Thread: Saw set types

Neither anvils look like they have filed thinner from what I can tell.

Matt, I would not call those "anvils". They are hammers - they strike. The anvil is the part that backs up the saw plate.

Regards from Perth

Derek

This page might be a helpful contribution here: The Saw Set Collector's Resource

Originally Posted by derekcohen

Matt, I would not call those "anvils". They are hammers - they strike. The anvil is the part that backs up the saw plate.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Derek,
You are correct, the Anvil is fixed the Hammer Plunger moves.

Cheers Matt.

Matt, the hammer or plunger seems to be a bit variable in the Eclipse 77s that have been through my hands, too. I must have bought an extra half-dozen of them at flea markets & "junk" shops over the years 'cos how can you resist when they were often asking only a few $$s for them? I don't know if the differences are due to different manufacturing eras or if they'd been "got at", but there were certainly some variations in the width of the hammer part & how much chamfer had been applied to each side. It would be hard to tell if the chamfers on the end have been filed by someone, or if they were original. I suspect it may have been done quite often because imo the "standard" hammers have always seemed a bit wide for 10-12 tpi teeth.

Anyway, of the two Eclipses I have left, one has definitely been got at - by me. I trimmed the hammer down a bit to better suit 10-12 tpi teeth. The one in original condition is for my larger saws.

I also have a "blue" Somax, the one supposedly for small teeth. It was ok for up to 15tpi, but I decided the hammer on it was too big for 18tpi so it got a bit of a haircut as well.

What I've also found variable, is the spiral bevel on the anvil block. It is much neater & comes to a slightly finer chamfer on the older model of my two current Eclipses. The newer one (bought by my father sometime in the 50s) is a bit less neatly machined, and also shows a bit more wear & tear. The Somax anvil is the sloppiest of the three and the finest part is too wide for 18tpi sized teeth and allows the whole tooth to be bent, stressing the gullets. So I made a new one that comes to a finer chamfer. I just eyeballed it with a fine file - it may not be accurate to a thousandth of an inch, but it does the job.

So not only is the hammer an important part of the package, check out the anvil before you grab the next 77 you see - if it is really rough & beaten-up, it might be better to pass on that one unless you have the gear & patience to make a new one.

IMO, the anvil should be hardened (none are, in my experience) while the hammer should be 'soft', so if anyone wants to set up a company to make the perfect saw set, please bear that in mind, will you?

Cheers,
Ian

I’ve got a group of them somewhere that I’ve not seen for six years since the move. Be careful with that Matt when you move .
I went for a look for them but no luck. I have this one at my bench though . Not used it yet .
Its a Preston.
74D7451B-E82C-4D8A-8087-9D4AD5A13FBE.jpeg BB3EEB54-E918-4115-A308-74097CD15774.jpeg

Every time I think I'm going down a bizarro rabbit hole I trip over discussions like this....

So I have about 9 I think in my stock

ONLY NINE!

I shake my head and wonder how one simply copes with such a dearth of choice....

Originally Posted by auscab

I’ve got a group of them somewhere that I’ve not seen for six years since the move. Be careful with that Matt when you move .
I went for a look for them but no luck. I have this one at my bench though . Not used it yet .
Its a Preston.
74D7451B-E82C-4D8A-8087-9D4AD5A13FBE.jpeg BB3EEB54-E918-4115-A308-74097CD15774.jpeg

Auscab,

Ye funny you should mention that, I’m all ready wondering if things(Toys) will not show there heads for awhile, too be honest I don’t think I will see some till at least late this year, or next year.

Would love too see some more pictures of the Preston, especially if I’m right, an it’s a Hammer set?.

Cheers Matt.

Originally Posted by IanW

Matt, the hammer or plunger seems to be a bit variable in the Eclipse 77s that have been through my hands, too. I must have bought an extra half-dozen of them at flea markets & "junk" shops over the years 'cos how can you resist when they were often asking only a few $$s for them? I don't know if the differences are due to different manufacturing eras or if they'd been "got at", but there were certainly some variations in the width of the hammer part & how much chamfer had been applied to each side. It would be hard to tell if the chamfers on the end have been filed by someone, or if they were original. I suspect it may have been done quite often because imo the "standard" hammers have always seemed a bit wide for 10-12 tpi teeth.

Anyway, of the two Eclipses I have left, one has definitely been got at - by me. I trimmed the hammer down a bit to better suit 10-12 tpi teeth. The one in original condition is for my larger saws.

I also have a "blue" Somax, the one supposedly for small teeth. It was ok for up to 15tpi, but I decided the hammer on it was too big for 18tpi so it got a bit of a haircut as well.

