Hello all, The top saw in the photographs is what it is - a not wonderful example of a backsaw compounded by the fact that it has been chemically cleaned and which, I hope a few damp Scottish winters (let alone the summers) will undo. It does, however have a reclining ampersand and so I assume (hope) that it is pre 1825. It also has a tiny Groves and Sons stamp. It being only 20mm long. The other saw I find more intrinsically interesting on account of the large saw screw/blank medallion on the handle with a cast (dot) steel stamp. I at first thought that the handle may have been a replacement because I cannot remember seeing a blank medallion/screw on a saw this early (1830 at the latest under normal circumstances). This sort of screw I associate with much later saws. (Late 1800's) It also bears the word "warranted" and which BSSM puts at 1870 onwards. It does not, however have the Groves "candllestick " / vestigial crown. I therefore took the handle off to look at the screw holes and there are the right number which match the handle holes. Now the questions. Is it an 1830 saw with "warranted" 40 years before it should have it and a blank medallion ditto? Is it a later saw as per the "warranted" and medallion/screw, that is missing the candlestick and with a cast (dot)? By the size and style of the mark alone I have to go for the earlier (1830) date for the saw. And just to cap things off, this saw came from America so it was either exported or went over in someone's tool chest. As always, any contribution is welcome. Fred
Hey Fred I wonder if we can put it into the "tweener" era. I think the arch form would be a little later than the straight line and yet there is the reclining ampersand and the Cast (dot )steel. I'm thinking 1830-40. The smaller saw handle looks a little earlier but who knows. Nice saws. Joe S.
Hi Fred & Joe, Just to complicate our deliberations, BSSM has the reclining ampersand example at 1820, the Groves & Son mark c1830 and then all the marks shown after that from 1840 onward are R. Groves & Son (except for a kitchen saw and a fret saw which marks are, oddly, in a straight line). This all seems to indicate that c1830 should be about right for the larger saw, but then the handle shape and, more importantly to me, the steep bevel from the leading edge of the cheek to the blade rather than the shallower bevel as on the smaller saw, make it seem later than 1830. But, then, I know dating from handle styles isn't accurate at all. Still, I'll cast my vote with your bet on c1830 for the larger saw and pre-1825 for the smaller. Attached is an image of a Groves & Sons (no R.) hand saw with blank medallion, which seems to present the same questions as you have about yours. David
Thank-you both, I would have no hesitation about putting the larger saw of mine in the late 19th century (possibly a Moses Eadon Groves) were it not for the cast(dot). You rightly also point to the chamfer of the handle cheek being steep, David, which would indicate a later saw and which I missed completely. The only thing that I can think of is that it is a "new" blade and handle on an old back. Possibly not even a Groves blade and handle. But if this was done then it was done a long time ago as the corrosion patterns are consistent with both the blade and the back.. Unless it is a real oddball, then it must be pre-"USE". You can probably reconcile the "warranted" with a cast(dot) by pushing the date forward as Joe has done to just before "USE", in view of the fact that it (the back) was probably an export saw and the normal conventions need not necessarily have been applied rigourously. BSSM also puts the USE logo as early as 1840 which would tie in with this. I will probably never know for sure, but never mind, this is what makes saw collecting worthwhile. And as you say, your handsaw, David, has equally interesting "problems". BSSM puts the arissed handle as last quarter of the 19th century, but only on quality saws and if the handle is that date and that quality then it should not have a "London Flat". I can't see the mark properly, it is a little too small, but I cannot see the USE mark on what I can see, so to speak and so I am assuming that it should be pre-USE as well. BSSM is a little bereft of early Groves Handsaw marks, but if yours does have a USE somewhere, then it looks very much like the 1880 mark on p294 top left mark. Clear as mud, it is. Fred
Hi Fred, I've attached an image of the mark on the saw I previously posted here. No "USE". It's "Groves & Sons / Cast (.) Steel / Warranted" surrounded by three crowns, with "Spring Temper / Sheffield" to the right. The dot is barely seen, and might possibly not be part of the stamp. Still, with the blind label screw and these marks, it's a lot like your earlier saw. I also attach pics of another Groves & Son handsaw, this one with the reclining ampersand, also surrounded by three crowns. The handle on it looked too new to be original and, upon removal, there proved to be an enlarged screw hole to enable it to fit. Still, there are just three screw holes which is a reasonable indication that the original handle was, like the new one, of a London pattern Regards, David
