Hello all. I’ve enjoyed reading and learning from all of your comments for a while now and now that I think I have something interesting, it’s time for my first post. Here’s a saw I bought on that internet auction site, a while ago, from Indiana, a 28â€, 3 tpi rip. At first viewing, attracted by the handle, I naively thought it might be an early American saw, from before label screws were in use. The seller had described the barely legible mark as reading “effeteâ€. Once it arrived, after some cleaning, I realized the stamp actually said “W Tyzack, Sheffield, Cast steelâ€. Chapter 16 of the Tyzack.net family history site indicates that William left a partnership with his brother in 1825 and worked under his own name until 1843, when his son joined the firm and it became “& Sonâ€. So this saw probably was made during that 18 year period. But there are also the partial marks of three crowns around his name and, thanks to Fred’s observations, I realized they were King’s crowns…which indicates that this saw predates Victoria, placing its manufacture during the 12 years between 1825 and 1837. The presence of these crowns do two things; they confirm an answer to Lui’s wondering whether the crowns were used that early, and reinforce his thought that, if so, they would be most useful in dating a saw to before Victoria. However, a strange thing about the crowns is that the top one, the clearest stamp, has an anchor depending from the crown. Thinking this unusual, I did a little research on the monarchy. (being American, I needed to). William IV preceded Victoria. Before becoming king, as Duke of Clarence, he was permitted to use the royal arms, but with a difference. That difference consisted of a horizontal “label†across the arms. And hanging from that “label†were two anchors. William, as I of course now know, had served in the Royal Navy and was known as the Sailor King. He reigned less than 7 years, from 26 June 1830 to 20 June 1837. And it’s during that short time that I think this saw was made and I think that’s what Will Tyzack was telling us with his stamps. At least, I hope so. What say all of you?
Hello David, Welcome to the forum, and as you say with such an interesting, and lovely saw as your first offering. It is rather frightening, however to have any of my ideas taken seriously, especially the Kings' and Queens' crowns one. This was very speculative but I hope that you have provided some confirmation that it is valid. Even though it is not as specific as the "anchor" in terms of dating. Now that really is something to look out for in future. It goes on my obsession list along with I Taylor. It will be interesting to see what the others on here who know a bit more about saws than I do, have to make of it. It is certainly a first for me. I hope that the theory holds up under whatever "peer reviews" are provided. Tinged with green whatever the outcome, Fred
Wow, a much better saw than an American saw, IMO. Would like to see the split-nuts side of the handle. 1830-1837 would most likely have split-nuts, but in the early 1800s they used rivets. Are these rivets or split-nuts? I'm not sure exactly when rivets changed to split-nuts, but it was early 1800s.
Hi David, Welcome to the forum, congratulations on a fine looking saw, I'm not sure I can add much by way of history, you've done a great job with the research. The Tyzacks are an endlessly confusing lot, and it's always difficult to unravel the various branches of the family. There is a book I'm thinking of but can't quite recall the name, I think it's "Glass Tools and Tyzacks" or something along those lines. I remember Simon saying that there were a few errors in the book, but still, it would be a good starting point. Here are a few Tyzacks (Just the ones with the Initial W or T in the company name with some approximate dates.) Tyzack T & W 1821-1823 Tyzack Thomas 1833-1837 Tyzack Thomas & Sons 1841 1871 Tyzack Wm 1825-1837 Tyzack Wm & Sons 1845-1876 Tyzack Wm A & Co 1876-1970 (Grandson of William) Tyzack Wm Sons & Turner 1879-1972 There are a couple of things to be cautious about, it was often the case that marks continued to be used for some time after the original company had been re-named, or taken over, so we usually have to look for additional evidence that the mark does actually refer to the original firm. In this case, I think the crown marks and your interpretation supports the earlier date. There was a period in the second half of the 1800's when three crown stamps were popular. Sometimes you can get a good general idea by the style and various features of the saw, screw types sizes and number, handle shape, blade shape and so on, it's a bit like dating fashions, styles can sometimes come back into fashion. All in all, I think it's a great looking saw and very interesting first post, looking forward to seeing some more. Regards Ray
I do delight in this forum. It's a pleasure to participate in it and thanks to you all for your comments and help. Fred, all of our theories of course begin as speculation. Yet Kings' and Queens' crowns appear on so many manufactured goods that there's surely a reason and logic to their appearance. We're all just circling around the idea trying to determine it's validity for dating our research. Time will tell us more about how much weight we can give the appearance of crowns. But they surely meant something on this Tyzack saw. Alan, they are split nuts. 7/16" screws and 3/4" blank label screw. Ray's tentative timeline (a really helpful source, Ray!) has rivets fading out and split nuts beginning to appear a little earlier than you suggest, around 1780 or so. And I like English saws too, Alan, but we shouldn't forget that American saws began as English style saws made by Englishmen in North America. The early American saws are difficult to distinguish from those made in England and so much more uncommon, but, still, cousins of a sort. One more thing about the Tyzack saw is that the back is not flat, but breasted; about 1/8" proud between the nib and the handle. Conversely, the teeth have seen many sharpenings without jointing. Do we have a term to describe that condition? We could say "hollowed-out", but I think I might propose "gaunt". It has more the poetry that "breasted" has. And, Ray, thanks for your usual excellent job of providing context and adding content to all our posts. That helps to make all our bits of information cohere into real history. Happy to be here. David