# Veritas fine tooth dovetail saw



## mark w (15 Feb 2010)

I have just bought and used the Veritas fine tooth dovetail saw, if anybody out there is thinking of buying a dovetail saw this should be at the top of your list. I also own a Lie Nielsen dovetail saw and have always thought it was bit course, in my humble opinion the Veritas is better and to cap it all about half the price.

Kind regards, Mark w


----------



## woodsworth (16 Feb 2010)

How wide is the cut? I'm looking for a guitar fret saw and they seem to be about .57 mm.


----------



## Aled Dafis (16 Feb 2010)

I used Trim's Veritas Dovetail saw (14 tpi) and Crosscut saw (16 tpi) over the weekend, and was very impressed! I also tried out L-N's progressive pitch dovetail saw, and to be honest I didn't like it, it was far too aggressive once you got into the cut and I found it quite hard to get a smooth stroke going. The LN rip carcass saw was very good OTOH, the extra length was a nice bonus, and allowed me to cut with a longer, smoother stroke.

For the money I can see no reason to spend more than double the ammount on the Lie-Nielsen equivalents. These saws have bought real quality to the masses. In fact I'm quite tempted to trade my LN dovetail saw for a couple of Veritas saws, or do I just hang on for Rob to bring out some Veritas carcass saws, surely they can't be too far down his list. [-o< 

Cheers

Aled


----------



## Aled Dafis (16 Feb 2010)

woodsworth":3o4bkxne said:


> How wide is the cut? I'm looking for a guitar fret saw and they seem to be about .57 mm.



From our tests on Saturday, the Veritas saws produce a finer kerf than the LN's, I'd hazzard a guess at about half a mm(ish). 

If you do buy the saws, and find that the kerf is too wide/narrow, I'd me more than willing to dispose of them for you. :wink: 

Cheers

Aled


----------



## woodsworth (16 Feb 2010)

Your a good sport, i'll keep your offer in mind


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (17 Feb 2010)

woodsworth":d2eyrljp said:


> How wide is the cut? I'm looking for a guitar fret saw and they seem to be about .57 mm.



I have a very detailed review of the 20 tpi Veritas dovetail saw, compared with the 14 tpi version, on my website: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/TheVeritas20ppiDovetailSaw.html

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## woodbloke (17 Feb 2010)

The problem with a 20tpi saw is not one of re-sharpening, but re-setting. Point me in the direction of a saw set that'll go down that fine and I'd probably sell the V14 pointer and go for a 20.
In fact I have the LN d/t saw which I normally use so if anyone's interested in the V14tpi drop me a PM - Rob


----------



## PeterBassett (17 Feb 2010)

That's a good question, how do you set a saw so fine?


----------



## woodbloke (17 Feb 2010)

PeterBassett":2wfv9cm6 said:


> That's a good question, how do you set a saw so fine?


As far as I'm aware, the current state of play with undoctored commercial sets is that you can't  
If someone can prove me wrong, please feel free 'cos as far as I can see it's the main issue with these very fine toothed saws...when they start to bind, how do you re-set them?
If there *is* a set on the market that will sort out these saws, it'll go a long way to solving the problem...as far as I know, there ain't - Rob


----------



## SVB (17 Feb 2010)

Hat, coat, ...... Bye!!


----------



## pedder (17 Feb 2010)

woodbloke":2s8f5k9v said:


> The problem with a 20tpi saw is not one of re-sharpening, but re-setting. Point me in the direction of a saw set that'll go down that fine and I'd probably sell the V14 pointer and go for a 20.
> In fact I have the LN d/t saw which I normally use so if anyone's interested in the V14tpi drop me a PM - Rob


 
Hi Rob, 

buy a cheap eclipse 77, unscrew the handel (take care for the spring) and file or sand the hammer part smaller. I've done that on 3 sets now, it's easy. 
You can buy a new somax with a small hammer, too. 

I set this saw at 20 tpi with an old eclipse. 






Cheers 
Pedder


----------



## woodbloke (17 Feb 2010)

pedder":3es5ccbw said:


> woodbloke":3es5ccbw said:
> 
> 
> > The problem with a 20tpi saw is not one of re-sharpening, but re-setting. Point me in the direction of a saw set that'll go down that fine and I'd probably sell the V14 pointer and go for a 20.
> ...


