Hello all, I am developing an unhealthy and obsessive interest in saw handles, and this one I think is beauty. For those of you who know anything about British steam locomotives, then this must be the "Mallard" of the closed tote saw handle world. It is also on a make of saw that you don't see all that often and so it is even more attractive as a bit of an odd-ball as well. The saw is 16 inches from blade tip to the tip of the lower horn with an 11 inch blade. The teeth per inch don't really matter because there are no usable ones, but it used to have 111/2 teeth per inch. To get the down-side out of the way first, it looks as though someone has gone along the cutting ege with a small ball-pein hammer ( they probably did to try to beat the kinks out of it, without much success), and I know the horns are chipped - but who cares? Now for the nice bit. Look how streamlined it is; how high it sits on the saw; look at the accentuated and elongated lambs tongue; look at the horns and the beak - well just look at it. ( I know it is nothing in comparison to Joe's Barnard saw or Pedder's open tote saws, but they are open tote with a greater freedom of design.) ((If you read this Pedder, it may be an idea to copy or adapt this handle as a design for one of your saws. I am sure that you could do wonders with it.)) In order to compare it I have overlaid it on a Tyzack and Turner and on the unidentified saw of a few topics ago ( and I thought that handle was nice). These photos give some idea of just how elegant the handle is particularly in comparison to the plodding and pedestrian Tyzack. (This is the lighter colour of the two comparison handles.) Now I know little about the ergonomics of saws and I am sure that some of you do, but I would imagine that there is a limit on how high a handle can sit above the blade of a saw (or how far back from the blade) before it adversely affects the path of the horizontal and vertical forces applied to it. Judging from using the Tyzack, weight will come into it as well, as this saw is virtually heavy enough to cut just by moving it horizontally over the wood, whereas the Wingfield is light and needs downward pressure. If it doesn't take too long, could someone explain the ergonomics, or if it does take too long, a book or website that does. Thanks for bearing with the ramble, Fred. PS. The photo's don't do the handle justice and all that I know about Wingfield Rowbotham is that they were taker over by Turner in 1898. Their start date may have been 1791 but they may have been called Wade Wingfield and Rowbotham them. They were still active in 1914.