Replies

1. 
   JohnWW | Nov 13, 2009 05:02pm | #1

   The numbers stamped in the castings were often there for tracking production runs or for other internal company bookkeeping, they don't necessarily indicate any difference in the design of the piece. If you can try the replacement frog out and it works use it, the fit isn't all that precise.

   John White
   Shop Manager for FWW Magazine, 1998 to 2007
1. 
   lwilliams | Nov 14, 2009 03:29am | #2

   Stanley casting marks often can be used to identify changes. For instance the "S" casting mark can be found on Stanley planes made between 1893 and 1899 and these planes are classified as type 7 by collectors. Type 8 planes have the "B" casting mark and were made between 1899 and 1902. There's a tremendous amount of research behind the type studies of Stanley planes.I believe a type 8 frog will fit a type 7 plane but I'm not positive so I didn't try to answer the original question. I am sure that a type 9 frog won't fit a type 8 plane because there was a major design change to the frogs in 1902. Still though "precise" isn't the issue, it's the basic design of the plane. The question by the original poster was at least somewhat informed. I don't understand why anyone who obviously hasn't a clue would respond in such a misleading or uniformed way.

1. 
   gdblake | Nov 14, 2009 07:03am | #3

   Larry: 

    I get your point and basically agree with you.  As you indicated, over the years the Bailey planes used several different configurations to mate the frog to the main castings that are not readily interchangeable to my knowledge.  Maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't believe John's answer is misleading. John was basically recommending the poster get the main casting (the sole) and the frog together and see if they properly mate.  If so great, if not the obvious answer to the poster's question is no, the substitution won't work.  Also, if the only way to make them mate up properly is to do some modification to the frog or the casting take that as a no answer, forget it and hunt for the right series frog.

   Depending on the condition of the plane, it may make more sense to sell it off for parts on eBay and use the money to buy a complete working plane.

   gdblake

1. 
   Glaucon | Nov 15, 2009 12:03am | #5

   gdb,I agree. I think there is a high likelihood that Bailey frogs will overlap to a significant degree. Given the relative simplicity/forgiveness of the Bailey (as opposed to Bedrock) design, I think that the empirical approach is worth a try. One's curiosity is likely to be quickly (and definitively) answered. Unless the OP is a collector (where matched parts would matter- and given the very large number of Bailey planes of this type, it's not a rara avis), trying it out seems likely the easiest way of settling the issue.Glaucon

   If you don't think too good, then don't think too much...

1. 
   bmyyou | Nov 15, 2009 03:13am | #6

   Thanks to all for the feedback; I suspect that if the stamp identified different foundrys, then there will probably be insignificant differences in the casting. I restored the 41/2 recently, and I noticed that the knife edge of the frog is uneven laterally, and the lateral adjuster "wags" a bit when planing, causing more adjustments more frequently. I would like to find a better cast frog that would help balance the iron and the adjuster so that is why I asked; ebay seems to have more "S" frogs than "B" frogs. I am not a collector but would set the original beside.

2. 
   JeffHeath | Nov 14, 2009 06:00pm | #4

   I don't understand your need to tell someone they "haven't a clue". Does it make you feel better when you wake up in the morning? In the simple matter of finding a frog to fit a plane, the approach of "if a shoe fits, wear it" doesn't seem to be such "clueless" advice.Give it a try, and if the plane makes shavings, then what's the harm. I don't recall the OP asking for a manufacturing history lesson on plane types.You make terrific planes, Larry, but your bedside manner needs serious work. I wish my business was flourishing in such a way that I could afford to pi$$ off so many possible future customers. And, even if it was, I still wouldn't do it. All great things can come to an end, and sometimes with a very hard thud. Free advice from someone who knows.Jeff

1. 
   lwilliams | Nov 15, 2009 05:38am | #7

   Jeff,

   Okay, let's go with this. Perhaps you can tell me the purpose of the post I responded to? Maybe you can explain what useful information it conveyed? How was it helpful and what was its intent?

   Two things were said in that post. First was that casting marks don't mean anything useful in determining the interchangeability of parts. That's wrong and could have easily been checked by simply searching for information. Google "Stanley plane B mark" and the information included with the first three links of search results will quickly give that information.

   I'm sure just a little more searching would reveal the particular casting marks mentioned in the original post are thought to signify the subcontracting foundry that cast those models. If that likely scenario is the case, were new patterns made? If new patterns or even slight changes made, would the parts be interchangeable?