True enough, the hammer can be milled smaller and I have seen it done. The problem is that the anvil still gives too much 'throw' to each tooth, even when set on the finest (12tpi I think) so not _only_ do you need a fine hammer but the anvil has to suit, which currently, it don't  - Rob


----------



## Modernist (17 Feb 2010)

One way is to make an anvil from a piece of bright bar with a chamfer milled or filed to the required set across part of the width of the edge of the bar. The blade is clamped with the top of the teeth along the edge of the chamfer using another bar on top. Alternate teeth are then set down to the chamfer with a small pin punch before reversing the blade to do the other side.


----------



## mr grimsdale (17 Feb 2010)

You also have to flatten the anvil a touch, on a bit of emery paper. Easy I've just done one. There is a reducing bevel around the edge for between 6 and 12 tpi (or something, I haven't got one in front of me). You flatten it until its just about disappeared at 12. The numbers no longer mean anything so you have to choose a number for a set, by trial and error.


----------



## pedder (17 Feb 2010)

woodbloke":32hybhax said:


> True enough, the hammer can be milled smaller and I have seen it done. The problem is that the anvil still gives too much 'throw' to each tooth, even when set on the finest (12tpi I think) so not _only_ do you need a fine hammer but the anvil has to suit, which currently, it don't  - Rob



Hi Rob, 

the numbers on the anvil do not mean tpi or ppi or anything at all. They are just numbers. :wink:

I used this saw set on more than 10 self made 20tpi blades and never had any problem, but what do I know.

Cheers Pedder


----------



## mr grimsdale (17 Feb 2010)

pedder":2hrcwj37 said:


> woodbloke":2hrcwj37 said:
> 
> 
> > True enough, the hammer can be milled smaller and I have seen it done. The problem is that the anvil still gives too much 'throw' to each tooth, even when set on the finest (12tpi I think) so not _only_ do you need a fine hammer but the anvil has to suit, which currently, it don't  - Rob
> ...


Well my Eclipse 77 saw set has numbers which matched the set/tpi as near as damn it. My spare one doesn't as I've filed it flatter. There was too much set even at the 12 mark, for 20 tpi. 
Maybe yours had already been modified?


----------



## andy king (18 Feb 2010)

Certainly as Mr Grim says, they do match - although in my youth i was taught that you tweaked accordingly, so in dry timber for instance, a 6tpi would be set to maybe 7tpi to give a tighter kerf line, where as a saw that would predominantly cut wet or resinous timber you would overset to maybe 5 tpi to accomodate, with a half point margin of set or so either way as a guideline.
Much like honing angles, etc, common sense should prevail! Honing or filing to the Nth degree isn't as important as gaining a tool that performs well.
well, in my opinion that is! :wink: 

andy

PS,. as stated, however, the thinner hammer pins of those sets based on the Eclipse 77 do have an anvil in need of fettling. 
With the current raft of high quality saws available, i find it very odd that one of those manufacturers haven't seen fit to manuacture a suitable saw set...


----------



## pedder (18 Feb 2010)

Okay I try, but it is not that easy for my English skills. Sorry for that. 

If I want to set a tooth to 0.05mm I have to use the point of a eclipse anvil wich is the thickest. If the eclipse is worn out I have to work on the anvil. It does not matter wich tpi the tooth has. I have to use this point on every tpi from 3 tpi to 20 tpi. 

If I want to set a tooth to 0.1mm I have use the point directly at the 12. again: the tpi does not matter. 

The anvil of the eclipse seems to say: you need more set on a coarser saw, wich is wrong. You need more set if the wood is wet. Unexperienced swayer need more set. But an expereinced sawyer can saw with an 8tpi riper with 0.1mm Set on each site. You won't get that if you use the #8 point of the eclipse anvil. 

Cheers 
Pedder


----------



## mr grimsdale (18 Feb 2010)

That's interesting. Yes of course you can choose the set and ignore the numbers - they are just a useful indicator.
But I doubt you could rip a thick board with a 4tpi rip saw with only 0.1mm set, but I've never tried. 
I certainly have experienced a saw which sticks due to not having enough set - or the other thing; a saw which is over-set and rough cuts like a rasp in a trough.


----------



## pedder (18 Feb 2010)

mr grimsdale":3qgenfn1 said:


> But I doubt you could rip a thick board with a 4tpi rip saw with only 0.1mm set, but I've never tried.



I never tried, either. In the logical system of 6 teeth in the kerf and a sawing angle of 45° 4tpi equals a 2" thick board. 

