Coping saw

How it works

The frame is a metal hoop with a handle at one end. According to the Journal of Light Construction, a thin blade stretches between turning pins on the handle and on the far end of the hoop, the hoop keeps the blade in tension, and tightening the handle pulls the blade tighter. The pins rotate so the blade can be set at an angle to the frame and can follow a profile.

The blade is narrow enough to turn within its own kerf, and the deep frame lets the cut reach well in from the edge of the work. A coped joint, which is the tool’s best-known use in trim carpentry, is made by cutting the end of one molding to the negative of the profile of another; the Journal of Light Construction explains that a mitered inside corner can open as the wood shrinks and as corners prove to be out of square.

Anatomy

Frame: A deep D- or U-shaped springy metal hoop. Disston’s 1916 history says the blades of fret, scroll and jig saws used by hand are stretched in a frame made of considerable depth between blade and back.
Handle: Wood; on Disston’s 1926 No. 10 it is polished hardwood with a nickel-plated steel ferrule.
Blade pins and stretchers: Small pins at the blade ends seat in turning pegs. Disston’s 1926 catalog describes two knurled stretchers by which the blade is adjusted for sawing sharp corners or angles.
Blade: Thin, narrow, replaceable, sold with pins at the ends. Disston’s 1926 catalog sold extra pinned blades separately.

Variants

Marquetry saw: The deep-throated metal frame saw shown by Roubo in plate 292 of his Menuisier Ebeniste, which Schwarz says looks at first glance a lot like a coping saw.
Fret saw and jeweler’s saw: Light frame saws for fine pierced work. Disston’s 1916 history calls the fret saw the forerunner of the hack saw; Schwarz notes that the 1883 patent that he regards as the first modern coping saw patent was titled as a frame for a jeweler’s saw.
Wire-back coping saw: The inexpensive form with a wire frame, to which Disston’s 1926 catalog compares its heavier No. 10.
Coping foot for a jigsaw: An attachment described by the Journal of Light Construction that replaces the footplate of a jigsaw.

Specifications

Blade length · in: Disston’s 1926 No. 10 is cataloged with a blade of about 6 inches from pin to pin; the figure is not fully legible in the scanned text.
Tooth pitch · tpi: Kenney advises a fine-cut blade; no typical value is sourced.

Safety and care

Safety

Hold the work firmly and support it (CCOHS).
The Journal of Light Construction says of the jigsaw coping foot that the user must keep firm control of the jigsaw at all times with fingers away from the blade.

Tips

Cut a 45-degree miter first to expose the profile
Before coping a joint, cut the end of the molding at 45 degrees; the cut reveals the profile to follow. The Journal of Light Construction and Fine Homebuilding both give this as the first step.1 2
Back-cut so only the face edge touches
Fine Homebuilding calls angling the blade away from the profile back cutting, and says it removes interfering material so the profile fits tight. The Journal of Light Construction keeps the saw at or beyond 90 degrees to the face and describes finishing the profile at an angle to create a back bevel.1 2
Make relief cuts so the waste falls away
It is possible to follow a profile from one side to the other while rotating the blade, but it is much easier, according to the Journal of Light Construction, to make relief cuts at critical points so the waste falls away and different parts of the profile can be approached from different directions.1
Add a little length so the cope can be sprung in
The Journal of Light Construction advises adding a little extra to the length of the coped piece: the extra length lets the board be sprung into place, and the pressure makes the joint tight. A light tap with a block and hammer takes any slack out of a free end.1
Use the coping saw to remove dovetail waste
Kenney reports using the coping saw to saw out the waste between dovetails instead of chopping it with a chisel; the thin blade fits a tight socket and turns along the baseline. He advises a fine-cut blade because it cuts slower and is less likely to jump the kerf at the end of the cut and damage the tail or pin.1
Turn the blade in the frame to follow the cut
The Journal of Light Construction notes that the pins rotate so the blade can follow a profile. Disston’s 1926 No. 10 has two knurled stretchers for adjusting the blade for sawing sharp corners or angles.1 2

History

Earliest documented

17th to 18th century (marquetry frame saws); coping saw by name 1880s

France and England (frame saws); United States (patents)

Schwarz traces the coping saw to the Roman frame saw and, closer, to the metal marquetry saw that André Roubo shows in plate 292 of Le Menuisier Ebeniste, a metal frame that tensions the blade without a cord, though with a deeper throat and a blade that does not rotate. Moxon’s 1703 text describes a wooden frame or bow saw tightened by a twisted cord and a tongue. The first U.S. patent in the sources read whose title uses the name is Christopher Morrow’s Coping-Saw of 1887.1 2 3

The coping saw joins two older lines. Schwarz finds that the thin tensioned blade came from the Roman frame saw and that the metal frame came from the marquetry saw, with deep-throated saws for marquetry and shallow-throated D-shaped frame saws for dense materials such as the jeweler’s saw and the hack saw both common in eighteenth-century plates and in the nineteenth century. Moxon’s 1703 description of the cord-and-tongue frame saw shows the tensioned blade in its wooden form.

