Thread: Spear & Jackson 1961 Catalogue (Saws)

My feeling is that we need to periodically question received wisdom, not throw it away, but re-examine it for validity over time. It's been bandied about extensively on saw fora that the ideal hardness of a saw blade is something like HRC 52. Despite quite a bit of searching I've been unable to find any primary source that states clearly that HRC 52 is an ideal. The limited data on Golden Era saws we have shows that they are somewhat softer at about HRC 49-50, thanks to DW of course. We must also bear in mind that the Golden Era was over a century ago, when technology and metallurgy were not nearly as well understood as they are today. 1095 steel as we know it today didn't exist in the late 1800's. Contemporary chemical analyses are available of single saws from this time frame and they suggest that Golden Era saws were more like our modern 107X series steels.
Thus, given the amount of Internet scuttlebutt about saw blade hardness and the '52' figure I think it important to do some measurements, an effort which has been started and will be updated as time allows.
What is the optimum? Our forefathers use of handsaws was markedly different than ours. They built structures, furniture and practically all other wooden items using handsaws. We on the other hand mostly use handsaws for the production of furniture and smaller items.
Is there a new optimum or does the old one still hold? Everybody talks about the subject but nobody has done a systematic investigation.

I can add data to those disston plates I sent in that just about every disston from the golden era, every atkins, and recently a groves carpenters saw, they're pretty much in the same ball park. With a bahco file, one can do an initial joint on a decent wild found saw with one corner of the file, and probably do 10-15 subsequent filings with one file.

I don't know, as the question you pose, what's best. I do like what things were in the golden era, though, if for no other reason because they have a nice balance of edge holding and sharpenability, and because they play well with what we have available in modern files. I've got an older spear and jackson 12 point 26" crosscut saw, and for some reason at the two ends, it's very hard. I blew three older grobet swiss files getting its toothline in shape (fair to say, though, that it was quite out of shape, I think the prior owner knew it was harder to file on the ends and chose to bias their sharpening to the middle, and the sizes of the teeth looked like they were chosen by variety show. One to the next to the next showed no logic, that's for sure!!

I have never used an original disston file from the golden era. George tells me the oldest files were cut more cleanly and of the finest steel, and he did give me (well, I purchased them from him, but for a song) an austrian set of needle files that must be the most finely made set of files I have ever seen in my life, they were made about 1900. But, such thing aren't easy to find. I have no good modern needle files to compare.

Anyway, I figure files were more in 1900 as a percent of a day's wage than they are now when considering what it costs to get bahcos in the US.

This raises the importance of documentation. George's experience is priceless, but only to him and those he has taught. The rest of us are left cold, as are future saw makers. Remember that Rockwell testing wasn't commercialized widely until the 1920's. This fact raises the question of how the 'Golden Era' saw makers knew what the ideal hardness was given that they were operating nearly 40 years before Rockwell testing was available. What tool, other than their experience, did they apply to test the many lots of saws that were produced?
That knowledge is unfortunately now apparently lost - primarily because nobody wrote it down for the edification of future generations. That's my motivation - I want to know why the Golden Era saws are so highly regarded, I want to know why modern sawyers commonly think HRC 52 is the optimum. I've found no publicly available data, is there something held secret by some company? Is this some kind of black magical secret held by some recluse?

I think a larger range is fine, but it's just my opinion. Stuff that's in the high 40s to low 50s covers the range of what I like, but it's because of the file sharpenability issue.

As to how disston came to make their saws mostly in the hardness range of the ones I sent you (at least I think they did, unless my sample of a few dozen may not be representative), I would imagine that it was a feedback loop that probably kept the saws in that range. Same as the english chisels of the old makers all seem to be in the same range (except there may have been more collusion there than between makers of saws in the US).

It just feels right. You can sharpen it easy and it stays sharp well at the level of hardness the saw makers made.

Subjectively, I thought maybe the woodrough and mcparlin saw that I have that's marked "sheffield saw company" (not to be confused with the atkins second line) is a pretty hard vintage saw, and I have filed a couple of simonds saws but I can't remember their hardness - I've just heard that.

I suppose the 1095 that I've filed might be a tiny touch harder than the average disston, but I haven't seen a huge difference. Most of george's bias about how hard he believes 1095 is is due to having to file a whole bunch of the 70s english saws that are very soft, that's apparently what a lot of the guys at the museum were using (Garlick), and he had to file their saws. There are a lot of those types of saws still being made, the ones where a push of a file with half pressure seems to sink the file in half a tooth height.

