Hello, I am new to the forum and have an interest in early saws. Concerning Barber & Genn saws, I typically see the working dates as 1787-1817. I assume that the 1787 comes from them being first mentioned in Gales & Martins Sheffield directory of 1787. They continue to be listed in Robinson's directory of 1797, and Barber & Genn are still listed as saw makers in Pigot's directory of 1818-19-20. How have people arrived at a terminal date of 1817? Any info on this company would be appreciated. Thanks, John
John, alot of Barber and Genn saws are late 1800s manufacture; I think a second quality line. Although I've seen the early dates of 1790-1820 as working years, I don't think I've ever seen one that wasn't from much later, i.e. 1880-1900 period. You would have to examine the actual saw construction, the name in itself doesn't denote an early saw. Greg
Hello John, I always preface my replies with "others who use this site will be able to help you more than I" and in this case it is definitely correct as I know nothing about Barber and Genn. What I did find out from a quick Google, and I hope that I am not duplicating what you have already done, is that the date of 1817 probably comes from Ken Roberts Book "Some 19th Century English Woodworking Tools. If you follow the link below http://swingleydev.com/archive/get.php?message_id=79292&submit_thread=1 you will find a rather acrimonious discussion about the accuracy of Ken Roberts in his published work. The inference that can be taken from this is that the cited end date may be inaccurate. No more or less complex than that. I know nothing of the man or his work, but if you have evidence that they operated later, then that should be sufficient to refute the 1817 date. I hope that others who use this site will tell you a lot more about the company. Fred Whilst I have been doing this, I see that Greg has posted and refers to an 1880 to 1900 date. The/a source for this is brought up in the link above. I think that we are struggling with a lot of saws/makes of saws because the timelines are far from clear and the documentation is sparse. I think that we are learning all the time, which is a positive thing. After all HSMOB is not universally accurate but it is not a thing to be denigrated, rather to use it as a learning process.
Hi John, Welcome to the forum. The working dates for early firms are most often based on directory entries. More often than not, that's the only source of any information at all. The other sources, like genealogical records and census data can often, provide some background. So, I'm sure you are correct, Barber and Genn were still operating in 1818,19,20 and maybe later. (I have a cd somewhere with those Pigot's directories).. I should add that this era of Sheffield saw making is one of Simon's areas of study, so he can possibly help out with more of the company history. Hi Greg, Barber and Genn are pretty rare in my part of the world, so I've never seen any, let alone one of a later manufacturing date, who do you think might have been using the mark? I should add that I think the 1870 date in the EAIA entry for Barber and Genn is probably wrong, and Ken Roberts original entries were more correct. Quite often, you will find British saw makers listed erroneously in EAIA. Regards Ray
I think Simon has some data that the Barber & Genn name was later used as a trade name by Ibbotson Bros, (which would explain the c1870 date for some of these saws)
Thanks to everyone for their replies. I am interested in documenting (as much as possible) about the use of the name. The name appears to be used starting after 1781 (Baileys), but by 1787 (Gales & Martin) and continues until after 1818, but before 1822 (Pigots). Where can I look for documentation on the use of the name later? 1880? John
Hi John, Finding reliable primary sources can be the most rewarding part of researching early saw makers, sometimes you find little snippets that don't fit with what's already known. I just decided to check the london gazette on the off chance and found this.. notification of the dissolution of the Barber and Genn partnership in 1810? At least they appear to have kicked out Thomas Barber... http://www.london-gazette.co.uk I can surmise that the other partners continued to operate the business for a further 10 years or more.. Another source is "The Jurist" which list bankruptcy cases and debtors gaol records. It's more difficult to search but google books has quite a few on line, look for "Great Britain Courts" But sometimes the only real way is to go to Sheffield and search the archives, luckily we have Simon Barley, who lives in Sheffield and is close to finishing a book on saw makers. I've been meaning to send an email to see what more he can add. Regards Ray PS... I wonder if this newspaper article had something to do with it... The Pilot Tuesday, August 28th, 1810 CORNWALL. CUMMINS v. BARBER. This was an action