Early Logging Photos

A couple more saw filers, in case they weren't previously posted:

IMG_0173.jpg

"...the saw filer for the Sierra Lumber Company at Lyonsville, California, circa 1900."


camps_13_375.jpg

"Saw filer at work sharpening and cleaning saws for the next day's cut."
from Minnesota Historical Society


pf023357.jpg

"Man sharpening saw at Kileen & Company lumber camp, 1914."
from Minnesota Historical Society

sawfilr3.jpg

from http://freepages.history.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~mydickfamily/camp_at_the_cutting_area.htm


i-57112_141.jpg

"The saw filer's shack at Kimsquit logging camp...", BC Canada, 1920
from Royal BC Museum
 
Steve Tall said:
. . .

pf023357.jpg

"Man sharpening saw at Kileen & Company lumber camp, 1914."
from Minnesota Historical Society . . .
Click to expand...
Neat picture. I.m assuming treadle operated saw gummer. Here is a 1906 ad for gummers:



As I understand it, gumming is done to maintain the shape of the teeth. Use and sharpening reduces the length of the teeth resulting in relatively shallower gullets and change in tooth shape. Gumming is done before filing (jointing and sharpening).


Bob
 
Last edited:
Square_peg said:
Filing gullets is tedious. Wish I had one. Thinking of ways to improvise one.
Click to expand...
Is this a situation where a spiral flute carbide bit in a dremel tool might be handy? They are much more expensive than abrasive stones and wheels but these types of bits have given me pretty good mileage for taking ridges off brake drums, opening frame bolt holes, cleaning off burrs in axe eyes etc. I realize saw blades are probably hardened so whatever you do will be slow going.
 
Carbide burrs don't cut carbon steel well and are hard to control. I'm thinking more along the lines of a benchtop tooling cutter. We have one in our cabinet shop for making custom cutters for the shaping tables. I don't have experience using it but I've seen it cut high carbon steel quickly and accurately. You can free hand or duplicate an existing shape like a key cutter. Even a large abrasive cutting wheel would be useful.
 
Last edited:
Love looking at these old logging photos. The length of the cross cut saws they used on big trees always amazed me. It would take quite a manly pair to use them day in day out.

I also notice the LL Bean boots.

The style for woods boots back in the early 1900's seemed to be knee high laced boots for both support, general protection, and perhaps snake protection. Notice pictures of Horace Kephart wearing such.
 
A short story I thought I would share. As told by my great grandfather(1874-1977) and recorded by my grandfather.


Grandfather recalls; at age fifteen or sixteen logging on Chester Mountain near Farmington, Arkansas. Oak and hickory trees about three feet in diameter and about thirty foot tall.

Dragged trees by oxen (named Broad, Jumbo, Billy and Rock) to a bluff about seventy five feet high and rolled them over the edge to the valley below.

On a sunshiny day a steer does not sweat. They will sweat on a cloudy day.
 
rjdankert said:



102 in 1912 catalog:

​
Click to expand...

As I read the article of "the wood butcher" i was hoping to learn what saw was his preferred...not only did the article reveal his saw but you delivered the goods and I didn't have to Google it myself.

Thank you Bob :thumbsup::thumbsup:

Yes I will be keeping my eye out for a 102!;)
 
Love the boardwalks pictures in the original post. Sent them over to some of my forestry and trail building friends.
 
Miller '72 said:
Yes I will be keeping my eye out for a 102!;)
Click to expand...
First, I know nothing about this type of saw, let alone a Simonds No 102. So if I stick my foot in my mouth I will have no one to blame but myself. I don't remember seeing bow saws with the tension rod attached to the cross arm. The 1912 catalog page I posted states it was patented Nov 15,1904. The 1916 catalog does not have a 102 listed, but a new model 120 is:




Similar construction and both use the same blade (No. 407) in 30 and 32 inch lengths. Now I am starting to feel one foot starting to lift up. It seems to me that there might not be a lot of 102s around.

But to get my foot back down I will not make the assumption that they were only made between roughly 1904 - 1916 and being that was over 100 years ago that they might be rare.

I did try to find the patent and any other information for the 102, but so far no luck.


Bob
 
rjdankert said:
First, I know nothing about this type of saw, let alone a Simonds No 102. So if I stick my foot in my mouth I will have no one to blame but myself. I don't remember seeing bow saws with the tension rod attached to the cross arm. The 1912 catalog page I posted states it was patented Nov 15,1904. The 1916 catalog does not have a 102 listed, but a new model 120 is:




Similar construction and both use the same blade (No. 407) in 30 and 32 inch lengths. Now I am starting to feel one foot starting to lift up. It seems to me that there might not be a lot of 102s around.

But to get my foot back down I will not make the assumption that they were only made between roughly 1904 - 1916 and being that was over 100 years ago that they might be rare.

I did try to find the patent and any other information for the 102, but so far no luck.


Bob
Click to expand...

I have seen buck saws all my life, almost everywhere I turn there is one hanging oin a store, in a barn or shed or the one my dad has hanging in his basement shop.
They have always been of this build type like the one here I picked up...

20171201_143726.jpg


Thanks for looking into the 102 and uncovering the 120 and all the intrigue around them.

Only makes me want to find one or both models now LOL!

I dont know a thing about these bucksaws either, probably less than but no foot needed anywhere, there should always be an implied curve ;):thumbsup:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top