Seaton, anyone?

[D.W.]

Kees. I wonder if you could lift that picture and paste it here for the folks not registered on SMC (George owns the copyright to it, of course, even though SMCs terms allow them to do anything they want to it, they have no ability to limit its use, only George can do that). I can call George if it makes you uncomfortable moving it without asking him.

[Corneel]

Yes please ask George. I only post it out of admiration.

I have been looking at my own feeble efforts at saw making and to my surprise, I made all the horns in the previously mentioned shape with the continous radiuses. Lots of little details not quite up to snuff but that one I got correct.

[D.W.]

He said he's fine with it (i called him), you can post them here so that everyone can see them. I don't think he'd mind much of anything except if someone else copied the picture and said they made the saws instead of George, and certainly nobody here should lift them and put them on their own website. That kind of stuff makes him mad!! (and it happens sometimes)

Everyone here already knows whose saws they are, though. I'd be glad to be able to look at them again, too. I should've saved copies of them before. The further along I get in making things, the more I appreciate George's work.

[Corneel]

Here they are again, for all to see.

[D.W.]

Thanks, Kees.

George mentioned the closed handle saw as favorable to him. He didn't say much about the open handled saw. It's still very nice, but I like the top line on the seaton better. I'm sure he had a saw he favored or a reason to do the open handle that way.

I see in your pictures you've made some pretty nice handles, you are in the same boat as me now. We can make decent handles, but to get them to be like those that george made (and then to file those facets on the back of a folded saw so neatly - those are folded) and have the lines follow everywhere continuously and neatly and crisply everywhere is a different class of work.

The lamb's tongue of george's is especially crisp.

The closed handle is the one where he said "about five hours, I guess". I have spent five hours on closed saw handles - that seems to be about how long they take me also, and they don't look as good!! What I do in five, george could do in two, I bet, and what he'd do with the extra 3 is the things I struggle with.

[Corneel]

Yes indeed. I was pretty happy with my sawhandles but now see all kinds of little things that I am not so happy with anymore. Oh well, they work perfectly allright and are comfortable to hold. As soon as they are covered in sawdust you don't see these details anyway....

But I'd like to try that Seaton one. After the cabinet is finished, and after I made some planes. Who said an amateur makes 6 pieces a year? I'd be happy with two!

[D.W.]

Yes indeed. I was pretty happy with my sawhandles but now see all kinds of little things that I am not so happy with anymore. Oh well, they work perfectly allright and are comfortable to hold. As soon as they are covered in sawdust you don't see these details anyway....

But I'd like to try that Seaton one. After the cabinet is finished, and after I made some planes. Who said an amateur makes 6 pieces a year? I'd be happy with two!

I don't make any six pieces of furniture, either!!

I doubt most amateurs, especially those with kids, get the chance to make six *nice* pieces. just the cost of materials for six nice pieces here would be about $6,000, and then there is the problem of where to put the furniture you've made.

I'm starting to have a problem with too many planes, and it's a conundrum because they cost enough in materials that I can't just give away a dozen or two a year, but I also don't want to get in business and sell them, nor do I want to be at anyones' whims to make something. The way the laws work here, if you don't sell more than the cost of goods, it's not a business (which is important for insurance purposes - if someone steals stuff from your house and it's determined to be a business..no coverage).

I may dump a couple on ebay just to try to support my habit. Who knows. It's a problem. I have the desire to make more planes than I intend to keep.

[IanW]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and I can see why these handles appeal, but early on in my handle-making I decided to make my grips a bit more 'organic' then the ones under discussion. I like crisp lines on the bits that don't go into the hand, but the grips on my handles get much more shaping than the fairly constant radii along the front & backs of the grips of the handles shown above. Aesthetic qualities aside, I don't think the shapes of these grips truly represent the inside of a clenched fist. The radius of my grips is fairly constant at the front, but varies quite a bit at the back, from a very flat half parabola at the top where it fits between the web of thumb & forefinger, to more semicircular at the centre, where it meets the ball of the hand, & most of the power is transferred on the push stroke: TS1.jpg TS2.jpg

The difference isn't all that extreme in a pic, but is obvious when you hold it.

It takes me more like 8-9 hours to make a closed handle, partly because it's more difficult to work the complex shape & keep it symmetrical, but mostly because I'm not as slick as a piece-worker would have been! I use varied radiusing to try & make thicker bits like the top horn & lamb-tongue area look more delicate than they are. My hope, which may be a vain one, is that my handles still look ok, but are sturdy enough to survive the odd accident a bit better, though of course, a trip to a concrete floor won't do them any good! Not trying to say my handle is in any way better, just my own idea of what I'm trying to achieve with a handle....

Cheers,

[Pittwater Pete]

Hi Ian

I like your handle better. It's a tool after all, and while a dainty handle looks nice, I prefer a more solid construction and thicker feel in my often sore hands. Stuff falls off my bench regularly, so your handle would hold up better in the long term.

Very nice!

Pete.

[D.W.]

I'm not sure I'd call the seaton handles dainty. The art in them is getting those transition lines to look crisp, but having them such that they don't feel like much (or anything). (as in, the angle of the handle where the lines meet the flat is very obtuse.

That said, I've set up the handles on my jack planes a bit fat in the horn. I know I drop my planes from time to time unless they are extremely special (and when I make them, there's nothing special about them). I've dropped my closed handle jack off the bench twice now and though the front corners are a bit rounded, the handle still has its horn, and that, I'm happy about!!

