This saws discussion is as good as Rocky when it comes to sequels. How about a frieze of a wenz, L-N, and Disston saws over the entrance to the Philadelphia Museum of Art?
Anyhow, on the subject of western wood saws, we touched on but never explored the subject of exotic or special purpose saws, such as keyhole saws, half-back saws, etc. Sticking purely to western saws (in order to focus the discussion, and by no means as an expression of bias against non-western saws), I wonder how many unusual, special purpose or just exotic saws or designs there are and what they are good for?
I am quite sure that my father has a couple of keyhole saws that he inherited. I have never seen him use them. I first heard of half-back saws a couple of months ago on knots. Any thoughts or experiences with either of them? Any opinions on what they are really good for?
How about special tooth patterns? I thought I had a saw with one until it became obvious that my saw had just been messed up by an incompetent sharpener. But Mike Wenz did say that he was aware of various non-standard tooth patterns.
Replies
Actually, I should have thought of it when I posted -- SAWS 4!! with a Disston thumbhole handle sticking ominously out of the water near some delicate dangling table legs...
Adam -- did you miss this post, or are you just burned out on the saw discussion?
What's the question or issue here?There are a myriad of special purpose saws. In my shop every saw is a special purpose saw because I do 100% of my sawing with hand saws. The other 30% I do with a hatchet.Many of Disston's now collectible special purpose saws are jokes to me. (Like saws that are also levels or some such nonsense). The task of making case pieces by hand requires a half dozen or so special purpose saws. Even Mike's saws are cheap enough to buy extras to make the work go faster. In the early 18th c, saws were the equivalent of $500-1000. So craftsmen made do with fewer saws than I have to. So where i have 6 or 8, they may have had 4-6.For basic cabinetry of full scale in low density hardwoods like mahogany or walnut one needs:open saws
Hardwood rip saw
Softwood rip saw (for secondary woods)
A cross cut filed panel saw- possibly a rip version as well (I don't care for full length x-cuts)back saws
A carcass saw
A smaller dt for drawers
A sash saw filed cross cut
A tenon saw either in the sash saw length or full 18-20" length. If you do any amount of frame and panel work, its nice to have the longer "proper" tenon saw.other saws
For any sort of sculptural work a 12" scroll turning saw is a must have.
I also use a keyhole saw (for guess what) and a coping saw for either coping or sawing out dt waste.
I have many many other saws but these are the saws I take with me when I travel. They comprise my basic set. My guess is most of these are saws you would define as special purpose.Adam
Adam:
Interesting. I guess I would call some of those special purpose, but I certainly don't know enough to debate the definition, or which saws are or aren't special. What I was getting at were the things like keyhole saws, scroll and coping saws, and so on that are not gimmics.
Also wondered about a hybrid that you didn't mention -- the half-back saw.
I think one consideration is that a half-back would be outside of Adam's historical perspective [at least by 25 years or so]. But I would reckon he has an opinion.
There are only a few saws I would consider special purpose saws. But what one places in a category sich as this depends on what one does, or the level at which one does it.
One thing I like about the Seaton chest of saws were both what was there and what wasn't. Buck saws were excluded. As was a veneer saw. But the other saws Adam mention as part of his kit were there. Including the turning and key-hole saws.
The chest was basically Benjamin Seaton's working saws [good conjecture says BS may have been immigrating to the US at some point]. What he may or may not have supplimented them with "down the road" is anyone's guess--if more would have been added at all.
Those same saws Adam lists, with a couple additions and duplications except PPI/rake/etc., is what I use typically. To come full circle in this immediate discussion, I would include two half-backs. But certainly not out of necessity, but utility. The cross cut is one of my favorite bench saws used in conjunction with a bench hook. But any back saw or small panel can do the same work. As for the rip, because it is made with the same gauge steel and ultimately the same or close to the same set as my large tenon, it depeens a tenon should my large tenon come close to bottoming out.
Key-hole saws are a saw which I think are under utilized. They can cut out pierced work of differing scales, but small is best. Obviously key holes. But blades on "modern" versions can be larger than 18th versions, at least compared to the blades from the Seaton chest. I have used my vintage ones basically like one would use a modern jigsaw for--quick scroll work.
