Two Guys in a Garage Folding Backs

[Nordic]

I just posted a review of Dom's prototype folded backs here:

http://norsewoodsmith.com/node/382

The complete article is below, but I've not added all the links - they are available in the article linked to above on Norse Woodsmith.

Quote:

---

Two Guys In A Garage Tool Works is a pair of guys who happened upon a supply of spring steel scraps and, being woodworkers who loved hand tools, they hated to see the “scraps” going to waste - came upon the idea of re-purposing the steel into usable tools for the hand-tool crowd. Card scrapers, specifically...

As time has gone on, they've branched out into supplying spring steel plates for those who want to make their own hand saws, first supplying plates for stair saws then later expanding to larger saws and also saw-tooth pattern plates. Their plates come now with teeth pre-punched in a wide range of PPI and are ready for sharpening and setting.

I've linked to their web site before - Dom maintains an excellent library of saw handle templates online free for everyone to use. I see they have also added brass split nuts and screws to their list of available products, which means they are only lacking one thing for all of the metal parts of a saw - the back!

It would seem they are now ready to remedy that. Recently I was fortunate enough to be on a list of folks sent prototypes of their folded backs to evaluate and provide feedback. I am honored they would choose me as one to look at them. Here's what arrived:



Two of their prototype backs, and two 3" x 12" dovetail saw plates. The sawplates have teeth stamped out at 13 PPI ready for sharpening and setting. The teeth are wholly consistent, straight, and with a good rake angle for getting you started,



Using one of Dom's templates, a pair of their split nuts, some wood and one of their handle templates (or make your own) you have everything you need to make your own backsaw.

For my part of the review, I’m to look at the quality of the folded back prototype to see if I can help out with any suggestions or comments. I thought hard about how best to approach it... I have a couple dozen different brands of backsaw to choose from, here you can see the three saws I chose to compare their new offering against that I feel are good examples of the types of back they are trying to emulate in one fashion or another.



From the top to bottom they include a post war 10" Disston, a John Cockerill from around the turn of the last century, and a fairly recent Bad Axe saw with a blued steel back. Side by side with the TGIAG backs on the lower left, here's an end view of all:



In shape, the TGIAG back is most similar to the post war Disston, while in size it is similar to both the Cockerill and the Bad Axe. The latter is fully folded and pressed flat, while the former (both the Disston and Cockerill) are more "ankh" shaped and hold the saw plate primarily along its edge. It's debatable as to which way is better, though my thoughts tend more preferring the "ankh" shape. Having the blade held in a "pinched" back I believe allows for less slippage and a more firm grasp of the plate than the other method.

There are two difficulties with that shape you should be aware of. The first is fitting the back into the handles rebate for it - as the shape is not square, you may need to accommodate for it, depending on the design of the handle and how far the back fits into that rebate, as seen here in a saw I was making some years ago.



That back is pressed flat so has a consistent width along its entire depth. It's not an issue if it isn't - it's just something to be aware of when making your saw. An industrious soul might grind the length of the back so it is flat along its length. It’s my understanding they are working with their machinist on flattening the profile (to straighten the slightly “bulbous” shape to something more evenly shaped for their upcoming offerings. IMO that is the only detractor to their prototype, and it’s a small one, in my opinion.

The other thing to be are of probably isn't going to affect anyone who wants to make their own saw, but the shape is such that any stamp made into the metal would deform the back and make it unusable. It's for this reason that I chose the flat-folded method in the backs I made.

For how well the TGIAG back is made... Made from .090" steel, it was straight and consistent along its entire length, and the blade fit snugly into place. Removing the blade from the back was difficult, but not impossible - which is just as it should be. The edges are smooth, no rough spots. Dom informed me they were looking into using smaller shims to make the gap even tighter, but I don’t believe it to be necessary.



The thickness of the post war Disston steel back was thicker than the TGIAG, the other two were approximately the same. On other saws, the .090" would be about average - some thicker, some thinner, but the thickness Dom & Company has chosen is a good one, in my opinion. For a finish, it would be nothing to buff up the steel to a mirror shine - another option would be to blue the steel, or just to leave it as it is. There is also talk of them adding stainless and brass backs as well - we can only hope, but these are an excellent start.

Conclusions: These are a good deal if making your own hand saw is something you are interested in. Let me explain.

A quick re-cap may be in order... As readers may remember, I made scores of hand saws for time a few years back. At the time, there were no places to get the parts, and there were only a couple of custom sawmakers in the trade (and they weren't sharing). I was moderately successful and very proud of what I accomplished - but I lacked the real resources I needed to bring the level of quality to where I wanted without a large amount of effort. Make no mistake, it was a great learning project for me, and I did get OK at making the saws - but it took quite a bit of practice to get there.

I started off by recycling and re-using the steel from old handsaws, then later used new spring steel like the kind TGIAG is now selling. I tried making my own split nuts using just tools available in my woodworking shop (I'm no machinist). The backs I folded myself using a homemade metal brake I made out of angle iron and door hinges.

Fast forward a few years. Now there are several "boutique" sawmakers on the market, and there are a few that sell sawmaking "kits", but you are pretty much limited to a kit that is a copy of a particular saw they sell. Dom and TGIAG, with the addition of a folded back, open up a full range of possibilities to the amateur sawmaker previously unavailable. Virtually any configuration you want and you won't need a mill to cut a slot in the back nor a fancy (or not-so) homemade brake to bend the back. The hard work is done and at a reasonable cost (they haven’t set a final price for their backs yet but if they follow their current levels it should remain a good deal), even when compared to other saw kits available on the market.

The folded saw backs from Two Guys In A Garage are not available publicly yet, though Dom assures me it will be soon. Keep an eye on their website for more information (and here on WoodNet), and for other products they currently offer.

Have fun building yourself a custom saw!



Norse Woodsmith saws photo courtesy Cian Perez

---

I was honored to be one of the folks "chosen" to do a review on their prototypes and I only wish I could have imparted some great wisdom upon them, but from what I could see none was needed. There was nothing I could have told them that they were not already aware of. I think Dom and his partner are doing their homework - and that they are going to have a great product when it come available. Kudos to them for supplying us do-it-all-yourselfers with supplies for making your own saw. I love the boutique saws available today, but the price can be prohibitive if you want different configurations, or if you just want to be cool and use one you made yourself. <img src="/ssl_proxy.php?url=/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/yellowbiggrin.gif[/img]


Leif

[Corneel]

I read that the two guys are now looking in how to press them tighter. I think that is a good idea, if for no other reason then that it looks more traditional. I have flattened my backs with a big butt hydraulic press in the past, which works well, if you have some stout pieces of steel to distribute the force. And I have used hammer and anvil. That works very well, but you create a lot of dents, which adds a lot of grinding work.

Overall, nice effort Dominic!

[Blacky's Boy]

Corneel said:

---

I read that the two guys are now looking in how to press them tighter.

---

Where did you read that? The only thing we're trying to do now is modify the dies to get a more uniform look to the "legs".

Edit to add:
Corneel, I think you might have mistaken my comment about pressing the "legs" together tighter to increase the holding power. That's about the only other thing we're investigating.

[MarvW]

Blacky's Boy said:

---

[blockquote]Corneel said:

---

I read that the two guys are now looking in how to press them tighter.

---

Where did you read that? The only thing we're trying to do now is modify the dies to get a more uniform look to the "legs".

---

[/blockquote]

I think I read it in Leif's review.....

Quote:

---

It’s my understanding they are working with their machinist on flattening the profile (to straighten the slightly “bulbous” shape to something more evenly shaped for their upcoming offerings. IMO that is the only detractor to their prototype, and it’s a small one, in my opinion.

---

[Blacky's Boy]

MarvW said:

---

[blockquote]Blacky's Boy said:

---

[blockquote]Corneel said:

---

I read that the two guys are now looking in how to press them tighter.

---

Where did you read that? The only thing we're trying to do now is modify the dies to get a more uniform look to the "legs".

---

[/blockquote]

I think I read it in Leif's review.....

Quote:

---

It’s my understanding they are working with their machinist on flattening the profile (to straighten the slightly “bulbous” shape to something more evenly shaped for their upcoming offerings. IMO that is the only detractor to their prototype, and it’s a small one, in my opinion.

---

---

[/blockquote]

OK, got it. I think I mentioned that to Leif. But not as something we plan on doing right now. Just in the future.

[Nordic]

MarvW said:

---

[blockquote]Blacky's Boy said:

---

[blockquote]Corneel said:

---

I read that the two guys are now looking in how to press them tighter.

