Thread: Simonds saw

Would Mr Bushmiller please come to the counter?

This is a bit like the tie breaker question in the local pub trivia quiz.
I’m going to guess an 8 1/2 but I’m sure Paul will chime in with the correct answer.

Gavin

I think you have been doing some secret study...

You are very likely right with the No.8 1/2 and probably dating between 1910 and 1922 from the medallion and the two etches that have been shown.

Michael,

There is another possibility that it is a No.72. For this to be the case there will have to be a third etch between the Simonds steel etch and the handle which consists of two lines of script stating the Simonds guarantee. You will have to do some more cleaning to check this. From memory ( ) it says "This saw is covered by Simonds broadest guarantee."

Regards
Paul

Thanks for the reply Paul, it does not have the third etching. When I took the handle to clean<br>
It there was a 19 stamped into top right of the saw.

pics of post cleanup.

Michael

That is a particularly good handle that has cleaned up very well. I think that less than 20% of my saws would have a completely undamaged handle like yours and most of them cost a lot more than $5!

Well bought.

I have not found out the meaning of those numbers, although it was very likely an internal code. For example, all Disston No.12 saws had an "X" stamped under the handle.

Regards
Paul

I think that I now understand the purpose of some of the under-handle stampings that I've seen on Disston saws.

My readings have revealed that, though Disston built a crucible furnace in the mid 1850's the company continued to import Sheffield made (Jepsons) crucible steel at least into the 1870's. The crucible furnace built by Disston was used for experimental purposes, in common with many other entrepreneurs of the period Disston wanted to make his own crucible cast steel but didn't develop a product of sufficient quality until after the end of the 1861-1865 Civil War. Many other manufacturers, notably the Colt firearms manufacturer also continued to import Sheffield products because of the highly variable performance of US made steel.

Coming back to Disston saws, my data show a gradual arc of improvement in the consistency of hardness of Disston saws from the early days reaching the greatest uniformity in the 1896-1918 period. There is no clear inflection point at any time suggesting the transition from one method of manufacture to another, or from one source of supply to another. The only truly different steel spanning across the production periods was used in the No. 12's.

The under handle marks start around the Civil War times and continue up to the advent of the 1896 saws and they pretty much cease post-WW1.

I interpret these seemingly disparate lines of evidence as supporting the contention that Disston, in common with many others, started working on the problems of creating crucible steel in the mid 1850's but didn't achieve the quality desired until the post Civil War production periods and that the under-handle non-letter marks are hardness or proof tests of the steel consistent with the operation of an internal QC operation to ensure that the product met specifications. Once the processes were systematized the number of marks decreased to only a few letters.

Another interesting tidbit is that Disston was the first to introduce the use of a low frequency induction furnace in 1906 but it is well documented that the crucible operation continued in parallel into the 1920's. Crucible steel making was laborious, required skilled operators and was relatively low output per invested dollar. The only reasonable explanation for not immediately switching over to electric steel is that the 1906 installation was likewise experimental in nature and it took them some time to figure out the proper ways to use the new technology.

Rob

That's most interesting. I have always surmised that the numbers corresponded with grade quality in some way. However, with Michael's saw what does "19" correspond to? Should it be taken separately or as one? If separately, the"1" could be a grade and the "9" the intended number of teeth. Trouble is we have no information to work from.

Just returning to Disston I have one problem with your theorey that they continued to import British steel as well as running their own steel mill. Surely this would have been expensive as well as uneconomic. Having said that it would be an explanation as to why Disston did not shout out loud that they produced their own American made steel.

It has always been assumed that Disston played down their own steel because of the market rejection of American steel and the perception that British was best.

However there is another problem. Disston pursued an aggressive policy of aquisition and bought out many competitiors. In the earlier years there was a marked concentration in the Philadelphia region, but later on it extended to other saw manufacturers who had a high reputation in their own right. Their ability to do this has been attributed to The Morrill act that imposed high importation taxes on steel. If Disston was still importing British steel after the Civil war, they would have been in no better position than anybody else financially.

However, it seems that Disston made a killing (sorry) during the war supplying steel to the Union (this had to be from their own furnace) and emerged from the confrontation cashed up so that too could also explain their ability to buy out the opposition.

Disston literature definitely states that only the best saw plates were used for their No.12 so there had to be some "grading" method. I have always assumed that is where the "X" came in. The numbers are where I am really in the dark.

Regards
Paul

Disston was making steel, just not the best grades that were used in saws. Even the US government of the era was importing British crucible steel for the manufacture of various weapons. This trade in the better grades of steel persisted into the latter part of the 1870's and the early Mushet HSS was imported by Disston up to around 1900. Disston wasn't alone, Simonds and Atkins also imported steel because the Sheffield crucible steel technology wasn't yet adapted to use North American materials to reliably make consistently high grade products. Fascinating story, I'm still working on a separate thread devoted to the issue.

P.S. I wonder if the Jackson saws made by Disston, which have incredibly inconsistent hardnesses, are the product line that was made using the home-brewed crucible steel?

Rob

Rather than hijacking Michael's thread I will watch with interest for a dedicated thread.

Regards
Paul