Thread: The Simonds Saw Story

Interesting. The Disston blurb includes this quote, "the extremely thin plate (26 gauge)......" That equates to 0.01875" according to my gauge tables, near enough to 19 thou, which I would not call "extreme". It's thin, but still reasonably robust (which is not a bad thing if you want your saw to survive for the long haul).

If I recall correctly, Paul noted that one of the small saws in the Seaton chest is .017". Ive speculated before that the fashion for 'ultra-thin' (~15 thou) saws might cause a few problems for owners down the track. My little 15 thou saw is still going strong after 10 years of constant use, but not sure how well it will fare when it passes to new ownership. I'm also not sure how the steel will stand up , it is very susceptible to rust & needs constant molly-coddling to keep it looking decent. Both saws illustrated above are in remarkably good condition considering they must be 80-100 years old....

Cheers,

Originally Posted by IanW

Interesting. The Disston blurb includes this quote, "the extremely thin plate (26 gauge)......" That equates to 0.01875" according to my gauge tables, near enough to 19 thou, which I would not call "extreme". It's thin, but still reasonably robust (which is not a bad thing if you want your saw to survive for the long haul).

If I recall correctly, Paul noted that one of the small saws in the Seaton chest is .017". Ive speculated before that the fashion for 'ultra-thin' (~15 thou) saws might cause a few problems for owners down the track. My little 15 thou saw is still going strong after 10 years of constant use, but not sure how well it will fare when it passes to new ownership. I'm also not sure how the steel will stand up , it is very susceptible to rust & needs constant molly-coddling to keep it looking decent. Both saws illustrated above are in remarkably good condition considering they must be 80-100 years old....

Cheers,

Ian

We have observed in the past that a "little exaggeration" (hyperbole?) is not beyond the marketing departments of these saw making giants. However, the 170 was a narrower gauge than the general run of backsaws and I think the same would be true with the Disston company.

Your recollection of the Seaton Toolchest doevetail saw is correct and I might add better than my recollection . The blade in that saw did vary a little as grinding was not quite as precise as saws made in the early nineteenth century and did range between .017" and .018". It was quite a bit thinner than the other three backsaws, which were in the mid 20 thous or nearly .030" in the case of the largest ((Tonond) backsaw.

The Simonds No.170 I have has remarkably little damage, no missing teeth and just a little pitting. The handle is complete, but backsaws tend to have an easier and relatively "charmed" life in the workshop compared to the hand saws and panel saws.

Regards
Paul

Hi Paul. Do you find many (any) Simonds saws in Oz? Or do you get them direct from the US? I have only recently started reading the Lumber Jocks forum and are amazed at how much old toolery they have available and how little they have to pay.

Originally Posted by macg

Hi Paul,

A nice addition to your collection you have there.

I have the Disston equivalent, which is their # 70 and is also hard to find.

The brass plating is so thin, as a marketing ploy it makes me wonder why they bothered.

Graham.

Graham

I had not noticed the brass plating on the Disston equivalent so thank you for pointing that out. Among the big three manufacturers there seemed to be a distinct trend to making sure they each had an equivalent model. Sometimes the numbering by these companies was so close as to be worthy of a lawsuit: Something in which Disston was quite adept. Disston's No.70 and Simonds' No.170 are too close for comfort? In fact it gets worse as Disston's Gent's saw was the No.68 and Simonds' equivalent was the No.168! Lawyers, draw your swords!!

Disston seemed to prefer steel backs, either bright or blued, to brass, which I think they may have made primarily for the UK market where brass was the preferred back material.

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by Mountain Ash

Hi Paul. Do you find many (any) Simonds saws in Oz? Or do you get them direct from the US? I have only recently started reading the Lumber Jocks forum and are amazed at how much old toolery they have available and how little they have to pay.

MA

Out of all my Simonds saws I can count those sourced from Oz on the fingers of a badly damaged hand. The 170 came from the US. Unfortunately for us "down under" while we can buy at the same price as anybody else, the shipping, import duty and currency conversion is enough to deter all but the most dedicated. I had it shipped from the US in a group of purchases so the relative cost was less but still mind boggling.

An example of shipping as a one-off is this reproduction poster I purchased. It is a tin sheet about A4 size of an original Simonds promotional advertisement but coloured instead of black and white.

Simonds tin poster.jpg

Originally for sale at a bit over US$18, I made an offer of $15, which was accepted. All good. By the time it reaches me later this month it will have cost me A$67.47. You gotta really want these things .

