Which backsaws?

Re: Which backsaws?

Ted Shuck

>There was a thread a few days ago on this subject. Opinions may vary...

I find that I use three saws much more than others. 1) a dovetail saw, 8" or 10" long, filed rip. 2) a crosscut saw, 12" long. and 3) a tenon saw, 16" long, filed rip.

I know that Adam prefers saw #2 to be 14-16" long and #3 to be 18" long. I'm not that big, so these sizes just seem unwieldy to me. I prefer the sizes mentioned for most of the work I do.

Ted

Re: Which backsaws?

Patrick Gibbons

>I like my 14" crosscut for a lot of cuts. I use a 12" rip for tenons but I recently bought a 14" off of ebay which I'll file rip. I don't find it to be harder to control a 14" as opposed to a 12" and I'm sure either size is fine for hobbyist use. The common wisdom is a longer saw will be faster and if one has control, it is better for that reason.

Re: Which backsaws?

Adam Cherubini, NJ

>I agree with Ted Shuck. You need a longer x-cut saw and posibly a very long rip saw. The sizes don't matter that much. There are no 18" back saws available. Be sure to read through that recent thread to get a sense for tooth pitches. I have pretty specific recommendations.

I really like the craftsmanship of all of the modern boutique saw makers, but their choice of blade shape, and pitch suggest leave much to be desired. In the case of Adria, I'd bet my eye teeth Eddie would file whatever you wanted. It think its worth thinking about my recommendtaions and maybe discussing them with Eddie.

FYI my recommended backsaw lengths have less to do with user size, and more to do with cut length/per stroke and overall heft required.

Adam

Re: Which backsaws?

Dennis McDonaugh

>You can also find longer length Disston backsaws, especially those made for miter boxes. You can cut them down to the size you prefer and have them filed any pattern you like.

Re: Which backsaws?

Steve Reynolds

>Adam said:

"FYI my recommended backsaw lengths have less to do with user size, and more to do with cut length/per stroke and overall heft required. "

There is something about the thought that backsaws should be longer than what one customarily finds that confuses me. If they should be longer, why didn't the makers make them longer, or the users demand they be longer? If all saws should allow for full arms length movement, why aren't all saws as long as a rip handsaw (~30 inches?)?

Something tells me that the conventional size backsaws are the size that they are because that is what craftsmen prefer. It is a cross between being able to get good use of one's arm length and being able to control the depth of cut. For instance, if a dovetail saw was 30" long it would only take a portion of one stroke to reach the bottom of a dovetail in a small drawer. Compare that with using the normal 10" or 8" dovetail which will require a few strokes worth. I think this should provide more control, and less tendency to overshoot the mark.

I hear that the lack of old dovetail saws is explained by them being used up. I am skeptical. Look at old Disston catalogs, dovetail saws don't appear until after 1900. (And when they first do, they appear only in a straight handle version). Tenon saws show up long before that. I think this shows that your everyday cabinetmaker typically used a tenon saw to cut dovetails. The perceived need to have numerous backsaws with certain size criteria sure makes it fun for us modern day woodworkers to justify acquireing more tools, but I don't see a historic precedent for it.

Regards,

Steve

Re: Which backsaws?

Dennis McDonaugh

>There's also an accuracy issue involved here. I can cut to a line better with a short saw than a long one.

Re: Which backsaws?

William Duffield on the Cohansey

>Steve, I think you must have missed Adam's original post regarding the need for a tenon saw that is longer than those available today. IIRC, his point was that for sawing the cheeks of large tenons, a longer saw has some advantages. For example, think about cutting the tenons on the side boards for the case of a sideboard or huntboard. The total length of the pair of tenons on one of these might be eight or ten inches. Of course, these tenons could be made with a rabbet plane, but if you can saw instead of plane, you can save a lot of time. If your tenon saw is too short, then your cutting slows down a lot because you have to pull the saw almost all the way out of the kerf to clear the gullets on every stroke, and then realign and restart the saw.

Re: Which backsaws?

Steve

>You are correct, Bill, I did miss the earlier message. I'm drawing a blank on the long tenons you mention, could you explain, or show, why the huntboard would use such long tenons?

