1710 Tenant Saw (tenon saw)

Well...

Scott Burr raining again in Ben Lomond,CA

>I have no clue about the saw, but, I loved the hole story and the family history.

Re: 1710 Tenant Saw (tenon saw)

mikew

>Hi Warren,

I am only [mildly] familiar with saws from the latter half of the 18th century, so hopefully Adam and or Chris will see your message.

But like Scott, I wanted to just add that this is such a wonderful heritage you have. Thank you for sharing it.

Take care, Mike

Re: 1710 Tenant Saw (tenon saw)

Don McConnell

>While we can't be terribly specific or detailed, I believe textual evidence exists to establish that, in 1710, an English tenon/tenant saw was a back saw of a size appropriate for cutting larger tenons in joiner's/carpenter's work.

In his _Mechanick Exercises_, Moxon discusses Tennant Saws in the context of doing joiner's work - sawing tenons which could be up to four inches wide and long. Unfortunately, he confuses the description, indicating that tenon saws were frame-type saws (which they likely were for a good part of the 17th century) in on sentence, then indicating they were stiffened by backs in another sentence. All in one paragraph. Despite the confusion, I believe it safe to assume that he knew of back-type tenon saws.

By 1736, Richard Neve, in _The City and Country Purchaser's and Builder's Dictionary_, has this description:

"The Tenon-saw, or Tenant, used for fine Stuff, with a Back to it: so call'd from being used to make Tenons for Mortises."

Hope this helps a bit.

Don McConnell

Eureka Springs, AR

Thanks Don and a clue perhaps

Christopher Schwarz

>I don't have much to add (which is always the case in following up behind Don McConnell). The only other "clue" I can offer is from W.L. Goodman's "History of Woodworking Tools."

In the section where he describes 18th century English saws Goodman discusses a tenon saw that belonged to Samuel Crompton, the inventor of the spinning mule, that then passed to the Science Museum in South Kensington.

Goodman describes the saw as the "earliest known backed saw still in exitence" (it would be interesting to find out if this were still true). The text describes the saw as much like a modern backed saw differing only in that "the blade (is) slightly tapered towards the front, with the front edge at a slight angle." The handle Gooman describes also sounds like the modern handle.

Goodman does not date the saw, but he says the blade is stamped "Harrison Cast Steel."

Perhaps Don, who has studied early steelmaking (and gave an *outstanding* presentation about it at the M-WTCA national) would be able to help date this early backed tenon saw with the help of the stamp.

Chris

Follow-up to Chris' informative message

Don McConnell

>As best we've been able to reconstruct, known working dates for John Harrison & Son, Hollis Croft, Sheffield, are 1787 to 1816. They were also listed as Steel Converters and Refiners, clearly indicating that they were producing crucible, or cast, steel. The firm may predate 1787 by a few years, but the "Cast Steel" marking and Samuel Crompton's dates are all reasonably consistent with this time-frame.

A saw which beloned to Judah Woodruff, Farmington CT, may be somewhat earlier, It was made by London saw maker, "White," and is thought to be from mid-eighteenth century (according to Gaynor & Hagedorn in _Tools, Working Wood in Eighteenth-Century America_). I have provided that image, and it will readily be seen that the description of the Harrison saw, as reported by Chris, could easily be describing this White saw.

It may be a good idea to briefly address the question as to what type of handle English saws would have sported in the early eighteenth century. The closed, or "D" style handle is known to have been developed by the latter part of the 17th century. Specifically, a 1691 Swedish publication (A. C. Ralamb, _Skeps Byggerij_ [Ship Building], Stockholm) shows an English hand saw with a closed handle which is, stylistically, fairly similar to the handle shown in the accompanying image. While this doesn't prove exactly what the 1710 Tenant Saw handles would have looked like, I think it puts us on fairly safe ground as to their general appearance.

Don McConnell

Eureka Springs, AR

Neat story.

Steve Kubien

>That Queen Anne must've been one classy dame. Thanks for sharing.

Steve Kubien

Re: Neat story.

dennis mcdonaugh

>But she sure had funny looking legs!

Thanks

Warren in Lancaster, PA

>Thank you for the responses. I was trying to picture the tools in the inventory and didn't know what to make of a tenon saw. I guess I am still wondering if tenant saw always refers to a backsaw or if the term predates that form and was used for some other saw. Interesting to hear the Moxon references even if they are a little ambiguous.

whip saws AND x-cuts?

Adam Cherubini

>I thought whip saws WERE cross cuts.

Regarding the backsaw thing, I think the quick answer is we don't know. There are no surviving backsaws from that period and no images. I believe Goodman put the earliest image of a backsaw in the 1720's. We can assume it didn't just spring forth. But Moxon was written 2 generations before 1720. Are we to believe it existed for 40 years, yet was never illustrated? Moxon's mention of a spin, tho compelling, may be a description of the cross member spine of a frame saw. (I personally find that hard to believe).

One way to help figure it out is to look at the prices. This subject came up when I was researching the Plumley inventory. Plumley's tenon saws were very expensive (2 days wages?), which suggests to me that they may have been back saws.

I feel I can confidently answer your last question: Yes the term tenon saw preceded backsaws. They are not synonymous.

Adam

Re: whip saws AND x-cuts?

Joel

>" Are we to believe it existed for 40 years, yet was never illustrated? "

Just to annoy you - Moxon's illustrations of hand tools were copied from another book (felibien's principles of architecture, sculpure, etc...)

if they didn't have something to copy from there is no reason to believe the engravers were doing independant research on what to draw.

And as there is so little information available the lack of an illustration isn't definitive one way or another.

Re: whip saws AND x-cuts?

Adam Cherubini

>Right. The images in Moxon are copies of Felibien's 1676 engravings. But Moxon's engraver added one saw and a smooth plane and added a twin screw vise to the work bench. He could have chosen to add a backsaw- he certainly had space for it. We can speculate as to why that may be. That's fun to do. It's a mystery! But as for definitive proof, we certainly don't have that. Its all fun to think about.

Adam

AMEN !

Steve Mackay

>I'd show off the saw just to tell the story ! That, alone is worth it ! Fascinating !

Other possibilities

Warren in Lancaster, PA

>What other forms of tenon saw are possibilities? Frame saw? Panel Saw?

My 1880 Merriam Webster has both pit saw and whip saw being for ripping into planks. My 1984 edition has whip saw as either a pit saw or a crosscut. The earliest recorded use of the term whip saw is 1538; the earliest for pit saw is 1679, which I guess is Moxon.

Re: whip saws AND x-cuts?

Bill Houghton, raining again...in Sebastopol, CA

>Maybe the "cross-cut" referred to a saw designed to cut a board to length, as opposed to a saw designed to cut a log to length?

Besides, isn't a pitsaw a rip saw, designed to cut boards and other stock from logs?

Re: whip saws AND x-cuts?

Bill Houghton, SUNNY in Sebastopol, CA

>I realized my name/location needed updating. 70 degrees and sunny today, the first decent weather we've had (all day, anyhow) for longer than I can remember. Rain spozed to come in Friday again (boo!), but I'm going to be thinking of LOTS of excuses to do errands at work so I can get out of the building.

Re: Other possibilities

William Claspy in Cleveland

>the earliest for pit saw is 1679, which I guess is Moxon.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the 1679 appearance was from court records from "New Castle on Delaware", presumably an inventory. They list Moxon as having used the term in 1703.

From the library,

Wm