Dovetail Saw- new or vintage?

UKworkshop.co.uk

Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
New vs old is a wandering discussion, because people are coming from different directions. Recently The Traditional Tools Group carried out a comparison between new - Adria, LN, Wenzloff, Gramercy dovetail saws (with old S & J and Groves saws, and a couple of Jap saws thrown in for contrast).

The new saws were preferred by participants, with the LN slightly ahead on points, the handle was the main distinguishing factor - both "feel" and "prejudice"; only 2 testers had a modern saw (LN). The LN was the most familiar handle shape, although people were warming to the Wenzloff, I preferred the Gramercy (I have large hands, and the small handle seems to suit us).

A little ramble of my experience: my all-time favourite dovetail saw handle is an old Taylor Bros (Aus$1) with a beyond redemption blade. The answer is obvious, get a saw kit and make a handle just like it.

Sharpening a dovetail saw is very easy, even for the visually challenged like me. My sight has dropped quite a bit in the last 2 years and I struggle with xcut saws (have just about worked out a strategy and the last saw was ok). All rip saws are easy, dovetail the easiest (using the flip up magnifying lens on the prescription glasses).

It only takes 1 or 2 swipes per tooth, no angles to worry about; no set - I usually do not even run a stone down the blade, the first few cuts of the saw wears off the wire edge, and the filing burr provides enough set; I am working only in dry hardwood.

Like Bugbear I buy saws cheap, typically $zero to Aus$1, max $5, although I have paid Aus$40 for a pristine sharp Atkins #51, xcut and the same for a 31/2ppi Disston #12 Rip in VG condition. I sell a lot of saws for $10-$20 each (cleaned, not sharpened), so in nett terms they probably cost me very little overall. I have sold a few interesting saws for $40+. There should be no need for anyone to need to use a pitted old saw, there are heaps out there just dirty and with surface rust that is easy to get rid of -- and you enventually have to sharpen any saw.

I find the reflection of the edge in the blade very useful, so am now taking user saws and polishing the bejesus out of them. One recent 1950's Disston 22" panel saw 10ppi was in pretty good condition (cost $0), still with the etch, teeth blunt but well shaped, probably never sharpened after someone used it to cut Gyprock (what Americans call drywall I think).

I polished the blade to shiny, getting rid of much of the poorly made etch (this is a modern saw after all, but the 1950's metal was still good); and then I shaped the handle to suit my grip. Now I have a good panel saw to supplement my fine c1900 probably never sharpened Disston 20" 8ppi (came in box of saws and other stuff that cost $1) that is my favourite saw for xcut (getting blunt though, when I am confident of my xcut filing again I will sharpen it up - last time was around 3 years or so ago). I used the great old Disston handle as a model for the modern saw.

After all that I decided to keep (and pay for) the Gramercy and Wenzloff saws that were lent for the demo. So now I use the S & J, Gramercy and Wenzloff saws more or less equally. I am obviously lacking discrimination.

If I found an old Taylor Bros with a good blade, well that would be my choice.

There is a place for modern hardpoint saws, I do have one for rough work that came with a bunch of other saws. One day I was using a nice old Simonds xcut ,with good etch that I had sharpened, to cut up rough, dirty old timber, to the horror of a tool collector who was there (using a beat up old saw of some sort). Well I do have plenty of saws and they owe me little, but conceded I should not use an antique for rough work.

Currently only Wenzloff (on long back order and not cheap, but worth it) makes a quality handsaws so there is no choice but an old saw.
 
Tony":3fbbc0ur said:
bugbear":3fbbc0ur said:
Tony":3fbbc0ur said:
Consider your points decried.

BugBear

Unfortunately, I don't consider them decried by your comments BB.

The reason is that from postings on here and conversations I have heard about, it appears to be the case that you do not actually make much (anything?) and have an interest in collecting and restoring old tools simply becasue you like old tools, rather than to use them in earnest.
Clearly, a person form this perspective is not going to agree that modern tools are superior to their beloved old tools.

My interest is purely in using good quality tools to make furniture and I don't want to spend ages trying to make them work (some of my tools are old, and some new). My experience over the past 15+ years is that in general old tools are not as good as decent quality new ones such as LV, LN Clifton, Adria, Wenzloff etc. etc. and usually require considerable effort just to get them working reasonably well.

Rose tinted spectacles are fine, but progress is generally forward, improving things. Would you rather live in the technology of the 1800s or post 2000?

I tend to adopt this view as well in that new top quality tools are superior in all respects...the problem lies in the cost (as always) 'specially for a newcomer to woodwork and cabinetmaking, which is why it's always useful to appreciate the older tools as they can be picked up and tuned for a fraction of the price of a new LN (for example)...the next hurdle then is building up sufficient knowledge and expertise to make an old tool work :) - Rob
 
Tony":3duh9f98 said:
bugbear":3duh9f98 said:
Consider your points decried.

BugBear

Unfortunately, I don't consider them decried by your comments BB.
heh - I didn't say "refuted", I said "decried"...

tony":3duh9f98 said:
The reason is that from postings on here and conversations I have heard about, it appears to be the case that you do not actually make much (anything?) and have an interest in collecting and restoring old tools simply because you like old tools, rather than to use them in earnest.
Clearly, a person form this perspective is not going to agree that modern tools are superior to their beloved old tools.

