Replies

1. 
   Handrubbed | Sep 28, 2006 09:03pm | #1

   I can respond on the half-back saw from Mike Wenzloff.  I have the 20" version and it is very versatile.  Mine is filed cross-cut and I use it for first cuts and other utility cuts where a finer tooth is not needed.  I really like the extra stiffness of the half-back. The hang of the handle is very different from a panel saw and makes it very nice when doing cuts with the pieces clamped in my bench vise.  Do yourself a favor and make a saw bench, also.  I use mine for both sawing and resting my duff after a workout with the handplanes.  I'm sure Mike will give you many other good reasons to like this saw.

1. 
   agomega | Sep 28, 2006 10:56pm | #2

   You mentioned that you use your saw where a finer tooth is not needed. How many ppi is your saw?

   It is interesting that you mentioned the hang of the handle and how it is easier to make cuts with the work at bench height. That makes sense since the hang seems to have a little more angle on it than a panel saw. This probably makes it easier to cut when you are standing at that height above the work. The hang of a panel saw handle is less angled and seems more suited tomaking cuts on a lower height saw bench where you can stand above the work and saw down into the work at a steeper angle.

   I mentioned in my original post that I recently completed a saw bench. It is very handy, even just to sit on like you said. I especially appreciate it with larger stock where you can just hold the wood down with your knee and make the cut.

2. 
   mwenz | Sep 29, 2006 03:02am | #3

   Hi Phil,

   Watch out for saws--slippery slope indeed!

   I think it is good for this to be a post, though you are of course welcome to call anytime. I'm as interested in others' answers as you are.

   The panel saws are by their nature shorter, as well as generally of greater pitch [ppi] than larger handsaws. We do make longer saws, they just are not on the web site, which is hopefully being fully revamped soon. The Kenyons we are doing are 26", we have a dozen 28" rip and cross cuts to do soon and even a 5' pit saw...

   [1] A panel saw, something which I tend to use for more cuts per inch than longer saws are useful when combined with greater pitch for cuts closer to, or at, final dimension. This places the hand's movement, or rather restricts it, closer to the work and I believe helps for greater accuracy in both cutting close to the line and being accurate in square or beveled consistently.

   [2] I recommend several factors when selecting a backsaw to be used for joinery. [A] the usable depth. Enough to cut the joint. [B] the length of the saw long enough for an efficient stroke. And [C] the pitch of the saw appropriate for the thickness and or length of cut. [D] type of wood regularly cut.

   [A] is self explanatory, though there are instances I will begin a cut with a particular backsaw and then use a half-back to finish the cut because the usable depth exceeds my backsaw. [B] has to do with being able to take fewer strokes, which I think improves accuracy. [C] I think one of the most overlooked factors in our choosing a saw is the number of PPI--and it is often too many PPI. For instance, selecting a saw with too many PPI will allow the gullets to be clogged with waste prior to exiting the opposite side of the cut. This in essence causes the far side of the saw to ride up, much less cause more strokes to advance than is necessary. [D] It does no good to use a saw filed aggressively for a secondary wood and then attempt to saw Jatoba or other very hard wood. The other way-round does work, albeit slower.

   [3] The London pattern is mostly a stylistic issue. Kind of like the nib...

   [4] The saws in the Seaton chest are all of differing handle "hangs." So the DT has the most, the carcass a little less hang, the sash yet less, etc. This follows the "convention" of other makers before and since. And it is appropriate, though various makers have greater or lesser hang model for model.

   A *very* general idea is that the palm is angled to about 2/3 of the way down the toothline. So the shorter the saw, the greater the hang. In reality this is a general concept which varied even with some makers on the same line of saws as the making process will alter this a tad either way.

   [5] Aside from the distinctive toe of the No. 9 as shown on the web site, the greatest difference is in the feel of the handle in-hand. Very comfy and positive to hold. Disston also made the No. 9 with a square toe, and shows up in at least saws destined for school use a century and less ago. We've made several 10" ones of late with a square toe, but also have made a few of 16" length with a square toe.

   [6] The Half-Back. Do be aware the one on the web site is not like those Disston and other makers made. This saw is mainly influenced in design by my love of early 20th century Modern furniture, and so is a little more rounded. We are making a pair of replica Disston #8 half-backs. You can see what one looks like by scrolling down the link:
   http://www.disstonianinstitute.com/backsawpage.html

   As for its intended usage--like the nib, I have heard several "reasons" none of which I have seen historical evidence for. What I use it for is as a bench saw. Mostly in conjunction with a miter jack for cutting smaller work to size, though I also use it off-bench at times. I also have used one filed rip for deepening through tenons of late.

