??agstone and Co Handsaw.

Discussion in 'Forum: Saw Identification and Discussion' started by fred0325, Nov 10, 2010.

  1. fred0325

    fred0325 Most Valued Member

    Messages:
    1,084
    This is the third time that I have done this, I keep doing stupid things with the pictures and losing the text. Never mind.

    I am putting this saw on in the hope that someone will recognise that name, without having to go through all the possible precursor letters and still get nowhere. The discernable letters on the saw are AGSTONE & CO. with CAST STEEL underneath. There is the ghost of a letter before the first A in AGSTONE which itself may be an A and it may be an initial. I cannot find it on this site and I do not get my Schaffer and McConnell until Christmas.

    The handle to me looks to be early-ish and the impressed mark on the blade may support this. The handle is tiny with the aperture for the hand being only 57mm wide ( 2 9/32nds inch in real money). I will confess that I do not know my woods except for the common hardwoods, but I think that this handle may be made of softwood. It "feels" like softwood and the grain is a fair-ish distance apart (See close-up photo). But I do stand to be corrected on this. The remaining split nut on the handle is 7/16th inch in diameter, with the other two fixings being wire nails.

    The saw itself is just under 20 inches from the toe to the heel, and 5 inches wide at the heel. It has 6 1/2 points per inch and to my inexpert eye it is filed as rip. I love the rounded end to the blade but I don't think that there has ever been a nib on it. The indent to the blade (top middle) looks as though it is a later accident/addition.

    Any ideas/comments/identifications welcome.

    Fred.
     

    Attached Files:

  2. lui

    lui Most Valued Member

    Messages:
    77
    Hi Fred

    Nice saw, looks early to me but I know nothing:)

    You could try taking a rubbing of the makers stamp, this might reveal more than is visible with the naked eye.

    As for the wood it looks like it has medulary rays in it, which are more common in oak or beach, but it's hard to tell without seeing the handle in real life.

    cheers

    lui
     
  3. fred0325

    fred0325 Most Valued Member

    Messages:
    1,084
    Hello Lui,

    You are probably right about the handle. I will take a close-up photo of the reverse in the morning and the light, which gives you a much better overall impression of the wood.

    I have also looked more closely at the mark. The A in Agstone could be part of an N and the G could be a C. I am afraid that this only makes matters worse as far as name permutations go. I think that the only way I will find out is if someone recognises the the format of the mark or knows a manufacturer "STONE" with any of the previous letters. Thanks for looking.

    Fred.
     
  4. ray

    ray Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    671
    Hi Fred,

    I'm not having any success with this one, the closest one I can find is

    Listed by Kenneth Roberts in "Some 19th Century woodworking tools"

    J.C. Stone Sheffield 1865

    Unfortunately he doesn't cite a reference.

    The first letters don't look anything like a "J" anyway...also, the other reason
    I don't think that's the correct maker is, your saw looks to be earlier than 1865,

    1. London pattern handle.
    2. Small screw diameter.
    3. 3 screws.
    4. The shape of the front of the handle.

    To my eye all these point to an early style, but, of course, that can be misleading.... If I was to take a wild guess I would say pre-1830's

    I suspect this one is going to require a bit more research, maybe Simon has seen this one before?

    Nice looking saw, and a bit of mystery is always a good thing!

    Regards
    Ray
     
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2010
  5. fred0325

    fred0325 Most Valued Member

    Messages:
    1,084
    I obviously do not know my hardwoods as well as I think!!

    Having taken some close-ups of the handle and particularly set against some Victorian oak panelling (albeit cheap stuff for the day) in my hallway at home, it looks like oak: although if I say it is it will probably be beech. So I won't but make up your own mind.

    At least you get a nice view of the rear split nut (now converted to a rivet) and one of the bodged nails.

    Fred
     

    Attached Files:

  6. fred0325

    fred0325 Most Valued Member

    Messages:
    1,084
    Hello all,

    Clutching at straws, I would bet our cat's breakfast (nothing more adventurous) on the name being Kingstone, but I have spent ages today browsing the available directories from 1790 to 1860 and have not found a Kingstone saw maker/manufacturer at all in England and Wales.

    This is how I started this reply, but I have just taken some more photographs and it looks like I have wasted a day and our cat will go hungry tomorrow.

    Have a look and see what you come up with, I am now betting on an "R" with part of the bottom bar of an I after it.

    Any further ideas? Any Ringstones as saw/tool manufacturers?

    Fred
     

    Attached Files:

    • 001.jpg
      001.jpg
      File size:
      37.6 KB
      Views:
      72
    • 003.jpg
      003.jpg
      File size:
      35.3 KB
      Views:
      74
    • 005.jpg
      005.jpg
      File size:
      31.8 KB
      Views:
      72
  7. ilges71

    ilges71 Member

    Messages:
    22
    I think you are right with Kingstone. The handle is beech. Oak would not have been used for a saw.