The fist time I was confronted by long tenons, I took the advise of another guy and used a ryobi. It worked OK, but I was left unsatisfied with the Japanese pull saw as it was foriegn to me. I then bought a Disston manual at the fleamarket that had a cover photo of a well dressed hobbiest using a handsaw for cutting tenons. It can be seen here:

http://www.disstonianinstitute.com/catalogs.html

as the "1940s" manual. You will notice the one next to it (1939-40) shows it even more clearly. I have used a handsaw to cut long tenons since seeing that photo. That is, until last weekend when I needed to cut tenons on 4x4s. On a whim, I pulled a common bowsaw off its hanger and found it did a great job of cutting the tenons.

The only point I was trying to make in my previous post was that I see no evidence that a lot of long backsaws were used "by them old dudes". I don't see them in the catalogs, and don't find them in the fleamarkets, tool club meets, or dealer's lists. Like you, I prefer to saw out something than plane or pare it. The one exception being a trick I was shown by Gene Landon during a course. He prefers to crosscut the shoulders of the tenon and then use a large chisel to split off the cheeks. Perhaps this was the way them old dudes did it? (By the way, I don't mean to imply that I do this, I screw up more tenons this way so have remained a tenon sawyer). There are many ways to skin this large tenon cat, and I suspect craftsmen of yore found some way other than buying a long backsaw.

Regards,

Steve

Re: Which backsaws?

William Duffield on the Cohansey

>A common construction technique used for huntboards or sideboards, and also for lowboys and highboys, uses solid panel sides, with the grain running hozizontally and joined to the front and back leg posts with multiple tenons in each end of the side boards and multiple mortises in the leg posts. This technique is problematical, due to the cross grain construction and wide boards. You will find that the side boards in the old onesbuilt this way are almost always cracked. There are a couple of viable alternative constructions. Sometimes the lower carcase of the highboys are built by dovetailing the sides to the top and bottom of the carcase. Sometimes huntboards, especially narrow ones, are built instead with vertical grain sides, which are joined to the legs with tongue and groove joints, relying very strongly on the glue bond. Instead of a solid side, you could use top and bottom rails and a floating panel. Only the first method I mentioned requires a long rip cut to define the tenons, especially if you also use a shallow tongue and groove between the deeper tenons to reduce the possibility of the sides warping.

There are several good books illustrating these different techniques, including Bill Hylton's Illustrated Cabinetmaking, Jeffrey Greene's American Furniture of the 18th Century and Norm Vandal's Queen Anne Furniture.

Re: Which backsaws?

Adam Cherubini, NJ

>Steve,

If they should be longer, why didn't the makers make them longer?

They did make them longer. 18� was the common length for 18th c tenon saws.

If all saws should allow for full arms length movement, why aren't all saws as long as a rip handsaw (30 inches?)?

You�re right. The length of a rip saw is optimized for the users size or preference. Otherwise, blade length has more to do with the desired length and speed of cut.

For instance, if a dovetail saw was 30" long it would only take a portion of one stroke to reach the bottom of a dovetail in a small drawer. Compare that with using the normal 10" or 8" dovetail which will require a few strokes worth. I think this should provide more control, and less tendency to overshoot the mark.

Exactly right.

I hear that the lack of old dovetail saws is explained by them being used up. I am skeptical.

Me too.

Look at old Disston catalogs, dovetail saws don't appear until after 1900. (And when they first do, they appear only in a straight handle version). Tenon saws show up long before that. I think this shows that your everyday cabinetmaker typically used a tenon saw to cut dovetails.

Well, Disston may have chosen not to compete with Sheffield. You also have to factor in what the market was doing at the time, what kind and how furniture was being produced, etc.

Take a look at the Seaton chest, Duncan Pyfe�s chest and the like. You will find a variety of saw lengths including several backsaws.

The perceived need to have numerous backsaws with certain size criteria sure makes it fun for us modern day woodworkers to justify acquireing more tools, but I don't see a historic precedent for it.

I do, but I really appreciate your thoughtful questions just the same. I think its helpful to think in this way. Do we really need stuff they didn�t have way back when? Block planes? Shoulder planes? Miter saws? Bevel sided chisels? Some of these are nice-to-haves, some are real improvements, etc, but all are worth questioning, IMHO.