   Don't know if I got to all the questions, but soon my sons are going to lynch me if I don't get back out to the shop...

   Take care, Mike

1. 
   agomega | Sep 29, 2006 11:09pm | #5

   Mike,

   Thanks for taking the time to provide such a thorough response to all of my questions. I always enjoy reading your posts. I have a couple of further questions if you don't mind.

   In your answer to my tenon saw question you mentioned that it is best not to have too many ppi in a joinery saw. I assume that "too many" depends on whether you are ripping or crosscutting. I usually see rip saws with less ppi than crosscut saws. Is this due to the shape of the teeth and how effectively they remove waste. On your website you recommend 9 to 12 ppi. Would 9 ppi be recommended for a rip saw and 12 ppi recommended for a crosscut saw?

   You also mentioned that you would file a saw differently depending on what types of wood the saw would be used for. I remember reading Derek's thread where he described how you sharpened an independence saw specially for the harder woods he usually works with. Can you generally summarize how you would sharpen a rip or crosscut saw for harder woods as opposed to normal hardwoods such as walnut, cherry, maple, etc.? Also would you apply these sharpening techniques only to joinery saws or would you use the same filing angles on panel saws?

   Is there any specific purpose for the distinctive toe of the number 9 or is it primarily a decorative element? Basically what would prompt someone to order one with or without the rounded toe?

   You mentioned in your response how you personally used the half back saw. Do you have a handful of saws that stand out to you as your favorites? I know this might be like asking you to choose your favorite child, but I thought it would be interesting to know which saws are your favorite and how you use them. This would be especially interesting since you pretty much have access to whatever kind of saw you want.

   Thanks again for taking the time to answer all of my questions. It is such a pleasure to have people like you on this website who know so much and are so willing to share.

   -Phil

    

2. 
   agomega | Sep 29, 2006 11:28pm | #7

   Mike,

   I forgot to ask you in my last response about Adam's suggestion. Do you have pictures of all the Seaton saws? I have seen your picture of the Tenon saw but I haven't seen links to any of the others on your site.  

   Also, I forgot to ask you one more question. Can you feel the difference in performance between a panel saw with a tapered blade and one without a taper? I have heard that it is supposed  to reduce friction and make the cutting easier, but I was wondering if it actually made a noticeable difference or if it was just a good theory.

   Thanks again,

   Phil

1. 
   mwenz | Sep 30, 2006 09:22am | #9

   Hi Phil,

   No worries. That's why we come to forums: to help each other.

   Joinery saw PPIOften times as regards tenons, I have seen, read and talked to many people who simply are frustrated because it takes so much effort to saw their tenons. On very hard woods such as Jatoba or Bloodwood, hard Maple or Australian hardwoods, one needs greater PPIs and perhaps a touch of fleam added to the rip type teeth to saw efficiently and smoothly.

   But for less hard woods, when these same saws are used, the sawing is laborious simply due to the number of strokes needed to advance the saw in the cut. I think this is also a potential source of sawing off line.

   For a given wood hardness, rip saws typically have fewer teeth than a cross cut. But understand this is not a hard and fast rule. Talking about efficiency of cutting and lessening of effort. A rip saw is basically a high-angle scraper. It doesn't sever fiber like a cross cut. Too, the long-grain orientation a rip saw is called upon to cut is what makes this scraping action efficient. Trying to scrape wood cross-grain take far more effort and rarely results in a clean surface cut. Though if the line is scored with a marking knife, it is essentially like cutting a cross-grain rabbet with a straight-bladed plow such as a Stanley #78. It works, but not like a skewed rabbet plane [i.e. a cross cut saw].

   I feel that when someone selects a saw, they should look for the fewest teeth in the appropriate tooth configuration which achieves the desired result. So for instance. If I had a 3" wide tenon that is 2" or greater deep to saw in say Walnut or Cherry, to use a 12 ppi rip backsaw may not be efficient use of my energy. This is because over that distance, the gullets will fill with waste and literally attempt to lift the saw before it has a chance to evacuate from the far side of the cut.

   This is due to the structure of the Walnut or Cherry--it is soft enough that the teeth will remove waste faster than it can exit. However, on Lyptus or Jatoba, the structure of the wood will not allow much to be scraped from its end-grain cell structure and the 12 ppi will not clog on the same dimension tenon. In fact, that number of teeth will allow a smoother scraping action and so deepen the cut faster than too few of ppi. So selecting ppi really comes down to wood and purpose. And compromises generally need to be made as to how many saws one owns.