[rob streeper]

I've started tapering my handles top to bottom, I like them and so do those that've tried them. Makes the saw feel less like a hammer.

handle top thickness.jpg

handle bottom thickness.jpg

[IanW]

... I like your handle better. It's a tool after all, and while a dainty handle looks nice, I prefer a more solid construction and thicker feel in my often sore hands. Stuff falls off my bench regularly, so your handle would hold up better in the long term.....

Thanks for the vote, Pete. I like to see other folks designs & handle shapes (& pinch the odd detail now & then ), so it's all good. Different people like different shapes & sizes, I established that fact very early on, when I started making saws for people other than myself. I've had folks love my handles & others hate them, which is as it ought to be, I think!

I've started tapering my handles top to bottom, I like them and so do those that've tried them. Makes the saw feel less like a hammer. ...

I guess we're working on a similar rationale, Rob. My grips would be tapered by a similar amount, if I've read your calipers correctly, but I work the taper into them when shaping. Above where it curves into the cheeks & horn, it comes back to original thickness.

What intrigues me is how little wood it takes here or there to make a big difference in the feel of grips. I've settled on a set of dimensions which I can vary to give more or less of a handful, depending on the size hand &/or preferences of the end user. I start with a blank that is between 23 & 24mm thick. If I change the thickness by about a mm or so, they feel too skinny or too fat, depending on which way it goes. But sometimes I want to squeeze a handle out of a piece of really nice wood that cleans up at a mm or so less than my 'optimum'. To some extent, I can give the handle close to the same fulness by adding a mm or so to the width of the grip. It sort of makes sense to me, but not sure I explained myself clearly.....

Cheers,

[Corneel]

The strength of the Kenyon saws in the Seaton chest is in the ability to create a superb image with just a few simple lines. It's an artistics ability, something I lack completly myself.

The handles are real workmans handles otherwise. Not highly polished, no fancy wood, no slick finish. It's almost straight from the rasp, a bit of oil and the rest of the finish is not much more then the sweat from the user.

A good idea are these swas from Colonial Wiliamsburg. When I am correct these were made by George Wilson too.

[Bushmiller]

I start with a blank that is between 23 & 24mm thick. If I change the thickness by about a mm or so, they feel too skinny or too fat, depending on which way it goes. But sometimes I want to squeeze a handle out of a piece of really nice wood that cleans up at a mm or so less than my 'optimum'. To some extent, I can give the handle close to the same fulness by adding a mm or so to the width of the grip. It sort of makes sense to me, but not sure I explained myself clearly.....

Cheers,

Ian

I have had the opportunity in recent times to compare quite a few handles, although admittedly they are usually full size handsaws, and I think you have recognised exactly the relationship between thickness and width. This is particularly epitomised in Disston saws and how they evolved after 1928 when the range was revamped (not for the better I hasten to add).

It is quite noticeable how "blocky" the handles increasingly became and it got worse and worse until 1955 when ownership of the company left the family: Bigger, more solid, less refined and the emphasis was placed on robustness as opposed to aesthetics and comfort. We won't talk about post 1955 .

However, when I am restoring the handles, I often take a little licence and soften the edges of the grip. This makes the handles feel thinner even though I take nothing off the thickness other than a little sanding, which would be unnoticeable. I allow this license as normally the saws are destined to be users and ease of operation is the keystone (sorry about that one ). I also flatter myself that they look better after I have reworked them, but I concede that is a very subjective observation. Unfortunately, I have not devised a way to make the hand hole smaller!

I must check your saws as I had not consciously noticed the taper in the handle: A bit slack on my part as they get used more than you can imagine.

Regards
Paul

[D.W.]

Ian

I have had the opportunity in recent times to compare quite a few handles, although admittedly they are usually full size handsaws, and I think you have recognised exactly the relationship between thickness and width. This is particularly epitomised in Disston saws and how they evolved after 1928 when the range was revamped (not for the better I hasten to add).

It is quite noticeable how "blocky" the handles increasingly became and it got worse and worse until 1955 when ownership of the company left the family: Bigger, more solid, less refined and the emphasis was placed on robustness as opposed to aesthetics and comfort. We won't talk about post 1955 .

However, when I am restoring the handles, I often take a little licence and soften the edges of the grip. This makes the handles feel thinner even though I take nothing off the thickness other than a little sanding, which would be unnoticeable. I allow this license as normally the saws are destined to be users and ease of operation is the keystone (sorry about that one ). I also flatter myself that they look better after I have reworked them, but I concede that is a very subjective observation. Unfortunately, I have not devised a way to make the hand hole smaller!

I must check your saws as I had not consciously noticed the taper in the handle: A bit slack on my part as they get used more than you can imagine.

Regards
Paul

Anything after the golden era of saws (early 1900s) is pretty much fair game to adjust as needed. Those handles are just blocky instead of having the lines the kees mentions. That's what separates the work done in late 1700s and early 1800s from the later work. The ability to keep those lines, but nobody could honestly say they feel them in use because there is a full half circle of faired curve (the later blocky handles just have some small amount and a much larger radius.

I suppose there is a challenge to make sure the lines look hand done, as the same "lines" exist on handles made by machine. They just don't have the same half round radius and transition that's on the hand made handles, and there's a big difference in feel due to it.

As far as handle width (tapering isn't something I do because I make far more plane handles than saw handles), the older handles are interesting because there are some that have a greater chord and width only around 0.95 or 1", and some that have a smaller chord, but wider width (1.2" or so). Both are comfortable to me as long as the hump of the handle is in the right place and the top of my hand is in the horn or close.