Well, need to go. Take care, Mike
"The chest was basically Benjamin Seaton's working saws [good conjecture says BS may have been immigrating to the US at some point]."I would disagree with this statement. The saws were never significatly used. There are a great example of a full set of saws by a single maker but they were purchased at one time from a single seller by Seaton's father. We don't know if they were individually selected from a whole range of saws for working reasons or the customer simply said - just give me one of each. Or simply that was the set of matched saws in stock at the time. We do know that Seaton never really used the tools but at the same time he was a working cabinetmaker so the question is:
1) if he was going to America and didn't why didn't he use the tools anyway and didn't he already have tools? If as I would guess he was using the tools in his father's shop and didn't need a whole new set of tools. Why didn't he at some point say hey - I got a valuable set of brand new tools I should use them? Was he perfectly satisfied with the tools he already had? was the gift of tools from his father an over the top selection to "bribe" his son and SEaton never used the tools as a protest? We certainly don't know. But it is odd that if someone gave me or most people a full tool chest of brand new stuff, really crammed full of tools - and I decided not to go on the trip or something - if I still was a cabinetmaker I would still want to use my spanking new set - unless as I suggested before - I had access to better tools or didn't want to use the tools in protest of something. If my dad gave me an over the top gift to celebrate something I would be honored to use them. So the saws really are a much better reflection of a catalog of saws than as proof what a normal, purchase as you go, working cabinetmaker might have. AS Adam said in an earlier post - saws were expensive and while today a full set is much more affordable I would suggest that the average cabinetmaker of the time didn't see the entire set of saws as necessary but I don't think the Seaton chest offers proof of that, or of usage, one way or another.Joel
http://www.toolsforworkingwood.com
Hi Joel,
Interesting set of conjecture...just as my some of my thoughts were. Whether Benjamin actually used the saws or whether there was eventual intention to do so is rather moot and ultimately unkown.
I would simply say:
They were purchased by a cabinet maker for his son. My assumption is Joseph actually knew what a saw was and how to use it.
They were purchased at a well known tool monger's shop. That Gabriel had a larger inventory of saws to select from is known.
Benjamin was trained to be a cabinet maker.
Benjamin referred to himself as a cabinet maker in his will.
Benjamin's brother took over the family's business following Benjamin's death.
As far as known, none of Benjamin's children followed in the cabinet making business, but did pass down the chest.
We do not know why Benjamin did not dispose of the chest via his will. We do know his son John thought highly of the chest and did include its transfer via his will at his own death.
Back to Benjamin. The conjecture begins with Benjamin's intentions as regards to immigrating to America or not, and why did he choose not to use the tools [at least much]? Why did he not use his will to dispose of it? Did his involvement in the family business preclude his personal work as a cabinet maker to a great degree? I could go on with questions like that.
While the answer to those questions are certainly interesting puzzles, any answer at all is pure speculation. There are no answers to those questions at this point in time. Hence, little if any conclusions can be drawn as to Benjamin's reasons for use or non-use of the tools. The only answers, if we wish to call them that, can come from any facts known. Those are the numbered points above. How you or I may choose to use or not use those tools if we had been the recipients is moot: it does not apply to Benjamin nor his rationale.
Another chest, the Phyfe chest, had a similar set of saws, though in the smaller back saws more extensive in their apparent duplication. 5 of those back saws from a single maker as far as I can tell. In the chest as donated, I believe there were 9 saws. Duncan did use his saws. Can any parallel be drawn between Seaton and Phyfe as regards the saw selections? At best only loosely.
I believe these couple posts of ours go to the question, what constitutes a working set of saws? In and of itself an interesting question. One which has to take into consideration what the person makes, how specialized of saws are desired to work broadly or narrowly, how much of the processing of timber does the person desire to do, how easily one wishes to accomplish this, etc. Perhaps Joe will start a Saws 5 thread.
Take care, Mike
I would absolutely agree with you about the speculation. My point is simply that there is no evidence that the Seaton tools were ever used much if at all and the purchase of the entire set of saws is atypical and better reflects what was avaialble at the time than what a cabinetmaker used in daily work on a regular basis (working saws). THat the purchaser was a cabinetmaker isn't proof that the saws are typical saws for everyday cabinetmaking because the tool kit is such a large over the top purchase we don't know what he was trying to achive. As samples of what tools should be avialble it's a great model but as a working set every cabinetmaker should have it's overkill depending on budget and the type of work being done. The Phyfe chest is missing all the big saws but we know why. THe big saws were not stored in the chest and would have been part of his larger shop either at home (he had a shop in his basement when he retired) the contents of which has been lost (although I have an inventory of it somewhere and will check it later) or in his main workshop. What the Phyfe chest does show us is which smaller saws were used and saved during a career.
Joel
http://www.toolsforworkingwood.com
I don't know what you guys are talking about. We could BS about this all day. Years ago, I was interested in making raised panels and I was unsatisfied with the answers to my questions. It seemed very few people had actual experience making raised panels by hand. None the less, like Knots, I got lots of very speculative answers to my questions.I called Mack Headley and talked to him. And I called John Alexander and talked to him. John's view point was compelling and challenging and I was intrigued. I asked more and more questions. John called Follansbee for help. And in the end he said "Adam, I'm not answering any more of your questions until you make one of these. Goodbye." (he wasn't quite that abrupt, but close)I think that would be good advice for our friend Joe, and truth be told any lurker interested in this subject. We have available to us via Mike Wenz and Joel (toolsforworkingwood.com), just about any saw that Seaton or his contemporaries had access to. Want to know what is required to make English 18th c case work by hand? Get to it. I posted my list of must haves.AdamP.S. I sat next to Jane Rees at the last conference. Jane and Jay Gaynor are the only people I know who actually handled the saws in the Seaton chest. Jane told me the teeth were never really examinined. She said they just assumed that the teeth did not necessarily reflect the original filings because all of them had been used and sharpened at some point. (I was interested in learning if any were x-cut- Jane didn't know, neither did Jay). That's all I know.
