Page 6 of 30 FirstFirst 123456789101116 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 444
  1. #76
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Stockton
    Posts
    291

    Default

    Paul

    I have been watching this thread for a while and notice you have not been showing the readers many Simonds back saws? Do have many or are they like the No9 ? .... very hard to find?

    I would be keen to see them if you have any photos.

    Cheers
    Stew

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





     
  3. #77
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Millmerran,QLD
    Age
    73
    Posts
    11,096

    Default By popular request. The Back Saws

    Stew

    You are quite right. I have not delved into the realms of the backsaw.Very remiss of me indeed. It is actually quite a simple line up in the Simonds brand and remarkably consistent throughout the twenty five years of production.

    The No.95 mitre saws were made in lengths 18" through to 32". All were available with 4" under the back, but the saws larger than 24" could be had with either 5" or 6" under the back. They had an apple handle.

    Millmerran Saw Exhibition 001.jpgMillmerran Saw Exhibition 002.jpgMillmerran Saw Exhibition 003.jpgMillmerran Saw Exhibition 004.jpg

    The saw at the back in the first pic is a 28" with 5" under the back so you can imagine how massive a 32" saw with 6" under the back would be.

    The saw in the second pic has a replacement handle made hurriedly when the I realised the 28" saw would not fit in the mitre boxes. The only Simonds saw to have a lambs tongue handle was the No.10 made during the first era utilising the crescent moon logo.

    In the standard back saw range Simonds put their own name to two models, the No.96 and the No.97. They were identical except that the No. 96 boasted an apple handle as against beech for the No.97. The 96 could be had in sizes from 8" up to 18". The 97 went from 8" to 22". The larger sizes can be distinguished from mitre saws (in the absence of an etch) as the saw plate is cut at 90 deg while on the mitre saws they are curved towards the toe.

    Below are a 10", 12" and 14" and a comparison pic with the mighty mitres.

    Millmerran Saw Exhibition 008.jpgCalendar saw mitre and back 002.jpg

    Simonds also made the No.98, which was marketed under the Bay State name and featured a naive handle without the cleft (shown below) and the No.99 which was called the Babbitt and was the budget model.

    Bay State medallion, late..jpg

    There was also an open handled model, the No.170, being a back saw with a Prof. Ball Pattern handle.

    I am afraid I don't have a 98,99 or 170. Originally I was only going to collect hand saws (not even panel saws) but I caved in on that maxim .

    I was nearly able to show you the Simonds No.68 Dovetail saw which was a "gents" style, but another collector wanted it more than me .

    All the Simonds back saws and mitre saws had a blued steel back. I personally really like brass backs, but it is a little late to offer advice to Simonds on that aspect now.

    This is a clearer pic of the No.97

    Simonds No.97 004.jpg

    Stew, thank you for bringing the omission to my attention and I hope that this has not only answered your question, but possibly whetted your appetite too.

    Regards
    Paul
    Last edited by Bushmiller; 29th February 2016 at 10:15 PM. Reason: title
    Bushmiller;

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

  4. #78
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Millmerran,QLD
    Age
    73
    Posts
    11,096

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ch!ppy View Post

    great read all this thread, i have a bunch of simonds books, might like to share few things when i get the time. one little point that i find written in some books but others clearly state different with in depth background. is like the OP sys which is largely from one of the books, it says they made there own steel in 1901, but other literature with some in-depth back background says both akins and simonds from 1906 (before that imported silver spring steel from sheffield). diston made and electric furnace in 1906. Diston had fires around the civil war time if i recall correctly. i always wonder just how much making steel during the war (which one would assume means great profit) may have gave diston a great head start for the following years and buying out many of the other saw makers. just a passing thought i have.


    cheers
    chippy
    Chippy

    I will look forward to you sharing any Simonds information.

    On the subject of the steels mills owned by the saw manufacturers only Simonds and Disston had their own steel mills and I think that did give them a distinct advantage over their competitors.

    Disston installed their electric furnace in 1906, but I think they had their own mill before that: Just not electric powered.

    Atkins introduced their "silver steel" (which included no silver) in 1873 from the UK and it was hugely successful.

    I believe Disston had bought all their acquisitions of rival companies before 1900. They made weapons and associated products for the Union in the American civil war and along with Simonds contributed to the war effort in WW1 and WW2. I am not sure how much Atkins got involved with that, although I would expect they made some contribution at the very least.

