Wondering about my new old saw

[Matt Stiegler]

I bought 4 old handsaws today, and hoping I can get some more info here about one of them. Its a big rusty 26" with no medallion and a nib. Photos below.

Instead of saw nuts, it has, uh, I'm not sure. It looks to me like little metal pegs that were beaten flat on one end? Is this common? I haven't seen that before. Does it mean its really old, or a really poor DIY?

The handle has obviously been on there a long long time, but to my inexperienced eye maybe not the original handle? I say this partly because of the extra hole in the blade just in front of the top of the handle, partly because the handle doesn't fit that well, partly because it seems small for the blade.

The teeth are cut at 5 TPI for crosscut, with some set, and the size of the teeth (the depth of the gullet) is notably uneven. I'm guessing it was last sharpened by an amateur? The aggressive tooth pattern is paired with what, from listening to Herman's handsaw talk at WIA, I believe to be a non-aggressive thrust pattern (teeth are parallel to ground when I hold out the saw).

Finally, I'm planning to fix it up -- scrape and sand the blade, figure out how to attach the handle, and, if I'm going to use it, send it off to for re-toothing and sharpening. In other words, I'm assuming this saw isn't worth anything except as a user. If someone thinks that's a mistake, I'd like to hear it.

Any insights?

[David Gendron]

Nice saw Matt. the handle seem to be old allright as is the plate... i'm sure some one better than me will be abble to give you more info than me, but here what I think, The tote probably belong to a smaller saw, like a 20 or 22 inch because of the three bolts patern usualy associated with shorter saws, it also have a flat on the lower part, bellow hand opening like old realy old tote use to be made. And the plate, with the round toe seem to be also associated with older saws like the Seathon saws!
But just my $.02. hoppe some boddy can give more accurate infos!

[Jim Koepke]

It looks like someone put together parts to make a saw.

If you can get it apart, you may be able to find some etch left after a soak in citric acid or vinegar.

I would suggest getting the appropriate files and use this to learn saw sharpening.

You may need to get some saw nuts and make a new handle.

jim

[george wilson]

There is an extra hole in the plate,suggesting that a different handle was on the saw before. Look all over the blade when it is cleaned to see if there are any little British crowns stamped into it.

The handle is certainly an early looking one. The diamond shaped washer is also the same type used in the 18th.C. sometimes. We used them in Williamsburg sometimes,on things like ladders and spinet stands. They were easier for a blacksmith to make than a round washer.

The rounded end of the blade is another early feature. Is the little "tooth" knocked off the top edge of the saw,just where it steps down? Finding any marks on the blade is important. Of course,crowns would only be found on English saws.

Also,check the thickness of the saw blade all over to see if it is taper ground thinner towards the back. If it is not,it could be an early blade. The crosscut & rip saws we reproduced were about .042" thick all over,no taper grind.Disston,I think,started taper grinding them in the 19th.C..

Perhaps you could contact Jay Gaynor at Colonial Williamsburg and email him some pictures. The main number is 1-757-229-1000,ask for Jay Gaynor's office. I encourage you to have him check the saw out. It could be an early American saw,and could shed new light on early tool making.

[Matt Stiegler]

Originally Posted by David Gendron

it also have a flat on the lower part, bellow hand opening like old realy old tote use to be made.

Thanks for the reply, David. Yes, I noticed that flat part too but didn't know what it means.

[Matt Stiegler]

Great response, thanks.

Originally Posted by george wilson

Is the little "tooth" knocked off the top edge of the saw,just where it steps down?

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean.

Originally Posted by george wilson

Also,check the thickness of the saw blade all over to see if it is taper ground thinner towards the back. If it is not,it could be an early blade. The crosscut & rip saws we reproduced were about .042" thick all over,no taper grind.Disston,I think,started taper grinding them in the 19th.C..

Right you are. .042 all around, no taper grind, is what it looks like to me.

