Thread: An ealy Disston dovetail saw

Originally Posted by pmcgee

....It occurs to wonder how common good glasses were in the past (ie 100+ years ago).....

Paul, specs have been around for several hundreds of years, not as comparatively cheap as they are now, and none of the fancy graduated lenses, but they would've done the job. What I often wonder about is lighting! Besides good glasses, I need good light to see fine lines, and that certainly wasn't available at the flick of a switch until comparatively recently. I guess the old blokes had to make the best of natural lighting.

Originally Posted by pmcgee

......1) it could have been a real trial to see exactly where a plunger was hitting a saw tooth;

2) did they spend a lot of time analysing it? Could go either way I guess. It was an important tool then......

Don't forget that hands take on a certain independence after years of repetitive practise. My father could still do a better job of sharpening a saw than I could, well after his eyesight started giving out - I used to say he did it by braille. If you were setting saws every working day of your life, you'd get to the stage where it was mostly muscle-memory...

As to issue #2, I couldn't say for sure, but judging by the number of patented saw-sets kicking about, it seems a lot were analysing & thinking about it......

Cheers,

Yes I was only looking through this saw set site the other day thinking something very similar:
The Saw Set Collector's Resource
It contains some the output of some very creative minds.
Maybe not always practical but definitely plenty of thinking.

Originally Posted by hiroller

......the output of some very creative minds.
Maybe not always practical but definitely plenty of thinking.....

Indeed, Gavin, very aptly put.....

Circumstances have nearly overwhelmed my waking hours and energy bandwidth reducing my saw related activities to the occasional eBay purchase and filling orders for screws. Nonetheless this exciting (to me) new (old) saw arrived in the post today and I thought that the saw aficionado's on the site may find it to be of some some interest.

Early dovetail 1.jpg

Early dovetail 1 (1).jpg

Mass is 346.4 gm., depth of cut at the toe is 2 9/16", toothline is 10"(-), the plate is 0.015" with no taper grind. The blade is toothed 14 PPI.
The top of the back is slightly bowed toward the toothline in the middle ~ 1/16". The bottom of the back is much less bowed. This feature is something I've come to recognize as a manufacturing artifact. The backs were first folded introducing the bow and the bottom edges were then ground roughly straight.

The medallion dates the saw to ~1860-1865.

Early dovetail 1 (2).jpg

The saw bears split nut style fasteners of course and is owner stamped "N. H. Richardson", on both sides of the grip. NHR must have harbored doubts about his co-workers...

Early dovetail 1 (3).jpg

The Disston is very similar in measure to the modern Lie Nielsen carcass saw. The blade is about an inch shorter and the dangle angle is steeper on the Disston but otherwise they appear to be designed to serve the same end.

Early Disston Dovetail with LN carcass saw.jpg

The handle has around 50% varnish on the edges and the overall impression is that the saw is a completely un-molested original that's now somewhere between it's 150th and 160th birthdays.

Cheers,
Rob

That's a sweet saw. Nice find.

Rob, there seems to be some writing etched on the blade towards the toe - is it real, or am I seeing things that aren't there?

Rob; the earlier handle gets the nod for the greater effort put into its shaping. An A compared to a C on the score board.

The LN gets my vote on the preferred saw plate dimensions.

What are the ratios between depth x length on both backsaws.

Stewie;

Originally Posted by IanW

Rob, there seems to be some writing etched on the blade towards the toe - is it real, or am I seeing things that aren't there?

Ian,

Wouldn't be the first time that a feature was first noticed in a photo but no, I don't think that there's any lettering.

Regards,
Rob

Originally Posted by planemaker

Rob; the earlier handle gets the nod for the greater effort put into its shaping. An A compared to a C on the score board.

The LN gets my vote on the preferred saw plate dimensions.

What are the ratios between depth x length on both backsaws.

Stewie;

Stewie,

The LN feels awkward compared to the Disston, too heavy at the toe, as brass backed saws beyond a certain length often do to me. I've come to prefer steel or stainless steel backed saws for my users.

Regards,
Rob

Rob; what are the ratios between depth x length on the saw plates on both backsaws. (below the hardback)

I'd suggest the forward weight noted towards the toe of the LN could be offset if they lowered the hang of the handle.

The problem with having such a steep hang on a heavily weighted backsaw such as the LN, is that it sets the wrist in a very weak position to withstand that extra weight felt towards the toe. IMO

Stewie;

Originally Posted by rob streeper

......The LN feels awkward compared to the Disston, too heavy at the toe, as brass backed saws beyond a certain length often do to me. I've come to prefer steel or stainless steel backed saws for my users....

Rob, I think we all have our our individual preferences when it comes to saw weights & lengths, & as I'm fond of saying, it must have always been so, given that every style of saw came in a wide choice of lengths. Much depends on how you use your saw, and what height you regularly work at. This will be influenced by your bench height, your holding devices, & quite a lot on the acuity of your eyesight, not to mention your anatomical proportions and physical endurance. I wish we could reduce hang-angles, handle heights relative to tooth lines, and saw lengths, to a simple formula, but I don't think it's possible, given the wide user preferences I've experienced. I think the only way to work out if a saw is 'good' for a particular job is to use it in earnest for a few days or weeks.

At one point I was convinced that there were a few relationships that were pretty constant and would apply across all saws & sawyers, like pitch, rake angles, and fleam angles, but the older I get, the less certain I am about those, too! My recent "discovery" of 45 degree fleam was a huge surprise to me & turned a few pet theories on end. Now, I think that while I can advise someone that if you alter this parameter, the trend will be this or that, how much effect it will have fwill depend on their own experience & abilities. I am getting to know better what I like in a saw, but not so sure that helps anyone else, any more.....

Cheers,

Stewie,

The Disston is 2-9/16" X 10", The LN is 2-9/16" X10-15/16". The mass of the LN is however 413.2 gm. compared to the 346.4 gm. of the Disston. I have a Wenzloff open handle saw of similar specification that bears a 2-9/16" X 11-1/32" blade that goes 475.2 gm. The Disston and Wenzloff saws have 0.015" thick non-taper ground plates and the LN is 0.020", also not taper ground.

Regards,
Rob

Ian,

Agree that saw parameters are very personal. It's interesting that, notwithstanding my preferences, I sell about 5 times more heavy brass backed saws than I do medium brass backs. I think people these days like their tools to be heavy. Very few people are interested in steel or stainless backed saws, I like them though.

Regards,
Rob

Rob; can you do me a favor and double check the measurement on the exposed blade depth of the early Disston. Your quoting the depth on both backsaws as being the same, but the photo you supplied suggests the Disston has a greater depth.

regards Stewie;