Thread: Advice on identifying and restoring Disston saw

Thanks a lot for this link, Paul.

Over two hours!
I started to watch and just the explanation of the types of saws was excellent.
The length is great, I can enjoy a few beers while watching Cheers!

Regards Adam

Thanks Ian. I was really pleased how it turned out. Yep, I'll leave it at that. I don't think there's any pitting at all. Certainly none that I can feel.

Well you've convinced me to go the Eclpise. That's the main one I've been seeing on the intertubes so why not another 'restoration' is project to bring an old one up to perfect working order (or even just fine tuning like you've said)! I do like the look of the bronze Eclipse (think that's what they are) and am enjoying the whole vintage tool restoration so it seems appropriate

Now off to make that file 'jig'... I'll post later with my results.

Regards Adam

Originally Posted by IanW

Adam, your saw has cleaned up splendidly. From the original pics I thought you'd have quite a bit of pitting, but it's not at all like I expected. I certainly wouldn't go past where you've got it, it will do very nicely as-is, & probably polish up a bit more with lots of use, anyway. A great score!

Those grinder marks are prominent on the right side - probably just standing out because of the sanding. I don't think the D8 came in different levels of finish, but Paul knows far more about these sorts of details & may be able to comment.

Adam

As Ian said, that level of finish is more than adequate for all practical purposes. The D8/D-8 was what I call Disston's workhorse model. I am guessing that it may have been the most common saw made not only from Disston but any of the major manufacturers and I purely base this on the number of examples that are seen for sale. However, I should stress that this does not diminish the value of the saw. A lot were sold because it was very popular, was in the Disston range for a very long time and when first introduced around 1880 was revolutionary with the skewback shape. It's predecessor, the No.80, was the first saw plate made in this style, but it morphed into the D8 so to my mind it can still be regarded as the "first."

The D8/D-8 represented very good value for money and was probably the saw carpenters and serious woodworkers would have chosen. In many ways it was a no frills saw in that there was no wheat carving on the handle and the the finish on the saw plate was "medium" and only a little better than you have achieved. The full size (26") handsaws had five saw screws to keep the handle solid and were fully taper ground. Really anything beyond this is cosmetic not that it it stops the likes of me and others lusting after higher models in the range that might be be perceived as more desirable.

I think on your saw the dark lines (really only hinted at) are the residual marks from the taper grinding process. They are lines of depression which cannot realistically be removed with W & D paper. In fact the etch is a "depression" which is very shallow and can be rubbed away if care is not taken. This is the reason for using a small block of wood when sanding. Fingers alone will "tend" to enter the depression and erase the etch. Disston etches appear to survive quite well. Some manufacturers and here E.C. Atkins comes to mind, do not seem to endure so well.

As to Ian's comment that I know more, I think I just have more saws, which enables me to make comparisons.

Regards
Paul

Actually Ian, I'll take a better look at my Pa's old tools as he has saw files so maybe there's a setting tool too. I wouldn't have know what one was when I first received his tools.
I'll report back!
Regards Adam

Fantastic Paul! Thank you so much.

It's just wonderful being able to restore this saw as I have very fond memories 'woodworking' with my Pa out in his shed as a boy under 10 (more likely getting in the way!) and to be able to not only restore this saw, but also have an appreciation of its history and use. That makes it more special to me.

So thank you again Paul for this really interesting history lesson with some 'real world' application thrown in. Much more fascinating to me that what I got from the Disstonian site (not to say it's not a great site/resource of course!)

I'd hate to think how many saws the two of you have combined. But what a lovely site they must be

Regards Adam

Originally Posted by Stratman

I'd hate to think how many saws the two of you have combined. But what a lovely site they must be

Regards Adam

Regards
Paul

Adam
I’ve just come across your thread.

Well done on the saw restoration ,unfortunately you may not be aware ,you now have an incurable habit that there is no cure known to any human.

Am I right in thinking ,you have been looking at other old saws?
Ian and Paul should have both know better[emoji849][emoji849].