    Regards
    Paul
    Bushmiller;

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

  5. #79
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,501

    Default

    Over on backsaw.net is a Simonds saw with an etch for a Melbourne, Vic hardware store.
    Australian Saws | backsaw.net
    i believe it is also on eBay.
    I posted the hardware catalogue, hosted by Museum Victoria, for hardware store TM Davie & Co of Exhibition St, Melbourne.
    It features a Simonds #8 on the back page:
    Digitised Resource Viewer

  6. #80
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    451

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bushmiller View Post
    Chippy

    I will look forward to you sharing any Simonds information.

    On the subject of the steels mills owned by the saw manufacturers only Simonds and Disston had their own steel mills and I think that did give them a distinct advantage over their competitors.

    Disston installed their electric furnace in 1906, but I think they had their own mill before that: Just not electric powered.

    Atkins introduced their "silver steel" (which included no silver) in 1873 from the UK and it was hugely successful.

    I believe Disston had bought all their acquisitions of rival companies before 1900. They made weapons and associated products for the Union in the American civil war and along with Simonds contributed to the war effort in WW1 and WW2. I am not sure how much Atkins got involved with that, although I would expect they made some contribution at the very least.

    Regards
    Paul
    i haven't got the info right in front of me, i would have to search through my books for the exact quotes and years. but from memory. the US in the early years (perhaps late 1700's or early 1800's had a number of foundries making steel (at least 6 from memory). short story as i remember is the British made them close them down (forget exactly why or how, politics or some such thing, even after the revolution, not sure how they could of had any real influence over them after that but thats what i recall) and only allowed steel from them sent in ingots, i think from sheffield , as you say it didn't have actual silver in it, just a marketing thing, like they had done in previous years with varying names.
    most people are reasonably familiar with the diston story, i have an old book falling to pieces that i keep in zip plastic bag, but a good deal of info is online as well of course. but as i recall he started his crucible foundry about 1850, a pretty basic set up and recipe (mostly varing the carbon content and using scrap) but he certainly wasn't the first in the US to make crucible steel. the british and US had been developing it for probably a hundred years before, but sheffield certainly had the upper hand and reputation.

    Henry continues to make steel and no doubt made some profit from the civil war and his reputation must have made a leap forward for quality but still didn't have the same respect as sheffield steel . as i recall his factory burnt down a few times, but without looking it up i can't remember the years but it was around the civil war time. i always wonder or speculate whether it was sabotage but that is reading between the lines and conspire theories. he certainly must of had some money though because the factories were always rebuilt immediately. it wasn't until a few decades later where he started to gain the same sort of respect for quality steel. but a lot of that was due to his own advertising and introduction of new machinery to shape, shear, grind, stamp and file, went from selling thousands to tens of and then hundreds of thousand in shot time and by the early 1900's millions.

    i like some models of simonds saws, and no doubt some models are better than others (some used better tempered steel) like Diston did. for collecting many of the old saws are just great. and many are still great users. but just to throw a perhaps controversial did bit in. not all the old saws are quite what they used to be. on eBay and such we often see shiny well restored and perfectly sharpened saws, they may even show a picture of how straight it is along the tooth line. but only the high quality saws from simonds and diston used the best of th best steel. many of the old saws have lost their tension. you never see them bend the saw and then show it comes back to straight. of course they cut well but most people nowadays are used to pretty ordinary saws and settle that if it cuts ok it must be good, and i would wager that almost nobody buys an old saw and then bends it one way and the other to see how it goes, or at the least makes it sing, with thumb and bending, making a tune. if you don't mind risking your investment its not a bad thing to do. same with many of the old backsaws, most are not the highest quality backsaws made, the tension in blades are often non existent and simply rely on the brass or steel back to keep them straight with cutting. many people don't realise the blade is not meant to fixed or riveted or glued to the back (just makes it a disposable saw, not unlike a bunnings saw), and it certainly isn't meant to touch the top of the back . the back is essentially meant to be a spring and hold the blade in tension, if knocked down one end or the other it should make curve in th blade, many old backsaws where the front is knocked down and the blade is still straight probably means it wasn't the highest grade steel or its lost its tension, although most literature will mention its purpose is to stiffen the back (and little else), add a little weight. i think people often take it to literary or misunderstand. its not like they dint have rivets back in the old days if they didn't want it have some slippage they would have used them. the back (blade) is meant to be able to move and be allowed to be adjusted or dismantled to tune the saw, not unlike a plane or other tools.

    and although diston particularly with backsaws is often said to be the beginning of the end of the best saws made, a good simonds, atkins or diston steel back saw can still often be great, be adjusted and ring. i admire your collection, some great saws


    'll see what i can dig up for simonds info
    cheers
    chippy

  7. #81
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas, USA
    Posts
    3,070

    Default

    Hmm. This (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willia...lf_%28steel%29) says that William Metcalf was the first to produce crucible steel in the United States yet we know that Disston was making steel before Metcalf graduated from college. Was Disston's product produced by the crucible method or by some other means. On the other hand this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disston_Saw_Works) suggests that Disston was producing crucible steel in ~1855.
    Innovations are those useful things that, by dint of chance, manage to survive the stupidity and destructive tendencies inherent in human nature.

