Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: My Grandads saw

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Dandenong Ranges
    Posts
    1,865

    Default My Grandads saw

    Hi all. This saw came from, as the title suggests, my Grandad and has been a regular user. Only now have I got around to restoring it and the blade has come up well. More excitingly I can now read all the etchings. Does anyone have any info? Sorry I forgot to check tpi but its obviously cross-cut. Handle still to be cleaned up but it is in good condition, no splits and only minor dings, chips etc. Timber looks very light in colour - I had previously sanded the section that rests in my palm, it always felt a bit "pointy".

    20200513_185719.jpg

    I wonder if they still stand by their warranty?

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





     
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    blue mountains
    Posts
    4,882

    Default

    I found this.
    http://www.tyzack.net/Saws.pdf
    Hope its some help.
    John

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Dandenong Ranges
    Posts
    1,865

    Default

    Hi John. Thanks for the link. Great info on the process of saw making but no match in the catalogue.

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Brisbane (western suburbs)
    Age
    77
    Posts
    12,093

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Ash View Post
    ......I wonder if they still stand by their warranty?....
    Maybe, but the Tyzack firm went through a bewildering number of generations & names during its existence. One snippet I found (not referenced) said Tyzack Sons & Turner became just Tyzack & Turner in 1921, so your saw would have to be at least 99 years young if that info is accurate.

    Is that the camera angle making it look foreshortened, or has the saw had bit of an accident at some stage of its life & lost a good deal of its nose? That might have voided your guarantee...

    I get a strong impression from reading the blurb that Tyzacks went in for a pretty hard temper on their handsaws. They say the most common problems 'careless' users have are broken teeth and broken blades, so it might pay to take it very easy when setting this one. They also claim hammer setting is the best method, pliers types being more likely to break teeth. I do question that has to be so, however. If you use a set designed for small teeth, and set the anvil correctly, the plunger should only push on the upper 3rd of the tooth, & I am still waiting for someone to explain the difference between striking or pushing the metal when the force is applied at the same point (a bit of a hobby-horse of mine!). I do see a lot of saws with the teeth bent from the root, which is liable to crack or break teeth on just about any saw, and I confess to grossly over-setting quite a few in my early attempts too, but it is certainly not good practice.

    The handle will almost certainly be Beech - but the catalogue John pointed to above shows very fancy models with Rosewood handles, but you would have been super lucky to score one of those.

    Not really relevant to this thread, but I was interested to see the use of the term 'backsaw' in the catalogue - I thought this was a more recent Nth. American term, but it has obviously been used in Britain for a very long time, too. I've always thought it was a good generic name for saws with spines - terms like "tenon" and "sash" or "dovetailing" etc., may point to specific uses, but the differences are vague & no clear definitions exist for what makes which.

    Your hand-tool collection is beginning to look pretty respectable, MA!

    Cheers,
    IW

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Dandenong Ranges
    Posts
    1,865

    Default

    Hi Ian. I was wondering about the length too. Maybe shortened to fit in a toolbox? Just cleaned up the handle this morning and definitely Beech (which is beautiful regardless). The etching on the blade does refer to careful setting, I (whilst no expert) think that the push of a saw set is more gentle than the strike of a hammer. Im hoping Paul has some more info, even if it's not a Simonds. I also thought that backsaw was an "americanization" but I know I still have lots to learn. One day I will have to build some sort of a tool cabinet!

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Millmerran,QLD
    Age
    73
    Posts
    11,095

    Default

    MA

    This is a difficult one. I agree with Ian that the saw has been shortened. This reasoning is for two reasons. Firstly it just looks too "muscular" for a saw this length. I am guessing that the toothline is around 20". Perhaps you could confirm the length. Secondly it is rare for a panel saw to have five saw screws. On a 20" saw (if that is the length) it would be more more common to have only four or more likely three saw screws. In fact there is a third indicator in that it is stamped 7ppi which would be a little coarse for a crosscut panel saw, although not impossible.

    I have access to only one W. Tyzack, Sons & Turner catalogue, which is from 1950 and there is nothing similar in that publication. The reference John has made in post #2 refers to centenary saws (with Rosewood handles) which would date that publication as 1979. I think your saw is much earlier than that and indeed earlier than 1950.

    Saws from this branch of the Tyzack dynasty (there were other Tyzack saw firms) between 1890 and 1925 all has a reference in the etch to "Little London Works" and that does not appear on your saw. It would be helpful if we could see the handle and the medallion. I also note that the etch displays a No.4. My information from Simon Barley's book on british saws indicates that there were about twenty numberings in all.

    You may be able to shed some more light on the timeline by the period your grandfather was an active carpenter. My initial guess would be between the two wars (for the saw, not your grandfather!).

    Regards
    Paul
    Bushmiller;

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

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Dandenong Ranges
    Posts
    1,865

    Default

    Hi Paul. My Grandad was a gardener for most of his working life. As with everyone of his generation he was also a keen DIY guy (before that was even a descriptor, mostly a way of life). He was born early last century and came to Australia at 16 (from England). Spent a lot of time clearing land along the Murray River before settling in Hawthorn. Grandma and him bought a "bush" block and this is where I spent much time with him. I can remember two things clearly about his shed - the smell of oily rags that he kept mant tools wrapped up in and the huge whetstone just outside the door. Anyway he was not one to waste anything, maybe someone passed the saw onto him. Good guess regards timing but I don't think it would have been bought new (if it was "tradesmans" level tool). Saw blade is 510mm long and yes 7tpi, I didn't see that until you pointed it out. Please see the below photo

    20200514_142527.jpg

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Millmerran,QLD
    Age
    73
    Posts
    11,095

    Default

    MA

    A little more information. The pix below date from 1927 and you can see the saw on the left in the group pic looks very similar to your saw.

