Is Fleam Necessary?

More to that story

Adam Cherubini, NJ


>I talked to Jane Rees and Jay Gaynor about those saws. Jane didn't assume those teeth were the original filings. So those saws may or may not reflect the as-delivered condition of the saws. They were under the impression that none of the saws had fleam. But people weren't interested in things like this when those saws were examined. Don McConnell is the only guy I've ever heard bring up the issue. I say this to mention that our understanding of these subjects is changing, and not to diminish Don in any way, its regular folks like us and not necessarily folks in Winterthur with Phd's who are moving the ball.

I don't think there's any (or at least very little) information on saw filing from the 18th c. So its not like there's tons of information about rip filing and none about cross cut. I found Roubo to be a huge let down. I mean, its the only text about woodworking written by a cabinetmaker in the whole of the 18th c. and it could include all the answers guys liek us seek and instead it says things like- "workmen like to have saws with big teeth because they cut faster. They say saws like this have "fang". or "There is this thing it is called a plane and it smooths wood by having a "blade" imbedded in its body held by a wedge" (these aren't quotes).

Wmsburg's back saws have a max of 15 degrees rake and they generally increase rake with pitch. None have 0 rake. BTW, their pit saws have about 8 degrees and they (probably could use more) cut between 1/4"-1/2" per stroke. They like the thinner saw better (its probably .060")

I find this subject fascinating.

Adam

Re: Is Fleam Necessary?

mikew


>Hi Paul,

The backsaws have rake, though unlike the large saws, I did not measure it, though I can. By eye, the sash for instance have teeth which appear to be about 6 degrees or so under the handle, which should be the least bothered area as regards resharpening from as made by Kenyon. The DT is hardest to review, but also looks to have teeth at zero rake.

The carcass looks to have plenty of rake, and so may well have been for cross cutting or perhaps simply for harper woods.

As I mentioned to Adam, the clues to whether teeth were filed cross cut may lie in descriptions of use, or even where inventories make a distinction in otherwise same/similar saws.

Though certainly possible, it is difficult for me to imagine fleam angles were suddenly developed by the mid 1875 or so when Holtzapffel and Grimshaw describe fleam angles.

The Dominey hand saw, which the author believes may have been a replacement made circa 1800 appears to not have fleam and has rake of about 15 to 20 degrees.

Ok, back to the Kenyon saws. From the scan I did, it appears that while rake differences nearly from tooth to tooth on the handsaw, most every other tooth *appears* alternatingly larger or smaller than those on either side. This is the visual oddity which accompanies teeth filed with fleam angles. And it doesn't take much fleam to accomplish smoother cutting in most woods, either. This would be easily overlooked if one was not looking for it.

I cannot help directly as to the historical function between a carcass, sash and tenon saw, other than what I was taught--mostly a scale of work issue. Larger backsaw with fewer ppi, longer cut.

Thanks for bringing this topic up and I will be reading for much pleasure!

Take care, Mike

Re: More to that story

mikew


>Hey Adam,

As for the Kenyon saws in the Seaton chest, the half-rip's rake varies greatly down its length.

I scanned two different photographs at 1200 dpi and sampled 3 areas on both the half-rip and the handsaw. Using the middle as the nominal, tooth to tooth varies from about 8 degrees of rake to about 22 degrees of rake.

The handsaw varies at the middle of the toothline from about 22 degrees of rake to about 30 degrees of rake.

On both, there are greater and lesser rake. The middle of the saws and the heel were most "consistent."

Like you write, these saws all had shown evidence of use, so one cannot judge what Kenyon made them at. Pity!

As regards saw filing, does the Gabriel book mention a distinction as BS did in his inventory between a half-rip and a handsaw? I don't have many books to read as for early tools. If I did, I think I would look for usage tied to a saw's description. e.g., do any texts mention the "a handsaw is used when cutting cross the stuff" or anything similar?

It seems if saws were not filed cross cut in the 18th century, then the distinction between a half-rip and handsaw would lie in differing rake and perhaps ppi counts. Which is certainly possible. More in the reply to Paul...

This is fascinating to think about and research.

Take care, Mike

Is a test in order?