  8. #82
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Millmerran,QLD
    Age
    73
    Posts
    11,096

    Default Bay State Back Saws

    I dug up a couple of back saws made by Simonds under the Bay State name. Neither have been restored yet. The dirtier one is a 12" and the cleaner saw a 10".

    Bay State Back saws 002.jpgBay State Back saws 003.jpgBay State Back saws 004.jpgBay State Back saws 005.jpgBay State Back saws 006.jpg

    For the technically minded among you I measured the plate thickness on the back saws mentioned in this post and the previous post featurings the saws with "Simonds" on them:

    Simonds Mitre saw No.95 28".............. .042"
    Simonds Mitre saw No.95 22".............. .036"

    Simonds Back saw No.96 14".............. .031"
    Simonds Back saw No.97 12".............. .025"
    Simonds Back saw No.97 10".............. .026"

    Bay State Back saw No.98 12".............. .027"
    Bay State Back saw No.98 10".............. .023"

    Regards
    Paul
    Bushmiller;

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

  9. #83
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    451

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rob streeper View Post
    Hmm. This (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willia...lf_%28steel%29) says that William Metcalf was the first to produce crucible steel in the United States yet we know that Disston was making steel before Metcalf graduated from college. Was Disston's product produced by the crucible method or by some other means. On the other hand this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disston_Saw_Works) suggests that Disston was producing crucible steel in ~1855.
    the world over ,no doubt, but there are many instances where americans have given credit in history to a person where someone else did it first. Edison took credit for much of Tesla's work and until recent years was still believed to be true and written in history. some other dude Starts with a "M" was credited with the radio. and there are many other examples. before the internet is what it is today, before forums and when only limited stuff was on the net. i used to (like many others) communicate via news groups, dial up(slow), non html emails. i used to talk with some friendly folk and one Texan in particular was a friend. he was a history buff, and far as he was concerned as many other texans believe they are actually their own country, when it gets down to the nitty gritty politics and paper work (i leave that to them to argue).

    but he as most if not all americans at the time believed George washinton to be the first president, they often count how many presidents they have had and is routine taught in schools. its common knowledge now with internet and even some recent movies, but i remember telling him that their were something like a dozen (can't remember exactly at the moment) presidents before washington. of course he was the first after the revolution, he had no idea about them, they were not taught anything about the early presidents in school. they also were taught that some dude, i forget his name, in Texas owned the biggest ranch (station) in the world. i told him that actually its an Aussie that owns the biggest (at least at that time (left home at the age of 14 with barely a penny to his name and built an empire), in the early 90's i assume, when did the internet start?) and gave him the acreage which was something like the size of germany. he gave me his mums recipe for pecan pie in return lol.

    you still can't find on net info about how the americans were mere feet, minutes or hours away pre wwII from a coup, the fortune 500 liked the way hitler was profiting and while the rest of the world was struggling his country was leaping forward and they wanted a more facist government. they had armed troops actually marching on the whtehouse lawn to enter and take it. and it was a single man, on the steps that halted them. a famous (to them, because i forget his name at the moment) colonel that fought in previous wars and had the respect of th troops. his words must have been pretty powerful and he had them all stand down. so if it wasn't for him i would guess the US 'may' have entered the war on the other side. now that would be a movie! but i guess it wouldn't be a popular image for the US

    if i am thinking of the right man (i assume i am). Metcalf made artillery canon so it might be a case of the old american adage 'he with the biggest gun wins'' . in the case of Metcalfe, i recall seeing a movie (so not exactly a solid reference, i know) that was meant to be based on true events, crappy movie or mini series a few decades ago, but as i recall they had trouble with canon (the steel) not holding up to its full expectations, cracks and failures in battle. i think he solved the problem which was a huge benefit to the Union side, and made him somewhat of a white collar hero. so that may be why he is known or credited with that citation. canon steel or iron no doubt are under extreme forces.

