Replies

1. 
   AdamCherubini | Jun 22, 2009 07:55pm | #1

   I don't think one is better than the other.  In my shop, the blade and the spine are straightened individually, then married and both are straightened again.  Slotting offers more precision in the "grab" if you have a milling machine (and one with a long enough bed) to do it.  I think this is the manufacturer's choice. And either can be made to look like the other.  What I'm not sure about are riveted backs.  Not sure why, but something about that unsettles me. 

   Otherwise, we need to raise the consciousness about saws, and discuss what makes a good one, and how they really work.  Slotting vs. folding shouldn't be a primary concern of any saw buyer in my opinion.

   Adam 

1. 
   WillGeorge | Jun 26, 2009 07:31pm | #6

   What I'm not sure about are riveted backs.  Not sure why, but something about that unsettles me. 

   My thoughts on that would be that the rivets would not all be 'set' to equal pressure on the blade and distort it. I do not know this as FACT but have worked on metal working machines. I'd say a break or some tool with flat bending motion would make a much better 'form' for the back of the blade.

   Just me though.

   EDIT: Brass is way prettier! I love brass..

   Edited 6/26/2009 12:33 pm by WillGeorge

2. 
   dkellernc | Jun 23, 2009 12:41am | #2

   I have both kinds - Lie Nielsen slotted backs, and antique British and Disston folded backs.  The only difference that I notice is that the antique British folded-back saws are considerably heavier for the same length.

   Whether you want a heavier backsaw is a matter of personal preference.  I personally like it in a dovetail saw, but there are many that like the Grammercy saws very much, and they are quite light.

   Most of the performance differences in a saw, in my opinion, is a matter of tooth geometry, whether it's sharp, and the set.

3. 
   roc | Jun 23, 2009 04:30am | #3

   Folded-back saws are considerably heavier. I agree there and, it is a small thing but, the folded are thicker and a bit harder to sight up with layout lines for that reason. I suppose this is a good argument for a bow saw. No thick back to look around. I still prefer back saws to bow. I need to be educated on bow saws.

   roc

   Give me six hours to chop down a tree and I will spend the first four sharpening the axe. Abraham Lincoln ( 54° shaves )

1. 
   joelm | Jun 23, 2009 06:33am | #4

   huh?
   some folded back saws from the 20th or late 19th century have giant heavy backs, but earlier backs in general were lighter and depending on the saw can be really light (or heavy) depending on original application. The Gramercy saw which is based on one of Duncan Phyfe's Kenyon saws has a very light back. the lightest I think of any current production dovetail saw. So it's not a good generalizationJoel
   http://www.toolsforworkingwood.com

1. 
   roc | Jun 23, 2009 10:26am | #5

   I was referring to the saws I have experience with.I stand corrected.ThanksrocGive me six hours to chop down a tree and I will spend the first four sharpening the axe. Abraham Lincoln ( 54° shaves )