No Name saw...old?

Discussion in 'Forum: Saw Identification and Discussion' started by Joe S, Nov 21, 2013.

  1. Joe S

    Joe S Most Valued Member

    Messages:
    376
    Hey Ray et al.
    I must start out here by stating that I am a firm believer in "Fred's Law". I don't believe this saw is as old as I thought it might be but there are a few niggling items about it that has me questioning myself.
    This saw came out of a bucket of saws and for a "tooney" ($2 dollars) it was mine. When I pulled it out I thought there had to be a stamp somewhere on it but unfortunately after a significant time of peering through my magnification at home I could find no marks at all. Rust and more rust but no marks no matter how much squinting. The "thin" blade is 19" long. The beech handle is held on by four rivets and four brass washers on the reverse side. The handle is relatively shapely with nice curves and fits the hand nicely but only 5/8" thick. There is absolutely no finish on it which is amazing the condition it is in with little to no bruising to the points. Any other early saw I have is at least 7/8 to an inch thick. The shape reminds me of old handles but I don't recall many having four fasteners. Any of the early ones I have seen also have a London style and not as well "refined" as this. The reverse side steel seems exhibit a rust that is almost caked on as if after the initial steel firing hadn't been cleaned or ground to get the carbon off.
    So I ask this question to all whether they are as confused as I am to its date. I sort of figure this is someone's later version of a second rate saw that didn't deserve proper saw fasteners and yet was willing to put extra time into a very well made and comfortable handle. I just don't know.
    enjoy
    Joe S.
     

    Attached Files:

  2. fred0325

    fred0325 Most Valued Member

    Messages:
    1,084
    Hi Joe,

    This saw is a bit of an enigma. As you say, the handle looks early in the sense that the curve below the chamfer is very shallow, but perhaps not so early in that it has 4 screws. Neither does it have a London flat, so possibly later from that point of view as well. With that handle it was probably a reasonable quality saw so that puts it out of the later "cheapie" category, but not out of the later "quality" category. Although the thickness of the handle would put it in the "cheapie" category.
    :confused::confused:

    What I do find fascinating about the handle however is the lack of a "nibby thing" (chamfer stop??) between the chamfer and the somewhat vestigial beak. Bearing in mind my rapidly deteriorating memory, I have cannot remember having seen one like it. I also think that the lamb's tongue is somewhat lacking in the "tongue " area as well although what this signifies, if anything , I am not sure. Early and crude or crude and cheap - I don't know.

    It is such an oddball that I wouldn't even like to take a WAG at this one.

    I hope someone has some ideas.

    Fred
     
  3. ray

    ray Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    671
    Hi Joe,

    In some ways these sort of enigma's are the most interesting of all, as it looks to have quite a bit of history to it.

    I'd guess the blade has been shortened.

    Maybe the handle was grafted onto the blade by a local blacksmith, the rivetting looks to be well done. It might be original? But I'm inclined to think the handle and blade don't belong together... that might explain the 4 rivets?

    Just guessing of course, but that mystery is a big part of the appeal.

    Regards
    Ray