Luckily for me, most of my collecting was done when the exchange rate was close to parity with the US dollar, combined shipping facilities were readily available and were reasonable. That is no longer the case

Regards
Paul

I spotted a "Simonds" pruning saw on US Ebay the other day.

Disston No.320.jpg

Something was not quite right.

The majority of pruning saws are curved and work on the pull stroke with the teeth being angled towards the user like Japanese saws. However, there were a few models that looked virtually identical to the carpenters' handsaws so I went looking. Simonds did make a couple of these saws. This is from 1923:

Simonds Pruning saws 1923.jpg

The lower saw (No73) has conventional teeth while the upper saw (No.63) has mainly logging style "M" teeth with conventional teeth at the toe to aid easy starting of the cut. However, handle has only three saw screws. I checked a few Simonds catalogues and there was nothing similar. I even checked a 1938 catalogue but the cessation of handsaw production apparently included pruning saws (but not crosscut logging saws or their docking saw).

I looked more closely at the pix in the listing:

Disston No.320 simonds handle.jpg

Although nothing was mentioned in the listing other than a 20" pruning saw I could clearly see the "No.320." I also thought the script in the etch might be saying "Challenger." I knew that Disston's Keystone range had a "Challenger" model, but that was also accompanied by a "K" designation, which was missing here. However, once I was on that train of thought, I also thought that I could make out "Danville," which was the location of HK Porter's operation a little after they had purchased the Disston company.

Disston No.320 simonds medallion..jpg

Quite a few Disston catalogues were checked without success and then I stumbled upon a catalogue from the HK Porter era. It was undated but prior to 1972.
Disston Challenger No.320 Pruning saw.jpg

It looks as though the saw in the listing has had the original plastic handle replaced. The handle may well be Simonds and could be from either a No.8½ or a No.72.

Be wary.

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

I spotted a "Simonds" pruning saw on US Ebay the other day.

Disston No.320.jpg

Something was not quite right.

The majority of pruning saws are curved and work on the pull stroke with the teeth being angled towards the user like Japanese saws. However, there were a few models that looked virtually identical to the carpenters' handsaws so I went looking. Simonds did make a couple of these saws. This is from 1923:

Simonds Pruning saws 1923.jpg

The lower saw (No73) has conventional teeth while the upper saw (No.63) has mainly logging style "M" teeth with conventional teeth at the toe to aid easy starting of the cut. However, handle has only three saw screws. I checked a few Simonds catalogues and there was nothing similar. I even checked a 1938 catalogue but the cessation of handsaw production apparently included pruning saws (but not crosscut logging saws or their docking saw).

I looked more closely at the pix in the listing:

Disston No.320 simonds handle.jpg

Although nothing was mentioned in the listing other than a 20" pruning saw I could clearly see the "No.320." I also thought the script in the etch might be saying "Challenger." I knew that Disston's Keystone range had a "Challenger" model, but that was also accompanied by a "K" designation, which was missing here. However, once I was on that train of thought, I also thought that I could make out "Danville," which was the location of HK Porter's operation a little after they had purchased the Disston company.

Disston No.320 simonds medallion..jpg

Quite a few Disston catalogues were checked without success and then I stumbled upon a catalogue from the HK Porter era. It was undated but prior to 1972.
Disston Challenger No.320 Pruning saw.jpg

It looks as though the saw in the listing has had the original plastic handle replaced. The handle may well be Simonds and could be from either a No.8½ or a No.72.

Be wary.

Regards
Paul

Paul

That would be Considerable Effort too change a saw, that well is a “Pruning saw” tho.
Tho possible I’m being a bit harsh.

Cheers Matt.

Paul, if that's a grafted handle, it fits like it was meant to be there, & looks like it has been there a very long time (though of course "looks" can be deceiving!). But the way the curve at the heel fits into the little connector piece of the handle seems too precise to be coincidence. I can see the handle on the not-Simonds has 5 bolts and the plastic handled "Challenger" has 4 in a quite different arrangement, so is this a "Challenger" from an earlier year when wooden handles were still the go?

The etch looks very legible in the pic, and it's usually clearer 'in the hand', so the person putting it up for sale either can't read, or had a couple of saws to sell & got them mixed up...

Cheers,

Matt


I am not suggesting deliberate effort to mislead or deceive. With this type of goods it is very likely a seller does not really understand what he has. I would expect that the original handle was either damaged, because those type of plastic handles are quite fragile (unlike the almost bullet proof Tenite handle on the Disston D-95), or the handle was changed for aesthetics. However, on a mere pruning saw I would suggest the former scenario.

