Thread: The Simonds Saw Story

Paul,

Careful there, if they start to thinking that they know everything they'll soon enough conclude that you know nothing and then...

I find it's better to impress on them early that I'm still a bit ______, keeps the young'ns from thinking that they can take me easily.

Regards,
Rob

Have you two heard of what my sister refers to as.
"Nappy credits" I'm sure you both have heaps.
There due any time you which to cash in.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There seems to be a very high inflation rate on those "Nappy Credits" Matt.

Originally Posted by rob streeper

There seems to be a very high inflation rate on those "Nappy Credits" Matt.

Correct.
One of the best features of the credit system.
Actually you could possible set your own inflation rate Rob.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I can still remember vividly four years worth of dirty nappies and bear in mind that was a time of recycling. It is as indelibly etched upon my memory as any Simonds logo. In fact I have a scarred psyche .

So whilst I can acknowledge Rob's scepticism and acknowledge where he is coming from I can very easily run with Matt's frequent nappy points: Millions of the little sh*ts .

Having said that I have not yet had to invoke any of them. Keeping them all in reserve!!

Regards
Paul

I posed a question back in post #131 (Page 9). The question was what was the difference between the early No.9 and the No.10 of the same era? I was sorting through some saws today while taking a break from shaping some knife handles (it's getting a bit tedious) and realised two things.

Firstly I had not ever said what exactly the difference was and secondly I might have an example of the difference. Quite simply it was the timber used for the handle. The No.9 used Apple and the No.10 used Beech. You may also recall that in the early years of the Crescent Moon and Star medallion, which I now know probably finished around the middle of 1904, but certainly no later than November 1904, the two saws were identical with a lambs tongue, a straight back and nib.

After this time the No.9 was a narrow skewback and closely resembled the No.8.

This is the saw I turned up:

thumb_P1020615_1024.jpgthumb_P1020616_1024.jpgthumb_P1020617_1024.jpg

There is no visible etch, but if the handle is Apple it means I have the No.9 I have been chasing for so long, although not the style for which I was originally looking.

However, it is inconclusive. It looked initially as though it was Apple, but now I'm not sure. The close ups of the area I have sanded seem to have that Beech look although a lot finer than I would expect from Beech.

thumb_P1020618_1024.jpgthumb_P1020619_1024.jpgthumb_P1020620_1024.jpg

What do you think?

Regards
Paul

Paul,

The very light color makes me think its beech too. On the other hand I have seen some apple handles that look very light.

Regards,
Rob

Rob

I think we have all agreed that timber is extremely variable and also the camera image is frequently deceptive, particularly with regards to colour. Apple is very bland usually with little or no grain, but with this handle there is just a little hint there. if I have time I may clean up a little more of the handle.

Regards
Paul

Apple.
The good thing about being colour-blind is I'm not hung up on colour, which as you've just agreed, is a variable property in most woods.

I vote for Apple because: 1. The wood has the finer texture of apple; 2. You've only shown us end grain, but I can't see any fine lines corresponding to the edges of medullary rays, which although fine & small, should be evident in Beech at the magnification you've given us. 3. The growth-rings are far more apple-like to my eye.

Sand an area on a side, somewhere where it will expose radial grain, that should settle the matter beyond doubt.....
Cheers,

I think I can spot some ray fleck in the underside of the top horn.

Ian

My thinking was much along the same lines as yours. I have this nagging feeling that Beech from the US may be of a finer nature than that from the UK and Europe. The European variety seems to have a great deal of fleck while the American timber seems more "refined."

Anyhow, I did do a bit more work on the saw:

thumb_P1020621_1024.jpgthumb_P1020622_1024.jpgthumb_P1020623_1024.jpgthumb_P1020624_1024.jpgthumb_P1020625_1024.jpgthumb_P1020626_1024.jpgthumb_P1020627_1024.jpgthumb_P1020628_1024.jpg

I expect you will have to enlarge the pix to see detail. However, before you make a firm decision, have a look at this No.10 from the same era. As the etch definitely says No.10 the handle is Beech:

thumb_P1020629_1024.jpgthumb_P1020630_1024.jpgthumb_P1020631_1024.jpgthumb_P1020632_1024.jpgthumb_P1020633_1024.jpgthumb_P1020634_1024.jpg

Plain as mud .

As I went this far with the handle I have started to refinish it with just a single coat of BLO before matt varnish:

thumb_P1020638_1024.jpgthumb_P1020639_1024.jpgthumb_P1020640_1024.jpg

I should have mentioned before that there is that dark portion on the lower half of the flat, which appears on both sides. Under other circumstances I would have said it is a contrast between sapwood and true wood, but I don't think so in this instance. If it was only on one side I would have said some sun bleaching had taken place. As it is, I don't know what it is.

I did clean the saw plate some more but alas there is definitely no etch. No help to be had there I'm afraid.

Regards
Paul

Fergiz

I think I can too and I really, really don't want to see those rays. I want a No.9!!!!!

Some of the close ups in the enlarged pix of both saws look horribly similar .

Regards
Paul

The contrasting darker and lighter sections are interesting, seems that the growth rings are wider in the dark section than the light, the effect of a drought?

Paul here's one for you

https://forums.woodnet.net/showthrea...866#pid7438866