saw making

[adamcherubini]

So I had a few spare moments this afternoon and I decided to add some empirical data to the conversation. I measured the handle thickness at the neck of the handle: the area in question that would appear to be the weak spot if the handle were to break. Two dimensions are provided: front to back (what we would normally refer to as handle thickness) and top to bottom at the narrowest point of the neck. Thickness is fairly close for all four saws, with the Pedder and Klaus saw winning by .003".  It gets more interesting when the other dimension of the neck is measured: the Wenzloff is the fattest, coming in at .690", with the Pedder and Klaus being the thinnest, coming in at .543". However, this does not tell the whole story. The contour of the handle at this point of the neck: specifically the inner part of the neck toward your hand when gripping the saw varies significantly. The Wenzloff,  Skelton, and Ne Plus Ultra (Pete Taran) are contoured and come to a point at the counterpoint of the handle, with the Skelton having the most dramatic contour. The outlier: the Pedder and Klaus: it has almost no inner contour. If one were to  slice a cross-section of the handle at this point, I suspect (have not done the integration) that the saw with the greatest neck cross-sectional area is the Pedder and Klaus. Conclusions: I suspect that there is effectively no difference in handle strength of these 4 saws due solely to handle geometry. As an aside, when I go to pick up a DT saw, the Pedder and Klaus is the one I am most likely to pick up.

Good information. Just tell us where you measured? What direction? The pictures still look like Pedders saw is the most delicate there. Note my saw below which was trying for an earlier shape also very very slim through that neck. Not beating a dead horse. And happy to be wrong too. Tho hopefully the point wasn't missed on anyone- little features matter was all. Handle width is less important. equation is WidthXHeight of the narrowest section ^3/12

I agree with Pedder that I don't see saws break there. I see and own old saws broken everywhere he mentioned. But a break at the neck is usually the end of that tool, where as breaks almost anywhere else can be tolerated. Like I said earlier, not saying his saws are too fragile. Hell, I like Joel's Gramercy saws, which are tiny.

Edit
Just for the other engineers: I looked again at your numbers. I think the neck I was talking about was the bottom number and if it reads .543? If so, Pedder's saw is indeed the smallest in that dimension. If I have the measurements oriented right, you can quickly calculate the I for the sections, putting aside the chamfers (which play a big role). Again, Pedder's saw would have the least strength there (assuming all wood was the same, which is not a good assumption). The last saw had double Pedders section properties. Its that cubed term that gets ya.

I WOULD NOT CHOOSE A SAW BASED ON THIS. I'm sure you guys get where I was coming from. Sorry if I bored anybody.

Here are the numbers (in^4)
Pedder .012
Skelton .018
Pete .014
Wenzloff .024

Ok if Pete's saw has the grain oriented parallel to the spine AND a pretty small section, maybe that would raise my eyebrows. Maybe that would be a saw I'd be more careful about where I kept or where I put it when I was working.

[adamcherubini]

Tough crowd. With this kind of scrutiny, as a complete novice I can easily understand why people leave the craft.
 

I have a PAX 1776, probably a piker in this group.  

Pedder, I think the saw you shared with us looks like a piece of art and probably cuts better than anything I've ever had in my hands. Drop me a PM if there's any chance of making your list. I live in Montana USA and while I've never practiced law, my better half did during her working career. Lovely saw!

All the best,

Doug

Doug, I won't agree with the piker comment, but the difference between your PAX and these saws is like the difference between a Toyota Tercell and a Ferrari. These tools are absolute pleasures to operate, designed for professional use. Some of them make you better at sawing. I've used many if not all discussed here.

And let me just say something that will frustrate some: I'm a big guy (6'6") with long hands. I like the little delicate saws. I like Pedder and Klaus' saws and I really like Joel's Gramercy saws. Maybe the Gramercy saw handles are a little too delicate for me. But the amount of blade under the spine is nice. I also like the taper, and small brass spines. Gramercy have a ton of teeth which I like as well. I think Gramercy make the smallest saws out there.

Adam

[Derek Cohen]

I like Pedder and Klaus' saws and I really like Joel's Gramercy saws. Maybe the Gramercy saw handles are a little too delicate for me. But the amount of blade under the spine is nice. I also like the taper, and small brass spines. Gramercy have a ton of teeth which I like as well. I think Gramercy make the smallest saws out there.

