Hello All, Normally, even if I have no feeling for any particular saw, I can at least see something in it, but with this one I am afraid that I can't. And that is why (perversely) I bought it. It is probably the most ungainly, unbalanced, disproportioned saw that I can think of. It is, not to put too fine a point on it - ugly. The handle is enormous for the size of blade, as is the back - 32mm at its widest - and that is at the front. A complete reversal of the C19th tapered backs. I can find nothing in the online directories about GHE Charlesworth, but this saw may be later than the last published (free) online directory. So, does anyone know anything about the maker of this duckling that will never be a swan. Fred
Hey Fred Can't add anything to the history of the company but have seen a few of the saws over the years. They must have been around for a bit because they the were quite capable of producing an acceptable looking handle in their history as seen by this example. Being asked to create some of your very best work with that lack of inspiration must have been a challenge. This isn't mine but I found when I was looking for some info. Joe S
Hi Joe, Now that is a handle that I could go for. In fact there is a surprisingly accentuated lamb's tongue for a saw with domed nuts, and which must therefore put it relatively late on. Do any of you who use saws more than I do, have any idea why such a small saw as mine is (8 inches) should have a handle 6 1/2 inches long and a back the size that it is. What on earth would be the advantages of such a design? Fred
I was perhaps a little too hasty in my condemnations of the proportions of this saw. This has just appeared on Ebay and which is pobably how mine looked when it was new. Apologies therefore to GHE Charlesworth, except for the reverse taper brass back. That is still awful.