Stephen Kirk in Quakertown, PA


>I was just reading the whole post of planing a flat edge on a board when I got to this one. Now, I don't have enough saws or sharpening knowledge to get two identical saws, and file one with fleam, and one without. But, if anyone does, and feels like some filing, maybe it's a good exercise to see if there is any noticeable difference in the saws.

Or, maybe someone has already done this and can comment. I am certainly interested in the results. I have the handsaw skills of a baboon, but boy are they quiet and easy to get into tight spots.

Re: More to that story

Paul in NJ


>Adam, I suppose it was silly of me to assume without thinking that the saws as described had their original sharpening.

Mike, you must have better eyes than I. Even under magnification, I really could not tell much about the smaller saws teeth. It sounds like the saws had some bad sharpening from your description; I hope they didn't come from the factory that way!

One more thing I didn't mention was how badly the rip saw with 15 degree rake did with ripping. It was a real dog! So it seems to me that in the 18 century, just like now, you had different saws for x-cut and for ripping. The other thing about the Seaton saws that bothers me is the dovetail saw. The 19 ppi seems high and unnecessary to me. I bought a new Garlick & Son Lynx brand saw back in the early ninety's. It had too many teeth filed wrong with too much set and a bad handle. It now has a new handle, 15 ppi rip with a couple of degrees of rake. The point is that this saw handles 1/4-3/4 thick dovetails with no problem in pine, oak, cherry, and maple. It cuts them fast too and is an easy starter. The 19 ppi would seem a bear to file in the 18 century; I don't think they had such great eye glasses.

One more tid bit. I am surprised how closely my 14" Disston #4 backsaw resembles the sash saw. The length, ppi, plate thickness, and rake of the handle are pretty much the same. Only the handles differ in style.

Regards,

Paul Dzioba

crosscuting with rip teeth

Warren in Lancaster, Pa


>Many years ago I had only one panel saw. I changed it from crosscut to rip so I could use it for both operations. It did an adequate job and I used it that way for about five years and sharpened it many times. When I bought a rip saw, I changed the first one back to crosscut and use it still today. So I have used the same saw extensively in both modes.

You certainly don't want to rip with a crosscut saw, but crosscutting is only slightly better with the fleam. My feeling is that for a wood like walnut the difference is not so great because of the even texture; I think the difference is more pronounced on pine or other woods that are apt to splinter from the force of the saw. There are probably different optimum angles for different woods.

I have no knowledge of how saws were sharpened in the 18th century, but if all my saws were sharpened rip, I could certainly be productive that way. I think that for efficiency, the size of the teeth is a bigger factor than the fleam.

Re: More to that story

mikew


>Hi Paul,

As for the 19 ppi, it's a pretty traditional number of teeth. Even higher was common in England, though so were lower ppi on the DT-type saws. But I would say the norm was at the higher end.

I made 3 Kenyon DT saws from the Seaton chest with 19 ppi. The rest I have filed at 16 ppi and unless necessary will continue the 16 ppi. Depending on the nominal intended wood and wood thickness, I make them more or less aggressive.

Here's our version of a Kenyon sash made fairly recently:

So far, the sash and the carcass are my favorite Kenyons--though the large tenon is a close call.

Take care, Mike

Re: Is Fleam Necessary?

Roy Anderson


>In Tage Frid's book, he claims to only use rip saws. I tried using rip saws only and they would indeed cross cut. The cut was hard to start and there was a lot of tear out. I went back to my cross cut saw.

On the other hand, my tiny toothed dovetail saw is cut for rip. It cuts so fine that it's hard to notice a difference from cross cut teeth.

Re: Is Fleam Necessary?

paul womack


>The various factors in saw teeth INTERACT.

A saw with smaller teeth will always cut slower and smoother than a saw with larger teeth, "other factors being constant" (OFBC).

A saw with fleam will cut "neater" across grain (OFBC).

A saw with more aggressive rake will cut faster (OFBC).

These factors can be varied in almost infinite degree.

I know MikeW greatly enjoys using fairly coarse cross cut saws (4 1/2 - 6 PPI), but with the coarseness moderated by high fleam and low rake (30 and 25 degrees respectively)

So I suppose fleam isn't neccessary, but it's a useful tool in the design space - avoiding it on principle would seem needless.

BugBear

Re: Is Fleam Necessary?