If you have no luck chasing a saw set down at your end of the woods(and a very nice end mind you)
I have a spare eclipse no 77 you may have)

Cheers Matt
Ian Paul really lol lol lol.

Adam

I have seen the Disston "Canada" saws from time to time, but it ocurred to me that they are not common. In fact, I checked my stocks (I use that terminology to distinguish between saws I collect and saws that I restore and move on) and out of some ****** or so saws there were no Disstons made in Canada.

So a correction to the ubiquitous nature of the D-8 is required!

I also did some checking and the Canadian operation for Disston was established circa 1910. I would guess your saw to be between 1930 and 1950, but I emphasise it is only a guess. Just for historical purposes there was an Australian subsidiary established about 1926, but I don't think it was for manufacturing: Probably just for importation. My conjecture is that this is how Canadian saws end up on Australian shores. At that time Canada and Australia were part of the old British Commonwealth: Actually make that the old British Empire (Commonwealth was not until 1949) and I suspect there were some preferential importation arrangements for member countries.

Don't pay too much attention to the warnings of Simplicity. They are the ramblings of the young and addiction is not be regarded as serious until it sets in. At which point it is too late so you might as well not dwell on it lest psycological problems manifest themselves leading to further complications.

Regards
Paul

Adam

One more comment on the D8/D-8 models and it is that they were sold in two widths. Firstly there was what became the "regular" width. This was a large saw and the D8 in the 26" version measured 7 1/4" at the heel and 2 1/2" at the toe. By the change in range after 1928 the same saw, although now called the D-8, measured 6 5/8" at the heel and 2 11/16" (I am reading of my transcript, but I think there is a mistake and it should read 2 3/16") at the toe. I think this was for two reasons. Firstly there was some cost saving in that the rectangular plate from which Disston punched out two saws could be smaller thus saving on cost of material, but also the market was leaning towards smaller saws: Not in length but in their depth. So a second version of the D-8 was made in a "Lightweight" version and this designation was included in the etch below the Keystone.

I don't have the exact dimensions of the "Lightweight" versions, but I am reasonably confident they are similar to other Disston saws in that they were 6" at the heel and 1 3/4" at the toe. After 1928 the dimensions reduced further to 5 7/8" at the heel and 1 1/2" at the toe.

Your 24" panel saw would have been correspondingly narrower. By the time a 20" panel saw was reached the depth at the heel was between 5" and 5 1/2", but the toe did not narrow much and remained around 1 1/2"

I suspect that as the hand saw faded from common use, the remaining users themselves became a little more woosie and shied away from the weight of the behemoths of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Hence the gradual move towards the slimmer saws. Duisston called them "Lightweight," Atkins referred to them as "Ship Point" and Simonds, lacking imagination, referred to them as "Narrow."

I don't think your saw has lost much depth from sharpening. I judge this from the position of the etch and the 8ppi stamp. When the teeth are in the etch or the stamp has been sharpened off such tools are past their useby date. It looks as though one or two attempts may have been made to sharpen and it did not go too well so the saw was put to one side. That was lucky for you.

Enough, or more likely too much, from me. I will look forward to seeing the final results.

Regards
Paul

Good evening gentlemen

Apologies for my late reply. I've been out most of the day and haven't been able to get into the shed. Terrible, I know!

Matt, thank you very much. I was pleasantly surprised at how it turned out. Still need to start the sharpening process but I will have time this week. And you are indeed correct. Hehe... I hold Ian and Paul responsible
I'd be very interested in that Eclipse thank you very much! Please PM me with your costs and I can transfer funds to you. I'd be happy sourcing one from here rather than risking the intertubes. That's very nice of you, thank you Matt.

And thank you again Paul. This is a bit of a surprise then. I was sure with your ******* number of saws that you would have had one...lol. I'd be 99% positive that this saw was sourced from Tasmania. That is assuming it was my grandfather being the original owner. How interesting though. I might start looking around locally and see what else I can find.

