Atkins Four Hundred. "The Finest on Earth?"

**Bushmiller** · 8th April 2018, 04:45 PM

A question to be asked in almost every arena is what is the best and sometimes this is synonymous with what is the most expensive? We do it with cars. The Bugatti Atlantic type 57SC (lowered and supercharged) may be the most expensive; instruments such as a Stradivarius and in particular the “Lady Blunt”, which like the 57SC is worth around US$15 million and any other exotic collectible.

Bugatti Type 57SC Atlantic front.jpg

Lady Blunt.jpg

So with the humble handsaw what was the best and what was the most expensive ever made? Well in the folk law of hand saws there are a number of contenders.

We also have to remember that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and rarity can significantly distort the value. I distinctly remember following (as a spectator) an Ebay auction a few years ago for an early Disston on Ebay. Bidding was spirited for this example, which was probably made in Henry’s shed by the master himself and one apprentice well before he became a household name. The price rose to over $500 and then in the last five minutes two more buyers entered the contest and it sold for over US$5,500!!

The last person to whom I related this story said that’s the truth as he was the losing bidder and quoted the figures to me as it was still entrenched in the fleshy tablets of his mind!!!

But in normal terms, what was the most expensive saw and best back in the day? Was it Disston’s iconic No.12 or their ACME 120? I think the No.12, first released in the 1860s, held it’s head high for many years probably until the end of the 19^th century without a serious challenger apart from half ar*ed attempts by Wheeler Madden and Clemson or one of their earlier incarnations. The No.12 deserves recognition for it’s longevity at the top of the tree and not finally chopped from the range until the big rationalisation by Disston in 1928 when it was superseded by the D-12. However, forty years at the top of the tree is very creditable. Just to refresh your memories (

) :

P1030741 (Medium).JPG

P1030737 (Medium).JPG

P1030734 (Medium).JPG

If that saw looks large, it is an optical illusion created by the single fact that it is a 30" example. Those of you who stood to attention with their cap in their hand may now stand easy and replace their cap.

All good things have to come to an end and this reign changed around 1906 (the first information I have) when Atkins released on an unsuspecting American market their Four Hundred. The era was not renowned for modesty in advertising and Atkins described the Four Hundred as “The finest and most expensive handsaw ever made.” A “Take that buddy” kind of attitude.

Atkins 1906 cat. Four Hundred.jpg

P1030722 (Medium).JPG

P1030724 (Medium).JPG

P1030723 (Medium).JPG

Incidently, just recently, three of these saws were sold on Ebay. They were from a later era either before or after WW2, but in pristine condition and sharpened in the seller’s own, virtually inimitable, fashion. They all sold for more than US$500, but I digress very slightly. At their inception over 110 years ago, were they the best and were they the most expensive? Well the answer to the second question is a simple “yes.”

The Four Hundred sold for US$48 per dozen which was about half as much again as the next nearest rival. Disston’s No.12 was US$29 (1906 price, although it had reduced from US$35 in 1875) and Simonds’ No.4 was US$32. (1905). Disston’s D115 would not surface until 1914 and even then it was still only US$36, which was the same price as Simonds’ 60 series Blue Ribbon saws first seen in 1910 also at US$36. All these prices were for a dozen saws and in the 26” version, which I use as the yardstick. WMC’s most expensive model, the star was US$34 in 1895. It would command this price differential until well after WW1.

This is Disston's D115 anniversary saw (centennial) of 1915 -1918 with a rosewood handle (top horn has had a reduction

).

Calendar saw D115 Jubilee 001 (Large).jpg

and Simonds No.62 with the dollar medallion 1910-1914

Calendrar saw No.62 001.jpg

This is the WMC saw, but it may not have made it into the 20th century.

WMC Star saw.jpg

What made the Four Hundred so expensive? It was made of Atkins’ best steel and polished to a mirror finish and of course taper ground. In fact there the ground portion was four gauges less than the toothline. The handle was of Brazilian Rosewood and the medallion and saw screws were silver plated brass, although I suspect this would be better described as nickel plated silver (or EPNS if we were talking cutlery) and the silvered layer is quite thin as it does tend to wear off over time leaving the bare brass. The Rosewood handle is uncarved and relies on the fine grain and dramatic colour of the timber for effect. The pattern used is Atkins’ “perfection” style, which I happen to think is one of the best functional handles made by any of the saw manufacturers and a little bit like “Wonder Woman,” quite good to look at. However this is just my subjective opinion (on the saw handle as well).

