Thread: Help with Disston Number ID

Looks like No. 7.

Rob beat me to it. The handle profile matches the 7/8, so if it's Beech, looks like you've got a 7.

Cheers,

Yep. I'll just reiterate what's been said. Definitely a No. 7.

What the previous three posters said.

That is quite a nice deep example. Should come up well.

Regards
Paul

The lambs tongue has been reshaped.

Originally Posted by planemaker

The lambs tongue has been reshaped.

I dunno - looks pretty standard to me (?) In what area did you mean, pm?

It's a funny one 'tho ... that phase ... teenage gawky years? ... handle only a mother could love?
Cheers,
Paul

Originally Posted by pmcgee

....I dunno - looks pretty standard to me (?) ....

Paul, it's a bit different, to be sure, a little 'finer' than the Disstonian handle. But I'd lay a small bet that if you compared 10 handles of contemporary saws, they'd all be a bit different. Cutting the lamb's tongue would have to have been a hand-work job in that era, & the people doing it were probably paid on a piece-work basis, so they would've rattled 'em out at breakneck speed. You can imagine there was an occasional slip of the knife or gouge, necessitating a bit of 'corrective surgery', which might account for the finer example schuld66 has. Just a thought.....

Cheers,

P.S. I like that handle, doesn't look at all gawky to me.

I was looking at the saws displayed on the Disstonian Institute and in both the drawings extracted from catalogues of the time and the examples display there was quite a variance, I dug out some saws of mine and while there are similarities there are also slight differences including the one without a lambs tongue at all:

P1000774.jpg

Some close ups

P1000775.jpgP1000776.jpgP1000777.jpg

A couple more:

P1000778.jpg

with close ups

P1000779.jpgP1000780.jpg

The last picture is a panel saw. The handles is the same but fewer screws and smaller: Scaled down if you like.

Regards
Paul

Paul, the second row of pics is particularly interesting to me. It looks like a post-war model on the left & two pre-WW2 saws on the right. Note how the rounding-over on the grip of what I take to be a later model has a distinct edge, while on the (sans 'tongue') one on the right, the rounding blends seamlessly into the sides. Some of that may be due to wear, but my impression has always been that many (though by no means all) of the late-1800s/early 1900s Disstons had such nicely 'organic' grips. Again, no doubt due to individual variation by the person doing the finishing handwork. It's the look I strive for on any saw handle I make, however, there are those who prefer the delineated edge like on the pale handle, which is all good.....

Cheers,

Ian

I think your observations are those of somebody who has had close contact with saws both in use and the making. There are not many who prefer the delineated edge to the grip. As I think has been said in the past, it may even have been you, the handles made post WW2, just to make an arbitrary cut off point, were fashioned on machines and the routers could not quite emulate the craftsmanship of the earlier times (actually I think they could have if they really wanted, but the economic incentive had been removed or the bean counters had become the directors).

Having said all that ( takes a deep breath ) the medallion with "phila" on our newer "blocky" looking saw places it at the latest 1940, but the No.7, which was Henry's first saw, was a casualty of the 1928 model revamp, being replaced by the D-7 so the latest it could be is 1927. The handles with "philada" on the medallion are older as that was used between 1896 and 1917.

In fact the saw in question has a particularly good etch and is undeniably a No.7. It measures 7 1/4" across the heel so has lost very little of the saw plate. The handle has been repaired clumsily and I will have a tough decision to make when I come to restore it as a user. Should I tidy the handle up or should I make a new replica handle from Australian timber? I rather enjoy the latter.

Regards
Paul

Paul, I didn't mean to imply you could accurately age the two earlier saws by the handle contours, just pointing out that many handles prior to WW2 (which, as you say, is probably not a precise cut-off point), have that seamless blending into the sides. But it's certainly far from all, as you point out, in fact of the two (definitely pre-WW2) Disstons I own, one has the 'seamless' grip, the other has a more machine-like roundover. I've always thought at least part of the handle-making process employed a shaper, and the finishing touches were done by hand. In the pre=CNC age, it would've been quite a challenge to devise a machine to cut those lambs' tongues, though I suppose we shouldn't underestimate the ingenuity of those late 19th C. engineers. Some of the mechanical gadgets they created to do all sorts of complex tasks are pretty amazing.

Cheers,

Originally Posted by IanW

In the pre=CNC age, it would've been quite a challenge to devise a machine to cut those lambs' tongues, though I suppose we shouldn't underestimate the ingenuity of those late 19th C. engineers. Some of the mechanical gadgets they created to do all sorts of complex tasks are pretty amazing.

Cheers,

I am always surprised at how much machinery was at their disposal even quite early on. This is from the Disstonian website and the No.9 page.

Online Reference of Disston Saws -- No. 9 Handsaws.jpg

Perhaps the lambs tongue was always hand shaped and consequently why it ultimately fell from favour.

Just to get back on to the original tack I wondered if David has tried to clean up the saw plate. Now knowing what to look for there might be a trace of the etch on that saw.

Regards
Paul