    but back to simonds, and it kinda links in with what i am saying about the internet info or lack thereof, it baffles me why it can't be researched by a good journalist or historian and find out why they stopped abruptly making hand saws, although time is a passing now one would think there are still some decedents that could tell a few things if tracked down. i guess no one with feet on the ground are bothered to pursue it. but one would have to assume without any other info to present it must have been , bean counters that wanted the floor space to be more productive producing other things. i sure do miss their files.

    cheer
    chippy

  10. #84
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bendigo Victoria
    Age
    80
    Posts
    16,560

    Default

    George Washington was indeed the first President of the United States of America after the Constitution was ratified.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._United_States


    The leaders before him were Presidents of the Continental Congress

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presid...ental_Congress

  11. #85
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    451

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Big Shed View Post
    George Washington was indeed the first President of the United States of America after the Constitution was ratified.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._United_States


    The leaders before him were Presidents of the Continental Congress

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presid...ental_Congress
    potato ,poetartoe. my point i was making was they still deserved to be recognised, i did also point out that washington was the first after the revolution, and goes without saying the drawn up constitution ,but they before were unknown, regardless of th actual work they did to bring about the changes. one could say in a similar vain once Australia becomes a republic then all the prime ministers before don't get mentioned

  12. #86
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Millmerran,QLD
    Age
    73
    Posts
    11,096

    Default

    Chippy

    The "M". That was probably Marconi.

    I'm not familiar with the comments regarding WW2,but I think that at some point in American history, possibly at the end of the nineteenth century, they had a vote to see what would be the language of America. English did not beat German by a large margin.

    Far be it from be to stifle digression and discussion , but back to Simonds. Simonds as a company are hugely uncooperative. They apparently completely ignore any discussion and communication. I didn't truly believe that this was the case and I emailed them at their modern website

    I used my best and most polite English and checked for spelling mistakes pointing out my interest and explaining that I was almost all the way to having a useful collection of Simonds saws. One thing I didn't do was use Americanised spelling. There is a limit to how far I was prepared to grovel: Maybe this was my undoing as I never heard back from them: Not even the courtesy of an acknowledgement.

    Very disappointing to put it mildly.

    There are two major questions that are controversial regarding Simonds. The first is when they actually started making hand saws and secondly why they stopped in 1926.

    The commencement of hand saw production I have dealt with recently, but this is my information on the cessation of hand saws in 1926. It comes from one of their Carpenters Guides as you can see below dated 1926.

    Simonds Carpenters guide 1926 002.jpgSimonds Carpenters guide 1926 001.jpg

    It is a small booklet 5 1/2" x 2 1/2", but pasted on the inside cover is a paper sticker explaining they have ceased hand saw production in favour of "Electric Hand saws."

    We have to suppose they saw the decline in sales and made a marketing decision. The 1923 catalogue already had reduced the range back to ten saws and this was the final death knell.

    Regards
    Paul
    Bushmiller;

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

  13. #87
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    victor harbor sa
    Posts
    315

    Default

    Paul,

    The little booklet you have shown, is it from your library?

    If so, I was wondering what it says on pg. 45 - 58 about
    hand saw manufacture.

    Graham.

  14. #88
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    451

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bushmiller View Post
    Chippy

    The "M". That was probably Marconi.

    I'm not familiar with the comments regarding WW2,but I think that at some point in American history, possibly at the end of the nineteenth century, they had a vote to see what would be the language of America. English did not beat German by a large margin.

    Far be it from be to stifle digression and discussion , but back to Simonds. Simonds as a company are hugely uncooperative. They apparently completely ignore any discussion and communication. I didn't truly believe that this was the case and I emailed them at their modern website

    I used my best and most polite English and checked for spelling mistakes pointing out my interest and explaining that I was almost all the way to having a useful collection of Simonds saws. One thing I didn't do was use Americanised spelling. There is a limit to how far I was prepared to grovel: Maybe this was my undoing as I never heard back from them: Not even the courtesy of an acknowledgement.

    Very disappointing to put it mildly.

    There are two major questions that are controversial regarding Simonds. The first is when they actually started making hand saws and secondly why they stopped in 1926.

    The commencement of hand saw production I have dealt with recently, but this is my information on the cessation of hand saws in 1926. It comes from one of their Carpenters Guides as you can see below dated 1926.

