> Very good point made. Even having pictures won't necessary be enough
> supporting documentation. What would be sufficient to have a statement
> be verifiable? I know the stuff on the OldTools list is peer reviewed.
> Maybe that is the benchmark.

Well, for dating stuff I think it all goes back to the ephemera. If we
have a range of printed catalogs or advertisements we can note when
certain features changed and then come up with authoritative "type
studies". Somebody just has to have access to a good collection of
ephemera and a particular question that they want to investigate, along
with the desire to share what they find with others (through an article,
web page, or mailing list post). That's what's always been great about
the Porch.

Even the official Spear & Jackson web site says they don't know much
about their company prior to 1889. I did find a reference to S&J
(listing what they produced and mentioning backsaws) being an exhibitor
at an 1851 "Great Exhibition" through Google Books: http://www.pixelsmithy.com/i
mg/spear-and-jackson-
1851.png The whole book might be of some interest to Galoots, but not
terribly well illustrated. TinyURL: http://tinyurl.com/32sb8qs Full URL:
http://books.google.com/books?id=lLgXAAAAYAAJ&lpg=PA606&ots=c7QzjiSJZ-
&dq=%22Spear%20%26%20Jackson%22%20backsaw%20site%3Abooks.google.com&pg=-
PA606#v=onepage&q&f=false

This forum post makes me think my saw is not so terribly old as I would
have liked to think: http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showpost.php?s=040b6c6-
b1d04b2162843c5a41ff363b5&p=1318430&postcount Darren Addy Kearney, NE
------------------------------------------------------------------------