    The saw is fairly early as it has the rounded front end. Screwed fixings came in from 1780 on if Schaffer and McConnell are correct. The stamped blade puts it before 1850 when etched baldes came in. A company using a fancy curved stamp would have gone with the latest technology.
    3 connectors came in about 1790.
    The font used in the stamp is a factor for dating. It is a thin font with serriffs which is a late 1700's early 1800's feature.
    Another early feature is that the hand hole is low down on the blade with time it has risen.
    It is my belief that early panel saws with fine teeth for cross cutting were used with the index finger pointing along the blade as with a properly made and used tennon saw. This means the hand hole is small, made for only three fingers. Rip saws do not need the accuracy of using the index finger to point the direction of cut.

    I am really impressed with the number of early saws from unknown makers that are appearing on this site. This is exciting to see.

    Graham
     
  8. fred0325

    fred0325 Most Valued Member

    Messages:
    1,084
    Thank-you for the reply Igles 71,

    One of the good things about a site like this for people like me who are learning, is that you talk to others who know things. I was aware from previous topics of the etching and split nut dates, but the information about the lettering and the three fingered grip is new to me. I have tried the grip on the saw and it works well for comfort.

    As I mentioned in my first ramble, I am inclined to think that it is filed rip, but I have been wrong about many things recently,so I may as well be wrong about this as well. Below are photo's to judge for yourselves. Even if it is rip, it could have been done later. I suspect that it has had many re-sharpenings.

    Fred
     

    Attached Files:

  9. fred0325

    fred0325 Most Valued Member

    Messages:
    1,084
    I have had a bit of information overload today with three replies from Simon and two from Ray, but I will try to internalise some of it by applying some of Simon's ideas from his contribution to the "Waller and Co" discussion to this saw and see if they work.

    1) Why has no-one ever heard of ??Kingstone as a saw maker.
    Answer:- Because he probably never existed as one. This saw could well be, the same as Waller and Ericson, not to mention Bowden, Fitzwilliam, Robertson, Smithson and a probable hoard of others, a brand name.

    2) Why is it a brand name?
    Answer:- Because it is a later second rate saw which has some design characteristics of an earlier 1st rate one. The handle looks early but it is only 3/4 inch thick ( the thinnest that I have except for a child's saw). The steel is cast steel and which, unless it is very early denotes a second /third quality saw. And finally the three fixings put it later than the rest of the handle design would indicate. The London flat, as we have seen is virtually meaningless as a means of ascribing a date to a handsaw.

    And if you really take Simon's ideas to their conclusion you could say that the addition of the & Co. behind the name (if it is a brand name), puts it as a very late saw at a time when competition was rife and the maker had to bull the saw up to give it a status that it did not posess. (I am not sure that I would go that far with this saw, but it is an interesting concept).

    Granted the split nuts are of a small diameter, but then again so are the split nuts on my Smithson and J Robertson, and they are much later than this saw appears at first sight to be. ( I don't think that I have put the Smithson on yet, but it is a brand of Taylor Brothers and which must be after 1849).

    I bought a Robert Sorby handsaw yesterday (not an "and son" or "and sons") and he is dated as being from 1833 to 1839, (1828 if you go by the Sorby website dates - I'll put this saw on later as well) , and it is stylistically very similar to the ??Kingstone (It only has two fixings whereas the Kingstone has three and which in principle should make the Sorby an earlier saw).

    So, based on the evidence and arguments above, my ??Kingstone which could be 20 years younger than it is were it to be a 1st grade saw, is probably a 2nd/3rd grade saw at least mid 1830's and possibly up to the 1850's. I know that the arguement is rambling and disjointed, but it is late and I really do have to sort out my ideas on later lower grade saws mimicking some of the characteristics of earlier higher grade ones.

    I would love it to be earlier, but I fear that it is not.

    All refutations gratefully accepted.

    Fred

    I have put one photo of the Sorby on (1st photo) so that you can compare it to the Kingstone. I will do a proper series later. I haven't caught the nose of the Sorby, but it is rounded. The blade is 22". The Kingstone is 20" but I am sure that the nose has been truncated.
     

    Attached Files:

  10. Barleys

    Barleys Most Valued Member

    Messages:
    546
    ??Angstone etc

    I agree, Fred: this looks very much like a cheap saw from the latter end of the 19th cent. Two of the screws look replaced?
    Can't agree with Graham about fonts on marks - this one would do fine for late 19th cent (see my remarks about struck vs etched marks on the Willey saw thread today), although sans serif fonts are normal in 20th cent. My own research does not accord with the dates in HSMOB introduction: saw screws were being made in Birmingham in 1767.
    The toes of saws were often altered (like tooth forms) post manufacture - rust, accidents etc.

    Saw quality names varied over time: in 1768 it was common (worst), best, and (crucible) cast (the best...). Later, London Spring was added as the top grade; there were never more than four grades of steel. German steel was the second best during the 19th cent. Cast steels (not crucible cast) of varying quality were introuced after about 1870. There is a lot more to say about saw qualities.
    The whole question of steels is a total nightmare!

    Simon