Maybe I would add a 0.1mm. :lol:

Serious: 

The Stanley #42x doesn't have these numbers, and they did know why. 

It is by fare the better saw set (but not good usable on tiny dovetail saws because the blade ist not high enough.)

Cheers 
Pedder


----------



## woodbloke (18 Feb 2010)

mr grimsdale":atulpspz said:


> There was too much set even at the 12 mark, for 20 tpi.


I agree with Jacob :shock: that even though the anvil numbers don't mean anything there's still far too much set at the '12' mark (so called) 
Andy has it spot on...there's a glaring hole in the market at the moment that you could drive a Routemaster through regarding the lack of a suitable set for finer toothed blades.
Where's Rob Lee when you need him? - Rob


----------



## PeterBassett (18 Feb 2010)

It's true enough, but I don't particularly want to pay £50 for a saw set. I think I'll pipper a few #77s off ebay for now.


----------



## pedder (18 Feb 2010)

PeterBassett":qcy16kel said:


> It's true enough, but I don't particularly want to pay £50 for a saw set. I think I'll pipper a few #77s off ebay for now.


 
All that is to do, is Somax to make a new series of anvils and hammers for their already existing saw sets (eclipse 77 copies). That should not be more expensive than the existing series. 

Cheers 
Pedder


----------



## mr grimsdale (18 Feb 2010)

PeterBassett":jbqm4rdf said:


> It's true enough, but I don't particularly want to pay £50 for a saw set. I think I'll pipper a few #77s off ebay for now.


I bought several recently - price from 99p to £2.50 + p&p.
I also bought a CK (CeKa) set, which is for bigger saws. It's a very neat design and a lot easier to use than the Eclipse, so it could be good to experiment with other unfamiliar makes and models.


----------



## Harbo (18 Feb 2010)

Tools for Working Wood and Dick used to sell the finer setting ones.

I also seem to remember that Mike Wenzloff posted something about tweaking commercial saw sets - but it was a long time ago?

Rod


----------



## bugbear (18 Feb 2010)

In the original Eclipse design, rotating the anvil simply alters the vertical position on the tooth where the bend is made to apply the set. The (of course) alters the amount of set, since the anvil is at a constant angle.

Same angle multiplied by more (or less) distance = more (or less) set.

But this also means there's only one position where the bend is made at the recommend half-way up a tooth.

If the bend is always made halfway up a tooth, and the bend angle is constant, the amount of set is a constant for a given tooth size.

For this reason, I have made a modified anvil (and matching modified hammer) where the *angle* is different to the standard Eclipse anvil.

Since I was aiming at small amounts of set, I also made the hammer narrower during the modification process.

However, setting 20 TPI teeth is difficult. If you want the bend to be halfway down the tooth, that's 1/40", which means that the whole process is working to rather fine tolerances.

BugBear


----------



## pedder (18 Feb 2010)

bugbear":syol2s5z said:


> However, setting 20 TPI teeth is difficult. If you want the bend to be halfway down the tooth, that's 1/40", which means that the whole process is working to rather fine tolerances.



Hi Bugbear

I think it's even less than 1/40", because the with of the gullet is more than it's height. At 0° fleam the height should be1/40" so you would have to set 1/80".

That being said I do think it is OK to set the hole tooth at 20 tpi. A bad thing is to set more...

Cheers Pedder


----------



## mr grimsdale (18 Feb 2010)

bugbear":2tw14hs8 said:


> In the original Eclipse design, rotating the anvil simply alters the vertical position on the tooth where the bend is made to apply the set. The (of course) alters the amount of set, since the anvil is at a constant angle.
> 
> Same angle multiplied by more (or less) distance = more (or less) set.
> 
> But this also means there's only one position where the bend is made at the recommend half-way up a tooth.


Not like that on my 77. In fact the anvil is rounded slightly so there is no one point of bending. Hmm, a rounded bevel!


> .... setting 20 TPI teeth is difficult. If you want the bend to be halfway down the tooth, that's 1/40", which means that the whole process is working to rather fine tolerances.
> 
> BugBear


As long as the bend is well within the length of the tooth and also consistent the tolerances take care of themselves. A precise specification (e.g. bend half way up the tooth) isn't really necessary and in any case the teeth vary a lot if hand filed (the way I do it). 
There is a lot of hand and eye involved - not satisfactory to those who have strict engineering tendencies!