Although there are no obvious tell-tale signs of another handle ever having graced the saw, if the handle was removed, I anticipate all would be revealed as there would be many holes. The seller is asking US$ 69.99 (A$100 +postage etc.), which is steep for a pruning saw and very steep for a hybrid. Occasionally in the past I have contacted a seller to supply more information attaching pix to back up any error they may have made. Sometimes there is no response and sometimes there is a good response, but the listing continues for an extended period of time. In fact there was a Disston saw that was advertised recently on Ebay as a D115 Anniversary saw. I contacted him to point out that it could not possibly be so (in the nicest possible way) and that what he had was in fact a D-23! He thanked me, but let the listing continue. I noted he had no takers!

So now I just let things ride, apart from alerting Forum members to possible pitfalls. This one is a good example of how authentic a Frankensaw can look. Without reference books we would be none the wiser.

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by IanW

Paul, if that's a grafted handle, it fits like it was meant to be there, & looks like it has been there a very long time (though of course "looks" can be deceiving!). But the way the curve at the heel fits into the little connector piece of the handle seems too precise to be coincidence. I can see the handle on the not-Simonds has 5 bolts and the plastic handled "Challenger" has 4 in a quite different arrangement, so is this a "Challenger" from an earlier year when wooden handles were still the go?

The etch looks very legible in the pic, and it's usually clearer 'in the hand', so the person putting it up for sale either can't read, or had a couple of saws to sell & got them mixed up...

Cheers,

Ian

We were posting at the same time.

Simonds 20" pruning saws had only three saw screws and as you say the plastic monstrosity had four screws and pictured hybrid five screws! The indisputable facts are that the blade belongs to a Disston pruning saw model No.320 because it says so on the etch. The medallion belongs to Simonds from between 1905 and 1922, because it says so and the handle, which doesn't correspond to anything Simonds or Disston produced in their pruning saw ranges, could be a Simonds handle (No. 8½ or No.72), but in reality could be anything. i agree there is no tell-tale mark of a previous handle and I know that you are particularly good at spotting those.

If it was one of our Forum members, I would respectfully ask them to remove the handle, but in this instance, I doubt we will ever know. Following your comments I did look to see what else the seller had. Although there were in excess of twenty listings of saws, none were like this one as they were completely different styles (compass, keyhole, hacksaw, circular chainsaw etc.) or they were groups of five plus saws. I have seen descriptions swapped around so that was a distinct possibility. Not this time though. I think this guy is either a professional dealer or an opportunistic amateur. Arguably he perhaps should know better.

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by IanW

so is this a "Challenger" from an earlier year when wooden handles were still the go?

Ian

I looked at several HK Porter catalogues online and none of them showed this No.320 pruning saw at all. There was just the single undated catalogue which featured a No.320. HKP moved their operations completely to Danville in 1961 and in the catalogue there was reference to being prior to 1972 so that gives about a ten year window.

Regards
Paul

Hi Paul,

In the photo showing the Disston #320 simonds handle

I reckon I can see the brighter outline from the previous handle shape

in front of the medallion and below the handle.

Just to show you all, below is an example of a pruning saw

made here in S.A. by the British Knife Co. Ltd

Graham.

Thanks Graham

I think for every pruning saw that is a panel saw "lookalike" there would be five of those curved pruning saws you have posted. It is similar scenario to the hacksaw situation, where again there were metal cutting saws that looked exactly like a handsaw until you counted the teeth (typically 14ppi) rather than the traditional frame style. All the major manufacturers had them, but they don't appear for sale very often, which probably points to their lack of popularity.

Regards
Paul.

I had stopped posting examples of the bogus Simonds saws, a scenario that is not od course limited to just Simonds, but when I saw this one on US Ebay, I couldn't let it go without comment.

Simonds abomination 1.jpgSimonds abomination 2.jpgSimonds abomination 3.jpg

The pix speak for themselves. I can hardly bring myself to comment as it is either an abomination of the first order or laughable. I don't even know why he thinks it is a Simonds saw. There is no etch and the handle is not Simonds. Frankly, it could be anything.

This is the seller's description:

"
Antique Simonds Hand Saw with Metal Handle Mass. 30"Up for sale is this vintage handle hand saw with steel handle.(very hard to find) the top corner above the handle is broken, but all the teeth are in good shape. It has not been cleaned and is a great collectors item. "

He is asking US$38 plus US$26 for postage.




Regards
Paul