A Theory of Fleam Teeth
Chris Schwarz of Woodworking Magazine (both on his blog and in the upcoming autumn issue) suggests it was in the late 19th century that fleam (the bevel on the face of a saw’s tooth that changes the profile from efficiently ripping to cleanly cross cutting) was added. Schwarz also makes the point that hand-filed saws inherently have some fleam, and that machine filing brought on the factory-sharpened cross cut saws. Both these last points I agree on.
My theory is from a little different perspective. I believe fleam was present on saws much earlier. In fact, I believe the practice was at least done in the later 17th century, some 200 years earlier. Why? Because the efficacy of cross cutting-shaped teeth was known and prevalent on larger saws intended for cross cutting of timber and beams by the latter 1600s. Saws intended for such usage were manufactured with fleam added to these larger saws by their makers. The inventory records for Port Royale, Jamaica, prove this point. Most likely earlier records exist as well. Even Moxon describes what can only be considered either slopping gullets or fleam angles on the face of a tooth. Which (or both) is unclear to me at this point.
So why are the texts in general silent about saws with brass or steel backs? Here’s where more of my guessing comes in. I believe that saws made for joiners and cabinet makers (a later designation) were simply made in a variety of lengths and a variety of teeth per inch in a rip-toothed pattern. I believe it was up to the individual to shape the teeth for its intended usage.
Why the difference between smaller saws and the larger ones? I do not know for certain, but from a saw maker’s perspective, I believe the difference lies in the effort to alter the teeth on a large saw versus the smaller joiner’s saws. The tooth styles on larger saws were, and still are, vastly different shapes. Not so on joiner’s saws. The basic shape of the teeth on joiner’s saws are identical, save for the amount of rake or the addition of fleam.
The era post-Civil War in America was a period of great expansion. The shear number of carpenters climbed as did furniture makers. By the last quarter of the 1800s, I believe saw makers enjoyed great prosperity, by and large, because of the increase in this activity driven mainly by the building trades. I think saw makers therefore sought a value-added approach: Now you can purchase saws with the teeth already shaped for the task at hand. I also believe this practice began prior to the advent of saw sharpening machinery.
I do not think Schwarz and I really differ much at all on this issue. I believe any apparent difference can be chalked up to the difference between manufacturing practice and shop filing practice in the centuries prior to the last quarter of the 19th century.
Take care, Mike
July 7th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
mike,
What does it say in the records in Port Royale that prove the point. Is it on-line? Do you have a link? Not mind you that I disagree I don’t but I’m curious about the reference.
joel
July 7th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
Mike,
One small point on my part: I was only pointing out when fleam entered the literature big-time for backsaws.
I think fleam was likely known to early woodworkers.
Here’s one tantalizing detail. I interviewed Geoffrey Killen several years ago about Egyptian saws. He’s examined several originals and made some of his own. He said two things that were interesting to me: They were set all to one side (wedge ahoy!) and they had bevels on the fronts of the teeth.
Chris
July 7th, 2009 at 10:25 pm
Well said.
July 7th, 2009 at 10:29 pm
Hi Joel,
One of the links I use to get to the archives is:
http://nautarch.tamu.edu/portroyal/archives/research.htm
There are several links there that are tool and or probate/inventory related. I originally had links to the relavent sections on my laptop–but alas, it died.
Chris–I should have been more clear as to what you were pointing out.
I read somewhere about some Egyptian saws with teeth all set to one side. If I recall correctly, the face bevels were also all to one side as well. Could be mistaken, though. I’ll try to find the reference.
Take care, Mike
July 8th, 2009 at 5:35 am
Great discussion Mike! I agree with you. I can’t see why a saw maker in the 17th or 18th century would do the final setup of a saw for a cabinetmaker wothout knowing it’s intended use any more than a planemaker or blacksmith would try to predict and set up a plane or chisel for the end user. The cabinetmaker or joiner would purchase the tool with an intended use and therefore set it up the way he wanted prior to using it. Similar to bevel angles on a plane iron or chisel, I think saw teeth would have simply been “roughed in” and left for the craftsman to do the final set up. I don’t think tools were likely ready to go “out of the box” like so many folks expect today. I think the end user likely had to do some work to them before their first use similar to what we might do to an older tool today.
July 16th, 2009 at 7:52 am
Good points all, Bob.
Even today, I generally alter new tools to fit what I want to do with them. Sometimes there is radical alteration. While I seek well made tools whether vintage or new, I cannot expect the maker to have read my mind. They still need to work as intended–fit for purpose–but my purpose might be a tad different than as designed and manufactured.
Take care, Mike