Large Kenyon / Seaton Tenon saw

[MikeW]

Well, I got the word I can post photos of the large Seaton saws I recently completed.

Here are a couple from Chris Schwarz that he sent me. Mine turned out terrible and I had already shiped them off so I couldn't retake them.

But then, I lack imagination as regards composition anyway <g>.

The saws are 19" in blade length, 10 ppi rip. 4 5/8" usable depth at the toe rising to about 5/8" more at the heel and made from .025" steel. European Beech handles.

Take care, Mike

 

[Shady]

Damn: my wife's comment? "Even I think that's beautiful" - this from a woman who normally says that when looking in a jewellers window....

Outstanding work sir...

 

[Chris Knight]

Mike,
Just two saw nuts for such a big one?

 

[Paul Chapman]

Fabulous - as always :wink:

Paul

 

[Philly]

=P~
I don't need them but I want them......
Philly

 

[engineer one]

mike please stop doing this, my chisel and plane collection is
big enough, but no I WANT MORE SAWS, MORE SAWS, MORE SAWS, \/ :tool:

actually my first thought was where do i get wood that thick and wide to
use it on????? :lol: :lol: :lol:

nice handle again
paul :wink:

 

[MikeW]

Mike,
Just two saw nuts for such a big one?

Hi Chris,

Yep, as per the originals. 9/16" heads and 1/4" bolts.

Thank you everyone for the kind words--and Shady, please send along my thanks for the compliment to your wife.

Take care, Mike

 

[Alf]

Mmmmmmmm... I'll just sit here for an hour or so and drool - don't mind me. =P~

Cheers, Alf

 

[SimonA]

Lovely work as usually Mike......and very drool worthy too......dare I ask how much for a "Wenzloff" original!? (I hate to be the one to ask, but someone has too!)

SimonA

 

[bugbear]

The saws are 19" in blade length, 10 ppi rip. 4 5/8" usable depth at the toe rising to about 5/8" more at the heel and made from .025" steel. European Beech handles.

That is wonderful craftsmanship (although I don't like the flat bottomed handles; I know they're "correct", but I don't like 'em).

But the design sounds frighteningly vulnerable. A long, deep blade from thin steel (I have DT saws thicker than that); the saw is large enough to invite vigorous use. One "foul" stroke and it'll surely buckle.

I would welcome words of comfort.

BugBear

 

[Waka]

Its a lovely day for a drool, I'm with you Alf.

 

[dedee]

Mike,
very nice.
I cannot see a makers mark on any of your photos. Do you stamp or mark them in any way?

Andy

 

[CMSchwarz]

But the design sounds frighteningly vulnerable. A long, deep blade from thin steel (I have DT saws thicker than that); the saw is large enough to invite vigorous use. One "foul" stroke and it'll surely buckle.

I would welcome words of comfort.

If the saw buckles, it's my fault. And it may. I asked Mike to build the saw to those specifications -- those sawplate numbers are right out of "The Tool Chest of Benjamin Seaton." (Page 42).

When the Tools and Trades History Society miced the 19" saw they found the sawplate as thin as .0225" (up by the back) and as thick as .026" behind the toothline. Mike wanted to use thicker stuff for the sawplate; but I wanted to try it just like the Kenyon original.

It may be an expensive mistake. But for now, the saw cuts brilliantly and I'm keeping it well waxed/oiled.

Chris

 

[Chris Knight]

When the Tools and Trades History Society miced the 19" saw they found the sawplate as thin as .0225" (up by the back) and as thick as .026" behind the toothline.

Was this deliberately tapered I wonder or more likely, just the variation in the saw plate of the time?

 

[CMSchwarz]

Was this deliberately tapered I wonder or more likely, just the variation in the saw plate of the time?

Chris,

My best guess: It wasn't deliberate. When you look at the chart of all the sawplate thicknesses from the Seaton chest, it's notable that among the backsaws, the biggest difference in thickness in a plate is minor: .007". (There is an anomaly with the dovetail saw that makes the numbers a little inconsistent).

The 26" handsaw is likely taper-ground (.0135" difference from tooth to back). The ripsaw, I'm not so sure. The book says it's taper-ground, but the difference from tooth to back is .008".

Chris

 

[MikeW]

Well, Good morning everyone! My morning that is...I see Chris being that he is two hours ahead of me has already popped in and answered the technical things--the hard questions!

My oldest and I thank you all for such kind words! Makes working each day very rewarding.

Paul, like Chris said, the nominal specs called for this thin. Even a rise to .028" or preferably .030" [at the max] would make for a fairly robust saw. The good news is I can swap out the blade if it ever happens.

I kept the saws for an extra week and used them very, very heavily. Much of that was in Oak cutting tenon cheeks. If the saw plate gets hot--which it can--the toothline will become elongated. Keeping the saw waxed keeps it running fairly well without this effect.

fwiw, all my small joinery saws are from .018" to .020". My early carcass and tenon saws range from .022" to .028" and one mid-19th one which currently has 3 3/4" usable depth is .025". Later 19th/early 20th cent. ones I have of about 4" usable depth are normalized at .030". Seems the industry as represented by my meager collection found that to be a happy thickness.

As for the 2-bolts. One thing which can help strengthen the design is to ensure that the bolt holes are well drilled through the cheeks and steel so there is no slop. As well, the saw plate abuts inside the kerf for at least 90% of the height of the handle. Makes for a firm connection between the two. After that it is simply keeping the saw nuts snug as the wood changes over time.

Hi Simon--not enough :wink: Link is in my profile.

Andy--no makers mark. Not yet. I have gone back and forth on a method. I think I have made a decision and am waiting for a test run of impressing some medallions.

Well, I have had but one cup of coffee.

Take care, my continued thanks to each one for all the kind words.

Mike

 

[Anonymous]

Wow, Mike. That beech looks even better than exotic woods IMO.
Chris, I assume we will see an article about it is like to use a detailed reproduction of a Seaton saw?

 

[CMSchwarz]

Chris, I assume we will see an article about it is like to use a detailed reproduction of a Seaton saw?

Roger,

I'm not sure what will come of this experiment (besides Mike getting all of my money -- a good thing). I'd be afraid that most readers would be bored to tears, despite the fact that I'm smitten.

Chris

 

[Alf]

I'd be afraid that most readers would be bored to tears, despite the fact that I'm smitten.

Bother most readers, I wanna know too. Surely in the Blog at the very least? [-o<

Cheers, Alf

 

[Philly]

Yeah, come on Chris! Readers ARE interested :wink:
Philly