Hello, everyone I have been absent for sometime and had some catching up to do — a lot of interesting saws had been acquired in past couple of months. Here's the one I got of eBay couple of weeks ago, interestingly, or not, the postage cost was 800% more than my winning bid... This is a little 8" saw from Armitage, London. The plate is fairly thick, very thick actually, for this type of saw at 0.8mm (0.031") and it does not look like it was replaced badly sharpened too. The saw looks and feels great, even though there's some damage to the handle and tonnes of heavy pitting — it's not going to be used. The handle, surprisingly, attached to the plate very tightly. The only entry in the BSSM with the same mark dates this saw to 1890s. Am I correct assuming this is the correct date or it might be earlier saw. I am confused a little because the plate is made from such unusually thick steel — in 1980th they new how to produce nice thin plates and the handle is too well made for a cheap low quality tool. Any suggestions will be appreciated.
Hi, You do post some tantalising saws. There are, of course no Armitages in BSSM who are recorded as manufacturing saws in London and so this must be either an allusion to London Spring or it was put on during that period of the latter third?? of the 19th century when Sheffield makers seemed to be adding "LONDON" , possibly for marketing purposes. The mark on your saw is very much like BSSM's 1890 mark for William Henry Armitage. Only Simon knows why he ascribed this mark to W H and the date 1890, and why not to one of the other Armitages or perhaps even a little earlier. I think that Simon has said somewhere on these pages that trying to date open handled back saws is a bit of a mugs game (in the absence of firm dating criteria) {brackets/italics are my comment, I don't know whether Simon went on to qualify his statement or not, but it seems a reasonable addition}. One feature of the saw that might make it earlier than 1890 is the length of back overhanging the blade at the front (Providing that it is original and not a later cut down blade). Rightly or wrongly I associate this feature more with a date nearer the start of W.H's career than towards the end. This is, of course a WAG, and if you want an ever more far out WAG, I would speculate that in the 1890's the competition in saw retailing was such that niceties like the elongated back would be considered frivolous and would give way to the anodyne and all pervasive barely rounded (and presumably cheaper to make) nose. I don't know that there are any firm answers really on this one. One thing that I have noticed about this saw is that the toothline (such as it is), and certainly at the front (and not that regularly) seems to be cut into two points with a shallow gullet in between and the a deeper gullet followed by two more points/shallow gullet. I have had a couple of saws sharpened like this. Is it an aberration done by the last sharpener of the saw or could there be a reason for it? Fred
Hello, Perhaps this is an effort to make sloping gullets, which theoretically help the teeth to shed sawdust as it saws. I believe that there might be such a sloped gullet on the other side between the two teeth that don't have it on this side. But in any case, as you've noted, this is a very poorly sharpened saw and I don't think we should take this sharpening example as worth too much thought. David
Thank you David and Fred for your comment. I never realised the extended gullets were done purposely but it makes perfect sense especially with the plate that thick. This is an interesting sharpening technique which I might try out next time I fine a suitable saw. Fred, I buy my saws for the appeal and looks. Normally if the saw looks 'pretty' it turned out fairly old ( for the amount of effort spent making it in the olden days ) or somewhat special anyways. Here are couple of picts of the similar 14" R. Groves & Sons I have — sport the difference Thank you, S