Erik wrote:

> This is a good topic, and I can always count on Pete to step 
> up to the plate when I throw an unusual idea into the mix.  
> The Jackson and Co. backsaw looks like it was made by a Brit. 
>  Perhaps a transplanted English maker who used American 
> materials if the handle is indeed applewood.  

Thanks!  Just trying to offer a balanced alternative.  As an aside, it's
these kind of discussions that started the list all those years ago, and
they are few and far between these days.  I wait and watch and interject
when I see the opportunity for some real discussion.

As to the saw, I would enjoy looking at it.  From what I can tell, I
doubt the handle is Apple.  I can imagine a couple of rays near the top
horn which would make it beech.  English beech is much more dense and
does not have as open a grain pattern as American Beech.  I'd be willing
to bet that handle is beech.  If Bruce would like to send it to me or
someone else to take a close look at, we could put that speculation to
rest.  As I mentioned before, I'm sure that saw is British.  If it is, I
think all might agree it would be unlikely for Henry to worry about a
small time Sheffield maker 4000 miles away.

> 
> As for the model of the driven competitor, I point to 
> Disston's contemporary, ruthless Andrew Carnegie, who is 
> better known in our time for his philanthropy than his 
> strong-arm management in the rail business and his later hold 
> on the steel industry.  I admire Disston for his business 
> model and his products.  However, I am experienced enough in 
> life to have been disappointed by hero worship and am willing 
> to try to see shadows in a person's motivation and character.

I'll never buy into the notion that Henry was ruthless.  He was driven,
but he made the best saw around, and that fact put him on top...not
these sort of shady business practices that we are talking about.

As an example, and case in point, there was no maker that Henry despised
more than the Richardson brothers operating across the river in Newark,
NJ.  They ripped off his number 7 design to the point that it was
indistinguishable from his number 7.   So, did Henry decide to come out
with the "Richardson" model of second quality handsaw?  No!  (Although
some might argue that the missing #2 in his second quality line was a
spot for it).  Instead, Henry affixed two labels to every #7 saw that he
sold.  One said:

"Years Of Competition Against All Kinds Of Prejudice Has Proved--THIS
SAW--To be Superior To Any Other Manufacture. Thousands Testify To This
Fact."

The other, affixed to the grip area of the handle said:

"Beware of Counterfeits of our No.7 Saw"

Finally, the thing that really doesn't add up for me in this whole
discussion is that Henry felt that Bishop or this mysterious Jackson
were competition.  While in an academic sense they were, I'm sure he
worried more about what Simonds and Atkins were doing late at night than
he did any of these guys.  If this idea of confusing the market place
were viable, there would have been models attempting to confuse the
buyers of those saw manufacturers .  Even when Henry was the victim, as
he was with Richardson, he took the high road, counting on the fact that
his saws were the best, and no sane person would buy a facsimile if they
were properly educated.

> 
> As for outright patent theft, I don't think Disston engaged 
> in that.  The Jackson Gorham multi-gizmo ruler-square saw was 
> so named by Disston, giving the patent holder full credit for 
> the line of saws Disston produced under license.  I'm liking 
> the T. Taylor saw-named-after-the-inventor theory, even if it 
> isn't the product Mr. Taylor worked on.

In looking over the patents, there are some interesting things that
float to the top.  One that I just realized last night was that on many
of the patents attributed to Disston, there was almost always a Harry or
William Smith who were witnesses.  In looking over the Silcox book last
night, I was reminded that William Smith was a cousin to Henry.  I'm
sure that Harry was his brother, also a cousin to Henry.  The really
interesting part is that not all patents are ascribed to Disston.  

As an example, look up patent 286,018 dated Oct 2, 1883 for a gauge
meant to be fitted to both Hand and Back Saws.  The patent is to a
William Jones of Philadelphia, assignor to William C Clayton of Denver,
Colorado.  The patent is the one that Disston used.  How do we know?
The patent was granted to a guy living in Philadelphia, namely Jones.
Further, and the real lynchpin, is that is was witnessed by Harry Smith.
No where on the patent is there anything that says Disston, but if you
dig a little past the surface, you quickly realize that regardless of
the source, this was a patent that he controlled.  Why he chose to do
this, I don't know.  Perhaps a guy filed a patent, and then went to
Disston to see if he would buy it.  When Disston decided it was in his
interested to control that patent, perhaps he sent some of his trusted
hands with the inventor to sign the patent papers when it was approved.
In this case there was about 45 days between when the patent was filed
and is was granted.  We'll never know for sure how it worked, but by
carefully reading through a number of patents, we see patterns emerge
which are very interesting.

People can make up their own minds.  If they want to believe that Henry
was a guy that operated on the fringe of the law, then they can.
However, if you really look at the sum of all parts of the argument, as
well as factor in other facts that are well known and established, it
just doesn't add up.  I haven't worked on the patents for a while, and
only have a couple hundred.  I may continue to see if I can find any
attributed to a Bishop or Davis to add two more data points to my
theory.

Yours in 19th Century Saw patent trivia,

Pete Taran (Still residing near Cleveland, OH)
Vintage Saws on the web at:
http://www.vintagesaws.com