to recover a compensation in damages for a breach of promise of marriage. The Plaintiff was stated to be a respectable young woman, and a relative of Mr.Cummins of the hotel in the Falmouth, in whose family she resided. The defendant was connected with a commercial house in Sheffield, and happened to put into Falmouth in July 1808, on board a Portuguese vessel, called Meyo Mundo. He was the super-cargo, on a voyage to the Brazils, for which the vessel was freighted by Messrs.Barber and Genn, of Sheffield, his uncles. The vessel being wrecked in Falmouth harbour, and her cargo landed, the Defendant was necessarily detained there to take care and dispose of the property;- and it was during this detention that the Defendant, as Serjeant LENS stated, paid his addresses to this young lady; and after gaining her affections, and by letters which exhibited the strongest feelings of attachment, he had suddenly, and without the least reasonable pretence, deserted her. His letters were written in a style that disappointed the curiosity of the crowd in the Court, who, as usual upon such occasions, expected some ridiculous exhibitions of epistolary tenderness; for the language and tone of the lover were correct and respectful, though not deficient in energy and spirit. It was not therefore to be wondered at that the personal assiduities, the eloquence, and the flattering promises of such an admirer, had won the heart of a female who had neither made vow nor promise against the state of matrimony. She gave him her affections. He embarked on a voyage for Curacao, and during that voyage she received repeated assurances from him, that amid the wind and waves of the tempestuous ocean, she was the pole-star that guided and the anchor of all his hopes. What was then her surprize when she received an epistle from him, in the autumn of 1809, stating that his losses at Falmouth (alluding to the shipwreck of the Meyo Mundo), and defalcation of an agent at Curacoa, &c. obliged him to break off the match ! - Mr.Francis Symons, of Falmouth, the ship-agent, proved that the cargo of the Mayo Mundo was insured. Mr.Robert Williams, of Falmouth, proved the attention paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff. One of the 36 of the Defendant's letters that were produced, proved his expectations from his uncle and father were equal to £8,000. Mr.JEKYLL's ingenuity and eloquence were not sufficient to weaken the evidence, nor rebut the charge. Mr.Justice BAYLEY spoke in strong terms of the improper conduct of the Defendant, and the very proper conduct of Miss Cummins.- Verdict for the Plaintiff, with £500 damages. Looks like the nephew, was a wrong-un... (sorry, cad and a bounder) and the date would appear to tie in somewhat with the gazetted dissolution of the partnership with Thomas Barber.. I love the language, and turn of phrase.. a far cry from todays journalists.
Hi John, Simon kindly emailed the current entry (from the upcoming book) for Barber & Genn, together with some comments. And now to B&G: here is the entry from the book, which I think probably answers your point about the late appearance of a saw with this mark (I haven't seen one myself later than 1830-ish). The addresses were all very close, and could have been the same premises. Ibbotson brothers went on into the 20th century (1942). BARBER, GENN & Co SHEFFIELD Spring Street 1787 8 Bower Street 1797-1815 Bower Spring 1816-1817 1809: Manufacturers of saws, fenders, fire-irons, and double refined steel; this is the earliest known use of the term “double refined steelâ€. The firm seems, on the basis of the numbers of their saws that survive, to have been very productive, many of their saws ending in North America also. This observation may be misleading because their name was taken over (and used as a trade mark) at an unknown date by the Ibbotson Brothers, whose works when they were operating as Ibbotson Roebuck, were very close by, or possibly even the same: a backsaw made before 1817 would be difficult indeed to differentiate from one made in perhaps 1830. A Samuel Genn was a filemaker and early maker of crucible steel, with another of the same name also listed in the 1787 directory (at an address within 200 yards of Spring Street); if this Genn was the one who moved into sawmaking, he would only have been doing the same as several others of the period, notably the Kenyon Brothers. ..... So we can extend the 1817 date, to 1820 based on what you've found in Pigots, and the later saws that Greg refers to are likely to have been made by Ibbotson Brothers, (as Kiwi already noted) I wonder why the later saws seem to appear more often in the US? Regards Ray
