On 7/26/2012 8:02 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
....

I agree that the HF blade is not better than a Forrest as a general precept.
That was not what I was trying to say.

Well, then, I certainly have no idea what specifically it was that you
_were_ trying to say...

You never proposed that something could have been suspect in the
comparison--either the blade, the saw, a combination to explain the
grossly unexpected results; only afaict a willingness to blindly accept
that a very inexpensive run-of-the-mill blade would outperform an
obviously flawed cut made w/ a blade from a recognized premium industry
leader...

I'll throw out one more war story as a _possible_ albeit unlikely
culprit -- many years ago I bought a matched pair of blades (not Forrest
but another of similar reputation and price point) specifically to cut a
bunch of tenons for a large project. The first trial w/ them went very
badly indeed and left a mark much like that OP described on one side in
particular.

Investigation (and not a terribly intense one ) uncovered the fact
that one of the two center holes was just a wee fraction small and would
(and did) not fit over the unthreaded portion of the arbor shaft on the
PM66 and so was cockeyed rather than resting flush against the arbor
mandrel face.

Whatever it was that happened in OP's case, _something_ caused that
blade to score agreed, but to draw a general conclusion from that one
cut is just not supported w/o additional data and followup.

For example OP didn't report what he learned from Forrest when he
contacted them to get their input before deciding to return it. It
sounds like he was simply relieved he could justify getting the money
back that he really didn't want to spend to begin with...

--