    Simonds Carpenters guide 1926 002.jpgSimonds Carpenters guide 1926 001.jpg

    It is a small booklet 5 1/2" x 2 1/2", but pasted on the inside cover is a paper sticker explaining they have ceased hand saw production in favour of "Electric Hand saws."

    We have to suppose they saw the decline in sales and made a marketing decision. The 1923 catalogue already had reduced the range back to ten saws and this was the final death knell.

    Regards
    Paul

    first let me say, outstanding tenacity, investigative work and to try and get them to reply to you. and incredibly disappointing for them to offer no reply. perhaps if you engaged/contacted a big name guru. like CS or someone to ask on your behalf it might hold more weight. don't give up. when i went to Uni i used to contact Uni's professors around the globe, i didn't know them from a bar of soap, or rather they didn't know me. but quite often they would respond answering my questions. sometimes it took a few goes though.

    you are probably right about the "M" name but th other issue of the coup is a different instance to the one your referring to.

    great little booklet! the Carpenters Guide. i have the same book (and a couple of others you probably have also) but mine is from an earlier year (says copyright 1914), its an incredible little book, i find it very amusing that they go to the trouble to try and explain all about roofing and stairs and such, also touch on other trades. opposite, in the rear pages where they have a page showing the saws. i love the "Uncle Si Says" quotes, they crack me up laughing.

    the stick on page about focusing on electric saws is most interesting, wow, i don't know about other ozzie states, but we didn't use electric saws for decades later, my old boss started cutting only by hand and the then started using electric. used to make me cut a roof out sometimes by hand just to amuse himself i think. the old power saws were mighty heavy.

    earlier i did mention some discrepancy about when they started making there own steel, one recreance said 1906, another 1901. because i often find info on these companies or saws in other unlikely books where they mention things briefly . but looking in the front of the 1912 cattle dog. it mentions "in the year 1899..." after having been buying the best steels they could (paraphrasing). . . they say they already had a reputation for high grade saws (kinda implies they were making saws before then) so in 1900 we built our first steel mill adjoining the chicago saw plant. they go on to mention that the quality of their goods was so appreciated they built a new mill ten years later


    cheers chippy

  15. #89
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    451

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by macg View Post
    Paul,

    The little booklet you have shown, is it from your library?

    If so, I was wondering what it says on pg. 45 - 58 about
    hand saw manufacture.

    Graham.
    by all means i am i look forward to Paul's answer, he words things well.

    but i m curious now, how many pages does your book hold Paul. mine has 64. and the info on saw production are on different pages

  16. #90
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Millmerran,QLD
    Age
    73
    Posts
    11,096

    Default Simonds Carpenters Guides

    Macq and Chippy

    You two blokes are going to get me shot. I am supposed to be outside painting the house and I am three quarters of the way through sharpening a D-8 rip saw for another forum member and I am making up a set of kitchen knives for a neice's engagement party. But it's too damned hot to do any of those things for about another half an hour so I will post these hurriedly taken pix.

    Firstly these little Carpenters guides are my booklets: I have not really thought of them in terms of a library, but on reflection I suppose they are, although in this case a very small library .

    I have three of these guides. Umm. Make that four, but the last one is still in the US as I only purchased it yesterday. The first is undated but I put it at 1910 or earlier. The fawn coloured guide is 1923 (the one in the US is 1924) and the other as mentioned before is 1926.

    Simonds Carpenters guides 1910, 1923 and 1926.jpg

    The 1910 guide is a delightful booklet bound with string, rounded corners and a high quality coated paper. The pictures are letterpress photos. It was produced with the same care and skill as their saws. The second booklet is less fussy, stapled together with a poorer quality paper but still has photos of the saws. The third booklet clearly indicates that all enthusiasm has gone from Simonds for hand saws. The booklet is stapled together, the paper is only one grade up from newsprint and the pictures are now line drawings instead of photos.

    These are the pages requested from the 1926 edition.

    Simonds Carpenters guide 1926 001.jpgSimonds Carpenters guide 1926 003.jpgSimonds Carpenters guide 1926 004.jpgSimonds Carpenters guide 1926 005.jpgSimonds Carpenters guide 1926 006.jpgSimonds Carpenters guide 1926 007.jpgSimonds Carpenters guide 1926 008.jpgSimonds Carpenters guide 1926 009.jpgSimonds Carpenters guide 1926 009.jpgSimonds Carpenters guide 1926 010.jpg

    Please bear in mind these booklets are not their catalogues so are not the entire range.

    More to follow:

    Regards
    Paul
    Bushmiller;

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

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
  •