I have a strong feeling that the reason for the large(relatively speaking )number of Barber & Genn saws found is because we are not looking at late 18thc -early 19thc saws , but rather late 1800s saws. I think the large % found in the U.S.,(where I am), is because these saws were exported as a lower priced product line. I'll try and post some photos of the one I have. When I won it several years back, on Ebay, I was quite excited to have an early saw, but when I got it in my hands, it didn't seem quite "right" Since then, I have seen many of these saws come up for sale. Either Barber & Genn were about the most prolific late 18thc sawmaker in the world or more likely these are of much later manufacture. My saw is also marked German Steel, again this is a term which evokes 18thc, but actually was used into the 20thc. Additionally, I wonder if the "German Steel" used in this saw was in fact Cast Steel, the "German Steel" stamp serving only as an additional advertising gimmick -which came into full bloom in the Victorian Period. It is really quite enjoyable being a detective on The Case of the Antique Tool, but I fear "18thc" and "hand-forged" are bantered about much too freely. Of couirse there are catagories of tools, i.e. 18thc molding planes, which survive in great numbers; but the % of authentic metal objects survivng is much lower; perhaps due to being in continue use until worn out and then scraped.
Hello all, I will and can speak only for myself here, but I will start with a comment that I made in an earlier topic. Simon also mentioned in one of his replies about one of Joe's saws that there were so few examples of very early saws around. I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that much the same can be said about pre 1850 - ish saws. I have just articulated Fred's golden rule of saw dating,- Never mind how old it looks, unless it has a mark that can incontrovertably be only pre 1850, then assume the worst - it will prevent disappointment later. And if you really want to be safe (pessimistic), assume 1880 to 1900. This may well need refining a little, but it is essentially true. You could perhaps also add:- "If there are a lot of 'early' saws around, then they are not early". A lot of the saws that I had that I thought were early, turned out to be post 1880, but in the same style as earlier saws. This is one of the good things about pooling knowledge, the whole becomes very definitely greater than the parts. There was a Barber and Genn on Ebay just recently (from America, as always) and I was thinking of bidding as it did not sell for a ridiculous sum for such an ostensibly early saw. That was just before this topic was posted. I had looked in HSMOB and got the standard dates which was sufficient for me at the time to discount my above "Law". It just goes to show, doesn't it that there is still so much to come into the public domain. Speaking of which, I have great hopes for Simon's book on this matter. (I hope that you will let us know when it comes out, Simon and when the official signing day at the Kelham Island Museum will take place). But, again, a cautionary note. Back around 1926 one of the physicists involved in the development of quantum mechanics said that "physics was over" (or something like it) and it was now just a matter of tying up the loose ends. That has turned out not to be the case and one can only hope that it is not the case with saws. The detective work, for me is one of the best parts of the process of saw collecting. And finally, a comment on Greg's notes in the previous post on German steel. The link to the WK fine tools site and Simon's article on steel seems to have disappeared ( and I cannot find the article by searching the site), and so I will have to rely on what I wrote in a previous topic. But the bonus for me was the notation "German Steel". Now, I know little of British industrial history let alone German but I trained as a teacher many years ago, and what I do know is that the English state educational system from 1871 to at least 1963 was based on the need to produce a literate, numerate and skilled workforce to compete, initially with German industrial capacity and quality and later with the rest of the industrialised world. So, thought I, German Steel would be a sign of quality like London Spring. That was until I read the following http://www.wkfinetools.com/hUK/z-UKR...elAndSaws1.asp . It appears that the notation "German Steel" signifies, at least second quality steel if not third. It is also quite a timely topic as I see the Ray has mentioned research into German Steel a couple of topics ago. German steel was a discrete process introduced to Britain (I have lost the references to when or who) by a German, no less! If you have an interest in steel, go to the links below to Wikipedia and the two articles on wrought iron and crucible steel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrought_iron http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucible_steel German steel may have been an advertising gimmik, but it sounds like it advertised only second best (or worse) products. I hope that this re-hash has been some help Fred