The patents show how the modern form was reached. Fenner’s 1884 patent treats the main problem of a frame saw, that a blade turned at one end only will warp, and solves it by turning both blade ends together. Morrow’s 1887 patent, which uses the name coping saw in its title, concentrates on tightening the blade and absorbing vibration. Schwarz comments that after 1887 the name appears regularly and that by 1900 the saw is everywhere.

The name and the use come from joinery rather than from the saw’s construction. Schwarz, citing the Oxford English Dictionary, reports that coping was a seventeenth-century term for the top course of a wall, often beveled, and that in woodworking coping came to mean cutting the negative of a molding profile so that two pieces nest at an inside corner. Modern trade sources give the reason: the Journal of Light Construction says a coped joint avoids the opening of mitered inside corners, and Fine Homebuilding calls coping an inside crown joint standard practice.

Schwarz also reports that the saw became central to the manual training movement of the late nineteenth century, when students used it to cut toys and decorative objects, and that many books and patterns appeared. His account is a single secondary source for that claim.

The direction of the stroke is not settled, and the sources show it. Trade Foundations in 1919 puts the teeth toward the handle for work on the bench and away from it for work in a vise; Schwarz reports that Robert Wearing and Charles Hayward describe a push stroke as usual, and that many modern writers prefer the pull. The Journal of Light Construction and Kenney both describe the teeth pointing toward the handle, so the saw cuts on the pull, and Kenney gives the reason that the thin blade is then in tension and will not buckle.

Timeline

1703
Moxon’s Mechanick Exercises describes the frame or bow saw as a saw for a single man’s use, tightened by a twisted cord and tongue between the cheeks.1
1883
William Jones applies for a U.S. patent on a “saw frame for a jeweler’s saw,” which Schwarz regards as the first U.S. patent for a saw that resembles the modern coping saw; Schwarz is the only source read and the patent number was not located.1
1884
Charles A. Fenner of Mystic River, Connecticut, is granted US Patent 297,366 for a handsaw whose two blade-holding ends are connected by wheels and chains so that they turn together, letting the blade be set to any angle without being warped; the patent mentions marquetry sawing.1
1887
Christopher Morrow of Kansas City, Missouri, is granted US Patent 355,704 on January 11 for a Coping-Saw or bow-saw whose frame arms are drawn together to tighten the blade and which uses rubber washers to absorb vibration from the teeth striking the work.1
1900
By about this date, in Schwarz’s account, the term coping saw appears regularly in catalogs and patent filings, and the saw is everywhere.1
1916
Disston’s The Saw in History states that the fret saw has been called the forerunner of the hack saw, that hand-used fret, scroll and jig saw blades are stretched in a frame of considerable depth, and that the Buhl saw takes its name from André Buhl, celebrated in the reign of Louis XIV for inlaid work.1
1919
The pre-vocational textbook Trade Foundations (Guy M. Jones Co.), as quoted by Schwarz, advises that for most coping saw work with the work held horizontally on the bench the teeth should point toward the handle, and with the work in a vise away from the handle.1
1926
Disston’s catalog lists the No. 10 coping saw, described as much stronger than the ordinary wire-back style, with a steel frame, two knurled stretchers and pinned replacement blades sold separately.1
2013
Matt Kenney in Fine Woodworking names the coping saw among four handsaws a shop needs, and describes the teeth facing the handle so the saw cuts on the pull stroke with the thin blade in tension.1

Where the sources disagree

Should the coping saw cut on the push stroke or the pull stroke?

Teeth point toward the handle (pull) for work on the bench, and away from the handle (push) when the work is held in a vise.1
Trade Foundations (1919), as quoted by Schwarz
Push stroke is generally used, with the blade reversed on occasion.1
Robert Wearing and Charles Hayward, as reported by Schwarz
Teeth point toward the handle; the saw cuts on the pull and the thin blade stays in tension. Mark Duginske, quoted by Schwarz, states the same.1 2 3
Matt Kenney, Fine Woodworking; Journal of Light Construction; Mark Duginske as reported by Schwarz

Gaps in the record (9)

William Jones’s 1883 patent was not located; its number, title and text are known here only through Schwarz.
The Roubo plate 292 and the Oxford English Dictionary entry that Schwarz cites were not read; they are reported through his article.
Lost Art Press’s “A History of Coping Saws in Five Paragraphs” (Schwarz, 2014) returned a block page and could not be read.
No maker history (Disston, Stanley, Millers Falls, Eclipse, Simonds) was located for the 20th-century coping saw.
Disston’s 1926 No. 10 frame and blade dimensions are not legible in the scanned text and are omitted; no typical blade length is sourced.
Schwarz’s claim that the saw was central to the manual training movement is not independently sourced.
Care has no sourced entries.
No standard has been located for coping saws; standards is empty.
No independent test data has been located, so buying is null.