Anyway, the feedback loop with customers is my supposition regarding how the saws came to be the hardness that they are, and that physical tests like file tests and process control are probably what kept them where they are as consistently as they were made. Same with old chisels. For all of the discussion about how soft some old chisels are, the ones that I've gotten from the golden era that are bad are pretty few.

We've lost the feedback loop for the most part. Loss of the feedback loop creates odd statements like:
* arkansas stones can get tools that sharp
* old plane irons are too soft to use

That kind of stuff.

Just side comment here, I have a real interest in straight razors, but for shaving, not collecting. My favorite razors are from the 1920s or so to about 1960. Process made them consistent, too, but even the old ones around the turn of the century are remarkably consistent, despite the fact that they are finish ground after heat treatment. They seem to have come into consistency in quality about the same time as saws, but for different reasons (presumably for razors it's because grinding technique became standardized and hardening and tempering was done in molten lead and oil. It's still done the same way now.)

it's an interesting subject. The older feedback loop vs. the new style of analysis in theory and then production to meet the theory. My opinion (and it's only that) is that I usually look back to a point to find out if there was something that makers couldn't do well, and if there was something they couldn't do well, then I don't assume that the feedback loop could've made an optimal tool because of a technical limitation. In the case of disston, they could've pretty easily made their saws harder, or softer. But it's clear when you go back several more decades, the quality and consistency of the hardening is less. I just *wish* disston would've made back saws more in the english pattern of back saws, because they'd be a better comparison to modern saws. An example of a technical limitation where the feedback makes no difference is razors before makers got a good grinding and hardening and tempering process down. The old english wedge razors were made the way they were made because that's all they could do - a fat hunk of steel and a gradual grind. You had to take your razor back to a cutler to get the grind refreshed from time to time because the hollow was so shallow. Compare them to the modern grind that was done 1900-1960 or so, and the modern grind makes for a better razor to use, but there are fanatical collectors of wedges now, anyway. I'd imagine the barbers themselves abandoned wedge razors pretty quickly as soon as extra hollow grinds were available. The shave better, they sharpen easier, and the barber can basically consume the whole razor without ever re-visiting the cutler. If they had the technical capability to produce an extra hollow razor in the early 1800s, wedges would've disappeared much sooner.

According to the various histories of hardness testing I've found on the 'net it seems that there were a number of proprietary systems in place ranging from scratch testing methods such as Mohs to indenter testing that anticipated Rockwell and Brinnell.

While putting together a set of saws today I was thinking again of the issue of documentation and was struck by the analogy of Christianity. The historical Jesus did not write anything that is available to us today. The New Testament is composed of the contributions of a variety of authors writing over some years after his death. If those authors had not written what they did our world would likely be very different.

Likewise with the microcosm of saw making. Nobody at Disston or any of the other great makers saw fit to write down what they were doing and thus, after the demise of the Golden Era employees the world lost their knowledge. We have much better tools and, presumably, better materials now - I think it wise to write some of what is found.

Originally Posted by rob streeper

According to the various histories of hardness testing I've found on the 'net it seems that there were a number of proprietary systems in place ranging from scratch testing methods such as Mohs to indenter testing that anticipated Rockwell and Brinnell.

While putting together a set of saws today I was thinking again of the issue of documentation and was struck by the analogy of Christianity. The historical Jesus did not write anything that is available to us today. The New Testament is composed of the contributions of a variety of authors writing over some years after his death. If those authors had not written what they did our world would likely be very different.

Likewise with the microcosm of saw making. Nobody at Disston or any of the other great makers saw fit to write down what they were doing and thus, after the demise of the Golden Era employees the world lost their knowledge. We have much better tools and, presumably, better materials now - I think it wise to write some of what is found.

I'm way into the realm of supposing here, but I have various thoughts of what might have been the case:
* the process is created over time, and it's held in the heads of the tradesmen and engineers. There must've been some documentation
* at the time the process is valuable, nobody wants to share it
* at some point, something comes along and makes the process less valuable (circular saws are the killer in this case), and then nobody cares about it
* at the time something becomes valueless, people completely lose interest in it

How much does a 386 sx based computer cost these days? Probably less than the recycling. I'll bet that in 50 years, there will be people at shows showing off their still-running 386 sx "without math coprocessor"

The unfortunate thing is that the difference in time between when something involved in a failing company is lost and the time period when it becomes interesting usually involves a great many of the folks involved becoming deceased.

