[OP]
Contributor
Just received another Disston Reagan Patent back saw, 12" 12pt rip. The plate measures .088 thick at the tooth line and .045 at the spine, almost 4X thicker than any other saw i own. It's mostly sharp and cuts straight and true. The tooth line is breasted approximately 0.10.
Could this be meant for something other than wood? Metal? The #9 above it has a .023 thick plate
20230814_114305.jpg20230814_120529.jpg
Brian
Last edited by Brian Hale; 08-14-2023 at 5:31 PM. Reason: spelling
The significant problems we encounter cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them.
The penalty for inaccuracy is more work
Contributor
People who have more old saws might chime in, but I once owned a Kenyon Carcass Saw. It was much the same as the one in the Seaton Chest, but was made earlier. Jay Gaynor at Williamsburg dated it at roughly 1780 as I recall. When I got the saw, I sent it to Mike Wenzloff who hand jointed and sharpened it for me. The teeth had been terribly mangled by bad sharpening over the centuries and he put it right. Normally he said he would punch new teeth but was afraid the plate might be brittle and crack. So he repeatedly jointed and sharpened it until it was perfect.
That saw, despite being a backsaw, had a really thick plate! I never measured it but was thicker than most panel saws. Even so, once sharpened it cut beautifully, it was well balanced and cut dead straight. I had it filed crosscut at his suggestion. At the time he was just beginning to make Seaton saw reproductions and I bought a set of those as well. He eventually reproduced my saw and it was listed on his website until he stopped making saws.
I ended up selling the saw to pay for medical bills, but regret doing so, Despite it being heavy, and with the thick plate, it worked very well.
I wonder if saw plate material varied a great deal back in the day.
DC
Contributor
I had a number of old Disston Backsaws (both CC and Rip) prior to the great tool purge of 2019. Seems to me all the plates were about 0.055" thick. They cut well but left a generous kerf. My LN Backsaws seem like razor saws by comparison.
Sharp solves all manner of problems.
[OP]
Contributor
I've found a few references of Disston making saws for metal, not hacksaw blades rather panel saws, but nothing that said anything about blade thickness or material they were designed to be for. This saw weighs 1lb 8oz and the #9 in the picture weighs 1lb even. It's heavy, to the point where I need to lift the saw a bit when cutting or tends to dig in and get stuck but sharpening may help with that. My next thickest is a Craftsman at .040 thick.
The significant problems we encounter cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them.
The penalty for inaccuracy is more work
Contributor
I have a small panel saw, maybe 20-inches long that may or may not be a Disston, but that was clearly set up for cutting metal. I seem to recall an old catalog that said it was for steel roofing and perhaps aluminum siding. Small teeth, reminiscent of a hacksaw. Maybe 18 - 20 ppi? It didn't strike me as having an overly thick plate though. It's in storage at the moment and is waiting for me to clean and sharpen it. Assuming of course that it can be sharpened (I don't know how hard the teeth are). I have no particular use for it. It came in a bucket of saws that I bought for $5 a long time ago.
DC
Disston made saws that were intended for cutting metal, principally copper. I have one but can't remember the model #. That said, I prefer modern, thinner spring steel plates whenever possible, with the possible exception of rip filed tennon saws for sawing tennon cheeks – in that case he generated means thicker place work better. Dinner plates need enter curve, less wood removed, faster cutting etc. Lee Nielsen currently makes a dovetail saw with .015 thick plate which cuts like a hot knife through butter. Not sure that's relevant to the OP, just some observations for consideration.
All the best, Mike
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote