Thread: A beast of a tenon saw..

Ian ,
Before I make a half butt attempt,


Is this only gullet w it’s a slit this long?

Cheers Matt,
I have a theory

That's probably the longest gully Matt, but the slopes on the gullets are all a bit extreme, and not too consistent, as you can see. I don't think there's any particular significance to that extra-long one, there are a couple of others here & there that are similar. As I said, the re-toothing ('cos I don't think the saw left George & Tom's hands looking like this!) is rather amateurish, but it's what he intended to achieve that intrigues me!

Cheers,

Ok my wild guess,

Paul Sellers, was there apprentice, that’s how he learned the technique of first hack sawing the gullets you’re take the strain off the point of a saw file, as we all know the point on a saw file is first and last in the battle of making a gullet.



A completely random guess,with nothing to back it up in anyway what so ever.

Cheers Matt.

The green hardwood idea sounds plausible. Dont you have an urge to give it a sharpen and have a play with it? In the interest of research. Only other wild guess I can add is something a shipwright may have a use for.
Regards
John

Matt, I think you're right that those grooves are from a hacksaw, likely done at least in part to mar out the new teeth

Originally Posted by orraloon

The green hardwood idea sounds plausible. Dont you have an urge to give it a sharpen and have a play with it? In the interest of research. Only other wild guess I can add is something a shipwright may have a use for.....

To be honest, John, I didn't feel any urge at all to use the thing in anger. Some tools you pick up just beg to be used, but this one just begged to be put down again! You are right, of course, I should have at least taken it to a piece of pine stud or something. The teeth are still moderately sort-of sharp, so it might have given me a clue to what it can do.

Although my friend's dad was a sailor, I'm pretty sure the original owner of the saw was a landlubber. His name stamp was on a lot of joinery type tools like moulding planes and a 3/8" dado by Mathieson & Son that ended up following me home, despite my best attempts to give it the slip.....

Cheers,

According to Simon Barley’s book of British Saws, that logo is c1860.
Which leaves plenty of time for someone to have had a play with the teeth.

C3F75619-940A-466A-A10F-DF5B6A92636A.jpg

Gavin, if this saw dates to that time, it's in truly amazing condition! When I first saw it, I was thinking it was in good nick if it was bought in the 1930s, which would have fitted with the owner being an active chippie at that time. But the split nuts made me think it was probably late 1800s or very early 1900s, & he probably didn't buy it new. But 1860 is really pushing it back. Does Barley go on to say how long that logo was used for? The "circa 1860" suggests to methat was the first use of it, but they went on making saws for a couple more generations, according to the source I found. Did they change the logo multiple times, as so many makers did?

Cheers,

Hi Ian,

The book lists some more examples of the logo from different decades as per below.
The B prefix is for Backsaws, the H for Handsaws.
The only example of the oval is from 1860. While that doesn't mean the oval wasn't used later, there none listed in the book.
The space between the G & T on your saw looks a little different from the book but if they were making lots of saws they may have been multiple stamps.
The backsaws from 1890 and 1900 no longer use the oval logo, so I'd safely guess it is older than that.
You can always write to Simon, he may have more information.

IMG_3177.jpg

Thanks for that.
OK, so it really starts to look like this saw is quite a bit older than I thought. It amazes me that it's in such spanking condition, particularly as some of the other tools stored with it have not fared nearly as well.

Amongst the motley collection, there was a post WW2 era Stanley #5C (Canadian), which I didn't key out but the woodwork was Beech and not very well shaped, so I'm pretty sure it was made within my lifetime. It was so rusted I don't think anyone would have the courage to try restoring it to useable condition. There was also a #3C, a pre-1920 model with low knob that is in better condition, but still desperately in need of some TLC. Te most serious flaw I spotted on a semi-casual inspection is a badly-damaged tote. I spent years looking for a good #3, and I much prefer the low-knob versions of Mr. Bailey's creations, so I was tempted to make an offer on it & see how much work it needs to bring it up to speed, but I'm not a great fan of corrugated soles, I think they are rather silly. I also have my own #3-sized infill, and another with a 1 5/8" blade, so I'm pretty right for small smoothers....

