W Tyzack Sons & Turner Sheffield, 1916 14" steel Back

W Tyzack Sons & Turner Sheffield, 1916 this is stamped onto spine, I have only so far given the surface dirt a rub off, as I would like to keep the patina, I don't want it to look like new.
From the picture I would of said the handle looked right, it all lines up well, the saw nuts look well for want of a better word look out of place.
It would appear the nuts have been out of the handle at some point, either some one put them back the wrong side or perhaps it has always been that way.
For a 14" heavy steel back saw I would of thought 3 saw nuts more secure, are they original, I doubt this.
Warranted Superior medallion to boot.

W Tyzack Sons & Turner Backsaw. net has them in production 1911 so date on spine looks about right.

I will take the handle off to give it a better scrub round, we will then see if it is original to the plate.

 

I'd like to see a photo of the nuts once they are removed from the plate. 100% concur that they have been messed with and removed at some stage, the question "are they original to the saw"... is the one I am not ready to answer just yet.

Are the nuts solid brass, brass plated, plain or blued steel?

 

Hi Dusty,
thanks for your input.
The saw Nuts are of a solid brass construction, they seem to be a very pale yellow brass, they do seem to have been in there for a long time, the dirt & Verdigris would lead me to believe that if they did not come with the saw then for some reason they might of been fitted very soon after the saw was made.
They do not seem to have any plating of any kind that I can see.
Please do bear in mind, this is my own thoughts, none based on science just my limited imagination.
My question should of been , what did people think of the handle, I focused on the number of saw nuts instead, but a much better question I think would of been is the handle right for that maker, saw and year.
I have been looking through the Tyzack tool cats of old, the few I have access to, the back of the saw is heavy very heavy, i did think it stood a chance of being Iron, but I have my doubts now
The Stamp on the spine is very shallow, I am surprised to see no other marks, as in cast steel or the warranted superior.
There are no numbers or other trade marks, the handle is not plain, it has a very nice lambs tongue, more typical of a slightly better quality saw, then again not a guarantee.

 

I recently cleaned up a similar era Tyzack for a mate and wish I had retained photos for you... it had the heaviest brass back I have ever seen on a 12" saw - easily twice the weight that one typically sees. The handle had a similar overall look to yours - very masculine and heavy looking but undoubtedly well made. It also had a lamb's tongue but also had fancy double grooves (done by hand with a file held at 45 degrees) on the sloped section of the nose adjacent to the mortice. It was made from very dense old growth quarter sawn timber. My gut feeling is that it was a "first grade" saw and that yours is the next level down. From memory it had a similar WS medallion to your example. Overall I'd be confident in saying that it was a Tyzack handle, but as for the nuts....

Very pale yellow, almost silvery brass equals old brass IMO... newer brass is yellower. The nuts, to me anyway, look like the ubiquitous English nuts of that period with the prominent cast "splines" for want of a better word. Could they be original... certainly. I think the kicker is the medallion nut - it should be slightly countersunk, or at least worked itself into the wood a little. Your handle should thus show some sign of which face it was originally fitted to. It should have been the LHS like other Tyzacks I have seen, so why isn't a counterbore visible in the photos? Could it be a retrofit? What I don't understand is why the holes for the nuts are so mangled, yet the bolt holes in the plate look pristine. I'd guess that the handle holes have been finagled to counteract the plate moving relative to the spine after being dropped and re-set, causing difficulties when the user tried to thread the bolts through the original handle holes.

 

Hi Dusty,
I refrained from casting a vote myself as I thought I was at an unfair advantage, the handle seems to line up with the holes in the plate very nicely, when the user who decided to reattach the handle for want of a better excuse for the refit.
The handle seems to be fitted recessed just enough for the brass split nuts, there is sufficient and equal recess in both sides of the handle, no medallion of any kind just room for 2 x split nuts.
My planned course of action is to replace the wood, the divot that has been chopped out of the wrong side of the handle.
Perhaps it would look much nicer if I made some split nuts to fill the holes that have been left.
I have plenty of saws missing the type that where fitted.
I have since cleaned the plate up, it is not all bright and shiny, I did not want it to look new, I have only rubbed the spine with wire wool, this is slow but it is neither to aggressive .
I would like to think the handle was original, it is well over due that I took a trip to the museum down in Sheffield ( Ken Hawley), I am sure I will learn a great deal from the visit.

 

Steve – I'm sure that we volunteer curators at the Hawley Collection would be very pleased to see you (just get in touch to see who may be around, and we'll do our best to show you as much as we can).
The point that strikes me about your saw is that it was a war-time job, and would have been bought for the armed forces somewhere (although I've always been puzzled by what the army thought they would be needing a tenon saw of this size for – not exactly what you'd you reach for in building trench timbers), so would have been down to a pretty low price. Although the nearest dated catalogue I've seen is 1921, and there are three screws shown for the 14in back saws, that doesn't make me think that the war time cheapos would not have had to make do with two screws, as these were fitted to the best quality dovetails. As you see, the choices in 1921 were brass or iron for the back, and to pick up Dusty Shed's point, you could have an extra heavy brass or iron back to order.

 

Hello Simon, thank you for the information you have provided, that really is great. Can I also congratulate you, I am sorry it is so late on your Book British Saws & Saw Makers from 1660, I must admit for my sins I have yet to acquire a copy.
That I need and will remedy this weekend.
I am hooked on the 2 saw screw aspect, I know I should not be, now I have seen this I am keener to try and locate another of a close time period to compare.
As you so rightly point out, it was a purchase most likely by the MOD, heaven knows who for, mind after seeing the documentary about the tunnel's dug below the trenches, the mind really boggles.
I tend to think of the better quality Iron or Steel back saws, more than likely made for the export market.
Perhaps they did start off on the production route to be shipped to some far off land, but then with war on the horizon, who knows how this effected shipping, meeting orders of any kind, I am sure the home office / government took priority over everybody.
Hence Iron Backed quality saws marked for the US, some how end up in a tool shed 100 years later back in the UK.
I would be very keen to sit and hear that story, or any part of it, I think, mind that is it my own thoughts, I think we all like the idea of some how being liked to another time and place, wow off on a ramble. Back to the saw.
I must weigh the saw plate and back, see what the weight is, what it compares to many odf the others that I have, I did weigh many of them a while back, this time I think I better keep a record. The weight difference could not have been that much heavier on the extra heavy back saws. Again my lack of knowledge showing out there.
Re the Hawley Collection, I don't know how I have lasted so long, perhaps thats my excuse for buying so many saws. I will keep kidding myself.
The long and short of it, the craftsman ship, the history, the art, knocks my socks offf, some one needs to keep a record, because when it has gone it has gone, too late to go looking then.
I must admit, I also think No13 is a very good likeness, I will put some more picture on when I have put it back together again.

 

Thank you Simon, yes I agree with our findings, I have since seen another with the 2 x saw screws in the handle, almost identical except it is stamped 1918 two years later, I don't own the 1918 saw but I have emailed the owner with a couple of questions.
Here are a few more pictures now I have also separated the back & saw plate.