---

Where did you read that? The only thing we're trying to do now is modify the dies to get a more uniform look to the "legs".

---

[/blockquote]

I think I read it in Leif's review.....

Quote:

---

It’s my understanding they are working with their machinist on flattening the profile (to straighten the slightly “bulbous” shape to something more evenly shaped for their upcoming offerings. IMO that is the only detractor to their prototype, and it’s a small one, in my opinion.

---

---

[/blockquote]

Don't read too much into that - keep in mind Dom's backs sent to me were prototypes. As for it being a "detractor", perhaps that is a poor choice of words on my part. I brought it up mostly as Dom &amp; Co. will want to stamp or put a logo on these at some point in time and handle-makers need to be aware of it where their design has the back fully mortised into the handle.

Leif

[MarvW]

Hey Leif,

I've repaired quite a number of old backsaws that had extra thick backs. Some as thick as 3/8" across the bend. I must say, I much prefer a back with parallel sides or sides that are close to parallel, just enough out of parallel to retain the pinching effect at the bottom.

Good job on the review, by the way.

I have a suggestion.... for what it's worth...

How about doing a secondary step when bending the back and press a specific area that fits into the mortise so the sides are parallel? The flattened area could be, say, 1-1/2". Any adjustment to the length would be done at the toe end.

I see the shaping of the mortise to make it fit the "bulbous" shape to be of some concern. Maybe that's just me though.

[Corneel]

I've tried stamping or pressing a mark in "flat" backs. That leads to deformation too. I had to do quite a bit of bending to straighten it again. Safest way to mark is with laser engraving.

I have no idea how they stamped the backs in the past.

I don't think it is a good idea to flatten just a part of the back, Marv. When the back is a bit polished, every little wave or dent or bulge is very visible.

[Nordic]

MarvW said:

---

I see the shaping of the mortise to make it fit the "bulbous" shape to be of some concern. Maybe that's just me though.

---

In that regard, it depends on the design of the handle. In these images, you can see the backs are not fully mortised into the handle, in which case it wouldn't be much of an issue.

Norse Woodsmith saws:



Wenzloff saws:



However, if you are using a fully mortised back it will require fitting, such as with the Lie-Nielsen saw:



Keep in mind the Lie Nielsen is a milled-slot back, not a folded back - for my own reasons, I prefer folded.

MarvW said:

---

How about doing a secondary step when bending the back and press a specific area that fits into the mortise so the sides are parallel? The flattened area could be, say, 1-1/2". Any adjustment to the length would be done at the toe end.

---

You could do this in a vise yourself after receiving the back and inserting the blade into it, but it probably would not be a good idea for Dom &amp; Co. as handle designs vary and it may (or may not) alter how well the back holds the plate. I would think selling it as shown to be preferable, and modification like you suggest be left to the end-user.

That post-war Disston and Cockerill saws (the top two in the photo below) both exhibit the shape, and while it is more pronounced on the Cockerill, both would require similar fitting for a new handle:



The Disston back is positively HUGE, the largest I have. It also has a fairly thick plate. It makes for a heavy saw, which has it's own advantages/disadvantages.

I also dealt with this on the saws I made - my solution was to flatten the entire back in a press, but that's more easily accomplished on a brass back than a steel one, they are MUCH harder. The steel, FWIW, will be a more durable back IMO and stand up better over the years... Though it might not be an issue for everyone, I'm remembering one brass-backed saw I had that got bent when some heavy stuff got packed on top of it in a large traditional tool-box I used to use. That wouldn't have happened with a steel back saw.

Leif

[Mike Brady]

I'm reading this discussion thinking about how I would utilize this back if I was making a saw. I like the authenticity of the raw steel for saws that are meant to be utilitarian in appearance. There are many saws being made that take the art to new heights, but not as many, except for perhaps Bad Axe, that offer understated options for a plainer-appearing product. Dominic's backs open up that possibility.

In terms of saw-making the letting in of the back to the front of the handle does seem more challenging because of the profile presented by the steel back. Certainly some practice would be in order before working with the final handle blank. Small carving tools with radii would be helpful since the mortise in the handle would not have straight sides. I would consider filing flats on the sides of the steel back just where it becomes an open tenon in the handle nose. That would allow parallel mortise walls. To me the fit between the back and the handle is very important visually, much the same as tight dovetails are a visual hallmark.