I would agree that I am prejudiced in favour of older tools, but (I like to think) not to the point of ludicrous blindness to the merits of the new. I have some distinctly non vintage sharpening equipment, for example, not just Charnley Forest and Turkey stones.

tony":3duh9f98 said:
My interest is purely in using good quality tools to make furniture and I don't want to spend ages trying to make them work (some of my tools are old, and some new). My experience over the past 15+ years is that in general old tools are not as good as decent quality new ones such as LV, LN Clifton, Adria, Wenzloff etc. etc. and usually require considerable effort just to get them working reasonably well.

Ah - perhaps the difference in view point is telling. You appear to be talking about the performance of old saws "as found", I'm referring to old saws restored (as far as I am able) to the best of their potential.

Rose tinted spectacles are fine, but progress is generally forward, improving things. Would you rather live in the technology of the 1800s or post 2000?

I think progress is forward by definition; however progress does not always correlate with the passage of time; in particular I think the average quality of tools took a complete nose dive during 1965-1985. It is amusing to note that much (not all) of the merit of modern "super tools" is achieved by duplicating wholesale the features from very old tools. The LN dovetail saw, for example, is a very close copy of a very old saw by Groves and Sons, dated to 1830...

If you don't have the time or inclination to restore an old tool to high performance, that's your choice. But I assure you it is possible, and I happen to find it most enjoyable.

BugBear
 
This old saw performance vs. new saw performance is funny! :lol: A lot of things affect saw performance but I have no idea how age gets to be one of them.
I have a Wenzloff dovetail saw and it cuts beautifully, not because it is new but because Mike Wenzloff is one heck of a saw sharpener. As Bugbear says, at some point it will become dull and I will sharpen it. Then it will only be as good as my sharpening skill which is the state of my other saws. The thing is, one of my sharpened saws will "outperform" any dull "supersaw" (I like that one!).
What is "performance" anyway? Speed? Smoothness of cut? Ease of starting? What thickness and species of wood do we use to determine "performance"? It doesn't matter because next week the MaxxiSuperCutTurbo will be out and it will blow all other saws out of the water!!! :lol:
 
There's an interesting article on Western Backsaws in the Spring Edition of Woodworking.

Historically, Tenon saws were 16" to 20" long , 10TPI, filed Rip and used for cutting Tenons!
The Sash saw were 14" to 16" long with 11TPI and filled Rip or crosscut.
The Carcase saw were 10" to 14" with 12 to 14" TPI, pistol grip and filed crosscut.

Nowadays, the modern Tenon saw has a similar specification of the Sash and has become a general purpose saw rather than one just for cutting tenons?

The author (Chris Schwarz) has some photos showing old timers cutting large tenon cheeks with a 26" rip saw!

Rod
 
Harbo":38al167z said:
The author (Chris Schwarz) has some photos showing old timers cutting large tenon cheeks with a 26" rip saw!

Rod

From Ellis "Modern Practical Joinery" I imagine.

BugBear
 
Roger Nixon":3m984t8i said:
What is "performance" anyway? Speed? Smoothness of cut? Ease of starting?

Indeed. My present favourite DT is an old Sorby, pistol grip.

sorby35.JPG


I sharpened it with 8 degree rake AND fleam. The small amount of fleam allows me to keep track of the "to" and "from" teeth during sharpening and setting (I normally find this very difficult on small, pure rip teeth, with very little set).

The large rake (for a rip) makes starting easier. Since (IMHO) starting accuracy is a higher requirment on a DT saw than cutting speed, I think this is a good compromise. I also admit to liking the symmetry of having identical rake and fleam :)

Now, I know this saw is an effective dovetail cutter.

But is it crosscut or rip? (*)

BugBear

(*) the answer is, of course, we don't have enough names for all the cutting actions we can file
 
This guy is the best saw sharpener I know.
ripping.jpeg

He, too, puts a little fleam on most of his rip saws.
Do you find the fleam reduces the blow out on the back side of the cut?
 
Roger Nixon":2wgi9uhf said:
Do you find the fleam reduces the blow out on the back side of the cut?

I haven't really done a controlled enough test to know.

In the interests of humility, I will point out that that particular DT saw was sharpened with an extreme case of cows and calves, but still cuts OK, since the teeth tips all line up (due to jointing).

BugBear
 
Back to Andrew's OP...
The best advice is to buy what you like. If you like it, you will be happy with it. There is nothing magical in the steel used for saws especially smaller backed saws. It has to be soft enough to cut with a file or the saw is disposable.
The real issue with older saws is finding what you like. A 19th century Disston D4 with its comfortable apple handle is a great tenon/carcass saw but I have found only a few good quality ones in the wild. On the other hand, you could call LN and have a replica with a curly maple handle and brass back that is sharp and ready to go and have it delivered.
I just ordered a Disston #9 halfback inspired saw from Wenzloff and I was able to specify the length, pitch, tooth geometry and handle material.
I would never hope to find something like that in the wild.
 
Can anyone point me to any references (online would be great, but books also good) for the differences between saws and how it actually affects the mechanics of sawing.

I keep hearing of the great differences between rip and cross cut saws, but I have no real idea what the differences are, or why they matter.

Maybe it is my techie background, but I have to know how and why things work, not just how to use them (yes I was a trial to my mother as a child).
 
Back
Top