Ah...don't try and shift the blame to Matt. I blame anyone who has replied to this thread. Especially you and Ian...
What a great addiction to have though!
Oh and that video is excellent. Thanks again or that. I particularly like the scenario-based approach he has. It helps knowing where your saw stand in regards to condition and what's required to return it to its glory.

Before I do attempt to sharpen I thought I'd check which file size any of you suggest. I have my grandfather's Wiltshire 6" saw file (made in Australia) marked "slim taper" so thought that might be close. However, that video seems to put the slim taper files in the 5-7 PPI (or 4-6 TPI) so I'm wondering if it might be a bit large to get into the gullet effectively. I do have a Nicholson (made in Canada) 5" but it appears much more worn so don't think I should use it.

Thanks again gentlemen.
Regards Adam.

Paul, I missed your latest post as I was just typing mine.

This is great stuff. Again, thank you for your time.

FYI I've measured it now, and the toe is just a tad under 2 3/8" from top of the plate to the tooth's tip. And the heel is just under 5 7/8". I measured perpendicular to the teeth, not the top, so assuming that's how it's done.

Anyway thought you may be interested in these measurements

(edit: never "too much" from you from my perspective. It is very, very much appreciated. As is everyone's input here )

Regards Adam

Ian, I'll be venturing into the serials stack at work tomorrow. We have Australian Wood Review back issues from June 2003 (issue #39) so we should have #78

Adam, now you've gone & opened a can of very wriggly worms: saw files!?

First up, what size of files to use is not very contentious. There is a chart of file size vs tpi in that 'saw treatise' I pointed you to, and LN have another on their website, and there are plenty more to be found. They are all in reasonable agreement, & in any case, if you are stuck, 'near enough' will do the job. What you should avoid is using a file that's several sizes over or under what's recommended, because it simply won't 'fit' the gullets satisfactorily. All saw-files have 60 degree corners, but the radius of the corners vary - the larger & longer the file, the 'fatter' the corners are.

Some de-mystifying of files & their terminology might be helpful to you: If you haven't already grasped this, the 'taper' and 'slim' designations are to be read separately. Triangular files can be 'straight sided' or tapered. Japanese & some other saw-files have straight sides. Most people seem to prefer the tapered files for sharpening saws, and so the vast majority of saw files you encounter will be tapered. European files tend to have a shorter or 'blunter' taper than American pattern, though 'American pattern' files are made by some (ostensibly) European brands, so it's far from invariable. I use all 3 types & it makes little difference to the finished job for me - if I have any preference at all, it's actually for straight files, but it's a very slight preference.

Now the 'slim' part does not refer to the taper, as the lack of a comma would suggest, but to the body of the file itself. They come in 'regular' to extra extra slim (XXS) designations, getting skinnier with each jump. There is also a change in the cut (tpi), which is a very minor issue as far as saw files go, & we needn't bother with that aspect here. Different length files have different starting points for the width of the sides, so that a 'regular' file of one length will match a 'slim' or XS size in a longer one, & probably also match the cut, so such files are interchangeable, their only difference being in the length of the business part. It's a complex relationship & I have to consult a chart to be sure, I could never remember it if I tried! You don't really need to know most of that, just follow one of the tables of recommended sizes per tpi & you'll be fine 99.5% of the time.

However, the 'slimness' category does have some important implications that you do need to be alert to. First up, the file has to 'fit' the gullets. As the slimness increases, the corners of the file become 'sharper' - i.e., the radius diminishes. This is why, for example, you have to find a very fine file to sharpen an 18tpi saw, of the order of a 4 inch XXS - if you used a 'regular' 4" file, you'd end up with huge gullets & teeny-weeny teeth. It's much more noticeable on small teeth than it is with large ones.

