Which "Rutter" made this?

Discussion in 'Forum: Saw Identification and Discussion' started by fred0325, Aug 24, 2011.

  1. fred0325

    fred0325 Most Valued Member

    Messages:
    1,084
    Hello All,

    I have just taken delivery of this Rutter. It was actually the stamp that took my fancy and for which I paid reasonably dearly, and that is excluding postage from the USA. (Another fascinating saw from America, where are the British ones?)

    But when I got the saw out of the packaging I was struck by its enormous boss. The photos still do not do the size of it justice. I have tried to put it in context by putting one of my Sorbys above it for comparison.

    The blade is 12 inches long and so it is not a tiny saw. On most of my saws with blades this long, the handle has full cheeks. I had to hunt through a lot of them to find the Sorby. The second thing that struck me on seeing it in real life as opposed to a photo on Ebay was the length and depth of the chamfer. It is 1 3/4 inches long and 17/32nds deep. And the third thing was the width of the handle just above the fishtail. Again I have shown it next to the Sorby for comparison. It is a very robust handle. (I know that the Sorby is not the most expensive of saws, but it has is a very typical example of an average, box standard handle).

    Now, back to my original question and some guessing mixed with wishful thinking. My thoughts go as follows:-

    The stamp is either a primitive one on an earlier saw or a bit of a bodge on a later, cheap saw. It looks to me like the "London Spring" has been stamped using individual letter stamps rather than one single stamp. Looking at the thickness of the brass back, I do not think that this was ever a cheap saw, a notion which the "London Spring" would tend to support.

    The saw has a boss rather than full cheeks.

    There are two screws which are 7/16ths in diameter. (Not tiny ones but not 1/2 (+) inch either). On a boss this size it is equivalent to having just two screws on a traditional handle with cheeks.

    So, where is all this leading? I am hoping that this saw is a mid to later example of the Rutter (Sheffield) of 1814 to 1833, or the 1856 version at worst. It could be William Rutter (London) 1841 to 1852, but it looks much too early to be Charles Rutter (London) 1891 to 1899. (All dates/names from HSMOB).

    It just looks and feels earlier rather than later to me, although this may be the afore-mentioned wishful thinking. As always, comments/opinions welcome.

    Fred
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Aug 24, 2011
  2. Joe S

    Joe S Most Valued Member

    Messages:
    361
    Hey Fred
    What a great saw! I haven't seen one before. I have to agree with you on the feeling that it might be an early saw. My only caveat is the "Warranted" stamp to the right of the main stamp. I don't remember seeing that on early saws but I may be all wet on that. Even if it is the 1850s, nice pick up.
    Joe S
     
  3. fred0325

    fred0325 Most Valued Member

    Messages:
    1,084
    Hi Joe,

    The "Warranted" has also been niggling at the back of my mind. You are very possibly right about it not being on early (ish) saws, although I do not have access at the moment to the the bulk of my saws to go and check up on those that have "Warranted" and those that don't. And then there is the problem of dating them in any case. I have to hand a Moses Eadon with "warranted" on which may be 1837 to 1855 ( and which would be about right), but then Moses Eadon and Co. (1855 to 1903) used "Moses Eadon" as a trade mark. It is not easy!!

    The markings, the more you look at them do not add up.The "Rutter" and "Warranted" look to me to be single stamps although why put them so far apart on the back? Although "London Spring" is in the "right" place, why put it on in such an amateurish and botched manner compared to the other two, unless, of course it was a later addition.

    Never mind! Speculation is fun but largely useless. I will wait until I can get to my saws (they are currently at the far end of an unlit shed full of rather lethal bladed and pointed instruments and trip hazards - and it is dark), or until someone comes up with an authoritative answer. The answer is currently the safer of the two options.

    Fred
     
  4. fred0325

    fred0325 Most Valued Member

    Messages:
    1,084
    Hello all,

    Just a snippit and nothing at all to do with this saw (I hope). I am perusing the London Post Office directories at the moment and have just come across:-

    Rutter Charles of 16 Jacob Street Dockhead in the P/O directory of 1882 Part 3 Trades and Professional. Page 1832

    This puts the HSMOB entry back by 9 years as they have him 1891 to1899.

    Fred
     
  5. Barleys

    Barleys Most Valued Member

    Messages:
    545
    Which Rutter?

    Which indeed.
    I've found the following:

    RUTTER, Alexander SHEFFIELD
    (26) Edward Street 1814-1837
    149 Matilda Street 1856-1859
    Saw makers, probably two generations. It is likely that the older was related (his son?) to the man whom Joseph Wilson [saw maker] recruited in the West Midlands in 1768 to be his saw manager and who was after that an employee of John Harrison [saw maker].


    RUTTER, John LONDON
    15 (19) (43) Hickman’s Folly, Dockhead, Bermondsey 1852-1861
    RUTTER, Charles
    16 Jacob Street, Dockhead, Bermondsey 1882-1903

    RUTTER, William HULL
    63 High Street <1818-20>

    RUTTER, William LONDON
    43 (37) Cannon Street Road 1826-1841
    13 Wellclose Square 1852

    RUTTER, William BIRMINGHAM
    130 Lawley Street 1858-1875
    Builders’ ironmonger and iron article manufacturer.

    I have a Rutter saw which has a mark with lettering nothing like Fred's, and which I have tentatively attributed to the Birmingham man - on very little solid evidence - a guess on date, and because I bought it from a man from Birmingham...
    I would guess, maybe a fraction less tentatively that Fred's is earlier - maybe from the first Sheffielder. The screws are small, the boss large, the words London Spring not often used on London saws, especially when early, and the word Warranted widely separated from the rest of the marks. Now that really is guessing.
     
  6. kiwi

    kiwi Most Valued Member

    Messages:
    335
    a nutter rutter,
    Picked up this "RUTTER, LONDON" rip saw at an auction this week, and although its not nearly as nice as Fred's "Rutter" I'm adding it to this thread for general information/records.
    It's a bit rough, the 24" blade has been modified (shortened ? )at the toe, (and heel), and the handle has a thick coat of paint and some of the hardware is replacement.

    The blade stamp is a simple "Rutter" over "London", with no evidence of crowns, or steel type, or warranty. This is a relatively thick blade that has not been taper ground.
    The nose of the handle is thin and tapered, (which I usually associate with an early saw), along with the smaller diameter split nuts, and the lack of taper grinding of the blade, it made me consider that this might be from the earlier London Rutter (although it IS hard to go against Fred's Law)
     

    Attached Files:

  7. Barleys

    Barleys Most Valued Member

    Messages:
    545
    Which Rutter?

    The style would fit John or Charles Rutter, ie 1860-1880ish London maker/retailer: London pattern handle, fairly narrow nose, two word struck mark. My guess is that since it's been shortened, the toe shape is the handiwork of the shortener rather than the maker.
    Thanks to Kiwi for a new maker's mark.
     
  8. shoarthing

    shoarthing Member

    Messages:
    5
    Thank you for sharing this, & your observations on its "robust" yet handsome handle - have you by any chance measured this handle's thickness?