Is Fleam Necessary?

evidence

Larry Williams


>Here's a 26" panel saw, probably ca. 1780, where the rear teeth survive pretty much intact. At a minimum, the rear teeth are still shaped very much as they originally were. The handle rivets help date the saw; the center rivet hasn't been messed with, the top rivet has been tightened and the bottom rivet has been replaced with a dome-head screw.

One can see the original final shape of the back of the blade and the fact the teeth tops are even with the plane of the un-toothed area. The teeth are very uniform in this area and show evidence of only being lightly filed near the top. These teeth, by their pitch and shape, are clearly cross-cut teeth with fleam.

Cross-cut teeth enable more accuracy in use and provide a much better finish without the blow-out of a rip saw. This saves the woodworker labor in the long run. The simple fact is that 18th Century woodworkers may well have had a better working knowledge of cutting geometry than contemporary woodworkers if Internet discussions are indicative. Rip teeth are chisel shaped to remove shavings parallel to the grain while cross-cut teeth are designed to shave the end grain on their sides. All the woodworking tools evolved with these design differences, why would saws be any different?

BTW, the steel in this saw is very nice. If not for its historic value, I'd put this saw to work.

Re: evidence

Paul in NJ


>Larry,

Thanks for the pictures and your comments. I cannot believe with the pressure to work quickly and efficiently that 18th century woodworkers used crosscut saws without some fleam. They were a clever and intelligent lot.

Paul Dzioba

Stunning find, Larry!

Wiley Horne


>Quite amazing, in fact. Do you make this saw to be English? Also, is the fleam angle in the ballpark of what we use today?

Wiley

almost by accident

Larry Williams


>We went to demonstrate at a tool meet in Waleska, GA six years ago. A saw collector there had this saw and I was attracted to the craftsmanship evident in its handle and by the hammered finish of the blade. He said he had several other 18th Century style saws but someone had replaced the saw screws on this one and he decided to sell it. At $18 I hesitated but bought it. As it turns out the very thing that almost caused me to not buy the saw, is one of the most valuable things about it. It's been hanging in the shop since.

Earlier this year Erv Schafer's and Don McConnell's book came out. When reading about dating British saws and the rivets used before screws, I checked the saw. Erv indicates that about 1780 they switched from square washers on the rivets to round ones but very shortly afterward, within the same time frame, screws with split nuts came into use.

Close examination of my saw revealed two of the rivets are original but I shouldn't have said the screw replacement was a domed screw. It's actually a round head stove bolt with a square nut and the original round washer under the head. The square nut isn't all that square, almost diamond shaped, so I think it's an early change.

The pitch of the teeth is 12� or 12� of negative rake. The fleam angle reads to be about 27 1/2� which is greater than found today. Don has more experience with hand saws than I do. The more acute fleam angle of this saw agrees with that suggested by Charles Johnson's early 1900�s Saw Dictionary. Don has experimented with Johnson's methods and found this kind of acute fleam angle extremely fast cutting but unforgiving of poor technique. He tells me downward pressure on such a saw makes it difficult to use. With proper technique, however, he says it makes work very easy and fast.

Don and I sometimes discuss how tools seem to have been dumbed down over the years for a less skilled market. We both believe this is the case with saws, just as it's been for planes. When the market was skilled and a training system in place there were far more options available in planes and a more varied selection of cutting geometry selections. It was probably the same for saws and they likely used a more varied set of options than we have today. Johnson�s book certainly explains more than is common today. We both believe trained early woodworkers used these greater options to their advantage where today we end up with that which creates fewer problems for less skilled workers.

Here's a photo of that saw. I wish it still had its nib and maker's mark.

Re: almost by accident

mikew


>It is a beauty, Larry. Thanks very much for the pictures and commentary.

fwiw, even Henry Disston laments the "need" to dumb down his saws because of the state of "mechanics." We would be naive indeed to think we are beter/smarter etc., than even these workers of wood.

But much is discoverable back to a certain point in texts. And because of chance dicoveries and preservation of the saw you found, we have a physical snapshot.

Again, thanks for sharing. Mike

Heres another one

Todd Hughes


>I have a few of these older saws which have rivets instead of saw screws...I don't know if it means they are older then the saw screw ones which I think were used pretty early on, but rather maybe just reflects a cheaper way to make a saw. I do think they are an early saw. Anyway here is one I found out in my kitchen last week while cleaning my house up , [was under the kitchen table!] never got around to cleaning it up. If I remember right bought it for $1 over in Deleware last year. All the rivets are original and never monkeyed with. Is interesting in that it has 2 different owners names branded , not stamped, on the handle. I always heard that branded names were done in South East Penn.....Todd

"hammered finish"

Wiley Horne


>Great story! $18? Course when you need the $18, you gotta think about it.