The second consideration in choosing the 'correct' slimness relates to wear on the file teeth. The usual recommendation is to select a file that fits in the gullet so that the tip of each tooth is at the centre of the file. The stated reason is that this will give even wear of the file. I contest that notion, because files simply don't wear evenly, the corners, which are subjected to much greater stress, are what gives out on saw files, long before the sides show any significant deterioration. However, it's one of those rules of thumb that actually works despite the dubious logic, because if you select a file that fits as described, it is usually the right taper to have appropriately-radiused corners to produce the 'right-sized' gullet, i.e., of about the same area as that of the teeth. So if you have a longer file, but a slimmer version, of the recommended size, it may fit nicely & do the job. If the only file you have on hand is one jump up from the size recommended, it will probably be fine - try it on a couple of teeth at the back of the saw & see how the teeth look (these teeth never see wood anyway, so they are a good place to check & practice).

The larger the teeth (fewer tpi), the less obvious it is if you make slightly oversize gullets. Some people even prefer to have the gullets larger than the tooth area, because the gullet is what carries the sawdust through 'til it can be dropped as the tooth exits the cut, so the bigger the gullet, the better. There are, as always caveats to this philosophy, but it has a point.

So where are we? A 6" slim taper does match your saw's pitch according to the 'saw filing treatise' table, so you could grab grandpa's file & go at it. If it hasn't had much use, & isn't rusty it should be fine, possibly even excellent, if it was made back in the day when files were files, but check it for wear (particularly on the corners) and damaged teeth. If it is damaged or worn, don't mess with it, get a new one. It's important to have a file that cuts cleanly & evenly when sharpening, and even moreso for your first attempts. Otherwise, you have no hope of being consistent. Broken or damaged file teeth, especially on the corners, make the file catch & skip, which makes it exceptionally difficult to create anything like even teeth! This is one instance where you can blame a poor job on the tool...

Lastly, you are going to ask what brand of file to buy, & there you have me stumped. What I meant by my 'can of worms' remark is that if you'd been following this part of the Forum (& several other forums) over the last 10 years, you'd already know that there has been much discussion on this topic. The quality of files took a very steep nose-dive sometime late last century, as traditional makers in the US & Europe shifted their operations to countries where labour was cheap, but QC was not so hot. The consensus seems to be that Nicholsons (made in Mexico & Brazil), are slowly getting their act together & making tolerable files again. Another brand that gets a few thumbs-up is Bahco (made in Portugal?) - they are a pita, though, because they don't seem to use any of the common retail outlets in Aus. In any case, unless you are fortunate enough to have an exceptionally good retailer close by, you'll probably have to buy on-line. Demand for files of any size/type is at a very low ebb, these days, & it's not worth their while for hardware stores to stock other than a few sizes.

Apologies for the long-winded reply, but I thought it might help if I made you aware of some things that I wish I'd known when I first took a file in hand & attacked a saw.....

Cheers,

Ian

Such a good synopsis. I can't add anything useful to that so I will just mention a couple of unhelpful aspects.

This may be the table to which Ian is referring or if not it is very similar:

Sw file dimensions.jpg

I hope you can interpret the figures. They are a little blured. Also the corners, which are the important part, are not representative!

This is a thread started by FenceFurniture on saw files:

SAW FILES TEST REPORT - extensive testing of 23 saw files by 3 experienced filers

Ian was involved in this survey. It probably needs updating now, but what it comes down to is that even amongst the better brands in that survey there was a disturbing lack of quality control and while a 5" file was no good, in the same brand their 6" file performed well as an example. It is a bit of a lottery. My own experience is that the smaller and slimmer the file, the more difficult it is to source good quality. The "NOS" files are still the best, but understandably difficult to source.

I would add that where possible go for Extra Slim Taper (EST) or Double Extra Slim Taper (DEST). The reason for this is that for any given tooth it allows the use of a longer file. This gives a more even and controlled filing action. Once you get down to 12ppi and finer there is not much option other than a short file. In the table above a 7" DEST is eqivalent to a 5 1/2" EST (I have not seen the 1/2" sizes so this is an academic example). The 7" file would be my choice.

Regards
Paul