Thread: Robert Sorby Handsaw

That a really nice old saw, MA. Great proportions and the enigmatic nib.

no clue on the age, but would guess mid to late 1800s if lloyds had a betting window and I was using someone else's money to bet.

Interesting that it's been made crosscut, and I wonder if that's an artifact of someone repurposing it to use it for construction work or firewood. a 3 1/2 point saw is pretty useful for a person working entirely by hand, obviously not as the only rip saw on hand, but it's a nice thing to have along with another finer saw.

Docking saw is the term I was thinking of - though those are usually metal in the US and were intended for utility pole work or something. But same principle. A little weird, still - if (dry) wood gets big enough that a normal crosscut saw doesn't do the trick, a rip saw is usually faster than increasing the tooth size, and the cut depth per stroke isn't big enough to cause the rip saw to blow out the back side of a cut like it might on smaller/thinner work.

Effective, though, in wet wood (aggressive crosscut), but the set on the saw would "set you off" if it was setup for that.

I love that style of saw, though - the mid to late 1800s english saw with the handle off the back rather than set up and in like a disston. Not so much that it's any more practical, it's just more pretty.

Thanks Martin and David. I spent a little more time following links on google and some sources suggest that Sorby made these from 1850's to 1890's , at which point they switched from stamped blades to etched ones. The Kangaroo trademark has always intrigued me.

robert sorby is an interesting name, like marples, because it went so long.

The earlier stuff is probably not similar to the 1940s or 1950s irons in norris planes, for example (those are soft-ish and probably some kind of reduced carbon steel).

the english stuff mid to late 1800s has such a great look. Really, all of it does until they cut out the human element in making. But the look is combined with function.

Spear and Jackson is kind of a "oh, look, it's a hardware store brand" vibe now, but one of my favorite handsaws is an earlier spear and jackson that I have that is a 12 point 26 inch saw. it's got a fault of hard teeth just at the very ends, and who knows why, but you live with it if you're like me because the saw is a joy to use. The hardness is a file killing hardness, but the teeth set just fine and don't break off. When I got it, it had a frown tooth line and I suffered through it blowing about four files to get everything back to tolerable.

I'd never give it away now - the hard bits may ruin an edge when sharpening, but it's so infrequent on a long crosscut saw, i don't care.

Same with back saws- early spear and jackson backsaws are much like anything else shy of the high style makers like groves. For some period 10 - 12 years ago, they were not desired in the UK and I could find backsaws with S&J mark and a hand made lamb's tongue for about $15. Those days are gone.

I don't think I have a sorby back saw, but one of the tool dealers here in the states (can't remember the name, but the dealer is gone) had a pristine groves carpenter saw - 6 point rip, $23. Again, those days are gone.

Each time I've come across a similar style saw with a r. sorby mark, I'm convinced they are overpriced because the name is still recognizable.

Finding anything reasonably priced over here has become a challenge. I have picked up some bargains but cheap Disstons (good ones) are like hens teeth. English makes are better priced but even these are creeping up. Most of my S+J saws are early 20th century, really good but not as fancy as late 19th.

Sent from my SM-G986B using Tapatalk

I guess the pool is dwindling, for a number of reasons, the main one being of course, they don't make 'em any more!

I'm well aware you can buy new saw-like tools, I'm talking about good ol' pre-WW2 Disstons & S&Js. Funny thing, most of the old blokes of my dad's time (he was born in 1915), swore by S&J and considered Disstons as second choice. Like the Ford/Chevey debates, I never heard a logical, measurable feature advanced to support either view - I think some of it came from a lingering loyalty to the "mother country" (though Plumb axes were highly valued, so the Brits didn't have it all their own way!). Now the swing seems to have gone in Disston's favour, and they seem to be considered the better of the two.

From my own experience, I would say there's no difference of any real significance between the oldies (model for model); it boils down to whether you prefer beech or apple handles. I like apple....

Cheers,

Sharpening this saw was a bit of an exercise. I haven't measured but the steel felt thicker. I used a brand new file, mostly to see if the cheap "Supercraft" brand was worth getting again (this brand seems to be infiltrating my timber yard, a Mitre 10). Even though I kept the same rake, and shaped the teeth 1st, I was only filing the top half of the cutting face but most of the back of the tooth in front. I assumed that increasing the fleam would fix this and so it did. I think Apple feels nicer too but I do have soft spot for that older beech with the prominent yellow fleck.

