Hey Ray et al Every once in a while you get lucky. This little gem was purchased very recently off our favourite on line auction house and I'm surprised there wasn't as much interest as there was. The handle screamed early and yet there was nothing on the steel back. There was a very hard to decipher punch in the blade. Took a chance and this is what arrived. Close up of the stamp surely shows a stamp signifying the maker Barnard. He was new to me and more I looked into it I found in W L Goodman's 3rd edition that Barnard was listed as a Birmingham saw plater from 1787 to 1807 and 1800 in partnership with Perry saw maker and Plane maker. Maybe Ray, you might have more to add if you have access to Birmingham data. If he was a saw plater would he have sent out the blade to be handled. The 9 "blade is held on by a very stylized beech handle with two split nuts. The rounded nose is very unusual and I wonder if made from outside. Hope to here from someone who might have more info. Cheers Joe S
Hi Joe, Congratulations on an amazing find! That saw is just beautiful. The right gentleman to answer this would be Simon Barley, but what little I have gleaned the early sawmaking centers were London and Birmingham, and a lot of early Sheffield makers brought skilled workers from Birmingham for specialized tasks, by the early 1800's Sheffield was on the rise and grew to dominate the earlier centers of London and Birmingham by the 1830's Information on early Birmingham makers is a bit thin on the ground to put it mildly, there is a huge gap between George Sitwell (London 1660's) and late 18th Century Sheffield makers like Kenyon and others. Here is your thumbnail, inserted here as an in-line image.. Nice to take a break from updating the site, I'm currently stuck on the bridging between the forum and the gallery software... The gallery will be back on line soon... Regards Ray PS... I'm so impressed by that saw, that elegant handle, the pronounced taper on the blade, I think that will be the inspiration for my next saw.
Hi Joe, Here is a list of some early Birmingham saw makers, gleaned from various sources.. 1718-1750 Smith, William Birmingham 1746-1809 Dalaway, Robert or William Birmingham 1777-1797 Barnard, Thomas Birmingham 1787-1811 Barnard & Perry Birmingham 10 Woodcock Street 1796 Clark, I. Birmingham 1818 Anderson, Richard Birmingham Bordesley 1818 Hill, Edwin Birmingham Fazeley Street 1818 Powell, William Birmingham Moor Street 1822 Paviour & Fenney Birmingham Great Brook Street 1818-1822 Thompson, Griffin, Beilby & Co. Birmingham Brassback saw Great Brook Street 1818-1830 Wilkinson, George Birmingham Alcester Street Upper Witten Mills 1821-1852 Staniforth, John Birmingham 15 Woodcock Street 1825-1933 Preston & Sons, Edward Birmingham Whittal Works 1828-1830 Betts, William Birmingham 41 Water Street 1828-1830 Powell & Son, William Birmingham 108 Moor Street 1828-1835 Thompson, Leonard, Dawes & Co. Birmingham 5 Great Brook Street 1828-1848 Betts, William Birmingham 58 Ludgate Hill 1830 Griffin, Joseph Birmingham Ashted-Row Edit.. A 1777 Birmingham Directory (1896 reprint) has the following listings for saw makers.. Note the spelling of Thomas Bernard? Pearson & Rollason Directory of Birmingham (& the Black Country), 1781 has the following saw makers, still spelt Bernard? Wrightson's Triennial Directory of Birmingham (1815), seems to be only a few saw makers hanging on, the others have probably moved to Sheffield? Regards Ray
Hi Joe, I emailed Simon Barley regarding your saw, and he replied as follows.. Dear Ray Thanks a lot for letting me know about this mouth-watering early saw. It's very interesting on several accounts: first, it's the only Barnard saw I know, although there is a London collector who has one that might be by him; second, the name is struck on the plate of a back saw, not the back; I think I've seen one other like that, but I haven't got a picture, so I may be dreaming(no: see below)* *In looking through my library of pictures, I have come across the forgotten back saw mark struck on the blade - and I think, with the influence of Joe's saw, that the name, which had previously eluded me, could well be Barnard (plus another word?) Here is Mike Woods saw, possibly Barnard Closeup of the Mark struck on the plate... possibly Barnard & ???? ; the handle is typical of late 18th cent Birmingham and London backsaws, and may be of Sheffield ones, except that I haven't seen any from S'd to compare, apart from a Barber and Genn of maybe 1800 in which the nose is beginning to take on a more transitional form