Thread: The Simonds Saw Story

No Dave

I am not a gambling man. I don't even participate in the Melbourne cup frenzy, but I would lay money that Michael's saw will go for a hefty price. It is in good nick and beautifully sharpened. He does little in the way of beautifying to his saws. He once told me he has or had around 6000 saws. He has his own style of marketing, which is not everybody's cup of tea, but behind all the pomp and ceremony there is a very sound technician.

Besides which I have two of these saws now, albeit slightly different to that in the listing, and as I never thought I would be able to afford one of these I am counting myself lucky and resting on the laurels.

Regards
Paul

Hi Paul, had a quick look and found this for you. From Popular Mechanics August 1914:
https://books.google.com.au/books?id...page&q&f=false
The Google search term was "simonds saw $3 popular mechanics"
Simonds seems to advertise every month, you could certainly trace the timeline with more detail than the catalogs.
Screen Shot 2017-10-11 at 2.38.35 pm.jpg
PS. You might have a nice #51 but I have a nice #15
IMG_4522.jpg

Thanks Gavin

You're a wonder.

I think that may be the ad I have somewhere. My copies of advertisements are in about three places (home computer, work computer and a hard drive containing extracted information from a deceased computer) and I have not had the time to consolidate them.

Regrettably, the ad is as I remembered and offers no guide to sharpening recommendation. I will pursue the Simonds line with Popular Mechanics and see what it brings up. Thank you.

Regards
Paul

Gavin, remind me to ask you next time I'm chasing sime obscure bit if information. Great find on the ad

DaveTTC
The Turning Cowboy
Turning Wood Into Art

Paul, yes I do remember seeing the saw you mentioned and indeed it was an impressively neat job! Maybe, if I practice & practice, in about 100 years or so I might be half as good!

But it does intrigue me that he doesn't have some idea of what angles he's using. There is no one-angle-does-everything-perfecty in this business, so he must use some different fleam angles for different purposes.

I'm more interested than ever in finding out what angles were used for these saws, so everybody keep digging!

Cheers,

Paul.
With out trying to take this elsewhere and I have no idea why you or me may be considered in such a away.
I can not get my simpleton head around why a saw would be engineered to have no set in such a large saw.
Panel saws are not used for fine wood work imho.
They do the heavy grunt work like a Clydesdale.

I can possibly understand a small gents(political incorrect these days)or dovetail saw with no set cutting extremely dense and very dry timber.
To a smallish depth.

But ,a panel saw,now please show me the error in my thinking or have I just not been taken for a ride on the Simonds marketing team.?

Cheers Matt.
The beginner sawer.

Matt, I think it is just as Ian suggested above, for use with furniture and joinery cuts that are too big for a mitre saw. For a range of Canadian house trimmings, check out the architectural guide from Ontario.
https://uwaterloo.ca/heritage-resour...de_reduced.pdf

Originally Posted by IanW

But it does intrigue me that he doesn't have some idea of what angles he's using. There is no one-angle-does-everything-perfecty in this business, so he must use some different fleam angles for different purposes.

I'm more interested than ever in finding out what angles were used for these saws, so everybody keep digging!

Cheers,

Ian

I think some of his reticence may be part of the mystique that he has created and partly to do with trade secrets. I have only one of his saws so I can't say if he varies the angles to suit a purpose. That one I can say has 15 degs fleam and 20 degs rake on a 12ppi hand saw. I have followed this with most of my crosscut saws. When sloping the gullets, which I do, it seems to perform better when a significant rake angle is used. For example I tried it the other way around (20 degs fleam and 15 degs rake) and it did not work very well at all.

Regards
Paul

Matt

Technically a 26" saw is classified as a hand saw. To be a panel saw the saw plate has to be 24" or less. I know what you mean in terms of "finishing," but we are talking about a time when power saws did not exist. All saws were driven by hand and the manufacturers were undoubtedly always on the lookout for another niche. The No.51 may look a little smaller because it was a "narrow" saw. As time went on saws predominantly became "narrow" or "ship point."

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by hiroller

....... For a range of Canadian house trimmings, check out the architectural guide from Ontario.....

That takes me back Gavin! So the house we bought in Guelph is "Queen Anne" style, which fits nicely - it was built in 1882.