I have not used one of Pedder's saw. Hopefully one day. I think that they have an exquisite aesthetic, which is important for someone like myself, who enjoys the presentation of the tool as much as using the tool to build furniture. 

Now Joel's saws I do have first-hand experience of. His 14" Gramercy sash saw is my go-to for tenons. I also have his 9" Gramercy dovetail saw. Both received from Joel when I was last in New York, which was 2013. I fondly recall visiting Gramercy Park with Joel and his wife. 

What sets the Gramercy dovetail saw apart is it lightness, the thinner plate (0.018"), higher teeth count (19 tpi), and high hang angle of its slim handle. There are other saws that emulate the shallow plate, which is tapered. However, what really sets the saw apart is the handle. I found that one must grip it lightly (which is desired when sawing dovetails anyway), but that this saw actually forces you to do so. One might anticipate that it is best for thinner or softer stock owing to the high teeth count, but it slices through my local hard woods. In my opinion, this is a saw for the experienced dovetailer only.

I wrote a review here: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews...ilSaw.html

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Pedder]

I love all the kudos for our saw and the critiques, too.
Often the critiques give opprotunities to introduce a saw better or make the saw better in future.
Klaus and I learned a lot from critiques. And from mistakes.
Maybe I will try to break a saw there, when I make the next mistake.
Or even cut the saw at the transition to show the material.

But as long as the wood has no defects and the saw is threated carefully, I don't se any risk for a break. At any point of the saw.

To use quatersawm or at least rift sawn wood is essential.
Wood splits rectangular to the rings. So this is the direction wich
needs to be the longest, like in quatersawn wood.

Cheers
Pedder

[wmickley]

Adam Cherubini seems to be the only one who figured out that beech makes the best handles.

[Pedder]

Adam Cherubini seems to be the only one who figured out that beech makes the best handles.

I don't think so. Shane Skelton makes beautiful things with beech and his peacock oil
I do offer beech, but people don't choose it.

Cheers
Pedder

[Philip1231]

Edit
Just for the other engineers: I looked again at your numbers.  I think the neck I was talking about was the bottom number and if it reads .543? If so, Pedder's saw is indeed the smallest in that dimension.  If I have the measurements oriented right, you can quickly calculate the I for the sections, putting aside the chamfers (which play a big role). Again, Pedder's saw would have the least strength there (assuming all wood was the same, which is not a good assumption). The last saw had double Pedders section properties. Its that cubed term that gets ya. 

I WOULD NOT CHOOSE A SAW BASED ON THIS.  I'm sure you guys get where I was coming from.  Sorry if I bored anybody.

Here are the numbers (in^4)
Pedder    .012
Skelton  .018
Pete        .014
Wenzloff  .024


Well, not to continue beating this dead (however informative) horse, but I don't think you can put aside those chamfers as they do away with a significant proportion of the neck of the handle (or beam as it were). Its not as simple as you have portrayed as the "beams" are not all rectangular, and to do that calculation according to Hoyle, you would have to consider the area under the curve of the inner contour of the various handle shapes: sorry, but I will pass on that exercise.  As I stated originally, I suspect that all of the saws, including Pedder's have more than enough strength to perform the intended tasks of a dovetail saw for generations to come, assuming some ham-fisted sawyer does not drop the saw on the concrete floor of his shop, or send said saw sailing across his shop in a fit of rage over gappy dovetails (no, I've never done that, but I have been tempted).

All great saw specimens here (I've already identified my favorite): the downside of owning and using a top tier dovetail saw: you can no longer blame the saw: its all about the sawyer.

[wmickley]

I don't think so. Shane Skelton makes beautiful things with beech and his peacock oil
I do offer beech, but people don't choose it.

Cheers
Pedder

So you also figured out that beech was the best wood for saw handles?? Did you tell anybody?

[Derek Cohen]

Say something nice for a change, Warren. Enough with the constant criticism. It's tiring.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Philip1231]

Say something nice for a change, Warren. Enough with the constant criticism. It's tiring.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Sometimes, on these various forums, I think people (all of us) are unaware of how we come across to others. Not bad advice for all of us to take.