Hello folks, I got this fairly damaged saw, die stamped Spear, mostly for the rarity of it's mark. But when I received it and had a chance to look it over more carefully I learned something and also became a bit more confused as to it's date which, unfortunately, is all too common with these early saws. The handle on this 26" handsaw seems to have been originally secured with iron or steel rivets. The top rivet is a hair under 1/2" diameter, the middle one is a hair over 9/16" diameter, while the bottom one has been replaced, using a rosehead nail clinched over a brass split nut. The countersinking for the bottom rivet implies that it was originally about 1/2" also. It's the careful fit of the rivets that inclines me to thinking that they are original to the saw. I find it interesting that, as one of the images shows, the rivet head is quite heavy, being 1/8" thick, with a 3/16" diameter shank, which makes for a very serious fastener. The dates for saws stamped only "Spear" are fuzzy, with those I've found generally being said to start around the second decade of the 19c. The commonly accepted date for ending the use of iron rivets is around 1780 or so. The contradiction between those two ideas that this saw brings up is the cause of my confusion. My question: Is one of those dates wrong or is this saw simply another one of the "early saw anomalies" that seem to bedevil us so? I'd like to hear the thoughts anyone might have about this. David
Interesting handle on that saw David. It's not in the traditional old saw style, in that it doesn't have a "lamb's tongue" base, and the top has no nibs or peaks. I'm not very good at guessing ages of saws, and getting less sure of myself the more saws I see, but I'll guess anyway, and say the saw likely dates to the traditional John Spear (1914-1924, pre Spear&Jackson) period, and that the rivets (which are uncommonly thick shafted) are replacements.
Hi Kiwi, Thanks for pointing me to the obvious, which I had failed to see. None of my early English saws, which include 2 stamped "John Spears", lack a lamb's tongue although a few of them lack nibs and peaks. So the possibility that this is a replacement handle gains a great deal of credence, although lack of a previous example doesn't necessarily prove that this one isn't original. To install rivets with 3/16" shanks means the installer/repairer had the ability to punch (installer) or drill out or file (repairer) saw plate to that diameter, and I've no idea what diameter was required for the rose head nail. Certainly the handle has been carefully drilled to the correct diameter and depth to accept the rivet heads. Yet using a split nut as washer for the nail means that split nuts were in common enough use to use part of an old one in a repair. Why weren't split nuts used in the putative repair? Puzzling and still unresolved, but probably just an economical re-use. Based on the die stamp, I certainly agree with your suggested dates of 1814-24 (John Spear & Co) for this saw. But the neatness of the rivet installation into this handle makes me think it's not a user's repair; almost all the user repairs I've seen have had a rough quality to them that this lacks. But, as above, lack of a previous example doesn't prove the present example to not be original. This certainly could be a user repair. I remain stumped. David
Hey David et al Interesting saw.I would have to agree with Kiwi on the saw handle. It seems to be a replacement and real telling signs is the closeups of the handle in the 3rd and 5th pics. The shadow of a previous handle seems to be very evident in the shape of the rust markings. It is oversized in comparison to the present handle. I think the blade might be fairly early if you see a faint dot between the cast and steel but who knows with the pitting. Nice to see it . Joe S.
Hi Joe, Thanks for your comments. I'm not sure I think the rust has anything to do with a previous handle, rather I think it's the uncleaned part of the blade. But I can easily consider that the existing handle may be a replacement. If so, I'd imagine that it's a very early one given it's shape and the wear on it. And since the blade has the Spear stamp I assume those 1814-26 dates are appropriate for it. I attach an image of another handle from an early saw that also seems unique in it's shape. It has appeared on this site in an earlier post by another. I've never seen another early saw with this sharp recurve break. My point is that just because we haven't seen a handle style previously, that doesn't necessarily invalidate it's age or it's being original to the saw. Anyway, I really enjoy and appreciate all the help and discussions we get into here. Thanks to all, David
Do you have the link to that thread, please? It makes me think of these american Bakewell and similar handles ... the "short fat egg" handles https://plus.google.com/u/0/photos/103554365489606721190/albums/5888920349543884625 Cheers, Paul
Hi Paul, Here's the link: http://www.backsaw.net/index.php?option=com_jfusion&Itemid=58&jfile=showthread.php&t=317 And here's another old saw, by Sam'l Newbould, with a very similar handle. David
Hard to feel at all sure about this without it in the hand, but if I were forced to come down on one side or another I'd go for this being a saw of about 1810 (the toe is exactly right), with an original handle attached by a user or retailer in the US. Saws were sometimes (?often) shipped at that date as saw plate only, as they were easier to pack into the shipping barrels like that. The handle may be a Sheffield one - I'd guess it probably is - and the original owner/retailer could have adjusted the punched holes to suit the rivets to hand. A good one to argue about for a long time.