Hello all, Even on the less than wonderful photograph, it was as plain as a pikestaff that there was a lot wrong with this saw. Let's start with the easiest first. The handle is awful and an obvious much later addition. The back and the blade, I find fascinating. Until I took the handle off, my first and subsequent impressions were that the blade was off of a handsaw with an old back stuck on the top of it. This is still a very strong possibility, but if you look at the corrosion pattern underneath the current handle, then it could well be that of a three screw backsaw handle. There is one, presumably original, square punched hole and the very vestigial remains of two more square punched holes that have been drilled out above the complete one. In fact, it looks to me like the person who fitted the current handle tried to match the two top holes with the original ones but didn't quite manage it. Even to the extent of filling the original 2 top holes holes in the handle and re-drilling them. And, of course, who is Brown? The name being low on the back and being towards the rear makes me think that it is pre mid 1830's, possibly very "pre" this date and the saw is a bit of a monster to boot. The back is 18 1\2 inches long and the blade is 19 inches long. One of the reasons that I think that this saw may be well pre 1835 is the following comment from David "I have a 20" Kenyon, a 20" Samuel Newbould and a 19.5" Mitchell Thompson & Co; all are backsaws" All these are very early saws. I am sure that I will be corrected on this, but I have seen no really big saws much later than the early 1800's. They may well exist - but not in any significant quantity. BSSM is not enormously helpful on this one. If I am going to stick to the upper cut-off date above (and I am) then there are only two candidates. Benjamin Brown of Birmingham 1791 (if only!!) and Brown Ardron and Co. of Sheffield 1809 to 1811. If it is the latter (and which I think is unlikely), then they would have had to have shown a strong sense of the famous Yorkshire frugality by putting only "Brown" on the back. There is John Brown and Co. of Sheffield of 1841, but I think that this company is a little late for this back. So, a so far unknown one perhaps? All suggestions gratefully received as usual. Fred
Hi Fred, Congratulations on winning such a nice find. If it weren't for the posted shipping costs to the USA, I would have been competing fiercely with you for it, but nonetheless I'm really delighted that you're the fellow who won it. Keeps it in the family, so to speak. Based solely on the slight evidence of the saws in my pile, I think it's a very early saw and that the possibility of it's being made by someone as early as Benjamin Brown is strong. The original, mostly vertical, 3 hole pattern you revealed upon removing the back only shows up on a couple of my early backsaws of whatever size; a Kenyon & Co (probably pre-1800) and a Mitchell, Thompson & Co.(1797-1802), which images are attached. All my other big, early backsaws either have only two screws or have a triangular pattern with two screws at top and one below, like the Sam'l Newbould I also attach here . The square front end of the spine of your saw being in the same line as the blade matches nicely with the front of the K & Co as well (although that's a slim indication since it shows up on many other saws as well, a few of which are later, c 1820). It's a super saw and, as one would have said back in that day, I give you joy of it! Regards, David
Thanks David, And thanks for posting the image of the Kenyon. If you look at my handle corrosion pattern and the placing of the original screw holes, it is a very good fit for your Kenyon handle. I thought when I saw the corrosion that that the handle may be a hemispherical one (I don't know what the proper name for it is) and not the traditional pattern with a chamfer, but I had no images to compare it to and hence no mention of the possibility. I was particularly worried about how much of the back such a handle would cover, but your Kenyon handle in this region is a good if not (unfortunately) a perfect fit for my corrosion pattern. Benjamin has become a distinct possibility. I shall never know for sure, but at least I can dream Fred
It just shows how satisfying a saw can be that starts off looking so un-promising. The real give-away to me is the rust pattern from what we assume was the original handle – and no, I don't know what name should be given to the strongly curved front edge of this handle type, so hemispherical, being simply descriptive, will do nicely for the time being. There are one or two small niggles in my mind about this being Benjamin Brown. The first is that we have nothing by him for comparison, and extremely little by any other Birmingham maker of the period. And as far as I can remember, and I can't find any pictures either way, I don't recall a Birmingham saw with the words German Steel on it until Atkin in the 1860s, and he was a Sheffielder anyway, even though he fled to Birmingham because he couldn't put up with the trade unions in his birthplace. And the partnerships of the pre-1830 period seem to have been very fluid, and to have included or excluded names of partners without any very good reason that's apparent now, so I wouldn't be astonished if the Brown of Brown Ardron had made saws with his own name, before, during or after the partnership. The last thing is that when a saw is so messed about, it's hard to be accurate with the dating (as if one can be most of the time anyway, but we'll let that pass). But I don't want to sound grudging – if I'd been the lucky buyer I might have raised the same questions, but Fred, would I not have been pleased to own it! (on the subject of German steel, I'm posting a new thread)
You are, of course right to be cautious Simon, I have not seen enough really old saws to judge by the mark. I always associated this style of mark with the first third of the 19th century and that would fit in well with your Brown of Brown Ardron. And without the corrosion pattern of the handle I would agree wholeheartedly, but I am pretty sure that the handle was "hemispherical" and whose style I think is a bit earlier than 1800 - ish. Is it therefore Benjamin or is it an earlier Brown/Brown Ardron. I am reconciled to probably never knowing. Fred
That's graceful of you, Fred – it's so hard to give up on what one would so much like to be the case. And on the subject of the hemispherical shape, this one by Emes (London) is, the friend who owns it and I after long discussions agreed, about 1820, even though there is no documented evidence that he was working as early as that.
Hi Simon, I am thoroughly confused and am having to re-think (I think) my handle dating if the saw pictured above (and on p.94 of your book) is 1820. But I infer from what you write that it could even be later than 1820. "even though there is no documented evidence that he was working as early as that." I always thought that that style of handle was a lot earlier than 1820. My world has been turned upside down. Now, perhaps I am reading too much into my "original" handle corrosion but on second and third and subsequent looks, neither your handle nor David's Kenyon matches it at the top of the back. My pattern is a lot more like the handle portrayed on p.92, the 1760 saw. An asymmetrical "hemisphere" (if such a thing is not a logical impossibility) with a flattened top. There is definitely a flattened top where the chamfer would normally be on a later saw. I draw no conclusions from this because there is only the shadow of the handle left and I have one screw too many. This is at least an advance on my normally ascribed state of having a screw that is loose. Both, however present an interesting state of affairs. Fred
Fred – your world has been turned upside down – join the club! I think that one of the problems with the dating and styling frames of reference that we all use (because we have to use something) is that the makers were not a homogeneous bunch, working to prescribed standards (although up to a point they did, judging by the statements of prices paid for their work). The presence or absence of something like a chamfer could be very individualistic, I suspect. The result is that individuals in different times and places could do something that to us these days looks so anomalous that we can't make it out. At least that's my bottom line get-out. Simon
Fred, I realize this thread is quite old but I thought I would post some pics of a saw I recently acquired that might be of interest to you. The stamp reads BROWNE C__T _____ REFD I think it originally read CAST STEEL REFD but the word steel is completely missing and all that can be seen or inferred from the word CAST is the C and the T. The saw is roughly 16-1/2” long but the toe of the spine is open and smashed pretty good. Whether this indicates the saw was once longer and subsequently cut down or simply an oddball length, I don’t know. There are no chamfers or bevels on the brass at all. It’s simply a piece of folded brass with no ornamentation. The spine tapers from 1” at the heel to 7/8” at the toe. A goodly amount from the little knowledge I have of these things. I should’ve posted this sooner but it slipped through the cracks. I had it with me on a recent trip where I knew I would see David and wanted to show it to him. Luckily it was still out tonight when I ran across this thread while doing some research. Charlie