   SharpeningI often add a little fleam angle to a rip when I know it is going to be used on hard woods. For a cross cut on the same woods, perhaps a little more rake and more fleam. Same applies to any saw. For instance, Alice Frampton [Alf] had picked up a 6 ppi saw and it cleaned up really well. She was thinking about having the ppi increased and I mentioned she may want to add a bit more rake and fleam than she normally would:http://cornishworkshop.blogspot.com/2006/09/sawing-machine.html

   One issue is how many saws does a woodworker really need in order to handle their work? I personally have more than a few, but my circumstance is not typical nor practical for most wood workers. I think that with judicious thought as to the work one does with the woods one uses, as little as 2 saws and for the most part no more than 6. That these should vary a bit between them to handle various encounters with wood is to me a given. What those details are depends on the person.

   No. 9 toe detailI read somewhere that it was for reaching into tighter recesses, but cannot remember if it was Disston's words or someone's statement. For me it is decorative and only marginally a functional issue. It does lessen the weight at the very toe. The saw is very well balanced in use. In part I believe it is the toe, mostly the handle shape which affords a very positive grip.

   Half-Back saw and Personal FavsWell, you need to remember I have a lot of saws to choose from. My saw affliction started long before I began making them. But some do stand out as seeing more use than the others.

   Two would be a pair of 10" rip/cc, open handled carcass saws. They're based my vintage Moulson [which I also use a lot]. I have a pair, one rip, the other a cross cut. The cc I use for nearly all shoulder cuts.

   Another would be a couple No. 9s for smaller tenons. One is a 10", the other is 12". I like the feel of the handle. I use these as, well, small tenon saws.

   For larger tenons, I use mostly a 16" vintage Fulton.

   And of course as a general purpose bench saw, a HB.

   And well, there are also the panel saws which see frequent use, as well as the full-sized 26" to 28" saws. Many are fairly low ppi. I break down the 5' x 5' Baltic Birch ply I use from time to time with a coarse handsaw with lots of fleam, same with rough cutting to length of exotics like Purpleheart.

   Second verse, same as the first [my apologies to Herman's Hermits]I do have pictures of the Kenyon saws we've made. In the throws of getting saws out the door, I choose to not take pictures of each order before I packed them. And many of the pictures turned out poorly and I didn't find out until too late. The better pictures are here:http://wenzloffandsons.com/saws/kenyon/

   Tapered vs. non-tapered bladesWell, this answer is one which has caused a lot of stir on various forums. My answer is mostly in-line with Adam's. In part my answer depends on moisture content of wood, species and usage. In general, I see no real advantage if the set is enough [which depends on species] to sawing to a line. Where I see the biggest advantage is efficiency of long rips or cross cutting wide boards. When withdrawing a saw for the return stroke, lessening the resistance is advantageous.

   Whether taper grinding is the answer, or whether simply relieving some of the thickness along the back is open for debate.

   The Kenyon full-sized saws in the Seaton chest did not have much taper grinding in comparison to mid- to latter-19th century saws of the same length. We make them with about 6 to 8 thou of set to each side and taper ground as close to the originals as we can. They work very well in this configuration. I have two early 19th century handsaws without taper grinding, though the very upper edge is what I call thinned, or relieved. With about the same amount of set, I cannot tell the difference in dry woods.

   One thing that is a big difference is the weight. I like the weight. In use it is not that noticeable to me. Not cabinet making anyway. The weight to me is one of the advantages.

   Take care, Mike

   Edited 9/30/2006 2:30 pm by mwenz

1. 
   eddiefromAustralia | Oct 02, 2006 03:21am | #10

   To quote Mike: "On very hard woods such as Jatoba or Bloodwood, hard Maple or Australian hardwoods, one needs greater PPIs and perhaps a touch of fleam added to the rip type teeth to saw efficiently and smoothly."Hi Mike,I don't have a problem with a standard rip saw on hardwoods. Cuts fairly cleanly and quickly without fleam. Probably my best handsaws are old disstons and something else that's got a saw plate at least half as thick again (as the Disston) - the weight of the thing makes cutting a breeze.I'm having a cleanup at the moment - there's a uteful of scraps destined for the dump tomorrow. If you want something seamailed over, let me know your address by clicking on my user profile and sending me an email, and in return, I'll shoot you over some ironbark, jarrah and ??? (I'd have to look and see what I'm tossing out - it'd be a 'softer' hardwood of some description - about similar to the Lyptus(R) that they sell in the US.)Best regards,eddieEdit: Standard saw ppi is about 8-10 for crosscut and 5 or 6 for rip

   Edited 10/1/2006 8:23 pm by eddiefromAustralia

1. 
   mwenz | Oct 02, 2006 05:04am | #11

   Hi Eddie--wood is good! I'll send an email. Many, many thanks.