Hi David, My brain is starting to hurt on this one. Your four screw arissed handle has got to be a lot later than cast dot under normal circumstances. I hesitate to ask this, but have you had the handle off in order to see if it is original to the blade, as per your reclining ampersand one. That would answer a lot of questions if it was a replacement. But I also wonder whether it was acceptable to put a cast(dot) on a later American export saw as Disston used such things until the early 20th century. But the still doesn't explain the lack of a "USE" on a later saw. I don't think that the presence of crowns signifies much either way as they were used on both early and late 19th century saws. I am also wondering whether your replacement handle was a new blank and someone was able to coincide the top two screw holes but messed up the bottom one. I have always wondered whether you could make a template of the original holes and then transfer them to a new blank. Your datum lines, I suspect would have to be the line that the blade sat in the back of the handle and, of course, the blade top. I think that to get two of the three holes on a used handle matching like that must be nigh on an impossibility. Also with your replacement handle Groves, if you look at the corrosion patterns and lines which are associated with it, I wonder whether the original handle was deeper than the current one and the return indent from the handle's nose not so acute as the current one. This may be borne out a little by the fact that the top screw is very near to the edge of the handle, whereas if you look at the corrosion line just underneath the current handle line, the return from the handle nose looks a lot less acute and so would give more wood for the screw to be seated in. Or perhaps I am just reading too much into it. Fred Edit. Just throwing this in for good measure. It is currently on eBay here http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/231579879313?_trksid=p2055119.m1438.l2648&ssPageName=STRK:MEBIDX:IT item no. 231579879313 The handle has a blank medallion like mine, but it is probably dated in BSSM as 1870. I accept that the mark itself is completely different but at least the mark and the handle look consistent.
Hi Fred, Yes, my brain is a little achey as well; these are difficult ideas to sort out . I'm not clear why you think my arrised handle saw has to be late 19c. In 1840 Boston, Welch & Griffiths, two Englishmen from Birmingham who mostly employed English sawmakers in their shop, were commonly making arrised handles. It's difficult to think that they were unfamiliar with an arrised handle in Birmingham and only learned how to make them when they came to the USA. Or is it the "Warranted" stamp that inclines you to a late 19c date for the saw? Certainly we can say and prove that "Warranted" was commonly used late in the century, but how do we confirm the idea that it wasn't used earlier? So many of our dating clues are really our best judgments, but difficult to precisely confirm. For my part, I put most of my weight in the fact that the saw is stamped "Groves & Sons" rather than "R. Groves & Sons", which from the stamps shown in BSSM would date it to the first half of the century, not the second. And it lacks a "USE" stamp. But I don't know anything for certain either. And I can't get the handle off without grinding away a nail that was used as a rivet to repair it, so unfortunately we won't get any information from that corner. I do think, with you, that the replacement handle on the other saw was a new blank and the fitter erred in locating one of the holes in the wood and punched a larger opening in the blade to compensate for it. On that note, Isaac Smith of Blackburn Tools has an interesting post on how he locates the screw holes in a replacement handle that I think you may enjoy. If you go to the following address and scroll down to his second post (Nov 2, 2013) you'll find it. It's at: http://www.blackburntools.com/blog/page/6/ I'll look more closely at the corrosion marks on the saw in light of your observation and get back to you. Unless, of course, I've bored you to death on this subject. Regards, David
