Who is Paul Smith?

Discussion in 'Forum: Saw Identification and Discussion' started by David, Aug 28, 2015.

  1. David

    David Most Valued Member

    Messages:
    315
    Fred posed that question in a post about H. Biggins on 22 Feb 2014. I certainly can't answer the question to anyone's satisfaction but I have some new information to share that may be of interest.

    I just came across a saw marked Paul Smith & Co on that internet auction site whose name is often unsaid. In looking up the maker I first went to BSSM, but found nothing. Then I went to Google and also found nothing. But some time spent at Sheffield Records Online turned up a few entries.

    In 1792, at perhaps 11 years old, Paul Smith was apprenticed to a Hallamshire cutler. Paul's father and his new master were both knifemakers.
    In 1833, Whites has Paul Smith as a cutlery manufacturer.
    In the 1841 census, Paul is listed as 60 years old, living at Clarence St with his wife.
    In the 1851 census Paul is listed as 70 years old, living with his wife in Sheffield. but there is another Paul Smith, 39 years old, also living in Sheffield with his wife and two children. Perhaps this is the first Paul's son? In any event, his son is also named Paul, so perhaps a likely bet.

    Fred's original post concerned the dissolution of a partnership, of which Paul Smith was one of the partners.
    This occurred on 21 July 1855 and it's certainly a reasonable question as to whether Paul Smith, then aged 74, was still active in business. Perhaps his son, then 43, was the Paul Smith of the partnership. I certainly can't tell one way or the other. But one or the other of them seems likely to be the partner mentioned.

    Attached are images of the saw that began my inquiry, and of it's stamp. The stamp is low down on the spine, which leads me to believe the saw might be a good deal earlier than 1855 when the partnership was dissolved. The listing on the auction site is at: 171889909908

    As I warned at the beginning, no answers to be found here, but perhaps some interesting information.
    David

    paul smith & co.jpg Paul Smith stamp.jpg
     
  2. fred0325

    fred0325 Most Valued Member

    Messages:
    1,084
    Hi again David,

    This saw has been on my watch list for some time while I try to summon up the courage to pay somewhere near the asking price,the import duties and the postage.

    One of the reasons that I did not do so, and have not done so, was because, looking at the style of lettering, I was not convinced that the saw was British.

    In the light of your post I will have to reconsider, unless someone snaps it up before me.

    Fred

    PS Do you see a split nut set into the back just to the left of the cleaning line on the front of the saw?? I can see no sign of said nut on the back.

    PPS and edit. This saw does worry me a little. There is no place of manufacture and no cast steel on it, and which should put the saw to the first part of the 19th century if not older. The placing of the mark should normally put it pre 1835 -ish and perhaps I am sticking my neck out here but the handle looks a lot later and if an open handled backsaw can "look" anything, so does the saw in its entirety as well.

    Perhaps an S Biggin and Son brand sent over to America??
     
    Last edited: Aug 28, 2015
  3. David

    David Most Valued Member

    Messages:
    315
    Hi Fred,,
    Yes, at that asking price, a watch list is enough for both of us. Perhaps when his post ends he might be amenable to an offer on just the one saw. I don't think that what you see on the spine is a split nut, but rather just an unusual artifact of the cleaning. But without having the saw in our hand, who can tell from that imperfect photograph?

    And, yes, it's hard to judge a saw's age by its handle. I do think that handle is easily plausible for 1830, for what my opinion is worth in this guessing game of ours. But I think that having the stamp low on the spine is more telling of the date than the handle style. And, since the photos are so unclear/incomplete, we can't be sure if there is a cast or german steel stamp or not. I think your positing that it might be a larger manufacturers brand is a very reasonable suggestion. If we only knew.
    David
     
  4. Joe S

    Joe S Most Valued Member

    Messages:
    376
    Hey guys
    Have to agree on the dating by the low marking on the spine. The ampersand is very vertical so we can only put it so early. I still love Simon's truism... and I paraphrase, dating a saw by only its open handle style is a "mugs game" so I don't even try now. But saying that, the palm area looks "beefy". Similar to other saws maybe of that early vintage.
    Great stuff
    Joe S.
     
  5. ray

    ray Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    671
    I'd be hesitant to date it much before 1850 ish, just on style alone. The square blade profile, and chunky look is more reminiscent of mid 1800's than early 1800's. But as already noted the ampersand and low mark tell a conflicting story.

    Certainly worth a bit more research.
     
  6. Barleys

    Barleys Most Valued Member

    Messages:
    546
    Interesting! If it were not for David's incontrovertible research findings I would have strongly suspected this as being of US manufacture – and of course Samuel Biggin did have a strong US connection. The mark has no exact counterpart that comes readily to mind. Unless the picture is distorting it, the lettering seems to be italics, which otherwise is a style used only for one or two words of a mark with other non-italic letters. The ampersand is upright, which seems later rather than earlier, and the placing of the mark at the bottom edge is anomalous for the other features. And there is no place of manufacture, which is extremely unusual, not to say unknown, for a Sheffield saw after about 1830. The open handle, as Joe says, is pretty non-contributory.

    I don't honestly feel able to say anything except it's very puzzling – let's all wait patiently for the next dozen or so Paul Smith saws to turn up, so we can see what his "usual" style was...