Originally Posted by george wilson

Perhaps you could contact Jay Gaynor at Colonial Williamsburg and email him some pictures. The main number is 1-757-229-1000,ask for Jay Gaynor's office. I encourage you to have him check the saw out. It could be an early American saw,and could shed new light on early tool making.

Thanks for the suggestion, I'll give him a call, and I'll report back if I learn anything more.

In the meantime, any other info or stabs-in-the-dark welcome.

[Matt Stiegler]

Here a couple of close-ups on the end.

[george wilson]

If there was a tooth(not really used for cutting) it doesn't seem to be there. It may have been chipped away.

Right where the top edge of the blade steps down to the nose,there is a tooth. Its actual use was to hook a piece of string over. The string helped hold a long stick that had a slot sawed into it. It was put over the saw teeth to protect the saw teeth,and the other tools that the teeth could damage as the tools were carried about in a chest,or sometimes loose in a basket in early times. At the handle end,there was another piece of string that was tied around this wooden strip. It was secured from the bottom loop of the handle. thus the guard stick was held onto the saw teeth.

I have seen old jointer planes that had deep impressions of rip saw teeth pressed into them from loose tools being jostled about in poorly sprung wagons,or other rough transport.

There has been a huge amount of misinformation about what this tooth was used for. Many times,the tooth was nearly flat on its top. It certainly wasn't a "front sight(!)",or a tooth used for cutting nails. It wasn't shaped to actually cut. It was used as I have said.

This tooth even appeared on early 20th.C. Disston saws. Certainly,the rounded front edge of the saw is very early.

Rolled spring steel started to be available ABOUT 1736.I can't now remember the date. It was pretty accurately rolled,not more than a few thousanths off anywhere I was able to measure on the tools in the Seaton Chest of unused tools in Col. Wmsbg.. I cant recall when Disston started taper grinding,either,not being a collector myself. I buy tools to use,and mostly made them new,myself. That was my job.

The non taper grinding is also evidence of a very early blade. That is the thickness of the Kenyon crosscut & rip saws in the Seaton chest. That might have been one of several standard gauges available from England in the 18th.C.. Thinner gauges down to .015" were used on back saws,and finally,on dovetail saws.

Now,I am wondering if this is an old English made blade. Be sure to look for the little crown stampings. They are about 3/16" square.

[Matt Stiegler]

Originally Posted by george wilson

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

I had been using this method from the vintagesaws.com website (reprinted from fine tool journal) to clean up my various $3 flea market rust saws. But I feel a good bit more reluctant to take sandpaper to a blade that old. So I suppose I'll just hold off on any blade cleaning for the time being, curious though I am to find out what's under the rust.

[Matt Stiegler]

I emailed Mike Wenzloff and he was gracious enough to reply, although I'm a complete stranger and he's doubtless got better things to do. Anyway, here's what he said (which I'm posting with his permission):

It likely is a late 18th or early 19th century saw (1700s - 1800s). The handle as you note is a replacement. It looks to be from a panel saw but likely in the same style as the original. There were originally bolts with split nuts.

As regards the taper grinding. Mid to late 18th century better saws (like the Kenyons et al) were taper ground. George is incorrect on that point. The rust will keep from doing accurate measurements. Early saws were not as taper ground as later saws became.

And ...

A nib would have been on that saw. Actually, nearly every saw with a straight back and the drop at the toe would have had a nib, not a tooth per se. Don't ever use a nib for starting a cut. That's a prime reason they break off.

Cleaning. [This in response to my asking if I should do what he advised here.] Yes, I still do the same in general. However, on a saw with larger rust blooms or heavily scaled rust, I usually soak with repeated squirts of mineral spirits out of a Windex-like bottle. After keeping it wet for a day or two, I then use a 5-pack of safety razor blades to gently scrape the rust off, with likely more squirts of MS while scraping. Once the bulk of the rust is gone, then I start with the finest sandpaper that will accomplish getting the rust knocked back. It takes a good bit of sandpaper and once the razors begin getting nicks in them I grab a fresh one.