Initially the handles were just varnished and polished but later they were described as having a piano finish, which I believe was achieved with lacquer. It certainly looked as if the handle could have been pinched from the lid of your Baby Grand when the pianist was having a quick kip.

P1030731 - Copy (Medium).JPG

P1030727 (Medium).JPG

P1030726 (Medium).JPG

One point to note is that the later handle despite the glossy finish is slightly less fussy or not so refined if you prefer. Under the lower horn the handle has less curvature compared to the earlier handle

Over time the Four Hundred started to be called the 400 (or the straight back version, the 401), although the number was often incorporated in the etch in the early versions. The etch varied and at times the word “Elite” featured prominently as well as in the advertising. The following are from catalogues of 1919, 1923, 1937 and a saw Sense booklet from the early fifties:

Atkins 1919 cat. Four Hundred.jpg

Atkins 1923 cat. Four Hundred.jpg

Atkins 400 & 401 1937.jpg

E. C. Atkins Saw Sense 1950s.jpg

There appears to be a common anomaly with at least the later saws. The 400 was a skew back while the 401 was the straight back version, but frequently the wrong numbers appear. My own 400 is actually a straight back and I have noticed this on saws sold recently. When first released the Four Hundred was only available in the regular width size but it became available in narrow versions also. The 1919 catalogue very conveniently tells us the physical size of the saw. Depth really, as 26" long is always 26" long unlike some body parts. I am not really six foot tall (what did you think I meant?) The real benefit of knowing the original depth of the saw is assessing how much it has been sharpened. I have only ever seen the 26" versions advertised for sale in recent times so it is quite possible this represented the bulk of the sales.

Some more hyperbole:

Atkins 400.jpg

Was it the best saw? It may well have been as Atkins made extremely good saws and their steel, sourced from Sheffield in England, was amongst the finest, but possibly not worth half or a third as much again as the rival saws. Disston’s D115, which was to become the Anniversary saw in 1915 and the Victory saw in 1918, also had a Brazillian Rosewood handle and nickel plated hardware and was 25% cheaper. Or was the 400 33% more expensive: Depends on which way you look at it.

By the early fifties the market for handsaws had fallen into decline and both Atkins and Disston were at the end of their tether. It would not be long before HK Porter took over Disston and Nicholson bought out Atkins. In 1935 Disston had introduced their D-95, which was sometimes referred to as the “Masterpiece” and it still remains their most expensive saw along with the Victory saws (D-15 by this stage as the D-115 had gradually taken a step back since the rationalisation.) Both the D-95 and the D-15 had caught up with the 400 and price relativities were US$101 for the 400 and US$110 for the Disston saws. This hardware catalogue from 1938 shows both the 400 and the D115 at the same price.

disston and Atkins 1938 advt.jpg

The Four Hundred was discontinued at some time in the early fifties I think, but I am looking for confirmation of this statement. I would also be peased to hear from anybody who can come up with another contender for:

"The Finest on Earth."

Regards
Paul

**rob streeper** · 8th April 2018, 10:07 PM

Paul,

Great post, thanks.

My hardness testing has shown that, of the group Disston, Simonds and Atkins, that Disston is the most consistent, Simonds is second by a nose and Atkins is the worst. Disston is the only manufacturer of the period that used two different types of steel in saw blades, the best for the No. 12's and the standard grade for everything else. The rejects were made into Jacksons.

While you still can please increase the size of the pictures so that the texts are readable.

Regards,
Rob

**FenceFurniture** · 8th April 2018, 10:54 PM

Paul, as Rob said, great post!

**Bushmiller** · 8th April 2018, 11:53 PM

Originally Posted by rob streeper

Paul,

Great post, thanks.

My hardness testing has shown that, of the group Disston, Simonds and Atkins, that Disston is the most consistent, Simonds is second by a nose and Atkins is the worst. Disston is the only manufacturer of the period that used two different types of steel in saw blades, the best for the No. 12's and the standard grade for everything else. The rejects were made into Jacksons.

While you still can please increase the size of the pictures so that the texts are readable.

Regards,
Rob

Rob

My level of technology is sadly lacking and I don't know how to make the pix larger as they first appear or even to produce the mega pix that you and others seem able to do. It may well be why I immerse myself in the objects from one hundred years ago and wrestle with the technology of their day. I can't read the text as it first appears, but if you click on the pix they will open in a separate window and enlarge in the process. You can click on them again and sometimes they enlarge further, but not always. I have just tried the first "click" to make sure it works ok and it seems so to the extent I can read the text. Let me know if it doesn't work for you and I will contact some guru.

