Steve wrote:

>To be  honest, it doesn't for me.  I  have seen no good explanation for
him using names confusingly similar to his 
>competitors.  I was hoping for some information that he had actually
acquired those competitors.  I'm left with a 
>disappointed feeling that a good Philadelphia boy, and one of my
heroes, did something I don't think is fair.  We all like >Henry (and I
still do) and his saws.  I can see why calling his integrity in question
would
>bristle his fans.  I'm sure to get an earfull from Dr. D8 on Monday.
But
>because his saws are great, and because his paternal care of his
employees was great doesn't mean we should not express an >opinion
against his using competitor's names.  And I don't think it amounts to
saying he had a dark side.

I'll let Tom give you that earful.  I think the theory is all washed up.
If this was the practice, then why don't we see the Atkins line and the
Simonds line?  While Bishop made a few saws, I hardly think that Henry
felt moved enough by this tiny Midwest maker to do the kind of stuff
we're talking about here.  If he wanted to resort to those tactics, he
would have went for the gusto and gone after the real competition.  It
just doesn't add up in my book.  As for the Jackson and Co saw that
turned up, it's the only one I've seen.  Has anyone else seen one?  If
so, can't be more than a couple.  Why would Disston risk it all,
breaking the law and his reputation to confuse the buyers of such a
miniscule firm?  Again, it just doesn't add up.  I'm sure that saw is
British.  Just because it isn't in a reference book doesn't mean that it
isn't so.  To set the record straight, I have seen plenty of saws with
iron backs of British make.  The apple is unusual, but not unheard of.

>But it could be argued that maybe others in the Disston company didn't
agree with this branding practice either.  By the 
>time the 1930's rolled around the second line saws were known as
"Keystone Saws, made by Disston". I think this is a much >better way to
go.  It keeps the valuable Disston name out there for the consumer, but
the Keystone brand name lets them 
>know it is not the top of the line product.  No need to use another
name which may be confused with a competitor.

The fact that by the 30s these saws along with many others were gone is
not a surprise.  Many models disappeared.  The Keystone Line, as it was
reincarnated in the 30s, was made to market to the home owner, not any
serious sawyer.  As I wrote earlier, I think Disston wanted to supply
good quality saws that were not branded Disston to gentleman woodworkers
and others who couldn't justify the cost of a top of the line model.  I
think (and believe I have demonstrated at least in one case) that Henry
rewarded people that worked for him with using their name on these
second quality (or off brand) saws.

Happy Sawing,

Pete Taran
Vintage Saws on the web at:
http://www.vintagesaws.com