Page 21 of 30 FirstFirst ... 111617181920212223242526 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 315 of 444
  1. #301
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Horsham Victoria
    Posts
    5,713

    Default

    Were the kitchen knives Simonds as well?

    DaveTTC
    The Turning Cowboy
    Turning Wood Into Art

  2. # ADS
    Google Adsense Advertisement
    Join Date
    Always
    Location
    Advertising world
    Posts
    Many





     
  3. #302
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Millmerran,QLD
    Age
    73
    Posts
    11,095

    Default

    Dave

    Simonds did indeed make knives. Their knives were the machine type for jointers, thicknessers, paper cutters, spindle moulders, veneer knives, coopers and barrel manufacturers, tanneries and leather splitters, tobacco and cigarette manufacture and metal shears , but not the kitchen variety.

    In fact today I see a lot of Simonds blades/knives advertised for garden mulchers and the like.

    Regards
    Paul
    Bushmiller;

    "Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely!"

  4. #303
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Horsham Victoria
    Posts
    5,713

    Default

    I have learnt something new today

    DaveTTC
    The Turning Cowboy
    Turning Wood Into Art

  5. #304
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas, USA
    Posts
    3,070

    Default

    Saw steel makes excellent kitchen knives as long as you wipe them dry after use.

    My grandmother had two knives that her grandfather had made for her grandmother. The story went that the old man had chiseled the blanks out of worn out cross-cut saw blades (two man I assume) and hand ground them. They would have been made sometime in the late 19th century. The knives were her favorites and I remember them being very sharp and effective kitchen tools.
    Innovations are those useful things that, by dint of chance, manage to survive the stupidity and destructive tendencies inherent in human nature.

  6. #305
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Millmerran,QLD
    Age
    73
    Posts
    11,095

    Default A couple for the unwary

    Another couple of wrong'uns:

    This one is a Simonds but heavily modified. Without any etch to give a clue it is probably a No.372, but it should be 26". It has had 8" cut off and before that probably looked like a javelin. The toothline is well above the handle and really is only worth the handle and saw screws for parts.

    Chopped down hand saw 2.jpgChopped down hand saw.jpg

    Attachment 427854Attachment 427855

    The only part that is genuine on this Bay State saw is the medallion. Generally Simonds did not use the lambs tongue style of handle. The only exception is the early No.10 and the early No.9 which were identical saws except that the 9 was Apple and the 10 Beech. Both had ceased using this style by the 1910 catalogue. Bay State never did use the lambs tongue. My guess would be that it is a Disston No.7 and the Bay State medallion was the only medallion to hand.

    s-l1600.jpgBay state Disston.jpg

    Regards
    Paul

    The pix are coming up Ok (I think), but I lost connection to the Forum half way through the post and when I reloaded the pix were missing. The "attachments" are the same pix. There is nothing missing. Let me know if the pictures are not visible.
    Attachment 427852Attachment 427853
    Bushmiller;

    "Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely!"

  7. #306
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    6,973

    Default

    Paul
    I'm only seeing some of the pics.

    Cheers Matt


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  8. #307
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Millmerran,QLD
    Age
    73
    Posts
    11,095

    Default

    Matt

    How many pix can you see?. There should be four pix. The four "attachments" are duplicates and I cannot remove them as when I go to edit they are not there. If there are less than four pix I will attempt to reload them.

    Regards
    Paul
    Bushmiller;

    "Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely!"

  9. #308
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Stockton
    Posts
    291

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bushmiller View Post
    Matt

    How many pix can you see?. There should be four pix. The four "attachments" are duplicates and I cannot remove them as when I go to edit they are not there. If there are less than four pix I will attempt to reload them.

    Regards
    Paul
    Paul

    You can only see four of them.

    Cheers stew

  10. #309
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    6,973

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bushmiller View Post
    Matt

    How many pix can you see?. There should be four pix. The four "attachments" are duplicates and I cannot remove them as when I go to edit they are not there. If there are less than four pix I will attempt to reload them.

    Regards
    Paul
    Paul,
    Yes there are four pics in total.
    So everything looks A ok from my end.
    Cheers Matt

  11. #310
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Brisbane (western suburbs)
    Age
    77
    Posts
    12,094

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bushmiller View Post
    ........
    The pix are coming up Ok (I think), but I lost connection to the Forum half way through the post and when I reloaded the pix were missing. The "attachments" are the same pix. There is nothing missing. Let me know if the pictures are not visible......
    Paul, it looks like you uploaded images twice, but because of the crash, the server dropped the first lot, but you are getting the second lot showing. The code to display the first lot has remained in your post, but it doesn't mean anything to the server. If you edit out this line:
    ATTACH=CONFIG]427854[/ATTACH]ATTACH=CONFIG]427855[/ATTACH and this line:
    ATTACH=CONFIG]427868[/ATTACH]ATTACH=CONFIG]427869[/ATTACH (I've knobbled it by removing the square brackets so it's not being read as code in my post), there won't be any confusion for readers who think there ought to be 4 more pics. Or if you can no longer access 'edit' I could do it. Or you could just leave them & folks will eventually figure it out..........

    Cheers,
    IW

  12. #311
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Millmerran,QLD
    Age
    73
    Posts
    11,095

    Default

    Ian

    Originally I did try to edit out as I deduced that it was attempting to see the pix twice, but when I when to the edit page the four "attachment" wordings were missing. They only appeared on the Forum. Now the edit facility has gone out of time. If people read the threads, particularly with your last post, they will work out that I succumbed to technology!

    The important thing is that the pix that should be there are there.

