Hello all, I think that it was only 3 years ago that I started collecting saws and from virtually the first week, when I saw a three medallion Groves, I wanted one. The problem was, they always went for more than I was prepared to pay - sometimes a lot more. So when I saw this in a box of tools last week, I went for it knowing that the rest of the box would offset the cost of the saw. I did, however have to do a 14 hour round trip by train to collect it as the seller, quite reasonably would not post the box. This may not be a lot compared to Australian or North American standards, but it is by mine! Anyway, to the saw. It is a very standard version with a varnished handle and a very verbiose description of the steel which I would guess puts it in the last quarter of the 19th century, 1st decile of the 20th. The curious thing about this saw is the quality of the label screw. To me it looks like a "second" and a lot poorer example than most in the images that I have seen. Even Groves may have been cost cutting by the time that this was made. The saw has a 14 inch blade which is straight (for me very nearly a first!!) and a handle that is in very good condition. One thing that I have just noticed is the extremely short chamfer on it. I don't have many of my saws to hand for comparison, but of those that I do have, the short chamfers are on the later examples. Does anyone have any ideas? Fred
No, but I like it. It has sort of a double cove look. Very nice find, is that the "as found" condition, or did you clean it? Toby
nice saw Fred, I want one too ! but this one is too expensive http://www.ebay.ca/itm/Fantastic-Tr...591?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item564ba2bfcf Note that the ebay saw has the same stamp in the brass back as yours Fred, but the chamfer on the handle is much longer. (I would put this saw at the same approximate age, as yours and consider the chamfer and medallion differences as just normal late 1800s production variation) another ebay saw also has the same stamp in the spine, but an open handle, and the Seller suggests a date of around 1868 http://www.ebay.ca/itm/Drop-Dead-Ne...591?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item564b91915f
this is not the best way to date something. the seller claims it was with tools from 1868. if i place a 1910 harley in my shed with a 1950 motor bike, that will not make the 1950 bike older robert
The first one kiwi linked to says "LONDON", and has a very different handle. The cove above the spine is more vertical, and a smaller radius. The second one says "SHEFFIELD", and the handle looks similar to Fred's saw. The cove is less vertical and larger radius. I think the second one is closer in age to Fred's. When did "LONDON" change to "SHEFFIELD" on Groves saws? Toby
This one is interesting. From here. The etch says "MUCH HAPPINESS", but I can't read the word in the center of the stamping on the spine. The cove is of the more vertical variety and it says "SHEFFIELD". Toby
Nice Saw Fred I posted a saw last March like yours thinking it was also a Groves with the three medallions in exactlly the same position. Kiwi figured out it was probably a Groves made "Vickers" . Very different handle style compared to yours but with the three medallions. Made a little earlier? Groves certainly were prolific with the numbers of their saws and "2nd quality saws" still out there. Lots of discussion over the years on Groves and I hope that Simon will have some more definitive stuff when the book comes out. Regards Joe S
Thank you all for the replies, I did clean the saw Toby, although only with 0000 grade wire wool. Unfortunately I didn't have my glasses on when I did it and took more colour from the brass back than I intended, and the saw screws. But it is something that a little time will put right. You have made the exact point that I meant Kiwi with the saw links to Ebay, although the seller who is offering it for sale, is probably one of the most consistently expensive sellers of saws on there. But he does ask silly money. You are probably right about the chamfer and medallion, although as far as the medallion goes I thought that it may have been a case of Yorkshire practicality in the form of "Well, we've got a batch of duff medallions, we may as well use them". I knew that there had been a Groves on recently Kiwi (sorry, Joe - this is the correction edit), and I did search for it, but I missed yours as it was under the "Grab and Run" heading. I would not hold my breath far any great revelations about Groves. I went down to the Kelham Island Museum this week and saw Simon there. A lot of his information on styles, brands and dates comes from contemporaneous catalogues and I think that they have the only known example of a Groves one - and that is 1915. A little late for most of the saws posted on here. So we shall probably have to keep on guessing. I will put something on here about the visit down there when I have marshalled my thoughts properly. It was a revelation to me, particularly on saw making, although I suspect it may not be to those of you who make them in practice. Fred
I picked this up this weekend along with 2 other brass backed saws that needed some love. The other two had replacement handles but retained the nuts. I kind of enjoy fixing handles and glazing so this one should be a treat. Joe
Hi Toby, Re your reply at No.5 this topic. I knew that Simon put the answer on here somewhere but was unable to find it until now. This is what he wrote about a Drabble and Sanderson (London) saw that I put on some time ago. At:- http://www.backsaw.net/index.php?option=com_jfusion&Itemid=58&jfile=showthread.php&t=244 - reply no. 4 "Here is a D&S joining quite a long list of Sheffield makers who during the second half of the 19th cent used the word London in place of Sheffield. Some of them, as Ray says, had administrative offices in London, but these addresses were in the City of London, but I don't think would have implied even the degree of "making" that Alan proposes. From memory there were Groves, Moulson Bros, Joseph Tyzack's 4th (Fitzwilliam) and 5th (Bowdon) qualities, S&J's lower qualities John Cockerill and Lloyd Davies, Marshall and Cheetham (much earlier - c1830); not W Tyzack, Sons and Turner, nor Wheatman and Smith, and interestingly not S&J on their best quality stuff. Nor any that I can think of of the lesser makers like Garlick, Francis Wood, Wilcock, or the major factors like Ward and Payne." So - around 1850 ish onwards if Simon is correct. Fred Unless of course the words are London Spring, which is a completely different kettle of fish. See below. From:- http://www.backsaw.net/index.php?option=com_jfusion&Itemid=58&jfile=showthread.php&t=82