If you look at what's for sale new or used some of the prices are
i guess enough people think that a wood handle and saw blade should
fetch lots of money
And "vintage" saws on ebay and bonanza must be inflated due to some
I thought i'd find a used saw for cheap but now I am gonna get a
new 1 or 2
And vintage seems to be anything that just looks old. Dirt and rust
and abuse seems to make it vintage
All in the eyes of the beholder. There are tools that you can buy and
use to purposely damage your fresh built piece of furniture. I think
the technique is called distressing. Some people will pay more for
experienced tools. ;~)
I understand. In this day and age where you can now build heirloom
furniture.... Like building an antique. The fact that time is no longer
a factor in the equation to determine if something has proven itself or not.
On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 1:59:02 PM UTC-4, Electric Comet wrote:
The common definition of counterfeiting is:
"Counterfeiting is the practice of manufacturing goods, often of inferior q
uality, and selling them under a brand name without the brand owner's autho
"Distressing" is nothing more than a type of finishing:
"Distressing (or weathered look) in the decorative arts is the activity of
making a piece of furniture or object appear aged and older, giving it a "w
If I build a new chair, distress it and then try to pass it off as a c-1920
Stickley, then I am guilty of counterfeiting. However, if I simply make th
at new chair look old - and don't try to sell it as an brand named antique
- I'm guilty of nothing.
What is somewhat misleading in that definition of distressing is the fact t
hat distressing is often used to make an old object look it's correct age a
fter being refinished. Yes, while you are making the newly refinished objec
t *appear* "older", which is true to the wording in the definition, in real
ity you are not trying to make a "new" object appear "old", since it actual
ly is. I've done both: made new objects look old and made old objects look
new and then made them look old again.
Maybe that's because there are a lot more old tools than new simply because
for so many, many years hand tools were the only tools available. Think ab
out how long dovetails have been being made and for how short a time (relat
ively speaking) that they have been able to be made without the use of a ha
nd saw. Hundreds of years of hand saws being the only option makes for an a
wful large inventory.
unscrupulous is the word a collector used for folks like you
i agree with them they warned me about this
if you purposefully make a tool look older than it is in order to
get more money for it that's wrong and deceptive
On Saturday, April 11, 2015 at 7:09:08 PM UTC-4, Electric Comet wrote:
Folks like me? Folks that offer definitions? What's unscrupulous about that
Not true. Purposefully making something look older than it is to get more m
oney is not deceptive unless you also claim/imply that it is older than it
Remember what you said that I said "Nope" to:
"if someone's distressing a tool to make it look vintage that's counterfeit
Distressing an object is nothing more than a finishing technique. Granted,
if someone distresses an new object and then *advertises* it as vintage/ant
ique/circa-1888, then yes, that is unscrupulous. However, the mere distress
ing of an object to make it look old is neither counterfeiting nor unscrupu
lous. It's nothing more than a finishing technique. That was my point, and
the reason for my "Nope".
If I build a new house and finish it a style that makes it look like it was
built in the 1800's - including using crackle paint to make it look really
old - and then offer it for sale, that is not unscrupulous. However, I try
to convince someone that the house was actually built in the 1800's, then
I am being unscrupulous. The same goes for tools, furniture, paintings, etc
You need to separate the finishing technique from the words used when adver
tising the object for sale before you can say that the seller is being unsc
rupulous. You need to consider the intent of the seller. Many people will
pay more money for something with a distressed finish simply because they l
ike the way it looks. Go to any crafts show and look at the hundreds of old
looking objects that are both not old and not being advertised as old. Not
hing unscrupulous going on there.
Here's a perfect example. I've made a number of these for my kids and for t
heir friends. I distressed the hash tag to make it look older than it is. T
here is absolutely nothing unscrupulous about making that brand new hash ta
g look older than it is because I never claimed it was a "vintage hash tag"
. It was distressed to make it look older than it is in an attempt to blend
an old communication style (the chalkboard) with the new (twitter).
On Monday, April 13, 2015 at 10:06:03 PM UTC-4, Electric Comet wrote:
...which is the point I've been trying to make all along. Since you now seem to agree with me, I assume you no longer consider me to be unscrupulous.
By the way, distressing can even be "legit" for tools, as long there is no intent to deceive. These tools probably *are* vintage, but if one were to make new tools look old and then display them as art, there would be nothing unscrupulous about it.
I consider anyone trying to deceive buyers to be unscrupulous
some on ebay do so but may not even realize they are but that still
doesn't excuse them from saying they're unsure about the product
there are sellers that will take dark photos on purpose
there are sellers that will not show a defect
these are bad sellers
there are sellers that do their best to reveal all and provide
photos so the buyer can decide
they answer questions
I can you are frustrating some folks (not me particularly) my ignoring
common rules of grammar. We are not texting. Why deliberately make
messages difficult to understand for people from whom you might enjoy
assistance in the future? Even if you are not an expert in grammar, nor
am I, at least you could capitalize the first word of each sentence and
use a period (.) at the end of each sentence. I hope that helps you in life.
I agree that many of the prices are ridiculous.
If it were me, I'd be looking at dozuki saws. They are super for dovetails
even though that isn't their specific purpose. (There is another, smaller
one - forget the name - specifically for that purpose).
They may not serve for tenons due to the depth of cut being limited by the
spine. One could cut go as deep as possible and finish with a kataba or
flush cut, no spine on either.
If you are interested in them, be aware that some are for rip, others for
crosscut; number of TPI varies too. AFAIK, they are mostly for softwoods
but I use them on hardwood too. The teeth are very hard and therefore
brittle, can be broken off if one isn't careful.
Prices vary widely. I used to buy them for $15-$20, see them on eBay now
for $35-$50 which is about the same adjusting for inflation. One could also
pay a ton more but I wouldn't, YMMV.
I second that suggestion. Thinner kerf = less effort = faster cutting.
And once you get used to the pull instead of push you'll love it.
BTW, get one with replaceable blades - sharpening a Japanese saw is a job
for an expert. But they last a long time.
Here's the one I've used for years:
(Amazon.com product link shortened)
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.