Thread: The Simonds Saw Story

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

When I unwrapped the parcel mentioned in the previous posts I spread the saws out on the floor and one got tucked away. I almost literally stumbled across it today.

Not only did this consignment contain the largest Simonds hand saw I have, it also contained the smallest saw (working variety as opposed to key chain charms etc). A Simonds No.97 at 8", it is the smallest model Simonds made with a closed handle. They made an open handled saw and a Gentlemen's saw in 6" lengths.

P1040724 (Medium).JPGP1040721 (Medium).JPGP1040723 (Medium).JPG

And a well know product for size comparison and to curry favour with the Forum owner.

P1040725 (Medium).JPG

And, because it is diminutive, I think I can fit it into the storage cupboard: Not sure I can say the same for the 30" handsaw. But there will be some restoration required there first.

Regards
Paul

Nothing like a bit of product placement [emoji849]

Cheers Matt,
Good too see you towing the party line Paul.

Originally Posted by Simplicity

Nothing like a bit of product placement [emoji849]

Cheers Matt,
Good too see you towing the party line Paul.

Matt

There is only so much rebelliousness in me and as it happens I think I may have already exhausted the quota for the month.

In another arena I am expecting a "huge" thank you from an unnamed manufacturer of blue tools.

Regards
Paul

On a slight more serious note Paul,regarding the Number 97 model.
I’ve got to think was the medallion placement an after thought in the Simonds Design studio,
Or were they cutting a fine line,were they gamblers?

I’ve taken your picture and drawn all over it [emoji849].
I would think there’s not a lot of saw plate around that medallion hole.

Red line being the saw plate blue the centre line
Maybe 3/4 mm at the most from the edge of the hole to the edge of the saw plate.

Cheers Matt,

Matt

I understand where you are coming from on this (normally this is buzz speak do you know little about this subject, but I hasten to add not in this case) as I too have looked fairly critically at screw placement in the past. However....what we tend to forget, and it is grossly exaggerated in this case of the medallion, is that the shank is still only around 5mm thick and providing the hole goes through the plate that is good enough in terms of holding power. What is not good enough is when the hole cuts the plate, which I had on a Disston back saw just recently. I ended up making a new handle because the hole had cut the plate.

From an aesthetics point of view it may lack some balance, but until you mentioned it I had not noticed it. I did consciously take the grip in my hand as I was expecting it to be tight and was surprised that it was comfortable although quite snug. I describe my hands as slightly larger than average, but this is probably because they have thickened since I turned forty. Unfortunately they are completely in tune with my brain, which while seemingly resulting in a balanced package does have it's downside .

Now, not that I see you as a doubter, I felt you would need to see proof of this so since typing the above I hurriedly removed the handle. Luckily it was just as I said or I would have had to sell up the Simonds collection, go into Samurai swords and commit hari kari in that time honoured gut wrenching manner. You have to get it right first time. Yuk!

P1040736 (Medium).JPG

Still not convinced? Here is the bare plate with plenty of room:

P1040737 (Medium).JPG

The handle actually has the screws nicely placed. There really was not very much room for any other positioning:

P1040721 (Medium).JPG

This was the 14" Disston I was speaking about, but I didn't take the handle off for proof. It was one of three saws I prepared as a selection for a customer down in the Hunter Valley. He ended up taking a Simonds No.96 which really was a beauty. So this one is still awaiting a new home.

P1040738 (Medium).JPGP1040740 (Medium).JPG

Regards
Paul

Paul, you've probably removed more handles in the last few years than I have in the last 30, but I have taken the handles off several dozen backsaws for one reason or other. The majority have had the bolt holes neatly placed, with the rear hole comfortably clear of the back edge, but I've seen several with the rear hole perilously close to the edge, and in one case, it was so close, only about 3/4 of the hole actually went through metal - the other 1/4 was in the surrounding air!

It's not hard for me to imagine how misses & near-misses occurred from time to time. There was a mix of machine & hand work in the handle & the people making them were probably on piece rates, so they'd have been banging them out at mind-numbing speed (one of those workers would probably have died laughing if I told them how long it takes me to make a handle!). The blokes (& before I get 'politically corrected', I doubts there were many wimmen in saw factories at the time) attaching handles to blades probably got paid by the saw too, so they'd have slapped the blade & handle together & got it on the drilling/punching machine in a flash. I suppose there was some sort of simple jig arrangement to hold the two bits steady while the machine did its work??

I've never read a description of the actual sequence of assembly in factories, so I don't know at which stage the spine was applied, but it would seem logical that that was the last step. Without the spine to register in its slot in the handle, it's easy to see how the blade could be placed a little off during the hole-punching process.

So given the opportunities for slight misalignments, I reckon it's surprising that the vast majority of saws are very consistent!

Cheers,

Paul,Ian

With the greatest respect I did it again,I’m sorry I drew on the picture again[emoji849].

I think they could have been better placed that is the nuts.
Not that I’m asking Darwin[emoji12].
I just think they would look “Better here”.


I also promise to stop splitting hairs for the rest of the year.

