Hello all, This was on buy-it-now for under a day and so many of you may not have seen it yet. The mark is similar in style to the Love and Spear in BSSM and which is dated at 1810 -ish. BSSM also has the dates of John Spear (whose mark this is presumed to be, at least by me) from 1809 to 1828 and so 1810 (plus a bit) is possible. The handle neither looks nor feels like an early handle, but I would find it difficult to take it off to see if it has been replaced as the saw screws are slightly burred over. In defence of it being original, it does fit very well with the back. Any ideas? Fred
Hey Fred How could you not love that handle and in such wonderful shape for all these years. You wonder if it was even used. I think you are right in wondering if it was a little later in the John Spear time span. Taking it off would be the last thing I would do to see if was replaced. Too much possibility of never getting it just right when it was placed back on. I wonder also if sometimes you could have upgraded you fancy saw with more embellishments and an exuberant styled handle as a custom order. The owner may have rarely used it but willing to pay handsomely. It might explain variations on handle styles on a stamp that was similar to earlier looking saws. enjoy that one Fred It is a beaut. Joe S.
Hi Fred, What Joe said. Such fine condition is a wonder to behold. Do the screws look as though they've been opened before? That would be the only reason I might suspect the handle might not be original. Otherwise it seems to be very age appropriate, 1810 to 1830. Short of a toolbox with invoices or some other identifier it's so difficult to consider dating any of these early saws to anything closer to a 20 year span. And handle styles are such imperfect signifiers, much as I hate to say it, having dated so many of my own saws on handle styles. Such a fine saw. Congratulations! David
I'm relieved to hear that David and Joe's opinions are similar to mine (Fred sent me photos to my inbox for the database) – I guessed at 1800-1820, and likewise thought that the perfection of the handle (and the remaining generous width of the blade) suggested very little use. I also share their envy! Simon
Thank you all for the replies, I think that Joe may have "bottomed" it with the following:- "You wonder if it was even used." I find it very hard to be objective about my own saws, some I am unrealistically optimistic and some, pessimistic. I think my problem with this one, is that I have never before seen a handle on a saw that is this old that has had so little use. My mind associated new (looking relatively unused/unworn) with being "later". I am more convinced than I was that it is contemporaneous with the back/blade, but there will always be a slight element of doubt. What I related to Simon, but did not put in my first post, is that whist the handle is quite large overall, the aperture for the hand is smaller than a later Spear that I got a little while ago. This one, in fact:- http://www.backsaw.net/forum/index.php?threads/spear-cast-london-spring-double-refined.938/ And rightly or wrongly, I associate smaller hand holes with earlier saws. I don't have big hands by any means and this one cramps mine quite a bit when I grip it. Also, I am afraid that the handle does have its blemishes in that all of the horns are chipped. But I can live with that. Fred