Gentlemen,

Before we run Henry even further into the ground than he already rests,
could we please temper these comments with a slight dose of facts:

First:

Henry never made any saw line called "G.Bishop".  He did however make a
second quality line, the #1 to be exact, under the name "C.Bishop".
Perhaps the other comments about making someone think they were buying a
George Bishop saw could be correct, but I really doubt it.  I have my
own theory which I'll get to in a bit.

Second,  For the record, Disston made these second quality lines:

No. 00: Jackson
No. 0:  T.Taylor
No. 1:  C. Bishop
No. 3:  Brown's

The model numbers relate to the hand and panel saws.  Disston had
different model numbers for the backsaws.

Third:  Henry Disston was paternalistic and an all around great guy.

I don't think Henry resulted to subterfuge or any other hijinks to sell
his saws.  I believe his saws became popular because they were damn
good, and people liked to use them, he could make them cheaper than
anyone else because he invented the technology to make them ahead of the
competition, they came with a warranty, and Disston stood behind his
work.  But, then I try to always look to the light instead of the dark
side, but that's just me.

On the homepage of my website, there is an image pulled from an early
Disston catalog.  It reads:

"If you want a Saw, it is best to get one with a name on it which has a
reputation.  A man who has made a reputation for his goods knows its
value, as well as its cost, and will maintain it."  Henry Disston

While I'm sure it's true that Henry used aggressive business tactics,
anyone who has read the book:  "A Place to Live and Work--The Henry
Disston Saw Works and the Tacony Community of Philadelphia" by Harry
Silcox will know that Henry had a vision to give back to the people that
worked for him.  He moved out of center city Philadelphia to expand his
saw works, but also to build a community that reflected his charitable
ideals.  The Tacony community had churches, community halls and Disston
even built an elaborate water pumping and storage system to ensure that
the workers in the town had a safe, clean water supply.  There were over
600 homes in the community which could be rented or purchased at a
nominal rate.  In 1867 Disston wrote in a letter to his workers:

"This [company and community of workers] is what I live for.  We all
ought to live to make each other happy.  God knows the greatest desire
of my life is to see all that I am connected with happy.  And I believe
to this day that there is not a happier or more contented family in the
world.  I say family because I consider you and myself of one and the
same family.  There has [sic] never been any wants that I could afford
to alleviate but that I have endeavored to do so as I would my nearest
kin...The object of men and Boss should be mutual, the Boss to give all
he can when times will permit, and the men under a close competition to
be willing to help meet the market...Whatever money I make is spent in
improvements to facilitate us in putting goods into the market at such
prices that we will have work as long as any house."  Henry Disston, Nov
13 1867.

I didn't see any mention that the way to be successful was ripping off
the competition's name.

Fourth:  The Theory

I believe (and can prove in one instance) that the second quality lines
mentioned above were not named from absorbed companies, but rather for
dedicated workers or other people that Disston owed a debt to.

While doing some patent research, I ran across utility patent number
101,942 granted to a Mr Thomas (T) Taylor on April 12, 1870.  The patent
was for a new way to manufacture circular saws.  If you read the letters
patent, it's obvious that Mr Taylor was one of Disston's workers.  It is
signed "Thomas (his + mark) Taylor.  The guy couldn't even write!  I
would bet anything that the "T. Taylor" line of handsaws was named after
this gentleman in gratitude for this patent and others that I likely
haven't run across yet.  I suppose you could also make the case that Mr
Taylor was the owner of some competitor, and that the saw mafia ruffed
him up, breaking his fingers, and they drug him to the patent office to
sign over his patent as the final outrage.  I doubt, however, that this
is the case.  ;)

I don't have any firm proof, but I have always thought that the
"Jackson" line of saws was named after Jackson Gorham who holds patent
14,863 for the combination saw (saw with a built in square and ruled
blade).  There is no record that Gorham ever signed over his patent to
Disston, but neither have I ever seen a combination saw made by any
other maker.  I believe that Disston struck some deal with Jackson
Gorham, buying his patent and then producing the saws.  As a tribute to
this nifty idea, which no doubt appealed to the inventor in Henry
Disston, he created the Jackson line to honor Mr Gorham.  I have an
original 1879 catalog which shows 5 different combination saw models :
the #43, 42, 38, 39 and 29.  The 43 which is shown is marked Disston,
the 38 and 29 which are the only other two shown are marked "Jackson
Gorham"  No direct proof, but pretty convincing.  It should also be
noted that Jackson was a pretty common name, then as now.  It could be
named after anyone.  

As for the saw that started all this, I don't believe that it is a
Disston Product.  I could be wrong, but it looks very British to
me...not the sort of thing that would be made on this side of the pond.
Open handled saws are uniquely British.

