Thread: Saw Report - QLD

Just a few more: A couple of Bay State saws that need some serious cleaning. Although at first glance they seem virtually identical, one saw has wheat carving on both the grip and the flat while the other only had carving on the grip. Both are from the earlier period judging by the medallion. They are probably No.25s. Who knows what is under the blade on the blacker example.

P1000870.jpgP1000872.jpg

With only the carving on the grip.

P1000871.jpgP1000873.jpg

I got both these saws from the same seller. I have found the Bay State saws to be really good and price wise they are the same as the Simonds No.10 and No. 10 1/2.

I was going to save this one for last, but I don't want to finish on a bad note so I'm sticking it in here. "It is a tale full of sound and fury signifying nothing." Actually it seems that this listing was close to a criminal act. I am trying to figure out after this length of time how I can warn others. The saw was described as a Simonds with a Crescent Moon and Star medallion. Only a single pic accompanied the listing. Well a fool and his money are easily parted. This saw had a Warranted Superior medallion and nothing discernible on the saw plate regarding any etch let alone a Simonds etch.

On top of that the saw plate is broken: Badly broken at that. This was the same seller who sent the parcel to the wrong address and then I heard nothing from until I called in the Ebay police.

P1000880.jpgP1000881.jpg

A living disgrace. Caveat Emptor.

On a better note this is a 12" Bay State back saw with 14ppi.

P1020459.jpgP1020460.jpg

This Simonds No.97 is a little beefier at 16" and 12ppi:

P1000874.jpgP1000875.jpg

I have a couple of little bits of silliness to show off but other than that and to quote Peter Cundle, That's yer bloomin' lot.

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

Just seen on the TV News the floods in Houston. Our hearts go out to the people trapped in this catastrophic event. I looked up San Antonio where Rob is and it looks to be about 400Km away. I think I heard a comment that the weather was bad there. Hopefully not like Houston.

Regards
Paul

Paul,

No, we're good. We got a few inches of rain and some moderate wind. Sunny, much cooler and breezy day today. South and East got clobbered.

Regards,
Rob

Ok. So now to the sillyness:

P1000907.jpgP1000910.jpg

SWMBO commented as to what a useless hat this is as it does not protect your ears. I did not see the merit in pointing out that one day I might not be as compos mentis as I once was and I don't want to collect the wrong saws. She thinks/hopes it is just a phase I will grow out of: This should help keep me on track .

These are a blast from the past: A time when people used to write:

P1000908.jpgP1000909.jpg

They will come into their own in the year 3000 (Commonly referred to as Y3K) when the internet crashes for all time. Once I learn to write again I will at the forefront of communication. Oh, hang on, I think I have to be somewhere else that year; I might not be able to make it .

Rgards
Paul

Just bear with me for a moment as I am reaching for the hat to ward off Alzheimer's condition .

There were two more offerings and these completely escaped my memory. hence the need for the hat:

The first is just a fairly plain old Disston D-95 probably just post WW2. However it may be worth remembering that this was the most expensive saw Disston ever made. more expensive than the iconic No.12 and mostly more expensive than the Victory saws, although at times they were about the same price. The two piece plastic handle has a good feel to it (for plastic that is) and Disston's claim that it will never work loose is right on the money. In normal use it is also unbreakable, but I have had three or four examples come my way where clearly a concerted and deliberate effort had been made to destruct them. This one is OK:

P1000891.jpgP1000892.jpg

One of the characteristics of the D-95 (and the Victory saws too) is how rigid they are compared to many other saws.

The other saw I just appear to have deleted all the pix so until tomorrow. Goodnight.

Regards
Paul

Hi Paul,

good to see so many great saws, thanks for sharing, most of them look in good condition and will clean up nicely.

I often think when looking at all the various saws with regard to their length and ppi, what would each one be most suitable for.

I reckon both the D20 11ppi 20" panel saw and the Simonds 371 11ppi 18" panel saw would go well in the small Stanley 150 mitre box.

That type of mitre box was designed to take either back saws or regular saws.