   I don't have the answer to the last question and obviously neither did the person who I replied to. There are also two likely reasons for the original post. The poster needs a replacement frog and he's either doing his own research or he's contacted an antique tool dealer for a replacement and had a "B" mark replacement frog suggested. From an antique tool dealer the frog won't be inexpensive and will be priced close the value of a complete old tool. The suggestion to try it would probably be completely unnecessary if the original poster actually had the frog. I'd just try it rather than waste time asking about it. I don't see where the suggestion to just try it makes much sense--"go ahead, spend your money, it might work."

   The poster's other comment was, "...the fit isn't all that precise." Really? Well, the difference between a type 8 frog and a type 9 is so significant that there's 3/8" to 1/2" elevation difference between some of the frog bearing points and a type 9 frog will only fit a type 9 plane because the design changed again in a brief time frame. "...the fit isn't all that precise," implies to me that Stanley frogs are pretty much interchangeable and that's simply not the case. Others reading that post could be set up for an expensive mistake by assuming the information is right.

   I'm back to the purpose of the post. If the intent was to help maybe some links to web sites including a type study based on Roger Smith's well known type study might be helpful. Maybe a link to a reputable old tool dealer who could possibly answer the question?

   Jeff, you brought my business into this. You said, "I wish my business was flourishing in such a way that I could afford to pi$$ off so many possible future customers." I'd bet the vast majority of our customers started out tuning up old Stanley planes because it's a way to get reasonably functional planes at a low price. I wonder how many would have gotten into hand tools to appreciate the differences in available options if they'd been set up for expensive failures as they began. I think most would have gone back to their finger-mangling factory production oriented machines and walked away from the potential advantages of hand tools.

   Go back and read Asa Cristiana's comments in the feedback folder. FWW accepts that their readership base will completely change every five years. One interpretation of that could be "Our readers are just a bunch of subscription rate payers having an intense summer romance with woodworking. Because they pass through in such a brief time we and our advertisers need to get every dollar from them we can to fund a continuous search for new customers." Keep in mind, I did say "could be."

   On the other hand, my company's philosophy is that our customers tend to be those who have had considerable success in their woodworking endeavors. We need to supply capable tools and information that enables them to keep growing and having success. We don't expect our customers to ever outgrow the capability of the tools or to quit woodworking as long as their health allows.

   Could it be that these possible differences might explain why this forum now depends on volunteer moderators instead of a paid staff member and I lay awake at night worried about being so far behind? Who knows? One thing I believe is that the volume of bad information in woodworking forums is contributing to the attrition rate FWW accepts as fact. Jeff, if you're offended by my obvious disappointment that some of the moderators around here seem to frequently contribute to the volume of misinformation; that's too bad but I won't lose any sleep over it. I think, if nothing else, the moderators have an obligation to invest a few seconds to verify things they're not sure about before they post.

1. 
   Glaucon | Nov 15, 2009 09:45pm | #8

   It wouldn't have taken you too long to rephrase your previous post in a less inflammatory way. John has contributed a lot of accurate, helpful information both on this web site and in the pages of FWW.A litlle civility wouldn't kill you. Defending the way you made your previous post just makes you look small.Glaucon

   If you don't think too good, then don't think too much...

2. 
   JeffHeath | Nov 15, 2009 11:05pm | #10

   Thank you. That's all I was trying to say.Jeff

3. 
   JeffHeath | Nov 15, 2009 10:50pm | #9

   Larry,
   First of all, not one single person that comes to this forum, or any other, will doubt that you have tremendous amounts of good information to add regarding hand planes. My post to you had absolutely nothing to do with your knowledge. My comments to you were regarding your delivery. You could have just as easily have stated that JW was perhaps mistaken, and that the correct info IS ........Instead, you decided, which is frequent for you, that it was better to flame a guy with the remark of being "clueless". John may or may not be giving good info IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE, but he has lent a dump truck full of great information and experience in the past on this forum. Why anyone would choose to flame a person instead of simply mentioning the error in his statement is beyond me.I personally have learned quite a bit from you when it comes to wooden hand planes, especially in the area of making repairs to old relics, and heat treating my own cutters for making my own tools. I've purchased all of C & W's cd's on the subject because the information found within is excellent. However, when your attitude towards another knothead, especially one of long standing, is trollish in nature, it ticks me off and makes me question my decision to do business with you. I just felt like mentioning it to let you know that when you get that way, you turn alot of people off.If you care about what I've written here, then perhaps you'll consider that in the future. If you don't give a $hit, then that message will also be clear to future prospective clients like myself who actually do know what the hell we're doing.Hope you have a great weekend.Jeff