Regards
Paul

**rob streeper** · 9th April 2018, 12:07 AM

Go back and open your post for editing and then double click on each picture. A dialog box will open and you'll see radio buttons that allow you to select small, medium, large or full size pictures. Choose full size.

**Bushmiller** · 9th April 2018, 08:26 AM

Rob

That's wonderful. So big!

Trouble is, that the warts and all magically appear

.

Regards
Paul

**Bushmiller** · 9th April 2018, 08:50 AM

One point I should add regarding the Hardware company advertisements is that their prices do not always correspond exactly with the manufacturers RRP. My explanation for this is that the catalogues are purely a recommended price and dealer discounts as well as freight costs in a big country would have had a part to play. Having said that the Simonds Blue Ribbon saws had the price etched into the saw plate and that magnificent "dollar" medallion for around four years and that was a selling point.

The No.62 in the original post has the price of $2.50 clearly marked on the plate. The cost of a dozen saws therefore is $30.00. It was in fact after 1916 that the cost went to $36.00 so that is a correction that needs to be noted from my previous comments and reinforces Atkins position as the most expensive. Simonds No.51, however in the 26" size was priced at $3.00 or $36.00/dozen. It was around in 1910 as I have two versions with the dollar medallion, but it does not appear in any Simonds catalogue.

Simonds No.51 4 screw.JPG

Simonds No.51 5 screw.JPG

I do like this big pix stuff

Regards
Paul

**ian** · 9th April 2018, 08:59 AM

Hi Paul
while not being a member of the cognoscenti when it comes to saws, I do wonder why your discussion is limited to [what I believe to be] US saw makers.

Are there no English (specifically Sheffield) saws from the period 1800 to 1920 worthy of recognition ?

and is the discussion biased by the ever expending size of the US market -- where even a mediocre saw will sell well when every immigrant heading west needed a swag of saws to be self sufficient ?

**Bushmiller** · 9th April 2018, 09:05 AM

Just re-reading the later descriptions (now that they are readable without the aid of a microscope) I see that the taper grinding ran to five gauges thinner in the second two catalogues but only four in the first two. Taper grinding is a big selling point of quality saws, but also reduces the rigidity in the plate. It probably is only viable with the best steels. That and the expense of taper grinding is one aspect that sets quality saws apart from the lower end of the market. All saws that bore the maker's brand were taper ground, but this could be in differing degrees.

Regards
Paul

**IanW** · 9th April 2018, 09:18 AM

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

......I do like this big pix stuff

...

It certainly saves faffing about clicking on thumbnails or smaller pics to see what you are looking at. But one reason I tend to avoid using the larger pics in picture-heavy posts is because you can quickly fill up entire pages and you end up scrolling madly up & down the page to read or check some point in the text. And when folks 'quote' such a post in reply without editing out the pics (which are usually not necessary for bit they are replying to), you end up scrolling down a full page again to get to the point!

So if we are all going to use large pics in posts, can I put my moderator hat on & make a plea that everyone uses quotes considerately by editing out the unnecessary text/pics to make all posts easier to read & follow?

Cheers,

**Bushmiller** · 9th April 2018, 09:50 AM

Originally Posted by ian

Hi Paul
while not being a member of the cognoscenti when it comes to saws, I do wonder why your discussion is limited to [what I believe to be] US saw makers.

Are there no English (specifically Sheffield) saws from the period 1800 to 1920 worthy of recognition ?

and is the discussion biased by the ever expending size of the US market -- where even a mediocre saw will sell well when every immigrant heading west needed a swag of saws to be self sufficient ?

Ian

Your criticism is quite valid particularly when it comes to the "best" aspect of the saws. As far as cost is concerned nobody had the affront of EC Atkins to offer up a saw at such a price. I don't have much knowledge of the British hand saw market, which is quite ironic really as a pome bastar! All I can say is that Spear and Jackson were the market leader. For many years the British saws were considered the tool to own and the early American manufacturers would tout the fact that their saws were made of Sheffield steel. Disston touted "Extra Refined London Spring Steel" for their No.12 and it wasn't until after the Civil War that gradually Disston let on their saws were of American made steel. Up until then there was a backlash against anything not emanating from the UK.

For example this is in the Wheeler Madden and Clemson catalogue of 1871 (six years after the Civil War?). Note the top saw, the No.25, and the reference to S & J even in their own catalogue! Having said that, it may have been a very calculated ploy as the No.25 was well down their own hierarchy.