   As for the fleam thing. It sorta depends on a couple things, not the least is the sawyer. With experience, one can use nearly any saw and use it well, especially if sharp and kept that way.

   In part it also depends on the amount of rake a rip saw has--how aggressive it will cut. Zero degrees of rake is too little for very hard woods for nearly everyone I know personally, as well as most of those whom I have corresponded with. Heck, it's too little for nearly everyone "mentioned" above on our US domestic woods.

   So there are two options for making the rip saw cut more smoothly. One is easing of the rake angle, another is fleam angle, yet another is a combination of both. There are advantages to all the above in differeing circumstances.

   In Derek's saw's case, the rake was about 4 degrees. I don't think that Independance Saw ever touched wood. The teeth were very even, but I already knew it was going to be too little rake for the wood as per Derek. And, even for myself, I don't think I would use it joyfully on the woods I use. The options were to add more rake, add fleam or add both. I choose to add fleam as it would have what I consider added benefit.

   A saw with 8 or 10 degrees of rake simply will not saw as quickly as one with say 0 to 4 degrees of rake. By adding a touch of fleam--and here I mean a couple degrees--it retains most of the speed while emulating most of the benefit of relaxing the rake.

   Too, there is another issue. Filing by hand chances are one is adding a tad of fleam, either negative or positive fleam. I've inspected a fair share of saws and I don't think I have ever seen all 135 teeth of a 9" 15 ppi saw filed exactly straight across. And as I wrote Derek, I doubt very seriously whether all the teeth on the IT saw were precisely even in either rake or fleam. Even on a good day I cannot be that consistent. Shooting for positive fleam at least I likely will not be worse than zero <g>.

   So in part, all I am doing is describing common practice with intention.

   Take care, Mike

2. 
   eddiefromAustralia | Oct 02, 2006 05:29am | #12

   Hi Mike,I can't see Derek's saw that you refer to in the above posts - you're probably right on the fleam as I hand file my dovetail saw and rip saws and give the crosscuts to a saw doctor. At USD8.00 each it's pointless doing them, but the automatic saw filers don't have the fine file and the saw doctors don't want to waste time swinging the fleam angle of the saw filer back to zero to cut a rip tooth handsaw.In support of your comments, one of the best saws I have is the thick bladed one I mentioned above - it almost cuts by itself due to the weight of the saw plate.Cheers,eddie

3. 
   mwenz | Oct 02, 2006 05:44am | #13

   Hi Eddie--sorry. I should have linked to Derek's post:

   http://forums.taunton.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=fw-knots&msg=31188.1#a1

   Ha, saw doctors around here can usually make a mess of even a standard retoothing or sharpening of a CC saw when they don't change the machine!

   I favor heavy saws for the bigger cuts. But not all do. And I use smaller panel saws as well. Ah, so much to do, so many saws to do it, and so little time!

   Take care, Mike

4. 
   manasan | Oct 04, 2006 03:46am | #16

   Neither GOOGLE or my dictionary produces anything when I search for "fleam".
   What is fleam ?TIA.

5. 
   eddiefromAustralia | Oct 04, 2006 05:19am | #17

   Hi Manasan,Fleam: Angle to direction of the cut that the teeth are filed at.Here's a quick google search.http://www.vintagesaws.com/library/primer/sharp.html
   http://www.roseantiquetools.com/id66.htmlhttp://www.google.com.au/search?q=%22Disston+Saw+Tool+and+File+manual%22+download&start=0Cheers,eddie

2. 
   agomega | Oct 03, 2006 01:04am | #14

   Mike,

   Thanks so much for your long and thorough response. I would have thanked you sooner, but for some reason I never got an email when you finished updating this post and the website was showing that I had already read all of the threads. It must have gotten confused by your post where you told me that you were working on a  reply and would finish in the morning.

   I really enjoy reading all of your posts and appreciate the fact that you take the time to answer everyone's questions on all of the various message boards that you frequent. I have learned so much about western style handsaws from reading your posts and the posts in the discussions you have been involved with. Most of the woodworkers that I know use japanese saws so it is hard to learn about western style saws outside of these forums.