    W Tyzack, Sons & Turner 19.jpg

    A close up rotated looks to my eyes to be identical with the No.4 designation both on the saw and below the pic. It doesn't mean this is the date of your saw neccessarily, but at least it was made at that time. For how long after this I don't know. I would still hazzard a guess with a slightly reduced time period of 1927 -1945.

    W. Tyzack, Sons & Turner No.4 horizontal.png

    Regards
    Paul
    Last edited by Bushmiller; 15th May 2020 at 01:55 PM. Reason: re-position pix
    Bushmiller;

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

  10. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Millmerran,QLD
    Age
    73
    Posts
    11,095

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by orraloon View Post
    I found this.
    http://www.tyzack.net/Saws.pdf
    Hope its some help.
    John
    John

    Thanks for finding this link. I previously said the centenary was 1879/1979, which reflected the date Turner was included in the company name. However, on looking at the 1950 catalogue, I see they refer to being founded in 1812. I have to say your publication based on this is 1912. The Rosewood handles also fit the timeline better as Rosewood was virtually an unobtainable timber by 1979. Remember that about the same time Disston (1914 with the D115) and Atkins (No.400 about 1906) both utilised Rosewood handles in their flagship models.

    Also 80 shillings/doz (26") would have been much too cheap for a saw in the 70s. Back in 1912 when one Brtish pound was worth around US$5.00 this would have equated to $20/doz, which was still less than half the cost of the Atkins saw at $48/doz! In fairness, Atkins did market their 400 as the most expensive saw ever. From memory the Disston saw was about $36/doz

    Regards
    Paul
    Bushmiller;

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

  11. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Dandenong Ranges
    Posts
    1,865

    Default

    Screenshot_20200515-084427.jpgScreenshot_20200515-084347.jpg

    Hi Paul. A little bit of research of my own found this saw on ebay. I don't know how to get a link so here are a couple of screenshots. There was also another for sale with same handle and both that one and this have an interesting little nib towards the toe of the blade. This also looks like the point at which mine could have been cut off. Googling images also came up with another with a identical handle and is "dated" at 1900. Food for thought.
    Screenshot_20200515-085314.jpg

  12. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Millmerran,QLD
    Age
    73
    Posts
    11,095

    Default

    MA

    Not only a budding collector but a researcher too. Good sleuthing.

    I think the "A" in the model number meant that the saw was a straight back version. Your saw with the plain No.4 had a skew back. Only straight back saws had a nib and in time that was phased out probably by the mid 1920s.

    Regards
    Paul
    Bushmiller;

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

  13. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Brisbane (western suburbs)
    Age
    77
    Posts
    12,093

    Default

    This thread has brought home to me what a complicated web of imitation & flattery the saw-making business was by the late 19th/early 20th C! The Tyzack #4 looks so much like a Disston D8 in just about every respect except it has a Beech rather than an Apple handle. You can quibble about the exact placement of the screws, but in all other respects such as the skew-back (patented by H.D. in 1874), & the general shape of the handle it looks like a Disston clone. What is even more striking to me is the double-curve shape of the rear of the blade, with the bottom curve fitting inside the bottom return of the handle. They seem too similar to be coincidence. It looks like it even has the 'closed top' cutout, which Disston patented in 1875. I read the patent application for that a long time ago & can't remember what advantage that was supposed to confer (I think it was to strengthen the handle), which I thought was a bit dubious. It was more likely just to add a difference to H.D.'s product & would have been more appropriate as a 'registered design', but there may not have been such a category back then? I can vouch (& I think Paul will agree ) that the shape of the cutout in the handle makes for a lot of bother when trying to make & fit a new handle to exactly match the original for a D8. The D20 handle gets you almost as close to the action, & by comparison, fitting a handle to that model is a doddle.

    The Tyzack firm predated Henry Disston by a good margin, though they didn't begin as saw-makers & it's not clear from the history I read when they started producing saws in any quantity, but they were certainly hard at it by the end of the 19th C. By the time the saw above was made, most, if not all of Disston's patents would have expired, so no problems with copying anything they chose ("imitation & flattery"). Was that because Disston had gained such a strong hold in the British market that when people thought "saw" the shape of a Disston D8 was what popped into mind? Interestingly, Tyzack also had their own smelter & made their own saw plate & made a point of it in their advertising blurbs, just as Henry did, though he didn't when he started, & apparently still referred to his saws as being of "best London steel" when he was actually making it himself. Only later, when the U.S. made steel came to be regarded as being as good as if not superior to, the British product did he admit to rolling his own.

    I'm glad I'm not a saw historian - too damn complicated, too many fibs!

    Cheers,
    IW

Similar Threads

  1. My grandads tools
    By ShoshinJoe in forum HAND TOOLS - UNPOWERED
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 24th September 2017, 06:38 PM
  2. Grandads DON'T know everything
    By Barry Hicks in forum WOODIES JOKES
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 22nd August 2007, 02:13 PM
  3. Grandads Christmas Poem
    By Iain in forum NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH WOODWORK
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 21st December 2006, 07:59 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •