Thread: Docking Saws

Cool post, Paul. Definitely an unsung hero of the hand saw era, I'd say. I'm excited to get my hands on mine!

I'm curious... What separates a docking saw from a mine saw? And what, generally speaking, was the point of a mine saw?

Cheers,
Luke

Luke

My charlatan hat nearly undid me here as I had thought that the Utility saw may only have been in existence during the HK Porter era, but on further investigation I turned up the following which if anything complicates your question even more :

Mine, utility and Docking saws. catalogue No.100.jpg

This is from catalogue No.100 and I don't know what year that is. However catalogue No.92 dates from 1932. It certainly looks as if it is during the Disston ownership both from the style of etch, the style of type and the lack of any HK Porter reference. I would guess at just before WW2.

The obvious difference is between a skewback style for the Docking saw and a narrow, straightback for the other two, which appear almost identical. The docking saw also boasts three gauges of tapering compared to only two for the No.4 and No.17. Interesting that the length of the docking saw is quoted in inches, but the others are quoted in feet, which is more in keeping with the crosscut logging saws. For the description of the No.4 they talk of "plain" teeth, but I have no knowledge of what that means. Form the drawing the teeth look to be larger and coarser, but I would not place any great store in that.

I presume, but don't know for certain, that the uses within a mine would be for cutting pit props and other shoring timbers. In those days the props would have had to last for some time whereas today with different mining techniques (long wall for example) the props may only have to last for a few months before the mine is collapsed. What I am getting at is the saws were geared to the types of timber preferred in those days.

The inclusion of a title that specifically seems made for an industry may well have been a ploy to attract sales. While looking up these saws I did also spy this from the same catalogue and again it appears to target an industry:

Disston No.513 Mine saw catalogue 100.png

Was the saw above significantly different to these two saws one of which was also suggested for mine use?

Disston D 514. Cat 100.pngDisston D 420. Cat 100.png

What I would say is that the "mine" saws appear to be narrower and possibly this is more suitable for confined or restricted spaces

I don't know if that is any help as it is certainly not conclusive.

Regards
Paul

Paul

am glad you started this thread, it may help identify a couple of mystery docking saws that I have here

will try to get some pictures and then post again.

Graham.

By all means Graham.

At this stage I am not sure whether the genre extended to any other manufacturers. So far the limited saws I have can be attributed to one of the big three. Having said that I do have a timber handled version that does not fit in with any of the above and unfortunately lacks an etch. I will take a pic and put it up later.

Regards
Paul

This is the timber handled version I have. The handle takes a little getting used to. I am undecided as to whether the single horn makes it look better of worse than no horn.

P1030925 (Medium).JPG P1030926 (Medium).JPG

If you catch this saw in a good light, it is still ugly. 3.5ppi does nothing to enhance it's looks. I don't really know what it is and there is of course no etch. Nobody wants to own it.

P1030930 (Medium).JPGP1030929 (Medium).JPG

Something I forgot to mention is that most of the docking saw were breasted. The Disstons seem to be extreme in this regard:

P1030928 (Medium) (2).JPG

Regards
Paul

This post is especially for Matt just to show that not every saw is a success story. I am not quite sure how I came by it. By saying that I mean I am not sure if it came in a bundle or whether I was stupid, purchased it individually and thought it was a good buy. I am hoping the former is the correct version and if it is the latter that nobody can prove it is true.

P1030932 (Medium).JPGP1030931 (Medium).JPGP1030933 (Medium) (2).JPGP1030934 (Medium) (2).JPGP1030935 (Medium).JPGP1030936 (Medium).JPG

It really is a diabolical example. I have only kept it to remind me to be more alert. I think it was once a Simonds, but is now wafer thin, broken in at least two places and bent in at least two places. Even the handle has diminished in thickness! Oh, and it has a funny extra hole ahead of the handle.

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

This post is especially for Matt just to show that not every saw is a success story. I am not quite sure how I came by it. By saying that I mean I am not sure if it came in a bundle or whether I was stupid, purchased it individually and thought it was a good buy. I am hoping the former is the correct version and if it is the latter that nobody can prove it is true.

P1030932 (Medium).JPGP1030931 (Medium).JPGP1030933 (Medium) (2).JPGP1030934 (Medium) (2).JPGP1030935 (Medium).JPGP1030936 (Medium).JPG

It really is a diabolical example. I have only kept it to remind me to be more alert. I think it was once a Simonds, but is now wafer thin, broken in at least two places and bent in at least two places. Even the handle has diminished in thickness! Oh, and it has a funny extra hole ahead of the handle.