Wheeler Madden & Clemson 1871 catalogue. Nos 25, 26, 28, 30.jpg

This exert below is from the S & J catalogue of 1923.

S and J 1923 catalogue.jpg

This is the earliest information I have for S & J. The No.171A was GBP12.40/dozen, but I don't know the exchange rate in those days. By 1923 Akins" No.400 was around $78 per dozen.

It is true to say that I have concentrated on the American market as that was quite easily the largest in the world. Disston wasto saws a little like the Amazon is to rivers, supplying more water to the oceans than the rest combined. (Actually that is not quite true, but the Amazon's largest tributary, the Rio Negro, does supply more water than the next largest river in the world to the Amazon). The Swiss and the Germans could also be invited to compete. I did however, in my defense, invite other contenders for the title. It is not necessarily a fait accompli.

Regards
Paul

**ian** · 9th April 2018, 03:24 PM

Can you hazard a guess as to what Wheeler Madden and Clemson meant by "this has had an extensive sale, and is fully equal to Spear and Jackson's"

I don't know enough about saws to tell the difference between a Wheeler Madden and Clemson #25 and a #26, let alone a Disston #12

**Bushmiller** · 9th April 2018, 04:36 PM

Ian

I think this is just marketing speak.

References in catalogues and other publications from this era abound that a particular saw is "very well received by" or "preferred by carpenters." There is absolutely no basis for these statements and they were probably made up by the marketing team a little like the bleeding heart letters and my boyfriend doesn't love me any more letters in magazines. They really are not going to come out and say "this saw has been a bit of a dog but you may be stupid enough to buy it so we are keeping it in our range." Clearly, much of the differences are cosmetic and if a company offers a range of saws it arguably attracts buyers who want a choice.

It gives the manufacturer credibility and it offers the salesman on the floor of the shop (and the manufacturer's representative for that matter) the opportunity to gauge his customer and sell him the most expensive saw he can or the saw best for his work: A question of ethics there. Not much changes in marketing: Just the buzz words and the method of delivery.

As to the difference between a WMC No.25 and a No.26 I am as much in the dark as anybody other than one had a beech handle and the other an apple handle. Frequently the type of timber used will be the only difference.

Regards
Paul

**rob streeper** · 9th April 2018, 04:54 PM

Originally Posted by ian

Hi Paul
while not being a member of the cognoscenti when it comes to saws, I do wonder why your discussion is limited to [what I believe to be] US saw makers.

Are there no English (specifically Sheffield) saws from the period 1800 to 1920 worthy of recognition ?

I've done measurements of a few English make saws. The numbers aren't large enough yet to speak to the variability in the hardness of the steel yet but I feel pretty confident in concluding that the average Sheffield saw was intentionally made softer than the average American saw was.

I measured a Footprint saw some years ago and it too was a bit softer than is typical for American saws. I reached out to Footprint and, somewhat surprisingly, I never got a response.

**Bushmiller** · 9th April 2018, 05:00 PM

Originally Posted by IanW

It certainly saves faffing about clicking on thumbnails or smaller pics to see what you are looking at. But one reason I tend to avoid using the larger pics in picture-heavy posts is because you can quickly fill up entire pages and you end up scrolling madly up & down the page to read or check some point in the text. And when folks 'quote' such a post in reply without editing out the pics (which are usually not necessary for bit they are replying to), you end up scrolling down a full page again to get to the point!

So if we are all going to use large pics in posts, can I put my moderator hat on & make a plea that everyone uses quotes considerately by editing out the unnecessary text/pics to make all posts easier to read & follow?

Cheers,

Ian

Noted.

If you had included any pix in the above post I would certainly have wiped them off of the face of the earth.

Actually I completely agree in that as well as the ergonomics of reading I imagine it bogs down the speed of the thread and must use up data capacity. (I am just showing off that I know what data is now that I am picture accredited). I think some subjects require larger pix than others too. Apologies to the OP for the digression (err...) Cancel that. It's my thread, digressions are completely acceptable: Particularly by me! And if I don't like a turn they are taking I will just post another pic of a saw to hijack the digression.

Regards
Paul

Thread: Atkins Four Hundred. "The Finest on Earth?"

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Atkins Four Hundred. "The Finest on Earth?"

Similar Threads

Plastic "Bung Taps" - I want to "click" a garden hose onto the end of one...?

Why do so many "private" eBay sellers only offer "local pickup"?...

eBay: How long can you "Save" the "Draft"-listing of an item you want to sell?...

Posting Permissions