Greetings! I recently came across a Taylor Bros. handsaw that is now the favorite in my collection. I am planning to proceed very carefully with cleaning it and will welcome any advice. I do not plan to remove the handle for cleaning since I do not want to risk breaking a screw. The bottom screw was already broken midway at the time I purchased it. There is a kink toward the toe of the plate but it is not a major one. The plate is 28 inches long. I believe the etch is strong since it is clearly visible even in the current state of the saw. Below are some photos. Any thoughts regarding age or history? Thanks! Joe
Hi Joe, In my book, that has to be an exhibition or an export model, or both as an awful lot of extra work has gone into it. And it hasn't been wasted either as some saw it has turned out to be. Dating I am not sure, but going on the deep return on the curve under the shoulder/chamfer, and on that alone I would put it as 1860+ up to the turn of the century. I think that we have had another one of these multiple medallion jobs on here recently, but I can't find it now and I don't know what conclusions were reached. That is, of course if my memory is not playing tricks on me. As for cleaning - as you say,- very carefully. I would possibly start with Simon's 120 grit garnet paper on the saw plate and see what that does to it. I think that on this one I would leave the kinked plate and the broken screw unless you really know what you are doing. Again a candidate for the envy icon. Fred
Hey Joe Great looking saw. I would have to agree with Fred on the dating time line and the export idea. It was made to impress with all those medallions. It would be difficult to remove those screws without messing up something. I personally would start by scraping the heavy rust. This is going to take some time so you can't be in a hurry. The idea is to try and scrape without gouging or putting corners into the metal and creating lines. I use a slightly champhered 1 1/4 sharpened chisel with some kind of lubricant (varsol it doesn't evaporate quickly). I also find 120 grit a little too aggressive especially if there are high spots or a kink that will lighten up real fast and make a "bald spot". When they appear it seems a little unsightly for my tastes and there are many saws in my collection where someone has gone too far or me before I finally figured out something I am happy with. . You might start with a 320 wet/dry s/c paper again lubricated and continue from there. Scotch pads are effective also. The goal is an evenness of a look however far you take it. Take too much, you can't put it back on and have to leave it till we are all long gone. Again take it slow because as you say it is a great saw and envy in any collection. Bestest Joe S.
Thank you Fred and Joe for your comments and suggestions. I am now remembering a comment made by the person from whom I purchased the saw. He said he is quite sure it came from a Fire Department. I do not know if that sheds any light regarding its design or manufacture but perhaps it might. Thanks again! Joe
Taylor bros handsaw Top score for medallions, this one, beating the four kangaroos R Sorby put on one of their export models. I agree this was almost certainly for export, but I wouldn't put it much later than 1860, as that kind of sharply angled handle went out pretty much around then - which means that a struck mark is more likely than an etch, so that although I'd always so go carefully until you know what you're dealing with, I'd put my money on a struck mark coming out, so that the gentle approach could probably be worked up a bit quite soon. Keep us posted, please!
I am posting a couple new photos after having spent some hours cleaning the saw. There is an etch (at least I think it is an etch) that contains three sections of elements. 1. Taylor Brothers, Adelaide Works, Sheffield, crown (above), paschal lamb (below) 2. Graphic symbol (coat of arms?), London Spring 3. Doubly Carbonizd, Imperial Cast Steel, Excelsior, crown (above), paschal lamb (below) Thanks, Joe
Hi Joe, The blade has come up very well and the etch is in surprisingly good condition considering what was covering it. Taylor Bros. really wanted to impress didn't they? I love the "doubly carbonised" and the "Imperial Cast Steel" (not just best cast). And, luckily it is now on here as a reference source. I like to see this site working like this, as it should. Fred
Very nice ... subtle ... When the etch is up to that point, I like a 1" square piece of 2000grit auto paper under two fingertips with wd40 to try on the darker patches ... and even the etched part. Nice saw. Is it 4ppi? Cheers, Paul
Thanks again for the comments and suggestions. Paul--it will likely be a couple weeks before I will have an opportunity to try out your suggestion for additional cleaning of the etch. Thank you for that tip. The saw graduates from 5 ppi at the toe to 4 ppi at the heel. Joe
Taylor Bros handsaw Thanks for the chance to correct a hasty guess! The only 19th cent catalogue of this firm has 3 pages of illustrations of what they called Ornamental Saws - with 18 different ones on each page. I've included the one that is closest (there's a line missing, which reads Machine Ground, thin to back) - and the only one with Doubly Carbonizd steel; others are called Damascus Steel, and Purified Cast Steel, apart from the usual plain Cast Steel; cynically, I suspect there was not much difference in these steels, apart from the name... Taylors had a huge business with a firm of etching plate makers, and on Joe's saw there are three separate etches, showing the firm had the flexibility to change them around, which I suspect they did in response to new orders from different retailers. Is the coat of arms on Joe's the Canadian? The catalogue doesn't have a date, and I had previously thought it might be c1890, but the handles are more characteristic of 1850-1860, as Fred says, so either they continued to make them like that, or they didn't update the catalogue (new engravings would be v. costly), or both. Or, yet again, I'm completely wrong.
Regarding the coat of arms, I noticed it appears to be the same as the one shown in this previous post by Ray and Lorenzo: http://www.backsaw.net/index.php?option=com_jfusion&Itemid=58&jfile=showthread.php&t=448 I hope they don't mind if I use one of their images to compare the two. Thanks, Joe