What I've also found variable, is the spiral bevel on the anvil block. It is much neater & comes to a slightly finer chamfer on the older model of my two current Eclipses. The newer one (bought by my father sometime in the 50s) is a bit less neatly machined, and also shows a bit more wear & tear. The Somax anvil is the sloppiest of the three and the finest part is too wide for 18tpi sized teeth and allows the whole tooth to be bent, stressing the gullets. So I made a new one that comes to a finer chamfer. I just eyeballed it with a fine file - it may not be accurate to a thousandth of an inch, but it does the job.

So not only is the hammer an important part of the package, check out the anvil before you grab the next 77 you see - if it is really rough & beaten-up, it might be better to pass on that one unless you have the gear & patience to make a new one.

IMO, the anvil should be hardened (none are, in my experience) while the hammer should be 'soft', so if anyone wants to set up a company to make the perfect saw set, please bear that in mind, will you?

Cheers,
Ian

Ian,

I agree there is certainly some variations in the width of the Hammers,
An it has been discussed hear many times, but since I’ve had a closer look at the two i have with me, I’m now wondering if there is actually model types with in the 77 range from Eclipse,

Are the Model differences Noted by the Six Raised dots ??




Or ye maybe there’s just been some skilled filling happen!!!

Cheers Matt.

Originally Posted by woodPixel

Every time I think I'm going down a bizarro rabbit hole I trip over discussions like this....



ONLY NINE!

I shake my head and wonder how one simply copes with such a dearth of choice....

Ian, said he’s been collecting them for over a Century, i have a lot of catching up to do.[emoji6]

Cheers Matt.

Originally Posted by Simplicity

Ian, said he’s been collecting them for over a Century, .....

Well, I may have been collecting them since last century, but I'm not quite that old yet, Matt!

Relax, WP, I only have 3, all of which get used regularly (in fact I used one today). I long since gave away/traded the extras.....

Cheers,

Originally Posted by Simplicity

Would love too see some more pictures of the Preston, especially if I’m right, an it’s a Hammer set?.

Cheers Matt.

Yeah you need a hammer to tap the Striker. Looks like it would work well on fine toothed saws to me. It adjusts in all the right places needed to line things up right.

They were painted gold when new. This one has only small traces left of that paint. Ive wondered about the work on the underside of these and if it was designed to be screwed to a bench or what ? They have gone to some extra trouble around its base but Ive not come across any info about that. Haven't done any searching on it at all. I did ask at the HTPAA where I bought it off Frank Ham , The president and founding member of the club . I think I was told they just screwed them to a bench or work top. Looks to me like there's more to that story though. Maybe its like that because its got something to do with the machining of it when they were made?

IMG_1618.jpg IMG_1619.jpg IMG_1620.jpg

Here's one in much better condition. Hardly used. With a good shot of its base.

1100009513.jpg 1100009514.jpg 1100009515.jpg

Originally Posted by woodPixel

I shake my head and wonder how one simply copes with such a dearth of choice....

I'm reminded of online conversations I've had with fans of double-edged razors who own at least seven razors, one for each day of the week, and often more.

I've got more than one at home (another in the RV for traveling), but only in case the one I use breaks.

Rob, I reckon you'd need to screw that set to something before trying to use it, I doubt it's heavy enough to sit while you press the teeth firmly against the stop?

By the mushrooming of the top of the plunger that has has led a good, useful life - I wonder if it belonged to a saw-doc? I can see it being of great advantage in a busy saw-sharpening shop of old, once you adapted to it, it should be much quicker than the pliers type, but I also think it would have a bit more of a learning curve to become both quick and accurate with it. Tap-tapping your way along the tooth line would be less fatiguing to the forearm muscles than pliers type sets - after setting a couple of handsaws with the Eclipse, I need a good break before starting another!

My father preferred a Stanley 42 & so does Bushmiller whom I recall saying he finds less tiring (which would be important when you have a couple of containers full of saws to set! ). I found an Eclipse at the back of a drawer when cleaning out my father's shed - it was pristine & still in its original carton (marked 21/6, so definitely bought before 1966). I know one reason it was not used, it didn't do its job! The casting of the loop above the plunger that the teeth rest against when you are setting, was as it came out of the casting mould, and it didn't allow the plunger to align properly with the top of the teeth, the hammer barely touched the tip of the tooth. I noticed another, older set I had had been filed or machined to adjust the fit, so I took to it with a file (very carefully & checking it constantly against the "good" one), & soon had it working properly. The QC inspector must've been off having a cuppa when that one went past...

Dad used to use his set on some large docking saws which I wouldn't attempt with my Eclipse, I doubt I could budge teeth as thick as they were. But I started with an Eclipse & had become used to it, so when I tried the 42 I found it awkward & just went back to the 77. I kept the 42 for nostalgic reasons & someday I might make a serious attempt to change my allegiance...

Cheers,

Only one of these is Stanley 42X , the other one is an Atlas!.

I will pull these apart later.




Cheers Matt.