Tom Opfell wrote:

> Hi Bill,
> I did not say that the nib proved itself over the long run to be 
> usefull. I only said that when it was first invented it was thought by 
> it's maker to be a usefull thing. And it just may have well been, 
> judging by the number of makers who latched on to the idea, and at the 
> time with carpenters who were acustumed to using a different type of 
> saw. The earlier nibbed saws had a much larger nib. It was not 
> something that you would have to "watch" for, and if you are staring 
> at your pencil line and atempting to correct the path of a wide bladed 
> saw every second of the time, I think that you should either get a new 
> saw or maybe just relax a little bit more. As I said, it is just as 
> much a speculation to say that it never had a "function", as to say 
> that it did. We will never know for sure.

	I want to preface my statements by saying my motivation for 
challenging the statements of others in nib threads is not to be rude, 
but to be sure the archive has a record that reflects the thinking of 
the Porch.  I'm an archive addict.  I find some threads in the archive 
left a lot of things unsaid and unchallenged.

	In that spirit, I want to say that the images of very early nibbed 
saws seem to be more decorative than even Disston's saws.  Look at the 
examples that have been linked to in this thread.  Those are some 
artistic metalworking, for instance:
http://www.backsaw.net/pics/1698_Dutch.jpg
	
	Except for the images which have unclear indication that there are 
holes at the end of the blade, none of them seem to a purpose, in my 
opinion.  What those holes are used for, I will gladly admit that I 
don't know for sure.  Attaching a handle seems to jump right out at me. 
  Perhaps not for attaching a second handle, but reattaching the the one 
at the other end for switching from push to pull strokes.

	The thought that pre-18th century tools were plain and workmanlike 
does not hold up in my experience.  Sandor CanSpellHisLastName's book 
on tool art can be a starting point for early tools that were 
over-the-edge on decoration.  Personally, I think it is much easier to 
add decoration to tools that are handmade by an artisan than it is to 
do so on mass produced items.

> When Disston began making saws late in the year of 1841, he was 
> attempting to emulate the look of the English Saw Makers product, as 
> were other American makers. English saws were considered the best at 
> that time. Although Disston kept traditional saws in the line up 
> untill the late 1920's, by 1874 a number of different handle changes 
> began to take place. Having won the public's trust, Disston was now 
> free to modernize the handles of his saws, making them more effective 
> to use.

	I believe that the Disston publication saying the nib is decorative 
holds a lot more weight than all the other speculations.  Bill just 
called it probative evidence, but my Googling of the term didn't help 
me understand if that means the person making the statement is 
considered to have more expertise.  I'll say flat out, I think the 
Disston publication has far more value due to Henry doing his 
apprenticeship in the early part of the 1800s, the fact that the family 
members came up in the business, and that they had a research group of 
intelligent people who eat/slept/drank saws everyday.  I think that is 
expertise.  Therefore, I find a logical fallacy in statements that the 
nib clearly had a purpose and that clearly Disston didn't know what it 
was and took to thinking it was merely decorative.

> I certainly respect your subjective option, hope that you respect 
> mine, but also wonder as to how carefully you have researched the 
> matter.
> [snip]

	Many of us have researched this very carefully.  Perhaps you could 
search the archive and see the effort put into this in the past.  There 
are references to early documentation (albeit, still scarce) in those 
threads.  Because someone comes to a different conclusion does not mean 
they did not consider the same evidence that you considered.

In another message, you said:

> I just wanted to present a little factual information along with some 
> reasoned spectulation concerning a subject that will forever remain 
> unknown (as to why the first nib maker actualy did it and what he was 
> thinking), and hope that people who come up with some of these wild 
> and crazy ideas will wake up and smell the coffee.

	I'd just like to note that your first message gave the impression that 
the Hibbens reference was evidence, and in the next paragraph that the 
Disston literature was based on lost knowledge.  I hope you understand 
that the comments replying to your message are motivated by the same 
thought you quote above.  I don't find Hibbens to be factual 
information or reasoned speculation.  I am of the mind that the list of 
nib functions fall  into two categories, "Wild and Crazy Ideas", and 
"Speculation that Doesn't Pass the Practicality Test."  Hibbens' 
speculation does not pass the practicality test, but it certainly is 
not a Wild and Crazy Idea.  Overall, I get the feeling that your 
thoughts on nibs are not much different than most here.  We tend to 
fall into two categories ourselves, "Trust Disston and Have an Open 
Mind about an Unknown Function", and "It Probably Had a Function but 
Disston Might Be Correct."  We can get along.

Regards,
Steve - on a lovely morning in Delaware, but who will most likely 
remain indoors painting.

------------------------------------------------------------------------