Hi David, I definitely do not get bored with things like this. As for the arissed handles, I have taken the idea from p.92 of BSSM bottom paragraph to p.93 end of the first paragraph. I did not know about:- "In 1840 Boston, Welch & Griffiths, two Englishmen from Birmingham who mostly employed English sawmakers in their shop, were commonly making arissed handles." This sort of contradicts BSSM which states that the handles were found on Sheffield saws only and in the last quarter of the 19th century. I say "sort of" because I am sure that Simon would know if there were any extant Birmingham saws with arissed handles, but it does seem rather curious that such things were being made by Birmingham men 30 odd years before they were being made over here. And, of course, Simon is referring to British saws only. I also get from BSSM the usage of "warranted" as being post 1870 (p.73 - near the bottom of the left hand column). I am a little more relaxed about this being a putative anomaly, particularly on what were probably export saws as I am sure that they may have marketing features on them that didn't necessarily appear on saws for domestic consumption. I also take your point about the "USE" or lack of and I have no real problem with the saws being 1830 - ish. I just like things to fit, and they don't with my backsaw and your first posted handsaw. As for Groves v. R.Groves, in the examples in Simon's book R Groves looks to appear consistently after 1870 but he does have an R Groves (p.293 first image, 3rd line of images) dated at 1840, and a Groves only on two saws (not handsaws or backsaws) dated 1860 an 1870. (p.294 both images, 4th row). It is perhaps asking a little too much to have complete consistency of markings and I am making a rod for my own back by looking for such consistencies. I will go to your handle fitting link after posting this. Fred
Can another aching brain join in? Here is a very nice Groves I was lucky to acquire a few days ago. It's in very nice nick, and the handle in particular has striking features, not least the fact that it is arrised. I am quite certain [ahem: I think I am, anyway] that this not a saw from the last quarter of the 19th cent; the features that make me think it is not are 1. the handle has, apart from the arrising, what I think of as early feature, the degree of attenuation of the top and forward part of the handle; 2. the very wide distance of the word Sheffield from the rest of the mark (like the Millington saws on p419 of BSSM, which are probably 1820, although I previously dated the lower one to 1840 until David argued me out of it); 3. the small size of the lettering of the Groves words; 4. the lack of USE and stylised crown. The features that are against it being early are the ampersand, which is definitely not falling over, the single larger medallion (not quite big enough, I'd say, to count as a blind medallion), the style of the three crowns, which differs from those on David's, and are similar to others which I feel sure I've seen but can't track down, but have somewhere in my failing memory the idea that are later rather than earlier. Ideas, anyone?
Hi Simon, I am going avail myself of Occam's razor and stop looking for complex answers. You either have to move cast(dot) forward to 1840, or take "warranted",four screw handsaw handles and arissed handles back to 1830 (1840 at the latest in any event for "warranted and arissed handles) - at least for Groves saws. And an enlarged saw screw from the same date. My instinct is to go with cast(dot) up to 1830 - ish and take the others backwards. But then again, I am so often wrong. I will also look forward to reading pages 73 and 74 of the second edition. Fred PS. I like "attenuation of the top and forward part of the handle;" . How about "a thin nose"
Hi Fred, On page 64 of BSSM, "From about 1840 the word "Warranted" was often added,...". Also see fig. 340 no.3 (1850), and fig.3.43 (1840). Also on page 73, "Dot or dash before "steel" - up to c1830" To further confuse things, I'm about to post an "I. Edley / Cast.Steel" four screw handsaw. The "I" is a best guess, since all I really see is a straight line. BSSM dates John Edley from 1833-37. Where would we be without contradictions and discrepancies to drive our questions? Certainty would be so distressing. Regards, David
Fred – I've hung myself up, probably pointlessly, on the non-use of non-traditional industry terms of nomenclature, and if I used the word "nose", which privately I'm longing to, I would feel the ghost of Ken Hawley shouting at me, as he did in real life when I tried to introduce very sensible words like that which were not in the local vocabulary; and I went into print to say just that kind of thing. Maybe, since this hasn't actually got the same kind of tablets of stone feel that print has, I can agree heartily with you that it's ridiculous to use my circumlocution when there's a perfectly good Anglo Saxon word waiting to be used. So, yes, a thin nose it is. There, I've done it – and not been struck by lightning. As for the introduction and disappearance of the various features we use for dating, those too were the subject of repeated debates with Ken, and other volunteers, and although I had to plump for something, I can't say I ever thought the answers were unalterable - "work in progress" – "all history is provisional" and similar sayings. Can't wait to see David's I/J Edley.