Moses Yoder in White Pigeon, MI


>A person who always uses a table saw, radial arm saw, or chop saw to cross cut would have no need for hand crosscut saws.

Re: Is Fleam Necessary?

Moses Yoder in White Pigeon, MI


>I don't believe fleam is necessary, but I think it will make a nicer crosscut faster than if it had no fleam. The fleam angle is what brings the tooth to a sharp point, which is a real advantage when crosscutting. I have had in my mind for some time now the idea of trying a crosscut saw with fleam filed on most of the teeth, but no fleam on one tooth lets say every 2" of the saw. This would make a "raker" tooth every two inches that would remove a lot of the waste left in the center of the cut and I think this would make the saw cut faster.

Re: Is Fleam Necessary?

paul womack


>The fleam angle is what brings the tooth to a sharp point, which is a real advantage when crosscutting.

It also provides "knife" edges fore and aft of the point.

BugBear

Beautiful Saws!

Paul in NJ

Re: Is Fleam Necessary?

mikew


>Hi Moses,

"I have had in my mind for some time now the idea of trying a crosscut saw with fleam filed on most of the teeth, but no fleam on one tooth lets say every 2" of the saw. This would make a "raker" tooth every two inches that would remove a lot of the waste left in the center of the cut and I think this would make the saw cut faster."

I made a saw that was filed to have a raker tooth every 5th tooth. I cannot remember the ppi off the top of my head, I think it was either 5 or 6. This raker's top is about 1/8" or so below the teeth on either side of it. The blade is heavily breasted.

It is used for processing 8" green Spruce and it does this very well. In theory it will cut dry wood very well too, but I did not try that.

Take care, Mike

Re: Is Fleam Necessary?

joel -( tools for working wood)


>This is an interesting question but it's also a red herring.

Here's why:

Let's make an assumption - that woodworkers knew the advantages of fleam - especially on large timber saws.

Given that knowledge would an average cabinetmaker's saw of the time be capable of being filed with any significant fleam and retain sharpness after a few cuts?

Steel got better and better throughout the 18 century but really good tools were expensive and I can�t imagine that top knotch saw steel was found in every toolbox. I also don't think a softer saw would be able to be filed with a lot of fleam and not blunt pretty quick unless the steel was pretty good. So even if you had a good saw there is no guarantee that a experienced saw sharpener would recommend using fleam because of the historic tradeoff in edge longevity. (there is no evidence on way or another for this but it's a good theory).

The next question is does a cabinetmaker really need to use crosscut saws?

Well � in a hand tool shop the overwhelming use of a saw is to cut boards to width, length, cut dovetails, and tenon cheeks and shoulders. Of all these operations, most are rip cuts and only cutting shoulders requires a clean crosscut. Every other cross cut would be cut and shot even if you have a great crosscut saw. You can also cut clean tenons using a chisel. These guys were on piecework so time really is money. So the most efficient operation would be the way they would use.

Carpentry is a different matter. Here almost all the sawing operations are crosscut and need to be pretty good directly from the saw. This is for fitting moldings, trimming beams to length etc. It�s interesting that the saw size above the dovetail saw in the Sheffield key is called a �sash saw� which suggests it is used for making window parts. This is a crosscut operation and a good crosscut saw that retains sharpness would be at least marginally better than a rip saw.

A worthwhile endeavor would be to look at the tool marks on the shoulders of a late 18th century tenon and see how the joint was made. I would bet (speculations ahead), doing no research other than staring at the ceiling, that most 18th century saws could not be filed with a lot of fleam without dulling easily. A compromise for cabinetmakers � who did not usually need to cut xcut cleanly was to use a little fleam but basically it�s a rip saw. Tenon shoulders for the best work were first knifed and chisels to get a clean line. For carpenters sharpening crosscut made more sense and I bet they did this to the limits of the saw steel. By the mid 19th century when most saws made were for construction not cabinetry, crosscut saws were most of the production (that�s fact). But of course by that time cast steel was common and manufacturing steel was much more advanced. Incidentally Holly writing in the 1860�s suggests filing rips saws with a little fleam to make them more versatile.