   I think I am close to making a decision about which saws to purchase from you. At the moment I am leaning towards a 12 inch Disston #9 with 10ppi. Now I just have to decide on the wood for the handle and whether I want a rounded or square toe. I was also thinking about purchasing a panel saw from you in the future, but now I am starting to consider the possibility of getting one of your half back saws instead. Too many decisions.

   Currently I am leaning towards Cocobolo handles, but I was wondering if you had any other interesting wood types that you would recommend. I saw some pictures of the Imbuia handles that you made the other day and they were quite stunning. Do you have any other handle pictures (apart from the general page) on your website?

   I have one final saw pondering question for you. In your previous post you mentioned that it is generally a bad idea to have too many ppi on a rip saw. Why then, does the Kenyon Sash saw have 13ppi? Does this saw clog up on woods such as cherry? I am just wondering if there was something special about the design of this saw that would make it perform differently.

   Thanks again,

   Phil

1. 
   mwenz | Oct 03, 2006 10:30am | #15

   Hi Phil, I sent you an email...

   I have one final saw pondering question for you. In your previous post you mentioned that it is generally a bad idea to have too many ppi on a rip saw. Why then, does the Kenyon Sash saw have 13ppi? Does this saw clog up on woods such as cherry? I am just wondering if there was something special about the design of this saw that would make it perform differently.

   This was my response to Phil concerning the above. The Kenyon set is fairly graduated in both size and coarseness. So for deeper/wider tenons, Benjamin would have used the large tenon at 9 ppi.

   The clogging is mostly a function of length of cut. I suspect 13 ppi would take a 2 1/2" wide tenon before it could clog or not cut as effeciently as it could. At least in Cherry, etc.

   Take care, Mike

3. 
   AdamCherubini | Sep 29, 2006 04:12am | #4

   "2) I really want to pick up a couple of tenon saws but I have been having trouble deciding on the length."

   Hi Phil,

   I have my own version of that long tenon saw you speak of. My saw is sharpened differently than Mike's are. I don't like using it on small joints. Its heavy and difficult to control. I haven't made Seaton's sash saw and if I do, I'm liable to file it cross cut. So for small joints I use my carcass saw and I'm happy with that. But for even moderately sized and often encountered tenons- maybe 3 or 4 inches across, that long saw is nice to have. I used a frame saw for that operation for years and liked it. I like the back saw better. Its blade is stiffer (and I think thinner).

   "4) Anyone have any opinions on parallel vs 45 degree grips on a tenon saw."

   Phil, I think your guess is as good as anyone elses. I had this theory that the 18th c saw design was more efficient but intolerant of dull saws i.e. faster cutting, but designed for a professional who could sharpen his own saws. I built my first kenyon copy to proove that theory and in truth I couldn't much tell the difference between it and my beloved 1890's #7. So....

   If you are interested in saws and want to do cabinetry, I would start with the Seaton saws as a baseline. I would ask Mike for a price for the complete set. He should have a photo of that set on his webiste and should maybe send them to FWW or PW or both for a review of these particular designs.

   Adam

1. 
   agomega | Sep 29, 2006 11:21pm | #6

   Adam,

   Thanks for chiming in. It makes sense that you wouldn't want to use a gigantic saw on the smallest of joints since it is probably overkill in that scenario. I have used my LN carcass and dovetail saw on smaller tenons and I didn't feel like it was terribly uncomfortable. That is part of the reason why I am leaning towards purchasing larger tenon saws. I want to have the extra size and length when I need it.

   You mentioned that you sharpen your saws differently than Mike does. Can you mention how you sharpen differently and why you choose to do so. I would be interested in hearing about your sharpening theories and practices as well.

   Do you know of any good websites that show the details of the Seaton saws or the Seaton tool chest in general. I am only familiar with it from reading Chris Schwarz blog. I haven't done all of my homework on it yet, so if you know of any good resources I would appreciate your recommendations.

   Thanks,

   Phil

1. 
   AdamCherubini | Sep 30, 2006 01:35am | #8

   Phil,
   I know of no websites on the kenyon saws. Pretty sure all there is is the book "The toolchest of Benjamin Seaton"I forget the exact stats on my saw but I think its 19" long, .025" thick with progressive rake and pitch, 8-12ppi, 0-10 degrees rake, no fleam.I'd like to offer my opinion on taper as I built an untapered rip saw -untapered saws are heavier which can be nice and not nice, but otherwise I don't see any real difference. Or...when the kerf closes up on you, a better solution is to wedge the kerf open.Adam

   Edited 9/29/2006 6:37 pm ET by AdamCherubini