    Regards
    Paul
    Bushmiller;

    "Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely!"

  13. #312
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Millmerran,QLD
    Age
    73
    Posts
    11,095

    Default Algonquin No.48 Combination

    Most of the handsaw manufacturers had what was termed a combination saw. It combined a square, which utilised the handle and the straight edge of the saw plate and a ruler. Some versions had additional features including a removable scratch awl inserted into the top of the handle and the most sophisticated, such as Disston's No.43 had horizontal and vertical spirit levels. Disston incidentally had other models besides the famed No.43. The No.39, No.38, No.29 and No.087.

    Most of these saws were of a lower quality than the premium ranges. Even the No.43, arguably the most sophisticated of all the combination saws, was based on Disston's No.7

    Simonds too had a single combination saw which was part of their third level or budget range. It was the Algonquin No.48. All the "third level" (my terminology) saws featured a reference to indigenous Americans (it was a long time before political correctness and even consideration) and the Algonquin were a tribe around the Great Lakes area and particularly Quebec, although Simonds catalogues maintain they were from Michigan. The etch is impressive with an tribesman paddling a canoe. Many of the etches on these budget saws featured canoes and horses.

    P1030452.JPGP1030451.JPGP1030453.JPG

    The Algonquin survived the 26 years of Simonds handsaw production. I have had this saw for a while now but have only just got around to cleaning it up. It is part of an article I am preparing for the online magazine Handmade, which is edited by the Forum's Salko Safic. If you have not seen his mag, this is a link and there are three issues so far with the fourth due out soon:

    https://journeymansjournel.wordpress...vol-1-issue-1/

    I always take the handle off for the cleaning process and I was really surprised to see a second set of holes for the hardware!! This is one type of saw where there can be no alternative positioning or replacement handles and in fact my impression was that the handle had never been removed so possibly it was punched incorrectly at the factory. It's a mystery.

    P1030450.JPG

    The ruler is 24" and naturally this dictates that the saw style must be a straight back (definitely without a bead or nib).

    P1030454.JPG

    The handle was extremely tight. The female nuts removed easily but the steel male bolts had to be tapped off with a small mallet. I think it is the tightest handle I have ever encountered, which led me to ponder over the accuracy of the "square" aspect. I have heard several comments that these combinations saws are very inaccurate. So I did the flip test on a board and also compared a large try square I have. The try square is the left rule and the other three from the Algonquin (marked with an "A"). The first Algonquin saw rule was about 1mm out over 7", but I thought I might have moved it slightly so I ruled another two attempts.

    P1030456.JPG

    I think we have to remember that this saw would have been intended for building work rather than fine joinery in the workshop. Not bad: At least as good as my old try square, which admittedly is not perfect. Price wise this saw was less than a quarter the cost of saws at the top of the range.

    Regards
    Paul
    Bushmiller;

    "Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely!"

  14. #313
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Horsham Victoria
    Posts
    5,713

    Default

    Great read Paul

    DaveTTC
    The Turning Cowboy
    Turning Wood Into Art

  15. #314
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Millmerran,QLD
    Age
    73
    Posts
    11,095

    Default The Thick and Thin of It

    Recently I cleaned up the dirty one of the two No.51 "no-set" saws I have. I got to wondering just how much extra taper on the saw plate was necessary to enable this type of saw to work without set. Disston made a big thing with their ACME 120 not only of their radical style tooth but also on the extra taper to prevent binding in the cut. There is little information about Atkins No.52 no set saw and of course none at all about Simonds No.51.

    I set up a vernier gauge on the top of the toe on the first saw and took a measurement of .021": Not really extra tapered. So I measured the second saw and it was practically the same at .022". Both these saws are 26" and 10ppi.

    Simonds No.51 4 screw.JPGSimonds No.51 5 screw.JPG

    The four screw and five screw versions both from the 1910 to 1916 era with the enameled dollar medallion. There is a small difference in the "no-set" instructions.

    I would expect the saw plate to be .039" for this size saw. However, when I measured it, I was a little surprised to find they were both .042". I hadn't expected that one! I wonder if those of you with Disston or Atkins "no-sets" could take some measurements for comparison.

    What it did mean was that the saw plate is indeed very tapered, but just not in quite the way I was expecting.

    Regards
    Paul
    Bushmiller;

    "Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely!"

  16. #315
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas, USA
    Posts
    3,070

    Default

    Hi Paul,

    I've looked at several of the crosscut 120's in my collection. I need to expand this dataset to include some of the earlier period saws and a couple of the rip saws with thumbhole handles but...





    What I see is that the degree of tapering became deeper going from the 1888-1896 to the 1896-1917 saws and then became less pronounced in the 1918-1926 saws, much like the trajectory of the consistency in hardness with the Golden Era saws being both the most tapered and the most consistent in hardness. The top of the toe is always the thinnest part.

    Regards,
    Rob
    Innovations are those useful things that, by dint of chance, manage to survive the stupidity and destructive tendencies inherent in human nature.

Similar Threads

  1. Simonds Back Saws
    By Bushmiller in forum HAND TOOLS - UNPOWERED
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 25th August 2014, 07:05 AM
  2. A couple of Simonds rescues.
    By Bushmiller in forum HAND TOOLS - UNPOWERED
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 21st August 2014, 02:51 PM
  3. Interesting Saw On eBay - Simonds
    By Morbius in forum HAND TOOLS - UNPOWERED
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 25th September 2013, 06:59 AM
  4. Sad story
    By Christopha in forum WOODIES JOKES
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 30th July 2004, 10:46 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •