I found this saw here at the german ebay. It looked quite old so i bought it for 3€. Bob ( summerfi) from the lumberjoks forum meant maybe you can help me to age and identify this saw. There is no etching or medallion on this saw. The handle is beech i think, has brass splitnuts and is relativly small, so that i barely fit 3 fingers in it. The sawblade is 19 inches long and the steel is very weak. In the frontyou see strong marks from hammering. If you bend it strongly, it does not go back into a straight position, you have to bend it back. I think it is no cast spring steel. The blade is strongly tapered, almost the half of the thicknes from bottom to top. There was a nib but it is gone. Here you have a size comparison to my Disston No. 112 After a little bit of cleaning i found this 3 letter stampt in. It looks like P.H.M. I dont know if i should disassamble the saw, because the splitnuts are filed almost to the ground or if i should just clean it roughly. I would be glad about every little hint i can get. Pastahill
Hello Pastahill, I don't have any idea about the age or identity of your saw, but based on your description it's days as a usable saw were over a long time ago. I can make a suggestion on cleaning it. I can't say that I'm any kind of expert, so maybe someone else will have a different opinion about this, but I would clean up the saw without taking it apart. The threaded side of the screws are probably very thin and weak, so I would be afraid that disassembling the saw would bend and/or twist the screws in a way that you would not be able to put the split nuts back on correctly. To clean the saw plate, you will need to make a judgement call, but here's what I would do: First, wash the plate using a nylon bristle brush and some kind of mild dirt/oil/grease remover. I use Simple Green, which can be rinsed with water and wiped off . I suggest that you do this before working on the handle then allowing the handle plenty of time to thoroughly dry. To be on the careful side, if you have access to a product called Autosol metal polish (or something similar), I would see how far you can get with that. If that doesn't appear to clean the saw plate enough, then try hand sanding with paper grits between P400 and P800. You can use either stearated or wet/dry sandpaper with a lubricant (I use a mineral oil/mineral spirits mix) - whatever is your preference. I don't think there's any need to go to any higher grit. If starting with the P400 worries you, depending on how it looks, then just use the P800. It may take longer, but it is the safer method. If there is no worry about an etch, then I would use my fingers to sand with, rather than a sanding block, as the saw plate will not be perfectly flat. To clean the saw handle, I would just rub it with mineral spirits and steel wool. (This would work as the cleaning method for the saw plate as well, rather than the cleaner and water, being careful about too much rubbing with the steel wool.) The idea is to remove dirt and debris, but not any (or at least a minimal amount of) wood. Don't worry about trying to make it look like new wood. Also, be careful not to remove any tool marks that may be left on the surface from when the handle was made. Of course, using the mineral spirits will also help you see what a finish on the handle would look like. After that, I would apply two or three coats of Boiled Linseed Oil or BLO/varnish mix to protect it. Any oil or oil/varnish that gets on the saw plate can be easily wiped off before it dries. I allow the finish to cure for a few days then apply a couple of coats of wax on the whole saw. Take a look at the other recent thread on this forum called Tillotson Rip Saw, if you want to see how my saw turned out after following the above procedure. It originally looked a lot like yours does now. I was very careful around the stampings when sanding the saw plate, and relied a lot on the metal polish because of the pitting. Let us know what you decide to do, and how it turns out. Regards, Bill
Hi, If it is German then I suspect that it will have most of us stumped. The only thing that I can suggest is that you get Ray to e-mail Pedder (the maker of the lovely backsaw on the homepage) to see if he can throw any light on it. For what it is worth, I had a British saw about the same size as yours with a tiny, very thin handle which turned out to be a later 1860's+ brand by an unknown maker. It is here http://www.backsaw.net/forum/index.php?threads/agstone-and-co-handsaw.91/ But there are significant differences to yours including, probably, nationality. I googled the initials, as I suspect you may have done but got nowhere. Fred
This is a very interesting saw! In appearance it would do very nicely for a poor quality Sheffield saw of around 1900 – the two screw fastening, the small handle, the short blade; the toe I don't think needs to be distracting as a design feature simply because it could so easily have been altered after manufacture. IF it has not, then these same features + the non-spring blade MIGHT just mean that this is a very early iron saw, not made of steel at all. I believe there are tests (spark test??) that can distinguish iron from steel, but I've no knowledge of them, and would look to others for help here. I'm pretty certain that no iron saws of this pattern would have been made after about 1750, but that's a pure guess. The marks could just possibly be even from a 17th [not a misprint] maker; documents from the iron master George Sitwell indicate he had saws made for him which were almost certainly of iron, and were marked with their makers' names, but there is no information about what these might be. But flat screws of this sort put it much later than the 17th or probably even first half of the 18th cent. If of course it's a German made saw, I'm out of my depth.
I think that Simon probably has it in his first sentence. The first thing that I look at to date a saw is the handle and initially this handle with the shallow return curve down to the cheek could have been pre 1830 - ish, but it is very square-cut and early handles tend to taper down to the blade at the nose and to have a greater slope on them overall from the blade to the handle surface. The toe has certainly been messed around with, and unless it is some Teutonic curiosity to make a bull-nosed toe, it almost looks like that it has been ground down to make a nib, which has subsequently been removed by accident or design. (Complete WAG). As for the lack of spring in the blade, I bought a Robert Sorby some time ago that had all the springiness of wet cardboard. You bent it and it stayed bent. How steel can loose its spring like that, perhaps someone can enlighten me. Fred
I agree too Fred, that this saw is interesting, as I was initially intrigued by the shape and fit of the handle. I have an appreciation for your attention to handle details. I have to wonder how well the saw once worked, given how low the handle appears to fit. Perhaps the handle's shape just makes it look that way. As for the quality of the steel, I have the feeling that Pastahill may have seen this web page: http://www.badaxetoolworks.com/is-my-saw-worth-tuning-up.html Unfortunately, the author does not explain why the steel loses it's spring. It has occurred to me, though, that even he, with his experience, doesn't have a willingness to attempt a complete re-smithing of saws that will no longer stay straight. I've noticed that most modern articles on this subject tend to generically describe a saw in a condition such as this example as having "lost its temper". If I remember my coursework in materials science at engineering school correctly, once the steel is tempered, it will not "lose its temper" on its own. Some outside event would need to take place, such as the saw having survived a fire. At the same time, the saw steel could lose its "memory". (I think we are all familiar with the term, as applied to metals, not my own mind? ) In that case, the importance of smithing the saw plate becomes ever more apparent. I desperately wish I could have been an apprentice to someone who was a master of that more or less lost art. Regards, Bill
Thank you for your fast answer. When i start the resto i will try the spark test at the toe of the saw, like you see at the pictures is the shape relativly rough and i will round it up a little bit. My other gues is that the handle is maybe a bad copy of the original , maybe broken handle. It is relativ rough in shape, the lamb tonge is undefined and i think there is no finish on it, because the dirt sits very deep in the pores. London pattern were not so popular in Germany and i know no gernan saw maker who made it. Also were splitt nuts not so popular in Germany. Most of the handles were riveted to the blade with special saw rivets or with a rod and washers. I know brass rods with brass washers also just as steel rods with brass washers or steel with steel. Even old Ulmia backsaws have rivets in there handles. I have only one old german saw, a Baier saw with splitt nuts. Newer ones have screws. My old Baier Newer saw rivets Old saw rivets Riveted with washers, left and right side the same
Pastahill, I would suggest not to do anything to this saw until you figure out a little more bout it. As Simon suggested, this could be a saw made for iron master George Sitwell in 1660s. Here is what he writes in his letter book (probably diary) in 1662: "Sow IRON was made in very large quantities, and ought to be of a good gray colour, and malleable to cut or drill. If it was necessary to make it tougher, the amount of "myne" was abated. By a bargain of the 28th October, 1654, our merchant contracted to sell to Lionel Copley, Esquire, 850 tons of saw iron. "SAWS, which were of many kinds, such as long saws, ordinary and block saws, whip saws, pegg saws, cross cast saws, were perhaps the most important product of the forges, and found a market in the colonies as well as at London. They were marked with letters, and as one or two workmen were more successful than the rest in making them, their saws commanded a higher price, and in consequence buyers chose by the mark and not by the goodness." (spelling - as in the published book). Think about it - you are not going to use this saw, since it is soft metal. What would be a benefit to you to "restore" it? However, if it is one of the Sitwell's saws it would be a great harm to do anything to it instead of leaving it as is. It also doesn't have to be a Sitwell saw - it could be a saw from that period or a bit later. I know I have never seen a saw with markings like your saw. And hese marking correspond with what Sitwell recorded. Of course there is an issue of the handle, as pointed already by Simon. However, this could be a separate issue. It could be an original handle replacement, done later, or any other reason that we don't know about. In my view, just the markings that are on the plate would stop me from any "restoration" work and I would put all me energy into finding some more about this saw or similar saws. Even if it is not a Settwel saw, which is most likely instance, I still think there is something worth of further exploration about this saw first.
On the off chance PHM might be German, and following Fred's suggestion, I have emailed Pedder to see if he knows of PHM? On restoration, I'm with Wiktor, leave it alone until you have a better idea of it's age. I know it's impossible to tell for sure, but to my eye, the shape and handle style looks early. Regards Ray
Pastahill, thanks for the information regarding fastening with rivets and screws and the corresponding pictures. It's wonderful to be able to see your saws as examples! Based on your description of this saw, I came to the conclusion that you planned to learn everything you can before doing anything to it. Along that line, I would also be careful about performing any spark test that might create unnecessary marks on the saw. My understanding is that Simon noted the spark test only as an example, and that it would probably be wise to look for other "nondestructive" methods that would indicate whether the saw is made of iron or steel. (Note that Pastahill would only do testing of any kind because we do not yet know for sure that the metal is soft/iron.) If you determine that this is a very rare example, and decide send it to a museum to be stored in a controlled environment, then definitely, let the conservator decide what to do. Otherwise, whether you use it or not, the I would still recommend the methods for careful and minimal cleaning and protection of the saw that would that I described above to help to keep it safe from any further deterioration. Of course, the sandpaper on the saw plate option pushes into the area of "restoration". In my opinion, I would rather see the saw have a longer life with the limited protection that wax and oil offer, rather than allow seasonal cycles of humidity changes continue to slowly deteriorate the wood handle and water vapor (moisture) to form rust on the metal. Regards, Bill
Hey Pastahill et al Neat saw. My first reaction to seeing the saw was, it looks old but something doesn't feel right with the kind of age others might be suggesting. If the saw was a mid 18th century saw, that handle would have seen a lot more signs of use and the edges wouldn't be as sharp as they look right now. Maybe this saw was made, used a little and put away and so it hadn't seen much use but saws were valuable and used and probably that is why there aren't too many 18th century saws around. It may not have cut very well considering some of the details you have pointed out. Usually the joint between the chamfer and cheek would be a little more pointed. This is squared off as in second and third quarter 19th century saws. The two split nuts suggest early. Not that I have any proof, but there must have been individuals making saws in other areas of the country or continent because they may have felt the urge and need to do so and naively copy something that was from a catalog such as Smith's. Plate could probably be purchased yet it wasn't the best for saws such as that that was being made in the major centers like Sheffield or Birmingham. The handle is probably too small but it was just right for this individual. He was so proud of either his creation or ownership he pounded in his initials three times. More permanent on the blade rather than the handle. Could be why it was found in Europe. I may be all wet here but I think it has that 2nd or 3rd quarter 19th century feel. Glad you took all the time to bring this out for show and tell. Lots of questions and unfortunately my answers are just guesses and vague impressions. Cheers Joe S.