What does the hammered finish tell us about how the saw was made? Would this be a hot-forged finish, or cold-worked?

Wiley

Also, where

Wiley Horne


>can Don and Erv's book be found? Title?

Wiley .... obviously not up to date.

Re: evidence

Warren in Lancaster, PA


>Larry, you cite as evidence the fact that the untoothed portion in back of the teeth is even with the tips of the teeth and suggest that this means those teeth were hardly ever filed. I have an untoothed portion on one of my saws. It gets filed flush with the teeth every time I joint the saw. Are you suggesting that saws were not jointed in the 18th century? Or the 19th century or the 20th century?

If that saw had been sharpened and jointed many times that flat untoothed area would have become longer because of the sloping area at the back of the saw. I think the fact that there is ample room for another tooth on this flat suggests the possibility that this has occurred.

Re: Also, where

Larry Williams


>Wiley,

About the only thing I can say about the hammered finish is that a trip hammer was used at some point in the manufacture of this saw. Roller mills most certainly were in use at that point in history.

The book is available on our web site and is listed on the "Sample" page or from Osage Press:

Osage Press

PO Box 5082

Rockford, IL 61125-0082

phone: (815)-398-0602

The Book Hand-saw Makers of Britain is mostly a checklist or directory of British hand saw makers.

Re: evidence

Larry Williams


>Oh sure Warren, I finally get this thread going in a direction indicating 18th Century woodworkers were skilled tradesmen rather than hacks and you have to jump in and talk about actual experience sharpening saws. :)

You asked, "Are you suggesting that saws were not jointed in the 18th century? Or the 19th century or the 20th century?"

No, I'm not suggesting that at all. While the front teeth of this saw shows ample evidence of being sharpened without jointing, who ever did that didn't bother with sharpening the last few teeth. I suppose it is possible a more skilled person had earlier sharpened the saw a number of times. Who ever may have done that would have been a pretty good saw sharpener and would certainly have been able to add a tooth to that flat.

Re: evidence

Warren in Lancaster, PA


>I could not agree more with the main primise. If you are looking for sophisticated craftsmanship, better to look at the 1780's than the 1880's. I think the fancy tools of the late 19th century were made in response to a decline in skill and are not an indication of more sophisticated work. Even today craftsmen seem to want to replace skill with finer tools.

Re: Is Fleam Necessary?

MIles


>I've been wondering about a related idea - to take a hint from the way chainsaws and some circular saw blades have features that prevent a tooth from digging in & grabbing - on the chainsaw it's a little stub just before the tooth, that you have to file down a hair when it's resharpened (otherwise the depth of cut = 0 and you don't go anywhere - DAMHIKT...)

So, if we wanted to prevent a handsaw from 'grabbing', could we imagine leaving some of the teeth with suitably blunt/angled tops that run along the bottom of the kerf, thus setting the depth of cut taken by the sharp teeth which are a fraction longer. With controlled 'bite' of the sharp teeth, one could reduce the sensitivity of the sawing operation to the pressure applied, etc. and make a saw behave nicely.... I hope this is clear!

Has anyone tried something like this? Any chainsaw / circ-saw tooth design experts around to comment?

Just another harebrained idea from the old country...

Miles

Re: Is Fleam Necessary?

mikew


>Hi Miles,

The doo-hickey on the chain saw is a raker, though on the chain saw its purpose is solely that of a depth limiter. On a handsaw, one can file a raker tooth every X number of teeth. Disston and a couple other makers had tooth designs like this, and it is a feature on one and two-man cross cut saws.

The saw below was made this way. I filed it with a modified peg-tooth shape, and every 5th or so tooth is a raker. The rakers are about 1/8" below the toothline of the cross cut peg teeth. The rakers are also filed straight across. These serve to limit depth and clean the kerf.

A peg tooth shape scores deeply, especially in green Spruce like this saw is used for. So the rakers also finish severing the fibers.

Take care, Mike

Re: Is Fleam Necessary?

Marc in Luxembourg


>Miles, Mike,

May I add a closeup of the teeth geometry of this wonderfully handcrafted saw? In the middle you see the raker tooth.

Regards, Marc

Re: Is Fleam Necessary?

paul womack


>Nice job on the photography, Marc!