The other thing that occurred in the disston riches to rags period is that the entire generation involved adopted modernity in a way that we probably would never grasp. My grandparents had some custom made furniture (nothing special, just pieces that sold for mid four figures when they died - and mostly because the maker was local and other old people wanted to take them because they remembered the maker). Other than that, they had no connection to the past other than their memories, some pictures and an old box full of writing utensils from their school days (because they just didn't throw anything away if it could be used). Convenience and comfort of new things appealed to them because they lived before it was an option. Had they worked in a saw factory, I'm sure they'd say "why do you want to read about those old saws when you can use a power saw?".

I visited my grandmother one time before she died, while I was still in college. My grandfather had died by then so she could talk about anything she wanted, and I quizzed her about what it was like to farm with horses and mules, and she seemed surprised the entire time that anyone would want to hear about such stuff.

Just a different mentality.

Can you imagine a kid with an ipod asking us to talk about what it was like to listen to music on casette tapes in a walkman? I'll bet someone with a working and unused walkman thirty years from now will be able to recoup their money and then some.

Originally Posted by D.W.;1879804[COLOR=#333333

... there will be people at shows showing off their still-running ...

Acorn / Pet / Amstrad / C64 / TRS80

Originally Posted by pmcgee

Acorn / Pet / Amstrad / C64 / TRS80

I started out on a VIC-20.

Originally Posted by pmcgee

Acorn / Pet / Amstrad / C64 / TRS80

C'mon you guys, stay on the page............


While you've been commenting (about computers, I presume) I've found a PDF copy of the 1970 Spear and Jackson Brades Tyzack catalogue that is available for download:


http://trowelcollector.blogspot.com....available.html


Get it while you can. If anyone has a copy of a circa 1935 S&J catalogue.........could you scan and post the pages pertaining to saws to this post, please?

Hi all,

I have been following this thread with interest, and thought I could help with the prices.

I've used an historical currency converter, where you nominate a year and your currency
and it will convert pounds/shillings to currant dollars ( not sure if they are AUD or USD )

So with 1961 as the year and some of the quoted prices from the catalogue here are some results:

24/- $35 25/- $36.46 26/- $37.92 28/- $40.84 36/- $52.51

39/- $56.88 42/- $61.26 44/- $64.17 50/- $72.93 63/- $91.89

So a mid range saw was $36.46 and the top of the range $91.89 in todays money.

Graham.

Originally Posted by macg

Hi all,

I have been following this thread with interest, and thought I could help with the prices.

I've used an historical currency converter, where you nominate a year and your currency
and it will convert pounds/shillings to currant dollars ( not sure if they are AUD or USD )

Thank you for raisin this

Originally Posted by macg

So with 1961 as the year and some of the quoted prices from the catalogue here are some results:

24/- $35 25/- $36.46 26/- $37.92 28/- $40.84 36/- $52.51

39/- $56.88 42/- $61.26 44/- $64.17 50/- $72.93 63/- $91.89

So a mid range saw was $36.46 and the top of the range $91.89 in todays money.

Graham.

These comparisons are interesting, but highly problematic. Perhaps a better comparison is to average wages. In 1961, 25/- was a lot of money (in 1961 £1 GB = £1.25 Aus). The Average weekly wage (including overtime and loadings) in Australia was £21.76, compared to a saw costing 31/3 (assuming same price as in UK). The saw costing 7.2% of the average weekly wage. In Nov 2014 AWE was $1,539.40. 7.2% of that is $110.50. That is somewhat different to $36.46. If you took 31/3 as a percentage of disposable income at the average wage, then this is a significant spend.

Looking at the Spearior Dovetail Saw at 34/6, or in Oz 43/2, compared to earnings figures runs out at $152.50 in todays terms.

Interesting figures. In 1961 China was not a player in the world economy. Now it's possible to buy China made products for a pittance. Consider a reverse calculation from the $9.99 US that a Chinese made Disston backsaw available from Amazon and how it might compare to the 1961 cost of a loaf of bread or the average weekly wage.