The D20 with its 20" length would offer a longer more efficient stroke than say a 16" back saw, its weight would be about the same.

It would be a good combination for a second fix carpenter to have in his kit when travelling to fit out houses.

Regards

Graham.

Graham

You are quite right about the suitability of the small panel saws to substitute for a dedicated mitre saw. However, I think you might be surprised at the weight disparity. For example, a 26" hand saw weighs on average about 750g: A little more for the full depth regular saws and a little less for a slightly worn narrow or ship point saw. A 26" miter saws weighs about 1.5Kg thanks primarily to the steel or brass back. I have not weighed the smaller saws, but I think it is reasonable to assume that they will be pro rata.

The weight of the mitre saw greatly assists the cutting action and allows the user to merely push. Having said all that I am quite sure the panel saw could be substituted but you would have to exert a little more downward pressure. If your saw was really sharp I think you might absolutely get away with it quite well. I have long been an advocate of allowing the weight of a saw to do the cutting with only minimal pressure. The panel saw will not be an optimum angle compared to the mitre saw.

Regards
Paul

By coincidence, I was doing a bit of 'research' on this topic of saw heft & suitability for different jobs yesterday. Well, hardly exhaustive, but it does illustrate a couple of points about saws & sawing that I'm always banging on about. When you've got as wide a range of saws to choose from as I have (I'm talking backsaws here, of which I still have maybe one or two more to choose from than Paul.. ), it's interesting how big a difference an extra inch or two of blade or a few grams of weight can make.

I have 3 tenon saws that I use regularly: tenon saws.jpg

In order, from to back they are: 10" 12 tpi, 12" 12 tpi, & 14" 10tpi.
I have tried to analyse exactly why each saw is 'right' for a particular situation, & some aspects are objective, others subjective. In essence, I don't like pushing more metal around than I need to, & I find I have better control over a smaller saw than a larger one, so I select a saw that is just big enough to do the job, i.e., it will clear itself on each stroke. And I agree emphatically, a backsaw in particular should cut under its own weight.

So what happened yesterday is that I was sawing some tenons in some very hard hardwood. (It's probably Spotted Gum by the odour & grain & provenence, but it's very dark for SG, & the grain is rather fine.) Anyway, I first reached for my 12-inch 12tpi saw, which I like to use for cuts up to about 70mm wide & 35mm deep, which is almost exactly what these were. It did the job ok, but seemed to be a bit slow, despite the saw having been recently sharpened. So I pulled out 'big Bertha', which I would normally use for larger work, and it hit the Goldilocks spot. 14 inch tenon.jpg

The wood I was cutting is hard as hell, but quite 'crisp' and the sawdust chips were separating freely, so I think the combination of extra weight and larger gullets of the bigger saw were making for faster cuts without clogging. So despite the larger saw being a touch duller (it's actually in need of a full joint & sharpen) I finished the second pair of cheeks in about 2/3rds the time.

So I can appreciate there could be a world of difference in using a panel saw instead of a backsaw in a mitre box. Of course you could do it at a pinch, I've often used my panel saw where I would have preferred a long backsaw, and if you didn't want to lug more tools than absolutely necessary to a job it's a viable option, but even when they have the same tooth pitch & configuration, the weight distribution & handle placement make them entirely different animals, so if I'm at home with the luxury of choice, I like to find a saw that feels "just right"....

Cheers,

Ian

Thanks for your post. It is good to get feedback from somebody on the ground doing the job rather than the likes of me just dancing around the periphery.

BTW, your saws still look good .

Regards
Paul

This is the last one and in a way it is a let down compared with the other saws. I don't know the brand and only purchased it because it had eleven blades with it. Most of the manufacturers made these nests of saws and I have to say I was just a little curious about them, but this was more comprehensive (or more useless) than most. Enough in the way of justification. I don't really have to, which is just as well as I am not good at it. I thought it would make a good exhibition talking point if I am ever asked to do such a thing again.

P1000918.JPGP1000919.JPGP1000920.JPG

There are five blades at 16", the two back blades are 12" and the shortest blade, the keyhole, is 10".

Regards
Paul