(that's really hard to do)

BugBear (taking the excellence of the saw for granted :-)

Re: Is Fleam Necessary?

Miles


>Once again, I have an idea that turns out to be old hat... that's good, it means I'm not talking complete nonsense!

In your example, Mike, you described the raker as filed 'straight across' - does this refer to the face of the tooth being rip-filed in contrast to the crosscut teeth, or to the top of the tooth (the depth-limiting surface) having a flat area rather than a sharply pointed top as in Marc's photo. I would have chosen the flat version if I were trying to get this depth-limiting behaviour - what did you decide?

Does your 'depth-limited' saw behave in a notably better way in some circumstances? I.e. is it worth doing this?

cheers to all 'saw dentists' on WC!

Miles

Re: Is Fleam Necessary?

mikew


>Hi Miles,

In Marc's case--that's his saw and thankfully Marc posted pictures of the teeth [Thanks Marc!]--cutting 6" to 8" green Spruce trees, yes, I think it was a cost effective way to do the teeth that is easy to do, especially in the field. You should see Marc's toolbox [hint hint] that he takes into the woods.

Anyway, especially with green wood, the concern is the teeth sinking in so deep they would stall the saw before the fibers were severed. So the rakers are quite simply a rip tooth profile. The angle of the rip tooth allows clean out without themselves being a source of binding like a "regular" rip tooth that would otherwise be steeper on one face might cause.

The tooth patterns for something like the Disston et al handsaws which were billed as combination teeth are better for dry wood, and do work.

Back to Marc's. That tooth design works on dry wood, but would be a little fragile for everyday use on all but dry softwood, perhaps Poplar and Cherry if it isn't really hard Cherry.

There were literally dozens and dozens of patented tooth filings. Some/many included raker teeth, some better for specific types of woods. Most variation on a theme.

And many not suitable for dry woods such as those used in the everday furniture trades. But a few. Maybe 6-12 which are interesting. A couple which hold promise to provide extremely clean and quick cutting.

Take care, Mike

Re: Is Fleam Necessary?

Marc in Luxembourg


>Hi Mike, Miles

Well I didn't try the saw in hardwood till now. I knew about the low bevel angle (fleam 30�)and that hardwood didn't match the brittle edges. So Mike's invitation was worth having a break from work and going into the shop. I sawed an oak scrap piece. I had the impression the saw'd cut slower than a classic crosscut pattern. The sawed faces had a polished finish I never saw until today. On green and dry spruce the saw works with excellence, well of course that's its purpose :-^ It's maybe not as fast as a japanese cc but it never binds despite a very fine setting.

Regards, Marc

PS: I join a pic of the toolbox. I don't think it is very special except the tools it keeps ;-) All tools are that clean because it isn't the season now and you know the resin is better removed after work ;-)

Re: I like your theory

Miles


>I wonder if the less-than perfect saw plates on early saws led to saw teeth being set more than is necessary today when they are flat & uniform - modern Japanese saws with no set seem to work fine, even if the plates are not tapered towards the back. Were they always like this?

I like the idea of using a no-set saw in a miter box, for example, where a conventionally-set western saw cannot perfectly follow the angle of the guide slot (even if the same saw cut the slot in the first place) and tends to widen the slot each time it is used. This wouldn't happen with a no-set saw. I'm not convinced that it would bind so much as to be impractical.

This is a most interesting thread - as it always is when we go back to the fundamentals and think carefully about what is going on with our tools.

Miles

Re: I like your theory

thomd


>Japanese saws do have set. For instance there is a significant difference between trying a flush cut with the average Japanese saw and a flush cut saw. I guess the crosscut saws are different because they operate on the principle of much finer teeth with much deeper gullets to deal with the excess sawdust, so the amount of set is fine relative to the cutting power.

Re: Also, where

Don Orr


>Larry, can you tell me (us) what your website is? I'd like to see what you have to offer there.

Thanks, Don

Here :-)

Joe Rogers, Northern Virginia


>Go to ...

www.planemaker.com/

for Clark and Williams website. JR

Re: Heres another one (drive by gloat)

tom b.


>Got this saw at a flea market yesterday. Looks a lot like the saws pictured in Larry's and Todd's posts. Not sure if it's actually an 18th century saw like theirs. I guess I should get a copy of Don's book and learn more about it.

My thanks to Larry and Todd for their posts. I'm sure I'd have overlooked it like the other tool pickers there yesterday if I hadn't read their posts beforehand.

Re: Heres another one (2nd pic)

tom b.


>another view