Adam

Re: Which backsaws?

Jim Crammond

>Steve,

If you have a copy, take a look at the saws in Smith's Key of Sheffield Toolmakers(or something fairly close to that), I believe the date is 1806 or so. He describes dovetail saws as 8-10 inches, sash saws around 14" and tenon saws about 16-18 inches.

Jim

Re: Which backsaws?

Steve

>There is no question they existed, Jim. I don't doubt the great utility of such a saw. I have no answers on this subject, just a curiosity about how numerous they were. I read of long joint-cutting backsaws (let's say that means backsaws with a thinner gauge blade than your typical mitrebox saw) but never seem to encounter one. I wonder if they were more popular with Brits and Continentals? I wonder if they were more popular in America in the 18th century and something in the 19th decreased their popularity? I have similar questions about the dovetail saw.

Take a moment and look at the Disstonian. It is fascinating to me that the first dovetail saw that appears in a Disston catalog is the No. 68 straight handled saw when it appears in the 1906 catalog. The No. 70 pistol handled dovetail saw makes its first appearance in the 1918 catalog. Disston started in 1845, that is 61 years without offering a dovetail saw. Compare this with their basic model No. 4 backsaw which they made for the entire history of the company.

Disston offered backsaws in lengths from 8 to 18 inches, with the 8 and 10 inch saws having a thinner gauge blade than the longer backsaws, but still not as thin as the dovetail saws they eventually offered. I have personally never seen a Disston backsaw that was 14" or longer that had a thin blade.

Very interesting to me, because it argues against my suspicions, is the "MECHANICS' OWN" No. 77 backsaw, which was filed "To Run Without Set". Disston made them from 8" to 26" and described as:

"These Saws are particularly adapted for fine cabinet work, sawing mitres, and where rapid and smooth cutting is required the use of a plane can he dispensed with, as they will cut a joint sufficiently smooth to glue without planing. Regularly made 8 points to the inch, except for about 1 1/4" at the front where the teeth are 12 points to the inch. In filing use a 4 1/2-inch slim taper file." Although it does not specify the blade gauge, it sure sounds like the long cabinetmaker's backsaw. However, I have never seen one. I see an ocean of No 4 backsaws that are 14" with the relatively thick gauge blade. Heck, I even see old British-made brass-backed tenon saws more often than I see one of these No. 77s. If these saws were once a popular tool in shops across the country, can we make some rational explanation of why the tenon saws lasted in great numbers and somehow the dovetail saws and long backsaws disappeared?

Like I said, I know they existed, but I'm skeptical of how many of them existed, at least here in the USA. I can imagine a few in the highest-end shops, such as Duncan Phyfe, but not in the workaday shops.

One last thing. Adam mentioned the Seaton chest earlier in this thread, and many others point to this chest as a source to document the tools of the period. But wasn't Seaton a rich guy's kid who had a set of tools given to him, which he never used? Can this be a valid record of the set of tools actually in use in working shops at that time?

Regards,

Steve - perhaps skeptical to the point of cynacism

Re: Which backsaws?

Jim Crammond

>Steve,

I wholeheartedly agree that 14" Disston backsaws are by far the most common backsaws that I see. This is undoubtedly because they were a compromise between a dovetail and a longer tenon saw and in most shops of the last 140 years(unlike today) the owner could not justify the additional expense of two extra, special purpose saws.

They did exist, though. Though I'm not a collector(yah right), I have 8 or 10 what I would consider dovetail saw(8-10 inch, 16 or more TPI), 4 or 5 are split nut and were made by H. Disston, Disston and Sons, W. Cresson, several Jacksons, Harvey Peace and Spear, all of them pre 1900 to my eye. I also have a number of split nut backsaws 16 to 18 inches long that appear to be tenon saws rather than saws from a miter box. Again, these are from a variety of American makers.

I think the number of mid sized saws is analogous to the number of #4's and #5's compared to #2's and #8's, they were offered by manufacturers but the average carpenter did not want to spend the money for them or carry around the extra weight.

Jim, who cut his last set of dovetails using a 14" Disston backsaw filed rip.