which is less egg-shaped, and more like the later ones that had a larger amount of wood enclosing the back. Pics below. Rounded Handle Shape Transitional Style I will put at the end what I have on Barnard, and Barnard and Perry. I have to say that trying to get the Birmingham makers into some sort of shape has given me a huge succession of headaches; I've been to Birmingham public library several times (a marvellous one, with an unrivalled collection of trades directories on the shelves for instant access) but have not been able to match up what I've found there with what is in other sources. I will have to put a caveat in my list of makers, warning that I can't vouch for the accuracy of the B'ham makers before about 1825. I have no idea why they alone have been so difficult! The term saw plater as I understand it is synonymous with saw maker at that date; I think they would have been responsible for all the stages of saw making except perhaps hardening and tempering the steel, and grinding, but I say that only because a bit later on those stages were certainly separated off to different trades in the Sheffield industry. Saw handle making was a different trade, but in Sheffield (later, admittedly) the maker put the handle on. I had a spread sheet of all the B'ham makers, but somehow or other it wiped itself off my computer - at least after I'd transferred the information to other forms. I can't find a maker called Clark anywhere in the info I culled from the directories. BARNARD, Thomas BIRMINGHAM Woodcock Street 1791> BARNARD, Thomas & PERRY Woodcock Street 1803 Saw plater. Barnet & Son c1770 Here is Barnett & Sons (I notice a Peter Barnett in the 1777 and 1781 Birmingham Directories.. Ray) Barber & Genn c1800 Barber & Genn c1820 Barnard? or Barnet? Maybe Barnard! c1780 Barnard/Barnet If you could post this for me, I'd be grateful - it's really good to be able to share the information. Best wishes Simon
Just a clarification, and double check. The I Clarke 1796 Birmingham reference is from "Handsaw Makers of Britain" Don McConnell cites "W.L.Goodman British Plane Makers from 1700" as the source. But referring to my copy of Goodman, admittedly just skimming the index and checklists, I can't find him.. There is a J Clark Planemaker from Birmingham 1796, but not identified as a sawmaker? Regards Ray
Ray et All Thank you Ray and thank you Simon for all the info on this saw. Simon seems to be spot on when he compares this with the saw pics he had from Mike. There are no other letters on my saw other than what is apparent in the photo and I have looked hard to see if there was any evidence of such. Thankfully no owners marks on the handle either. I'm sure the saw must have been cleaned at some point in its life. Other than the brass back and the wear on mikes handle they would be twins. Mikes saws nuts are different sized and mine seems not to have been messed with unless tightened in its more than 200 years. I also find it interesting in the Barnard impress that is on the blade that both have worn in exactly the same areas. Both the tops of the "B" have been erased when the stamp may not have been hammered with the same emphasis and worn away the same. If you need any more measurements or detail (for your example) I would be pleased to pass it along. To answer your question in Rogers post about the new format I am pleased with the development. I was concerned at first when the pictures I sent in the Thumbnail appeared in the post so small. Not enough detail was evident and I wondered if there was another way I should be sending it or send it since it has been adjusted since. The format seems to be much easier to move around in and add to the posts. Like to hear more from Simon. Thanks and Cheers Joe S
Hi Joe, I would love to see more detail on your saw, particularly some measurements on plate thickness, length and so on. The more information the better. Also... I have increased the thumbnail attachment size, so see it that looks better. I have also added additional input boxes for uploading attachments. Over time I will gradually get the system customized, if you see something else let me know. Regards Ray
Just speculation on my part, but the stamping would have been done while the steel was still in it's annealed state, and then subsequently hardened, ground, hammered and polished. My speculation is that perhaps the mark was partially ground away in the finishing process when the saw was initially manufactured. A problem not experienced if the makers mark was stamped on the back. If nothing else, it would explain the similarities between the two saws. Regards Ray
Barnard/Bernard saw Thanks to Ray for doing my scut work - time I got myself organised! Agree absolutely about the mark being struck at the annealed stage, and getting partly erased by the subsequent processes. So many marks are like that, that it seems the only explanation. A struck mark, even at the early stage (paring to shape/breasting/toothing) would distort the plate, and the distortion would need to be removed by grinding and/or smithing. I will send the details of this site to Mike (member of TATHS) and see if he would like to join in (alas, he declined a couple of years ago to sell me his saw!) Best to all Simon
Hi Simon, Welcome to the forum, I look forward to your contributions. The interesting thing about the finishing process partially erasing the stamped mark, is that it becomes the obvious conclusion only after seeing multiple saws. I think that's one of the benefits of having the technology to share and comment on these things. It would have been impossible (well maybe not impossible, but very difficult to compare saws from either side of the world!) even just a few years back. Tell Mike he would be most welcome, and I can't say I blame him for not selling that saw! Regards Ray
T. Barnard Best Cast.Steel I hope I'm not hijacking this thread, but it seems appropriate to post this recent web auction purchase here. The saw is 10" and 16 tpi. While probably newer than Joe's or Mike's saws, it is another from the same maker. Although it's stamped on the back rather than the blade and hasn't the old style handle, it does share the extreme taper of the back that Joe's saw displays. In this saw the back tapers from 19/32" at the handle to 15/32" at the toe; 5/32" over a length of 8 1/4" The stamp has a curious, conscious graphic quality, with the "T.Barnard" sloping down and the "Cast.Steel" sloping up. And very neatly done. Unfortunately a previous owner decided to clean it by something like bead blasting. The brass is shiny and speckled, which might be mitigated by rubbing with an abrasive pad. The handle, which looks in the photos like apple after the bead blasting, is actually beech. I'm not sure whether I should do anything to bring the saw back to it's natural condition. Your comments and advice will be, as always, appreciated. David
Hi David, Needless to say, a very tasty saw which was not treated very well by said previous owner, although possibly with the best of intentions. I think that the previous posts have discussed the makers/saws in detail, but I would like to refer to a comment about the boss on the handle. Joe's is properly egg shaped but yours is still asymmetrical and which I have (for what it is worth) always thought points to a transitional shape, but perhaps a little more traditional than the previous ones pictured. Does this mean, (if it is original which it looks like it probably is) that it may be possible to extend the Barnard dates into the early 19th century (or at least the mark)? Now, what to do with the saw. A tough one as it is tempting to try to erase the roughness and then let time do the work of re-establishing colour if not patina, but with saws like this I am definitely non-interventionist and would regard what has been done as part of it's history. Perhaps not the most auspicious part, but nevertheless part of it. I am sure that others will have ideas on its treatment. Fred
Hi Fred, Thanks for your thoughts. I agree that the handle makes this saw newer than the others. Joe reports an end date for Barnard (alone) of 1807 and Simon's last date is 1803. So, the appearance of this saw combined with those working dates support the idea of it's being made in the early 19c. I hope this information from a single maker helps in some regard to dating when the change in handle shape occurred, although I imagine that Ray and Simon, with all their information and research pretty well have that figured out. I find the saws condition pretty unattractive, and coming as I do from the world of museums where restoration is often considered acceptable, I don't find it so difficult to contemplate some degree of improving on the previous owners handiwork. As it is, it's damaged now and that part of it's history adds nothing to the information the saw gives us about the history of saw making. So the quandary remains. Thanks, David