Regards
Paul

I am currently seeking further advice, before committing to stupid degrading comments.
I will be back

Cheers Matt

Originally Posted by Simplicity

I am currently seeking further advice, before committing to stupid degrading comments.
I will be back

Cheers Matt

Matt

I think my posting skills may have let me down a little if I am following your thoughts correctly. I merely wished to explain that I tend to post the saws that came up well or were bought well: Regrettably they are not all treasures and if I was honest I would express envy for your ability (and others who follow these vintage tool threads) to track down incredible bargains.

A female friend of mine (note I did not say "girl friend") used to say you have to kiss a lot of toads (I know that should have been frogs) before you find Prince Charming: I think you have to traipse around many garage sales and flea markets before you find even a single jewel.



Regards
Paul

Luke

A further comment in the distinctions between saws is that in post #3 we see two separate Mine and Utility saws with the No.4 and No.17. In post #1 the No.17 is described as a "Mine and Utility" saw. It would appear that even Disston recognised there was little difference between the two. The docking saws do seem different in appearance and possible in the tooth configuration, although they were clearly designed for similar types of work.

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

Matt

I think my posting skills may have let me down a little if I am following your thoughts correctly. I merely wished to explain that I tend to post the saws that came up well or were bought well: Regrettably they are not all treasures and if I was honest I would express envy for your ability (and others who follow these vintage tool threads) to track down incredible bargains.

A female friend of mine (note I did not say "girl friend") used to say you have to kiss a lot of toads (I know that should have been frogs) before you find Prince Charming: I think you have to traipse around many garage sales and flea markets before you find even a single jewel.



Regards
Paul

No I think my intention and what I said could be taken the wrong way.
My apologies for it sounding heavy handed or is that heavy breasted in this case[emoji849].
I do stumble connecting the right hemisphere with the finger that does the button pushing.

But Paul
To quote my philosophical wife but only if you payed less than $20 AU(over that she has more colour words)

Whooopise [emoji41][emoji41]

Cheers Matt,

Originally Posted by Simplicity

But Paul
To quote my philosophical wife but only if you payed less than $20 AU(over that she has more colour words)

Whooopise [emoji41][emoji41]

Cheers Matt,

Matt

I think that after a few in depth conversations, during which monies paid were disclosed, with your other (better ) half, would result in my vocabulary being significantly enhanced.

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

Matt

I think that after a few in depth conversations, during which monies paid were disclosed, with your other (better ) half, would result in my vocabulary being significantly enhanced.

Regards
Paul

You ain’t wrong there,[emoji6]Paul,

Paul

the saw you showed back at post #7, if the 5ppi 25" markings are true then it makes me think that it is just a docking saw handle whacked on to an old buggered rip saw,

I reckon if you checked the blade thickness it would show as being thinner than other true docking saws, also is it heavily breasted? (you know what I mean) it is hard to
tell from your picture.

You're not alone when it comes to unsuccessful purchases, I too have one which is also not worthy of a place in the till with its mates, I will show it with the others soon.

On the bright side it would make a fantastic 'canvas' for an 'artist' once you have finished your examination of it.

Graham.

Paul

Today I managed to get some photos of the docking saws that hang out in my shed, there are 9 in total but, 3 of them are the same make and type.

Looking at your posted photos has helped me to identify one of my mystery saws as being an Atkins, thank you.

Earlier in this thread and at post #320 in the Symonds Saw Storey thread you wrote about the non-perforated (solid) handles only being on the early saws
and that the one that you had recently acquired must have been one of them, well I'm not sure that it is.

Looking at the catalogue pictures of the old saws and the angle between the top and back edges of the blade to me looks to be about 90 degrees causing the
handle to be 'off set', whereas the angle in the picture with the perforated handle looks about 10-20 degrees less allowing the handle to be 'let in' so may be
your saw is a transitional between the two types.

Back to the ones I've attached below, if they display in the correct order they are:

Symonds, Tyzack type 3, Tyzack type 2, Tyzack type 1, Disston, Mystery?? Atkins, Tyzack type 3, Tyzack type 3

I do have other individual photos of each saw if anyone wants to see them. (just need to be careful and not take over this thread)

As you have said Paul they are normally breasted along the tooth line, most of mine range between 5-10 mm but the Disston is very heavy breasted at 30 mm.

The other difference I've noticed is the hang angle between the handle with the tooth line (allowing for the breasting)
it ranges between 67 degrees and 77 degrees.

Graham.