Also note that the saw you have does not have an etch. Etches began mid-1800s. You may well find the saw is stamped about halfway down the blade about 1" to 2" below the top. So go lightly/slowly at that point until you see the effect to sanding. You may well find out who made the saw.

Thanks again Mike and everyone who's responded here so far. This has been kind of exciting -- little ol' me, with a two-century old saw -- and doubtless dooms me to countless extra hours and dollars on the handsaw slippery slope.

[george wilson]

Sorry,we measured the saws in the Seaton Chest with Jay Gaynor,and they were not taper ground. Jay is very particular about small details,and had us make the repros with no taper grinding.

Before proceeding to post this,I have called Jay,and he agrees that there were .001" to .002" variations ALONG THE LENGTH of the blades. This from the rollers used to roll the steel out not being as perfect as todays roller mills(but,still pretty impressive accuracy!).

He has verified that those saws were measured in several places,and IF they were tapered,it wasn't enough to worry about. KEY WORDS:THE KENYON SAWS WERE NOT RUSTY.

Since the Seaton Chest saws were unused,and hardly brown,even,they are about the best examples of Kenyon saws available for studying to reproduce. There is at least 50% of bright metal left on the blades,with slight staining on the rest of the blade.

I stand by my statement,at least as to the saws we copied. Jay says that Mike did not examine these saws,at least not in the way we did.

P.S.,Jay mentioned that you had called him.I encouraged Jay to take a close look at this old saw-not that he needed encouraging!

[Mike K Wenzloff]

I won't get into a verbal pi$$ing match with you George.

Here are the measurements of the Seaton chest hand saw-sized saws done by TTHS.

26" flat (the "pannel" saw)
Toothed edge 0.042" -- 0.048"
Middle 0.041" -- 0.047"
Back 0.0345" -- 0.0435"

26" rip (the half-rip saw)
Toothed edge 0.0395" -- 0.043"
Middle 0.037" -- 0.041"
Back 0.035" -- 0.0425"

I could graph out what this means as relates to a taper-ground saw, but in essence it is similar to how it is represented in other literature. And while certainly not as taper ground as later hand saws--something which predates Disston by many, many decades--the data TTHS arrived at coincides in the mean with the other Kenyon hand saws from the Chest period, and prior to the 1790s, I have been fortunate enough to examine.

I do mostly agree about the back saws. Most of the small variance you cite is due to rolling vageries. Though in some shops the plate was still ground/polished to even out rolling marks. This could account for the 14" sash saw being so wildly varient in thickness. However, I do not know if Kenyon in particular ground their gauged plate or not.

btw, the rust I mentioned to Matt concerned measuring his as found rusty saw. It is too rusty to take accurate measurements. I never wrote that the Kenyons from the Seaton chest were rusty.

Take care, Mike
who is now going back to work and avoiding the forums once again...

[David Gendron]

It's sure getting realy interesting! Matt, please keep us updated on what you find!
I am realy interested in the size of the tote, like opening size, thikness, distance between horns and wood!
hoope fully you will be abble to find out more about this great score!

[Matt Stiegler]

I just spoke with Jay Gaynor from Colonial Williamsburg. (I'm continuing to be amazed at how generous these talented folks are with their time to help me figure out what I've got.) After looking at the photos, he agreed it looked like a late 18th or early 19th century saw. He pointed out the rounding on the top of the toe was more abrupt than on the Seaton saws. The non-original handle may be of the same vintage, but he said he's seen London Pattern handles on saws as late as the mid-1800s, so its hard to be sure.

I'm on the fence about whether to try to clean the saw up any. I'm quite curious to know if there's a manufacturer's mark hiding under the rust. But I don't want to blunder up a cool old saw through my inexperience. Hmmm.

[David Gendron]

I would say and this is only my thought... Clean it, but just enough to find out some info... Maybe you can sale it on the bay for more money than you payd for to find out that the next owner will clean it and use it... Now it's yours, you could do a nice restoration and if not to be use, it would be a nice saw to look at!
Just my $0.02