Hey David Your post certainly isn't a high jack and quite appropriate. It is funny because the saw was on my radar and I am glad to see it has gone to a good home. The blasting was apparent at the time and will probably take a few years of "patina " to get it to what you might be happy with. The many sharp points would suggest as you say a little later saw but the angle and shapely curves still makes it a "looker". I don't know if you plan to make this saw a user and if so you then can do as you with it. I might just really wax it a lot and let it age. Wax is reversible and sometimes I soften the look of a handle by rubbing and burnishing wax with my hands till it is very hot and sinks into the pores, to simulate the use a saw could get with consistent use. The sweat from my hands ate metal as I have found from making a few infills over the years so this also helps in the aging process for me. It is a rare saw so enjoy. Joe S
Hi Joe, Thanks for your suggestions. Whatever treatment I finally decide to give this saw will certainly be more modest than the "cleaning" given to it by a previous owner. The subject of how we treat our old tools is one I find full of confusion and contradictory ideas. I know many collectors feel that they should do nothing to their old tools in order to preserve all evidence of their history. Yet when the saw gets dull, or the blade gets bent or kinked, what do they do? I remember you said in a previous post (which I quote very approximately) that "whatever a careful craftsman would do to care for his tools is fine with you". I think you were speaking of reasonable maintenance, and I agree. However I would add to that the concept that a careful craftsman also had respect for his tools. I feel that things like toolbox dings, damaged horns, worn finish, hanging holes, etched or stamped owners names, carved initials, dull and dinged brass backs, etc. are all evidence of the history of workmanlike use writ on the tool, and shouldn't be "improved". On the other hand, things like rust, paint spatters, and thoughtless cleaning by bead blasting are only evidence that someone didn't care about or respect his tools, and I believe a careful craftsman wouldn't leave them in that condition. I think all of us would benefit from refining the idea of appropriate treatment for the old tools we so carefully gather up, and more discussion would further that clarity. But that's probably best dealt with in another post. Cheers, David
Ray et al I didn't want to mix saws and planes because the forum is really about saws but sometimes there is a bit of crossover. I purchased a large group of planes and tools that were in a tool chest that all had been stamped with the same owners stamp. (I M Hicks). There was a nice set of hollows and rounds not that I need another but..... I have a chest and sign made from these tools so I couldn't resist for so many reasons. A lot of the planes are late 18th, early 19th century. I inspected the makers and checked "Goodman's British Planemakers from 1700" on a lot of the names. This particular plane is a mess. The whole top section sheered off and screwed back on so I thought ready for the junk pile. I might salvage the iron. well... The maker turns out to be Brown and Barnard. When I first looked in Goodman for Barnard they had a section on him separately as others have pointed out. It was mentioned he was a plane maker also but I haven't come across any examples here. I would never have thought to look elsewhere if the first name hadn't been something else. What a nice surprise when I found this entry in Goodman. "Henry (Brown) is listed in 1797 as a plane maker. From 1800 to 1808 there is no listing for him on his own, but there is a listing for Brown and Barnard. Henry Brown then reappears in the directories in 1808 working as a plane maker on his own in Park St. Thomas Barnard is listed as a saw maker at this period but also appears as a plane maker working on his own in 1808. It is assumed therefore that this was a brief partnership which subsequently dissolved and each partner went his own way. I certainly can't "junk " the plane now and has to be with the saw. I am thinking I can pretty well date the saw pre 1800 since other interests were taking him down a different path. ( if the pics aren't suitable for the forum let me know) enjoy anyways Joe S.
Interesting follow up, Joe. It's several years since I looked at the earliest B'ham trade directories, but my memory (…) is that trades in that town in the 18th cent were not so sharply demarcated as they were in Sheffield, or Birmingham, later. We've had a recent example (not on backsaw, I think) of a backsaw and a gouge by Thomas Gill who appeared in the 1780s, and I believe other makers produced both saws and planes.