It�s a red herring because if I�m right and the reason for not using fleam is that the traditional practice wasn�t up to the quality of the steel then it�s not a good reason for not using crosscut saws today. This is expensively true when you consider the decline on the cost of tools over the centuries. Excepting the fact that for cabinetmakers precision crosscutting isn�t a common operation so on a budget maybe you can get away without on.

Re: Is Fleam Necessary? *LINK*

Fred Peake


>The Disston D-17 and Atkins 93 had combination tooth patterns. The D-17 had 5 crosscut and 2 rip teeth with deep gullets in between. The D-17 was sold from 1918-1948 and cost 45 cents more than a normal D-8. Even though they were on the market for 30 years, they must not have been too popular, as they are not common.


Disston Double Duty

Re: Is Fleam Necessary?

mikew


>Hi Fred,

Yep. Seems there must have been enough a market to keep making them, regardless whether they are commonly found. Else it was a pet project for a few makers, but that's harder for me to imagine.

I suspect it was more a filing in the field issue--one thing to have such a saw, another to maintain it wile on the job.

The saw I mentioned above is filed peg-toothed, cuts well on the forward stroke and scores and lightly cuts on the return stroke.

The slightly lower rip-raker tooth does two things. A peg toothed saw can score wood very deeply, and even more so on green wood. So the rip-filed raker which is set about 1/8" below the tips of the cross cut teeth act as both depth limiters as well as clean out teeth.

Take care, Mike

Re: Is Fleam Necessary?

Joe Rogers, Northern Virginia


>Quite astute and concise thinking. Sums up the issue neatly. Thanks Paul.JR

Re: Is Fleam Necessary? spelling apology

Joel


>Reading this back in the quiet of the evening I am appalled at the number of word substitutions and the lack of sense some mistakes engender. This is what happens when I try to write something when I can't concentrate. Sorry for any confusion - if I could edit the msg I would.

I like your theory

Adam Cherubini,NJ


>I like your theory Joel. I'm wondering if poor quality steel is a reason for higher raked rip saws. The teeth may not have been strrong enough for an aggressive rake.

BUT Todd always says (and I've heard elsewhere) that 18th c saws are brittle - not necessarily soft. They were also probably inconsistent in thickness and properties.

Regardless- I'll bet you're right generally that they changed their filing to suit their steel.

Adam

Re: I like your theory

Joel


>I think the steel depends on when the saw dates from and saws from the time period are mostly gone. HArd saws from the period would have been harder to file and more would have survived.

But the problem is the same. A hard brittle saw with lots of fleam - weak brittle teeth that crack. soft saw with lots of fleam dulls to fast.

Re: I like your theory

mikew


>"...A hard brittle saw with lots of fleam - weak brittle teeth that crack. soft saw with lots of fleam dulls to fast."

Hmm. Most likely the latter portion would be true as regards dulling, not sure about the former part.

But then, it's not like I have a lot of 18th century hard, brittle saws to play with. But the couple I do have and the early 19th century saws I have are all hard steel, with few exceptions. Those esceptions have steel which files very comparably with latter 19th century saws I have.

My probably faulty assumption is that the impact of sawing with a hard saw with less fleam would equal broken teeth. Perhaps even one with a lot of rake.

Interesting things to think about though.

Take care, Mike

Early saws

Paul in NJ


>Mike,

I know you are a busy fellow, but if you have some time it would be neat to see some early saws and hear what your impressions of them are.

Paul Dzioba

Re: I like your theory

Joel


>The problem I am having with all of this is that any 18 century saw, like it's cousin the chisel, should have worn out from use a long time ago. The survivors survived for a reason. In many cases the reasons could be the saw wasn't very good. but we really don't know with the exception of a fwe tools, like the Seaton chest tools where the tools were specifically put away, if the tools survived because they just happened to be lost behind a bench somewhere for 200 years, or if they were not used because soemthing was wrong enough with them so a 18th or 19th century person felt better tools were easily avialable and the used tool in question was not worth using. There was as we know a healthy market in old tools then as is now.

Incidently I am also refferring to early 18th century tools too, in a sense the traditional tool culture before the 1880's where there started to be a real jump in steel quality. the OVerwhelming number of 18th century tools that survive are from the very end of the century when tool production was way up.

I am really curious has a saw made of blister steel, with it's embedded impurities, would have faired if the teeth were too hard. Cast steel in my mind would have worked a lot better.