The outside trimmings of houses round those parts are often elaborate enough, which would have required some accurate sawing, for sure. But it was the inside trimmings that I was mainly thinking of. Would've taken a lot of sawing & fitting, but at least by 1880 they had machines to produce all those complex mouldings. I sure would hate to be handed a 55 and told to get cracking!!
Cheers,

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

........I think some of his reticence may be part of the mystique that he has created and partly to do with trade secrets. I have only one of his saws so I can't say if he varies the angles to suit a purpose. That one I can say has 15 degs fleam and 20 degs rake on a 12ppi hand saw. I have followed this with most of my crosscut saws. When sloping the gullets, which I do, it seems to perform better when a significant rake angle is used. For example I tried it the other way around (20 degs fleam and 15 degs rake) and it did not work very well at all.....

Yairs Paul, a bit of mystique never hurts when peddling your wares.

But tooth profiles are definitely more than just snake-oil, so I imagine he has a very good grasp of what the various angles do to saw teeth. WRT crosscut tooth profiles, I agree that plenty of rake doesn't hurt. In any case 20 degrees is within the most commonly-recommended range (12-20).

I've said this somewhere else, so apologies for repeating myself. Whereas rip saws are very sensitive to rake angles, crosscuts are far less so. You have to change the rake angles on a crosscut saw by quite a significant amount to feel any effect. On a ripsaw, you can usually notice a difference in the way the saw cuts with just a couple of degrees variation, whereas a change of 5 degrees or more on a crosscut may not make any noticeable difference to the way the saw feels & cuts, all else being equal. My way of rationalising this is to think of crosscut teeth as a set of knives, and angling the cutting edge more eases their way as they slice through the wood fibres. Rip teeth are sometimes likened to chisels, but I think scraper is a better analogy, and if you use card scrapers a lot, you'll know how sensitive they are to cutting angles.

So simplistically, the more rake you can put on a crosscut, the easier it should be to push through the cut. Similarly, the sharper the 'knives' (i.e., the greater the fleam angle) the better they will slice through the wood fibres. However, the woody world isn't so simple, so depending on the wood you are cutting & how long you want your saw to last between sharpenings, you settle on compromises that deliver the best all-round performance according to your needs. The wood you are cutting is probably the main decider of ideal rake & fleam angles. I guess the old-timers who used saws daily & sharpened their own either knew or intuited the best angles for their particular needs - they probably couldn't have given you any figures, but like my old pot, they knew what worked for them & knew how to apply the desired angles by eye, very neatly & consistently.

And Matt, I can understand your puzzling over the value of 'no-set' on full-size handsaws! Indeed I think the sawmakers of old did take the examples of the snake-oil salesmen to heart (or was it the other way round? ), and didn't hesitate to use a bit of B.S. in their marketing spiels. Nevertheless, I've become a bit of a fan of zero-set backsaws over the last year or two, but they are definitely an acquired taste. They also take some getting used to - you've got to develop a very light & accurate touch or you'll soon find your saw binding horribly and if your start wasn't spot-on, running off the line (which you can't correct because they have virtually no 'steerage'). If I haven't been doing much sawing for a while, it takes me a cut or two to get back into the rhythm. Despite this, for relatively shallow cuts where very clean edges are desired, I think they are worth the trouble. However, I reckon moving to a full-sized handsaw and making wide, deep cuts would require a whole new level of skill, which I'm not sure I have enough years left to master....

Cheers,

Spotted this saw for sale:

Simonds wrong'un.jpg

Very nice and tidy and described as a No.10. No glaring defects and a saw that might ordinarily be of interest except for about three things, the first of which is the price at US$229: This is about three times too much even for such a tidy saw. The full listing can be seen:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/M-SUPERB-SI....c100505.m3226

OK, so what are the other issues. Well a closer inspection indicates that it is indeed a No.10 as this can be seen from the etch: Pretty close to irrefutable:

Simonds wrong'un No.10.jpg

But here's the rub:

Simonds wrong'un handle and medallion..jpg

That delightful handle (Remember the Disston No.12 lookalike thread) appears only on three Simonds models: The Nos. 4 1/2, 5 and 61. NOT the No.10

To add insult to injury, it has a Warranted Superior medallion, which is incorrect for any Simonds branded saw.

That makes the asking price extremely unrealistic. The sawplate by itself might sell for $20, the handle might get up to $15 (because it is so nice) but more likely $10 and the WS medallion set could bring in $5 (all typical Ebay prices). So $40 tops if you were in the market for all those items and had replacement parts already to go.

Caveat Emptor.

Regards
Paul

Paul,
Great post it really hi lights the buy beware idea.
To the unknown that is a very well presented saw.
And if you want to spend US$229 on a saw.
To the person who knows there saws it's a bastardised saw.

On ward with the knowledge I say

Cheers Matt

Originally Posted by Simplicity

On ward with the knowledge I say

Cheers Matt

Best statement I've read this month Matt, too bad that more aren't in agreement.

Cheers,
Rob