----------



## bugbear (18 Feb 2010)

mr grimsdale":3q0vb8af said:


> bugbear":3q0vb8af said:
> 
> 
> > In the original Eclipse design, rotating the anvil simply alters the vertical position on the tooth where the bend is made to apply the set. The (of course) alters the amount of set, since the anvil is at a constant angle.
> ...



Surely as you rotate the anvil, the bend point (the spiral arris on the anvil) moves continuously up and down the tooth?

BugBear


----------



## Alf (18 Feb 2010)

mr grimsdale":3ak81f4x said:


> PeterBassett":3ak81f4x said:
> 
> 
> > It's true enough, but I don't particularly want to pay £50 for a saw set. I think I'll pipper a few #77s off ebay for now.
> ...


I dunno, these damn c*ll*ct*rs... :lol:

A question occurs to me: finer toothed saws are not a recent invention - where are all the old saw sets to suit them? Discuss.


----------



## Harbo (18 Feb 2010)

I reckon it was the resulting "set" you get from filing"?
At those tpi you do not need much?

I have an old Ross & Alexander D/T with 24tpi - impossible??

Rod


----------



## mr grimsdale (18 Feb 2010)

bugbear":kh3g9dob said:


> ....
> 
> Surely as you rotate the anvil, the bend point (the spiral arris on the anvil) moves continuously up and down the tooth?
> 
> BugBear


Yes but the teeth you are adjusting for are longer or shorter so the bend may stay at the same relative position.


Alf":kh3g9dob said:


> mr grimsdale":kh3g9dob said:
> 
> 
> > .....I bought several recently - price from 99p to £2.50 + p&p.
> ...


I'm only collecting them for experimental purposes. When I've finished I'll set them free (in pairs, for mating purposes).
Dunno abt the fine saw sets - maybe was always a hammer and anvil, then not being recognised as anything much, have all got lost. 
The set from filing alone wasn't enough in my recent trials.


----------



## bugbear (18 Feb 2010)

mr grimsdale":5mejwzzh said:


> bugbear":5mejwzzh said:
> 
> 
> > ....
> ...



"may" appears to be purest optimism! I agree that it's *possible* you could change the saw-set, and the next tooth just "happen" to match the change you've made, but is seems damnably unlikely.

If that's not what you meant, what did you mean?

BugBear


----------



## bugbear (18 Feb 2010)

Alf":1a32bqov said:


> A question occurs to me: finer toothed saws are not a recent invention - where are all the old saw sets to suit them? Discuss.



A special hammer, an "anvil" (actually a metal plate with a chamfer) was all that was needed.

Illustrated here (the pages about "setting")

http://toolemera.com/Manufacturers%20&% ... yzack.html

I've read elsewhere that setting this way is fast, but requires practice...

I'm fairly sure that the Pax 1776 saw is hammer set.

BugBear


----------



## mr grimsdale (18 Feb 2010)

bugbear":2cb7wxdj said:


> mr grimsdale":2cb7wxdj said:
> 
> 
> > bugbear":2cb7wxdj said:
> ...


If the spiral bevel thingy is properly designed - the 'bending point' will be in the same position relative to the length of the tooth for every tooth. So at 4 tpi it will be at n" at 8 tpi it will be n/2" (measured from the tip). 
But the anvil is rounded on mine so there is no single bending point, and in any case the steel is a bit springy so the tooth won't be bent at a neat angle, but the principle will be the same.
Or to look at it the other way - the further you turn the anvil the higher or lower the (hypothetical) bending point.


----------



## Alf (18 Feb 2010)

bugbear":1j764zf4 said:


> I've read elsewhere that setting this way is fast, but requires practice...


Ah, well that's the thing I'm wondering. There are fast ways to set any saw - with practice. But the plier type saw set was introduced to make it easier _without_ practice. So why not for the finer teeth?

To be honest I'm with Rod - the "set" you get from the filing job has always seemed sufficient. If it's not, it's usually turned out that I should have been using a coarser saw for the job anyway. On the other hand I know I'm not as studious about my sharpening as I could be.


