproduce tools,and I did it well. It was an exceedingly varied job. I did not wish to become a tool historian,or a collector.

When I make things for myself,unless it is a very pleasing antique that I feel like reproducing,I never copy much of anything. My biggest pleasure is to design things,because the creative process is the most important process of all. Things like my bronze drill are not copies. They are my original design. It is also the failing point of many otherwise fine craftsmen,who never become able to properly draw or design.

I don't think this help I gave has played out well. I have high regard for your work,and I urge you to henceforth be more careful of your choice of words,please.

[David Gendron]

George, I think you did what you had to or tought was good info... I did exacly the same in my first post on this thread, but since I'm a nobody here, no one realy react at my writing! I also think that we are all just here to give our opinions on things and if they are different(opinions) because of different sources(both relyable in this case) then that's how it is! I'm sure on all the saws made in between 1700 and now, they were a few "twins" that were actualy quite defferent. This saw here might as well be a saw made on a bad Friday...

[george wilson]

David,everything you say is true.

[Mike K Wenzloff]

George, please note I did not say it *was* a p-match, just that I did not desire to get into one. I did not accuse you of starting one, either. I stated, once again, I did not desire to get into one.

I wrote to Matt in an email what I knew would conflict with what you have been spreading around on the forums for a few years--i.e. that 18th century saws were not taper ground.

When Matt asked if he could post my email, I didn't think about the ramifications of the one statement about your views the email contained.

Jay is more than welcome to print or post his findings as regards the measurements he took some odd 20 years ago. They may be different to those Jane et al took. I don't know because he has never to my knowledge put his into print.

Jane is/was working on a revision to the Seaton book. Though I believe it is mostly a revision to the genealogical information. If Jay has or takes exception to the prior documented measurements in the book, he has had opportunity to set the record straight--and may still have time to do so.

Repeat: I did not make up those measurements. They do both indicate the hand saws were taper ground and also coincide close enough to those of other examples that I have examined. Again, Jay is more than welcome to publish his measurements. And again, if they differ in substance to those in the Seaton chest book, the academic argument is not with me, it is with TTHS.

I do not agree the thread has taken a sour turn. Why? Because someone disagrees with you or Jay? I am only going off of scholarly published data that happens to conflict with what you and or Jay says.

As I have written to you in the past and on forums, George, your work appears impeccable. I have not had the opportunity to ever hold something you have made in my hands, but I am pretty certain it would not disappoint--on the contrary, I am pretty certain it would surpass the pictures.

I have said all I need to about this subject--which is mostly just regurgitating what the published data shows. If someone disagrees about the Seaton chest saws, disagree with TTHS, not me. But there should be data about something that is measurable.

I would welcome reading other published data on 18th century saws.

I will not post in this thread again. Heck, I intend on going back to not reading the forum. I get more work done and am still sorely behind.

Take care, Mike

[george wilson]

Mike,I just got caught in the middle of other people's findings I have already expressed what my job responsibilities were. Jay is not upset about anything. He's going to check his old data,but I'm not holding my breath until he gets around to it.

The post went sour because of your rather gruff word choice.

Right now from TTHS data,I think it more accurate to say that 1 saw is taper ground,as the half rip doesn't have enough taper to matter,unless .003" is considered a taper,or is it imperfect 18th.C. rollers? That may be why Jay reached his conclusion,I don't know. Mike apparently thinks that a taper the width of a BLONDE HAIR is a taper. And it is,in terms of precision machine shop modern fits. Is it a noticable taper in woodworking terms? You be the judge.

[Matt Stiegler]

Look all over the blade when it is cleaned to see if there are any little British crowns stamped into it.

Three of them. Clear as day, right where Mike said to look. I can't make out the maker's mark clearly, only a couple fragments. Very faint. I've sent a hi-res picture to the British saw expert Jay Gaynor put me in touch with (thanks again, George) and maybe he'll be able to figure it out and date it more accurately.

Fun fun.

[David Gendron]

geting more and more exciting!!

[Matt Stiegler]

Well, I seriously doubt anyone out there is on the edge of their seats, but just to provide some closure to the tale here it is. It looks like my saw has been identified. Simon Barley in Sheffield, England looked at my photos of the faint maker's mark and recognized it as a saw made by Samuel Newbould. That dates it to 1816 or later. Mike Wenzloff explained to me that the three crowns indicates the saw was probably made before 1820, but perhaps as late as 1830.

This has been a fun experience for me. I'm planning to clean up the rest of the blade and hang it on the wall in my shop. I'm no collector, but restoring this saw to use would destroy some history and probably bear imperfect fruit anyway. (Instead, I believe I'll start saving up for a Wenzloff.)

Buying this saw has been some of the most interesting $5 I ever spent. I'm immensely grateful to George, Jay, Mike, and Simon for helping me get to the bottom of this.

[Matt Stiegler]

And here's a picture of the maker's mark, with SAML NEWBOULD GERMAN STEEL and crowns to left, right, and top.

[Richard Niemiec]

Interesting thread. I don't think George or Mike meant any harm. But opinions are like bellybuttons, everybody's got one, and some are innies and others are outies.

[george wilson]

It really was Jay Gaynor's opinion. I just did as he asked.I didn't spend my time doing research. Mine was to figure out how to make everything,and in a reasonable length of time. Few know the breadth of varied projects we worked on. I have posted a relatively few pictures of some projects. Most are still on slides which I'll have to get put onto a disc sometime.

I'll see if Jay gets back to me with his measurements.

This has been the second time I have gotten tangled with either what Jay told me,or what he DIDN'T bother to tell me. I think I'm leaving out what he said from now on. Not to say he's wrong on this at all,I just don't need to get into a situation over what HE said. Jay thinks these forum conversations are a no win situation,and he is probably right.

And,it isn't bellybuttons you refer to,is it, Richard?

[Richard Niemiec]

And,it isn't bellybuttons you refer to,is it, Richard?

Oh, yes, absolutely, as that was a favorite saying of my dear departed Aunt, Sister Mary John, a Bernadine Nun. Perhaps SHE meant something else......

[Ray Gardiner]

Hi Matt,

Interesting find especially for a $5 saw, you are in good hands with Simon Barley, he is pretty much the best authority around on British Hand Saws.

Samuel Newbould and Co are one of those rare Sheffield saw making firms that survived in business for more than 80 years or so, I think that of the many hundreds of saw makers in Sheffield in the 19th Cent only 5 or 6 had such a long history. This makes dating a bit problematic and more a question of looking at indirect evidence like how rounded the toe is and how the blade was stamped. Without the original handle it becomes even more difficult.

Struck marks would generally indicate a date prior to widespread adoption of acid etching, so that can put an upper bound of 1850 ish on the date. The stamped crowns (as Mike has already indicated) were used (in some cases at least) to indicate loyalty to the crown, and perhaps as a quality indication, the usage tended to phase out after the ascension of Queen Victoria in 1837, so maybe 1830's is not out of the question. The original handle would most likely have been the flat bottomed "London Pattern" (made from beech) and fixed with split nuts.

Samuel Newbould and Co, also made a wide variety of files and edge tools.

Here is a Later Samuel Newbould trademark entry (1901), they evidently went in for elaborate etching.



On the subject of tapered ground saw blades, some of the earliest saws had tapered blades, this one was dated to the 1200's


British Push Saw from 1200's found in a midden at Windcliff "Story of the Saw" P.d'A.Jones and E.N.Simons.

You can see the tapered blade profile on the left. So tapering saw blades is hardly a new practice.

Regards
Ray