Cheers,

Originally Posted by IanW

...not a great fan of corrugated soles, I think they are rather silly...

A corrugated sole in any plane that might be used on a board edge is a bad idea: the grooves can catch on the arris (corner) between edge and face and steer the plane, usually to no good end.

I own several, but only because they were really lovely otherwise at the right price.

Ian

I have a similar saw. I turned up some pix, but can't remember how long it is. Probably either 14" or 16". I will check when back home.

P1030988 (Medium).JPGP1030989 (Medium).JPG

The teeth on your saw seem to replicate those of logging saws, which is really bizzare on a back saw. I can't imagine why this would have been done.



Two big differences I have noticed between American and British back saws are the British preference for a brass back and as you have noted quite massive metal, compared to the more modest size steel backs used in the US. I quite like big ad brassy!

Gavin has aready done some work from Barley's book and I can't add anythig to that. The split nuts pretty much date it as pre-1887.

I think my saw had been used in a mitre box, although I consider really it is to small for that, as evidenced by the small hole at the nose end of the spline. It was used to insert a pin (likely just a nail) so it could not be pulled out of the mitre box posts by accident.

Regards
Paul


Ps I will re-position the pix when back home. Can't do it on this computer.

Edit: Pix now where they should be.

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

.....I have a similar saw.....

Yep, looks identical Paul, & a 16 incher too, I'd say. Like you, I can't think where such a heavy saw would be an advantage, other than in a mitre box, and the nose hole in yours does suggest a previous owner thought so, too. It would be a bit short for the metal mitreing jigs, though in a home-built box for narrow stock it would be fine.

The last owner of the saw I showed certainly had something in mind, to go to all that trouble making those vicious-looking fangs, but I'm afraid it's likely to remain a mystery 'cos all of the folks who might have been able to tell us about what this particular saw was used for have long since departed this world.

Yeah, it's funny that the Poms seemed to like heavier spines than the folks across the Atlantic. As I found using those 'orrible hard-point "back" saws, it's certainly nice to have a bit of heft, but the saws we're talking about here have a bit too much of a good thing, imo!

Cheers,

Ian

Just of late I have found cause to use that hackneyed line from Crocodile Dundee, "That's not a ***. this is a ***."

Well brace yourself , because there is another coming up.

My saw is like yours and, as you have guessed, is just a tad under 16". I measured the back at 25mm deep and 9.4mm thick (sorry to mix imperial and metric but my cheap vernier was playing up)

P1060514 (Medium).JPGP1060515 (Medium).JPG

but I found another Gray. Almost identical except scaled down as it is a 12" version. The spine is 22mm deep and 8.5mm thick.

P1060516 (Medium).JPGP1060517 (Medium).JPG

Now without sounding too much like Tim Shaw, the man from Demtel or Paul Hogan's character Dundee, I have some more for consideration. This is a Robert Sorby 16" No.35. It has a spine or back 28mm deep and 8.5mm thick.

P1060519 (Medium).JPGP1060518 (Medium).JPG

The G & T Grays are much nicer saws with a delightfully styled handle. The Sorby has the later Glover patent saw screws, but rather strangely they are steel!

The Poms definitely liked their brass.

Regards
Paul

Yep - your saw beats my saw...

I can't think of any reason why British makers would opt for heavier spines other than fashion. The woods they'd have been used on would have been no different from what he Americans were sawing, so I can't see that affecting anything. My personal preference is for lighter saws - the minimum size that suits the job, but as I said, using those cheap hard-point saws made me realise that a little bit of weight over the blade is definitely desirable. Maybe someone just decided "if a little bit's good, then a whole lot must be better.."

I don't think I'd enjoy pushing one of these 16 inch G&T Grays all day!

And you still haven't told me what those oddball teeth are for.......

Cheers,