----------



## mahking51 (18 Feb 2010)

Got one of these weird sets by Atkins






















seems very well made indeed
Cheers,
Martin


----------



## woodbloke (18 Feb 2010)

Having been to Rycotewood and spoken at length to Robert Ingham, I'm coming to the conclusion that these finer d/t saws aren't worth the effort, he certainly doesn't use one for the stuff that he makes. Instead he uses a 100mm Zona razor saw for wood up to 6mm thick, a slightly coarser one for wood up about 10mm and a his standard R&L d/t saw for anything over 12mm, which is really carcass construction. They cut on the pull stroke but are not Jap tooth format and they simply get binned when blunt, which apparently takes a long time as they can be used to cut metal as well. 
I intend to get hold of a few shortly and will only now use my LN d/t saw for bigger stuff - Rob


----------



## mr grimsdale (18 Feb 2010)

woodbloke":3vvhq63z said:


> Having been to Rycotewood and spoken at length to Robert Ingham, I'm coming to the conclusion that these finer d/t saws aren't worth the effort, he certainly doesn't use one for the stuff that he makes. Instead he uses a 100mm Zona razor saw for wood up to 6mm thick, a slightly coarser one for wood up about 10mm and a his standard R&L d/t saw for anything over 12mm, which is really carcass construction. ...


His stuff is more akin to precision model making than woodwork so a Zona saw would suit. It's orses fer courses - I've tried various and for me the standard 8" 20 tpi seems best option; DTs in hardwoods from 6mm to 12mm done with speed in mind - slightly less than absolutely perfect, it's always a compromise.


----------



## woodbloke (18 Feb 2010)

mr grimsdale":2mlgpz7g said:


> His stuff is more akin to precision model making than woodwork so a Zona saw would suit. It's orses fer courses - I've tried various and for me the standard 8" 20 tpi seems best option; DTs in hardwoods from 6mm to 12mm done with speed in mind - slightly less than absolutely perfect, it's always a compromise.


 
Again, depends how you like to work, real precision in my view requires a finer saw. He does do a lot of smaller stuff but his bigger pieces are built to the same standard and could in no way be described 'models', but would concede that his designs are very much an acquired taste - Rob


----------



## bugbear (19 Feb 2010)

mr grimsdale":1xlbd6f9 said:


> bugbear":1xlbd6f9 said:
> 
> 
> > mr grimsdale":1xlbd6f9 said:
> ...


Well, that's not a property of the spiral, that a property of the labels on the spiral.


> But the anvil is rounded on mine so there is no single bending point, and in any case the steel is a bit springy so the tooth won't be bent at a neat angle, but the principle will be the same.



You mean the arris rounded? As long as there's still an arris, it has a position (obviously...)



> Or to look at it the other way - the further you turn the anvil the higher or lower the (hypothetical) bending point.



Yes, that's what I said. And for any given tooth, there's only one anvil position where that bending point is halfway up a given tooth size. Which is also what I said.

BugBear


----------



## bugbear (19 Feb 2010)

Alf":2ggijbgc said:


> mr grimsdale":2ggijbgc said:
> 
> 
> > PeterBassett":2ggijbgc said:
> ...



What, this sort of thing?

http://members.acmenet.net/~con12a/

Lots of experimentation fodder there!

I'd guess the CK one is this pattern:

http://members.acmenet.net/~con12a/saw% ... ropean.htm

BugBear


----------



## mr grimsdale (19 Feb 2010)

bugbear":37xmmqfw said:


> What, this sort of thing?
> 
> http://members.acmenet.net/~con12a/
> 
> ...


That's it. The Hirsch 2.5mm. Looks fussy but very easy to use; the tooth tip locates in a little notch and the spring is lighter. 
The Eclipse looks neat but is much less easy, in fact impractical for small teeth but better than nothing.
BTW _You mean the arris rounded? As long as there's still an arris, it has a position (obviously...) _ rounded surfaces don't have an arris by definition (obviously...)


----------



## bugbear (19 Feb 2010)

mr grimsdale":wic0yifj said:


> BTW _You mean the arris rounded? As long as there's still an arris, it has a position (obviously...) _ rounded surfaces don't have an arris by definition (obviously...)



Even a rounded bend has a position - if you ask a plumber to make a 4" radius, 90 degree bend 6 foot along a 10 foot pipe, he'll know what you mean, and get on with it, no trouble at all. Common sense. Methinks you argue for the sake of it.

BugBear


----------



## mr grimsdale (19 Feb 2010)

bugbear":7fyinbpj said:


> ..... Methinks you argue for the sake of it.
> 
> BugBear


I wasn't arguing I was just trying to explain a few things to you! :lol:


----------