So, still searching for the connection with Mr Brown and Bishop, but I'm
sure it will turn up.  

Hope this helps shed some light on a subject that was getting pretty
murky.

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Erik von Sneidern [mailto:enrico62@w...] 
Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2003 6:51 PM
To: oldtools
Subject: [oldtools] Re: Teaching a Galoot to fish

Steve wrote:
>     So, Henry was using the name "G. Bishop" when he did not buy out
George
> Bishop, and he used the name Jackson though he never bought out any of

> the various Jacksons who made saws, and you seem to say he marked saws

> Davis though he didn't buy out R. H. Davis.  Doesn't something feel a 
> little
fishy
> here?
>

Yes.  Brown and Broadwell are two other names used by Disston which were
the names of regional manufacturers.  Likewise, there is no knowledge of
them being absorbed by Disston.  Seeing how protective Henry was of the
reputation of his name and patents, it may be a reflection of his though
process and business strategy in regard to the assimilation of other
sawmakers into his control.  We have no way to know at this point, but
maybe he took the approach of resistance is futile.  Be absorbed or be
damned.  He did not grow from being a young maker of saws in a rented
basement to the world's largest manufacturer of saws through pleasant
demeanor and good fortune.  There must have been some of the qualities
of Rockefeller and Ford at work.

Erik von Sneidern

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

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.  For all his good
work to help the workers in his employ, I commend Henry Disston.  Healthy
workers are more productive and possibly more loyal -- Disston was a pioneer
in that model of business philosophy.

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.

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.

I'd be interested in knowing the source of the not-so-common name of
Broadwell mentioned in Erv's book, both as a Disston product and a
manufacturer in the year 1865.

What is the connection between Disston, Walter or William Cresson, and the
half-back saw?  Did Disston start producing that saw after Cresson went out
of business in 1862 or before then?  Cresson made a saw with the half-back
design, possibly before Disston.

Erik von Sneidern

----- Original Message -----
From: "Pete Taran" 
To: "oldtools" 
Cc: "'Erwin L Schaffer'" ; "'Erik von Sneidern'"
; "'Steve Reynolds'"

Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2003 12:19 AM
Subject: [oldtools] Re: A different opinion (long), was: Teaching a Galoot
to fish

 I never gave it any other thought that the names like Jackson, Bishop,
Taylor, Brown etc. that Disston sold saws under were picked for any other
reason then they may have been similar to other saw makers.I think to
suggest that old Henry picked these names to honor faithful employers and
just by chance they were similar to other saw makers is stretching it a bit.
Think if this was true and how he operated  there probably would have been a
good chance that the company would of had an employe of the month  named
Slim Monds in the front office or an A.T. Kins working in the stock room.I
have had a couple times people try to sell me a Jackson saw telling me it is
"English" obvious thinking about the common English maker Spear and Jackson.
Imagine it was the same back when these saws were first made with buyers
confusing disston made saws with others.Think this type of marketing was
pretty common back then, I know I have seen many cheap revolvers marked
something like ..." for .38 cal.  SMITH AND WESSON cartridges...", these
guns were not made by Smith and Wesson of course but some people sure
thought they were! I have heard of a company on being sued by someone whose
name they were using actually hiring a front man with the same name in an
attempt to get around it........Todd, looking at that nice Disston made saw
"The Imp" he got the other day and wondering now if it was named after that
Flighty little guy that worked in Accounting

We Americans do love conspiracies, and we are always looking for the 
guy in the black hat.

Skulduggery is always more interesting to speculate about than boring 
facts.

I gotta go along with Pete on this one.

On Sunday, October 19, 2003, at 09:00  AM, Pete Taran wrote:

>
> 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.

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

> 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.
>

Oh geez...the Apple probably is wrong.  I am pretty crappy with
identifying wood.  Remember that when I first got this saw I
incorrectly thought it was a Disston(Jackson) (give me a break, I
bought it in a hurry with another saw during my lunch hour).
Because I was thinking Disston(Jackson), I assumed apple handle
(because it was open handled I also questioned whether the handle
was original - but I can say with some certainty that no one else
had taken the saw nuts and handle off in a while - DAMHIK).  Later,
when I realized it said 'Jackson & Co' I never bothered rethinking
my initial assumption about the wood.  When I got my Disston #4
backsaw (the eagle medallion one that I was little too excited
over) and I hung it next to this saw - I thought this handle
seemed a little "lighter" in color - but again, never reconsidered.

I have to admit that I was also thinking British...(part of the reason
I posted the pictures yesterday).  My initial question really had to
do with learning how one goes about ID'ing a tool of this sort (and
it was the one example I had).  I wasn't assuming this saw had any
relation to Disston (although I enjoyed the discussion that it
prompted) - I just wanted to learn how one would go about determining
anything one could about the history of the saw.