Originally Posted by Mountain Ash

Sharpening this saw was a bit of an exercise. I haven't measured but the steel felt thicker. I used a brand new file, mostly to see if the cheap "Supercraft" brand was worth getting again (this brand seems to be infiltrating my timber yard, a Mitre 10). Even though I kept the same rake, and shaped the teeth 1st, I was only filing the top half of the cutting face but most of the back of the tooth in front. I assumed that increasing the fleam would fix this and so it did. I think Apple feels nicer too but I do have soft spot for that older beech with the prominent yellow fleck.

Come on you,

You know the Rules, no pictures didn’t happen,or maybe did actually happen, but key board grumbling old farts bla bla bla.

I can’t really decide between Apple or Beech there both nice.

Cheers Matt.

Originally Posted by Simplicity

...........I can’t really decide between Apple or Beech there both nice.......Matt.

Wellllll, I think there are nicer woods than either:

5 Rock oak.jpg

4 River oak.jpg

2 Bull oak a.jpg

1 Swamp oak.jpg

Originally Posted by IanW

Wellllll, I think there are nicer woods than either:

5 Rock oak.jpg

4 River oak.jpg

2 Bull oak a.jpg

1 Swamp oak.jpg

Your just showing of again Sir.

Very nice, Ian. I think I can see Hairy Oak. What is the 2nd one down?

Sent from my SM-G986B using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by IanW

Wellllll, I think there are nicer woods than either:

5 Rock oak.jpg

4 River oak.jpg

2 Bull oak a.jpg

1 Swamp oak.jpg

You guys have a lot of different oaks! We do, too, but I can only think of one of them that I'd use in a saw handle. The rest are 18 or 20 different types where bunches of them look alike (and usually not interesting like that).

Originally Posted by Simplicity

Your just showing of again Sir.

Yes, of course, but our native woods need a boost - I'm just sticking up for them...

Originally Posted by Mountain Ash

.... I think I can see Hairy Oak. What is the 2nd one down?.......

Nope MA, no hairy oak in that lot. From top to bottom they are W.A 'rock oak' (Allocasuarina huegeliana), spalted (causing the black staining) river oak (A. cunninhamii) , bull oak (A. leuhmanii, and swamp oak (A. obesa). The only hairy oak handle I still have is oriented the "wrong" way i.e. from a flatsawn board instead of quartered, so the rays are all at 90 deg to the surface instead of parallel, which makes it look odd:

3 Hairy oak.jpg

Still a nice 'user' handle and hairy oak (A. inophloia) is the best-working she-oak I've come across, it's several notches softer on the scale than bull oak, which is odd because the two species grow side by side in some areas. And I'm not the only creature to note its relative softness - several species of wood borers have discovered the fact as well. Paul (Bushmiller) & I scored a whole tree from out his way some years ago. It contained numerous small defects from borers that had damaged the growing tissue and also contained huge galleries 15mm in diameter & up to 300mm long hidden deep in the heartwood - always carefully placed right in the middle of the choicest parts! We had to work hard to find the sound bits, but it wouldn't stop me from accepting more if it was offered....

Cheers,

MA

Just returning to your Sorby saw for a moment before we head down the road of another delicious digression (with or without permission), there is not a lot of information easily available on this brand. For example, I have no access to any catalogues. iIt may be worth noting that the Brits retained the nib, on the straight back saws, and the split nuts for longer than the American cousins. I think the split nuts might have extended into the early 1920s and the nib was retained well past WW1 too. This makes identification by year more difficult.

Robt. Sorby also retained stamping of the saw plate as opposed to etching for longer: Again, into the 1920s. The only references I could find were in Simon Barley's book, which concentrates on stamps and etches and usually makes no reference to the model range. There is a stamp that looks identical to your saw that is dated 1880. So that is quite possible.

I would urge caution when setting this saw purely based on my own experience of a similar saw where I gave up on it after several teeth just snapped off during setting. Of course, based on a single saw that is a very poor conclusion except that I have not snapped any other teeth of ever!

I ended up giving it away to a friend who was interested.

Regards
Paul