Two v similar saws - Taylor of London + J. Frost of Norwich

Would welcome people's thoughts on two remarkably similar 14" backsaws, particularly in terms of dating. My uneducated guess would be around 1850-60 for both. Top one is by Joseph (?) Taylor of London, lower one by James Frost of Norwich. Curious to know whether the subtle differences are indicative of age or just the differences between contemporaneous makers (one London, one provincial)




In terms of stamps (neither has any trace of blade etching), the first has 'Taylor' (in zig-zag border) and 'London', similar to the marks shown in BSSM (and given a date c.1860) for Joseph Taylor. I bought this one on eBay back in December and didn't have to do much to it apart from a basic clean and sharpening. It's an absolute dream to use - beautiful balance and fits my hand perfectly, so it hangs above my workbench and is the saw I use most often.


The second, also bought from eBay but more recently, is marked with a simple 'J. Frost Norwich'.


This one sadly needed a bit more TLC (the photos here are a mix of pre- and post-cleaning) - some rust pitting on the blade and obvious signs of more rust under the handle, as well as several broken teeth, utterly disastrous previous sharpening (45 degree rake on a rip-cut!) kinks in the blade and even a slight lateral bend in the back - so I think it will live on my study wall, rather than the workbench. Nevertheless, I was delighted to have so closely matched a pair of saws from different makers.

When it arrived, the apparent taper/cant on the blade of the Frost was almost identical to that on the Taylor, though it's less obvious now I've re-mounted the blade on the former. Given that it works so well as it is, I've no intention of taking the back off the Taylor, but I'd wager if I did, the cant on the blade itself would be very similar to the Frost.


Most obvious differences between the two are (thumbnails are cropped - click through to see the full pic):
Handles - Taylor has longer horns, plus distinct chamfers


Frost is somewhat less refined (this is before cleaning):


Backs - Frost (on the left) is decidedly chunkier and really quite heavy (this view shows the difference in the chamfers more clearly too)


Also, the brass back on the Frost (on the right this time) has a distinct taper - from 28mm deep at the heel to 22mm at the toe (i.e. about 1/4"). The Taylor back is the same depth throughout


Because I wanted to disassemble the Frost to clean the rust off, this also gave an opportunity to investigate how much of the cant was due to the blade bedding further into the back at the toe than the heel.

(The split-nuts are impressively chunky, at around 4.5mm thick.)

As expected, at the heel end, the back was barely gripping the blade


Even so, with the back off, it's clear that the blade really is canted 'by design'. Width is 2.2" at the heel and almost exactly 1/4" less at the toe.
.


Placing the cutting edge against a ruler clearly shows the effect of wear - the concavity in the centre of the blade is about 2.5mm relative to the ends.


Thanks for reading!
Stuart

 

Lovely saws - the TAYLOR has visual cues of London-trade sash-saws.

. . . . . may I ask; how thick is the handle of the TAYLOR (at its thickest) & how thick is the sawplate, & what is it toothed at? Out of interest (since you’ve had it apart); did you notice what the brass back (alone) of the FROST saw weighed? And exactly how long is it? - this back visually resembles the backs of two (London-made) saws I have; but you’d want several properties to match before suggesting identity.

BTW neither saw looks to have a canted sawplate - they’ve just been thoroughly satisfactory saws, used & (lovingly) abused until there was nuthin’ left. Canted-by-design sawplates show an obtuse angle at the top of the nose.

 

Hi shoarthing,
Handle on the Taylor is just shy of an inch at its thickest - 31/32" to be exact. It is 11 TPI. I don't have a micrometer handy to measure plate thickness accurately but with my digital sliding calipers, pinching at various points around the edge, the plate looks to be about 23 thousandths.

Sadly I didn't weigh the Frost's back but its length is 13+3/8 "

 

. . . . thank you for this thoroughness.

Estimating dates - especially of London-trade saws - is piling rocks upon a souflé; there is so very little written material to build on. Simon Barley gives an 1860 estimate to a Taylor backsaw with a similar mark . . . . and has handled and compared an enormous number of saws; if I have a contribution, it is curiosity about the unusually opaque Taylor entry in BSSM; if its summary of the 1852 bankruptcy is that Moses Eadon acquired the rights to the Taylor name, then used it in a sawtooth border around 1860 . . . . that narrative wouldn’t be contradicted by your saw.

The beech used in the handle of the Frost saw - as much as one can tell with its current surface & so on - appears to be the quality of quartersawn stock that you see in J V Hill’s saws. It is Hill - a known manufacturer & wholesaler - who I feel may have supplied the Frost saw: that tapered back really does seem similar in dimensions to two examples I have on 2x J V Hill sash saws.

The apparently rustic handle may have suffered a partial horn-amputation, while the use of 3x fasteners, & indeed Frost’s known trading-dates alongside Hill’s retirement & possible refocus of the business perhaps fit with this possible London source, & a last quarter of the C19th date . . . . .

 

Attached please find a snap of (the earlier) of these J V Hill tapered sash saw backs:




. . . (edit) NB 'phone camera has distorted apparent angles at nose of sawplate.

 

Thanks for those fascinating thoughts.
Here's another view of the Taylor (left) and Frost (right) backs, which offers a better comparison with your Hill.



Difficult to know of course how much of the manufacturing was done 'in-house' - perhaps larger workshops would make their own backs, while others bought them in?