You guys have already taught me a lot (including how much is
actually not known).  Use of Apple primarily in the US is something
I didn't think about - and that is the sort of clue I would like to
learn more about (guess it just takes time).  Sorry for that
confusion... (and sorry, Henry D, for putting you through this...
go back to cutting dovetails on that big workbench in the sky).

Bruce Love
(who thinks maybe he should grovel and clean some spittons on the
porch for a while now...)

> Bruce Love
> (who thinks maybe he should grovel and clean some spittons on the
> porch for a while now...)
> 
> 
> 
> 
Heck no!  You wanted to fish, and that's what you accomplished.
I think got us to dredge up quite a bit!
Erik von Sneidern

GGs,
I've been following this interesting discussion with but one eye (the other 
is focussed on my new house abuilding, its financing, and weekends escaping 
to the northwoods for some restorative walks and occasional shot at a 
grouse).

Todd, methinks, raises some interesting points:

>Pete wrote.....
> >   I believe that Disston struck some deal with Jackson
> > > Gorham, buying his patent and then producing the saws.  As a tribute 
>to
> > > this nifty idea, which no doubt appealed to the inventor in Henry
> > > Disston, he created the Jackson line to honor Mr Gorham.
> >
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>   OK let me get this right, Henry Disston to honor a saw inventor decided 
>to
>put his first name on a line of  cheap, second rate saws that Henry Disston
>was very careful to never identify as being made by Disston?

If you can go by the Disston 1914 catalogue, Henry did honor Jackson Gorham 
by naming the combination saws: Nos. 38, 39, 29, "Jackson Gorham," reserving 
"Disston" for the top of the line (Nos. 42 & 43).  Even the Jackson Gorham 
saws appear to have (at least in the catalogue) the unmistakable Disston 
"Keystone" in the etching.

Actually, this goes for some of the other Disston trademarks as well.  On 
the hand saws, at least, "Brown's," No. 3; "T.Taylor," No. 0; "C. Bishop," 
No. 1; and even "Jackson," No. 00, are shown with the Keystone.  This 
doesn't extend to the back saws, where "Jackson" (no. 1) and "Davis" (no. 0) 
are shown with no etchings.  Has anyone seen an etching on a "Jackson" back 
saw?  At least from the catalogue depictions there does not appear to be 
contrived deceptions about who made the hand saws.

Todd continues,

>   I believe from the beginning Disstons competition wasn't with other
>American saw makers but with English saw makers who prior to Disston had
>almost the monopoly in the American Saw market.In the Disston Hand book on
>Saws,[put out by the Disston  Co.] they say..." It was a long and hard
>struggle for Henry Disston to secure recognition and command trade for his
>American made goods....Up to this time the American market was supplied
>almost entirely by foreign manufacturers..."    In my experience the most
>common older English saw that I see by far are Spear and Jackson, who must
>have been Disstons stiffest English competition during this time.

Todd makes a good point here, IMO.  Bill Gustofson presented a display at 
the EAIA national meet last April on English saws being marketed in the US.  
In my feeble memory one of his points was that the American market was 
getting so dominated by domestic saw manufacturers (read "Disston") that for 
a fairly short period of time the English makers began creating medallions 
that catered to the American fancy (e pluribus unum, eagles, and the like) 
to attempt to blunt the inroads domestic saw makers were making on the 
British exports.  Maybe Bill could weigh in on this.  I can well believe 
that marketing a second rate "Jackson" back saw could reap benefits if that 
name was associated with a foreign competitor.

Best regards,
Sandy

_________________________________________________________________
Cheer a special someone with a fun Halloween eCard from American Greetings! 
Go to  http://www.msn.americangreetings.com/index_msn.pd?source=msne134

I try to answer this when I get back from the Harrisburg Auction. See =
you
all there later in my room and in the tool room tomorrow.=20
   Bill Gustafson

In my experience the most
>common older English saw that I see by far are Spear and Jackson, who =
must
>have been Disstons stiffest English competition during this time.

Todd makes a good point here, IMO.  Bill Gustofson presented a display =
at=20
the EAIA national meet last April on English saws being marketed in the =
US.

In my feeble memory one of his points was that the American market was=20
getting so dominated by domestic saw manufacturers (read "Disston") that =
for

a fairly short period of time the English makers began creating =
medallions=20
that catered to the American fancy (e pluribus unum, eagles, and the =
like)=20
to attempt to blunt the inroads domestic saw makers were making on the=20
British exports.  Maybe Bill could weigh in on this.  I can well believe =

that marketing a second rate "Jackson" back saw could reap benefits if =
that=20
name was associated with a foreign competitor.

Best regards,
Sandy