Thread: Simonds # 97

Hello Graham

Thanks for posting the little No.97. I suspect the thickness will be .025". Simonds had an open handle saw and a gent's saw for their dovetail saws. In the backsaw line 8" was the smallest made. The No.97 had a Beech handle but in all other respects was the same as the No.96. A very nice clean example you have there.

Regards
Paul

Paul,

I've been having a sort through my "tool storage cases", some have not been opened for a while so it's been good to refresh my memory as to what is in them, and to add some more to the collection.

In one of the saw cases I found I have an Simonds 12" No. 87 compass saw, once again I thought it may be of interest.

Graham.

Thanks Graham

Simonds made quite a range of sizes in compass saws and a few different styles of handle. Frequently it is difficult to see the model numbers on these saws as they don't seem to survive well. As you may have noticed the blade is very thick. IanW and I had a brief go a sharpening one but it didn't seem to work very well. That is a little harsh as we did not have the time or particularly the inclination to fiddle with it.

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

...... IanW and I had a brief go a sharpening one but it didn't seem to work very well. That is a little harsh as we did not have the time or particularly the inclination to fiddle with it.......

I vaguely remember that, Paul, & if what little memory I have left serves me, wasn't there some discussion about how the heck we were going to check the set on it? The thought of wresting those chunky teeth over with a regular pliers-type set made my wrists hurt without even starting!

Cheers,

Ian

The fact is that I have looked at it several times, including today, and thought I really must do something to fix this one up, but it is rather a long way back in the queue .

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

Ian

The fact is that I have looked at it several times, including today, and thought I really must do something to fix this one up, but it is rather a long way back in the queue .

Regards
Paul

I imagine that's a long queue.
Going by your recent threads

Cheers Matt

Originally Posted by Simplicity

....I imagine that's a long queue.
Going by your recent threads.....

And also to judge from recent threads, there are a lot of queue-jumpers that keep shuffling the order! ......

Originally Posted by Simplicity

I imagine that's a long queue.
Going by your recent threads

Cheers Matt

Yes Matt

You are totally correct there, but it is a long term plan.

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by IanW

And also to judge from recent threads, there are a lot of queue-jumpers that keep shuffling the order! ......

Ian

It is a dynamic queue .

Regards
Paul

Hi Paul,

I found the model number from a 1916 catalogue, which showed as you said, a range of saws to choose from.
and yes the blade is thick, I reckon that there must be some engineering ratio for blade width/thickness that
should be followed to produce a good result.

I've noticed after looking through a lot of the old tool catalogues that the manufactures all had a great variety
of models to choose from, there were all these subtle differences such as size, length and thickness of blades,
types of handle design, timber, finish and there was plenty more.

Also there would have been knowledgeable salesmen who could tell you and advise you of all the merchandise
that would help you to choose the right item for you to get the best results for the job that you were doing.

There was a time when manufactures took pride in producing things that were "built up to a standard not
down to a price".

Having said that, they also had cheaper lines to cater for people who could not afford the
higher quality but still make a sale.

Regards

Graham

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

Yes Matt

You are totally correct there, but it is a long term plan.

Regards
Paul

My long time plans a more fluidity than structural [emoji12]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

My long time plans a more fluidity than structural [emoji12]

My plans (What is long-range anyway?) are more like a mud-slide.

Originally Posted by macg

Hi Paul,

I found the model number from a 1916 catalogue, which showed as you said, a range of saws to choose from.
and yes the blade is thick, I reckon that there must be some engineering ratio for blade width/thickness that
should be followed to produce a good result.

I've noticed after looking through a lot of the old tool catalogues that the manufactures all had a great variety
of models to choose from, there were all these subtle differences such as size, length and thickness of blades,
types of handle design, timber, finish and there was plenty more.

Also there would have been knowledgeable salesmen who could tell you and advise you of all the merchandise
that would help you to choose the right item for you to get the best results for the job that you were doing.

There was a time when manufactures took pride in producing things that were "built up to a standard not
down to a price".

Having said that, they also had cheaper lines to cater for people who could not afford the
higher quality but still make a sale.

Regards

Graham

Graham

I suspect that with such a range of products from which to choose any half way competent salesman could bamboozle the socks off the retailer. There was indeed something for everybody and at a price they could afford.

With regard to the blade thickness on a compass saw I think it's primary use was for cutting curves on larger jobs. Remember that it's other name is a table saw. So our intrepid carpenter/cabinet maker might have been cutting out a circular table and employing a push stroke technique as with the majority of western style saws. The blade is narrow to permit the curved cut but in a handsaw gauge (.036" - .039") the chance of the push stroke kinking the blade was extremely high. I measured my compass saw, which is similar to yours at .142". which is about three times as thick. I also have a Disston compass saw which measured .125" thick.

The keyhole saws however were thinner. I guess the job of sawing a keyhole was more delicate and you just had to be more careful.

Regards
Paul