Cheers Matt,


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Matt

Splittin' hairs eh? I think you have drawn your medallion circle too small. There would be insufficient room if it was full size. If I was being hyper critical(not hypocritical), which I am not because this is a Simonds about which we are talking , I would suggest that the medallion could be positioned further to the right and the saw screw a tad higher: A bit like this:

No.97 repositioned.jpg

Remember that the saw screw can appear to overlap the back. The shaft will still miss the back. Some manufacturers put the saw screw through the back too (Wheeler Madden & Clemson is one), but not Simonds. This placement would result in more even areas of timber around the medallion.

I will take the hndle of that Disston to show that Ian's observations are absolutely correct. What surprises me is that they are allowed to go out like that. Diis they sell them off as "seconds?"

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

...... What surprises me is that they are allowed to go out like that. Diis they sell them off as "seconds?".......

Possibly, there doesn't seem to be any written records that 'seconds' were sold, but collective experience shows a few less-than-perfect saws escaped into the wilds. However, I reckon these near-misses just went out as 'normal' saws. You can't really tell how close a bolt is to the edge on an assembled saw, because the shape of the back edge of the blade varied over time & between brands, so unless you pull the saw apart, you will never know. I suspect the eagle-eyed foremen on the shop floor would've been familiar enough with each saw type that they'd spot a near-miss, bin it, & dock that from the daily tally, but I suppose they had to go to the mens' room occasionally.

I will stir the pot & say that you really only need two bolts on any saw - the rest are decoration & insurance. I'm trying to keep out of the aesthetics debate, but I think 3 bolts look better than 2 on larger back saw handles (just an opinion! ), but do 5 bolts really distribute the load significantly better than 4 on a large handsaw? The number of handsaws you see missing a bolt or two suggests they can get by with less than the full complement....

Cheers,

Ian

You have raised an interesting point there questioning the need for more than two saw screws. The Kenyon saws for example had only two screws for their back saws and three screws for their hand saws. Gradually over time it seems that there was a move to more screws and the up market models would tend to have five. However this was not set in concrete and some of the top models in the manufacturers ranges would boast four screws. It was only in the secondary lines that we see three saw screws in full size handsaws. The panel saws (generally acknowledged to be 24" and smaller) would typically have one less saw screw. It also meant that by the time you reached a panel saw in the budget lines there probably would be only two saw screws.

As to whether more than two screws are superflouous (we are still talking saws here I should emphasise), I think that tends to depend on how the holes are punched. I am talking diameter. For example, the little 8" Simonds I pictured in previous posts had screws that were very difficult to remove as the hole was an interference fit and had to be "screwed" onto the plate. In other words they could not be tapped out. Over time the timber hole can enlarge and this will allow movement. The timber may shrink further or the hole could have been drilled a little too large in the first place or in the course of 100 years the saw may have received some abuse. More screws probably reduce the incidence of movement occuring, but they still do not completely eliminate the problem as I have seen saws with five screws and a loose handle. Tightening the screws up sometimes helps.

I suspect that handles on saws have always worked a little loose over time and and saw manufacturers at the start of the twentieth century used five saw screws as a selling point.

Returning to the holes missing or cutting the plate, I think the plate was punched at one hit with all holes made simultaeneously. If that was the case, it would be obvious that the hole had missed. Even if it was missed then, it surely would have been noticed when the handle was attached.

This is the Disston saw to which I referred earlier with the original handle in front.

P1040747 (Medium).JPG

I was going to repair the handle, but when I removed it from the plate it became clear why the handle was loose

P1040748 (Medium).JPG

The arrows indicate the original holes and I drilled more so the handle could be repositioned. The lower arrow should be on the hole to the right!!!

Disston backsaw mis punched.jpg

Somewhere I have videos of some of the processes used in saw making at the Disston factory, but I can't locate them. I have previously posted them on the Forum too, but can't for the life of me remember where. I will have a think and if I can find them I will post links.

The handle is reasonably close in shape to the original and although it is from the unknown Eucalypt from our back yard, the colour is probably close to the original Apple.

P1040749 (Medium).JPG

Regards
Paul

Ian

I had meant to comment, but forgot, I see you snuck in at the back of AWR with you edge tools.

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

Ian

I had meant to comment, but forgot, I see you snuck in at the back of AWR with you edge tools.

Regards
Paul

Just a little potboiler on scratch-stocks. I wrote it a long time ago & the editor kept it in reserve for when she needed to fill a couple more pages.

Cheers,

I think I've found a really really rare saw. A short No7. Unfortunately no etch to verify the rareness...
But seriously who'd do this....
The restoration is beyond my capabilities so does anyone want the handle and medallion and nuts.
Yours for the cost of postage from 2318.
Lyle.

Lyle

Thanks for showing us that.

If, and I do stress if, the medallion is correct, it comes from the last period when the company became Simonds Saw and Steel, which was 1923 to 1926. The No.7 was no longer made by that time. 1919 was the last catalogue to show the No.7 and the handle had wheat carving. It was also made from Apple.

I think it is more likely to be a No.10 1/2 as there looks to be a hint of curvature to the top of the remaining blade, but with so little left it is hard to tell. If not, it has to be a No.10. The handle in either case should be Beech. If somebody is chasing a replacement handle that one looks as though it would come up well. Some oil applied might even close up the hairline cracks.

Regards
Paul

Thanks bushmiller.
Are these photos any help.
I don't need this saw so that is why I am offering the handle and nuts to anyone who might/will use them.
Lyle