Gee, Adam, sorry to have hit a sore point. If you are tired of the thread, I understand. Let me just thank you again now for all the time you have already devoted to it and its predecessors.
I originally started Saws 1 to learn basic information about handsaws. Eighteenth century saws and techniques were far outside my ken, although what I have leasrned from you and the others has been both interesting and valuable. In fact, enough information has been accumulated in the four threads to make up a pretty good a small handbook on the topic. My own knowledge has been increased by orders of magnitude, although I am still an ignoramus by the standards of you, Mike, and Joel. Also, just so you know, I have been practicing saw skills, have ordered some saws from Mike, and picked up a couple of nicely discounted second hand LN dovetail saws -- so FWIW, I'm getting on with it as fast as my little hands and wallet will permit -- and following your advice in the process.
Saws 4 was started out of pure curiosity. Saws in general are (or were) an under-discussed topic. Just compare threads on chisels and planes with those on saws. I think this is because except of dovetails and the like, most sawing is done with power tools. Yet saws are a rich and interesting topic, and surely germane to the Knots handtool section.
So the question remains open -- regardless of period, what useful and interesting western saws are out there that we have not discussed, and what are they good for, and what useful variations on standard types exist? THis would include tooth patterns.
Cheers!
Joe
Please don't take my post the wrong way. Please take it the way I took the same cooment from John Alexander. As a call to action.
I'm not trying to end the conversation, only add that while historical analysis and speculation of Seaton's life is helpful, so too is the actual doing.
One more thing- these questions imply that there are experts who can answer them. There aren't (no offense to Mike and Joel. I suspect neither would identify themselves as saw experts). Again, one can choose to view such a statement as elistist, or in the way that I meant it- encouraging. There's room for you and others to get involved, roll up your puffy sleeves, and learn things no one alive knows. The Seaton chest saws, as painstakingly reproduced by Mike Wenz, are a good starting point.
Adam
Edited 4/5/2007 12:36 pm ET by AdamCherubini
Fair enough. And, may I say that I am well used to working and speculating in areas where experts are themselves students and facts emerge over time. In fact, that is part of what makes the present saw conversations so interesting.
May I ask, then, of you or Mike, or Joel, or anyone who might know, about the variations in keyhole saws and how they are shaped and toothed? Does anyone know?
Joe
Edited 4/5/2007 2:26 pm ET by Joe Sullivan
Well, I'm not an expert on saws, but I have several old Keyhole Saws and some pad saws, an 1850 - 1860 S. Biggins and a later Thos. Ibbottson (mint) and a newer Richardson (iirc) and I am surprised in that they all are very coarse-toothed, about 8 ppi iirc.
Seems for close work you'd want something finer, but in fact they are great to use. The blades are thick compared to panel, hand and back saws and the teeth have a lot of set to them (maybe helps in turning?).
David C
I have not handled one in some time, but wold guess that the blade has to be somewhat thick to work without support. Interesting about the teeth.J
As samples of what tools should be avialble it's a great model but as a working set every cabinetmaker should have it's overkill depending on budget and the type of work being done.
That's pretty much all that anyone has said. Questions I ask routinely are simply...What do you make? What types of wood do you use? What are the typical thicknesses? When it comes to the larger saws...How much processing do you really intend to do?
We each can only answer according to our own experience. When I reply to someone, it is in part a speculative answer based upon responses.
The fact is, if one is going to do moderate processing of wood from planks to joinery, the saws in the Seaton chest are certainly a good starting point for discussion. For most, it is the sizes, the categories of saws that will be used. For some, there are duplicates with modifications of the smaller saws to fit a wider range of work more readily. For many, a simple rip DT saw and a cross cut carcass is all that will be used.
One nit-pick that I would have is your statement: ...the entire set of saws is atypical and better reflects what was avaialble at the time than what a cabinetmaker used in daily work on a regular basis (working saws). There were so many more saws available at the time, the Seaton saws are but a smattering of what was available. Other than asking Mack Headley what would comprise a basic set for the work of the period, Adam has given his answer based upon his experience. Not far off the Seaton saws. It will always come down to what I wrote above. How much processing does one desire to do with saws? It's the best determiner of need. But like a basic set of anything which one can then expand upon, the set ain't a bad start. It certainly isn't enough for me. But I would gladly be limited to that range of saws if I had to.
Take care, Mike
Mike,
I understand your nit-pick with me. It's just that I think a set of anything bought at the same time is more illustrative of the maker than the user. If the saws were bought one at a time as need developed it would be more illustrative of the needs of a user. This doesn't in any way understate the importance of the chest but it's like getting a boxed set of CD's - you like to listen to a few of the set and some are just filler and we don't know later which is which.Joel
http://www.toolsforworkingwood.com
"I would absolutely agree with you about the speculation. My point is simply that there is no evidence that the Seaton tools were ever used much if at all and the purchase of the entire set of saws is atypical and better reflects what was avaialble at the time than what a cabinetmaker used in daily work on a regular basis (working saws). "The other easy way to look at this is that Tool Acquisition Syndrome may not be just a 21st century phenomenon.
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled