I fell for planes hard a long time back now. I bought a old Stanley 5 on e-Bay nearly 10 years ago. It was back in the days when most auctions didn’t even have pics, and if they did, the pics wer often poor quality. Being a newbie, I didn’t really know what to look for other than vintage. Bid on SW and won it cheap(around $20 IIRC). It looked okay in the pics, but when it arrived it turned out what I took to be shadow in the pics was in fact flat blck spray paint on nearly the whole thing! I dunno why, but I decided to clean it up rather than return it. Stripping the paint wasn’t that hard, and it even turned out the paint looked to have protected the little beast from corrosion. I (horrors) used wire brushes to clean off the chipping jappaning and after careful masking sprayed it with a high grade hunter green rustoleum (worse horrors!). Got an LN blade too. Cleaning and rebuilding that puppy helped me learn the tool from the inside out. It tuned up sweet and cut nicely. Also, its rosewood tote is still one of the nicest I’ve seen in terms of grain pattern.
I soon bought many more bench, block, and specialty planes.
Only recently, however, have I acquired and used a bedrock. One of my favorite planes is SW vintage 7, so when a 607 (Type 1 or 2 with round sides and 3 line logo on the lever cap) came along on eBay at a price in the $75 range, I thought I’d take a chance and just see what all the BEDROCK fuss is about. I’d always wondered if Patrick Leach was right in his B&G that it was a lot of hype. Well, it may be, but if someone asked me this instant to chose one jointer I could keep, it would be the 607. There is just something so positive and “rock” solid about it as I move it over the wood (and that’s with the original blade too). It’s not like the 7’s frog and blade assembly moved or anything when I used it – at least not perceptibly, so maybe it’s all in my mind, but it sure feels just more like a single unit slicing through that wood – expecially on face planing operations like planing drawer sides (as opposed to edge jointing.
So my question: Those of you who’ve used both; do you thing the Bedrocks are meaningfully better to use than the standard vintage Stanley’s? or is it all in my mind due to years of hype?
Replies
Sam, I have that Bedrock #607, plus one old British Stanley #6 and #51/2 and #41/2 of both old British Stanley and Record. The Bedrock is the only American one in the group.
I can note no material difference in use between the 607 and the others except that the 607 is lighter than the #6 in spite of being longer. The 607 is good for edge jointing and will plane end grains of stuff like Jatoba and Wenge with ease.I use the 51/2 the most, but use that 607 for all edge jointing in spite of having a Griggio surfacer that is 8 feet long-just to take a wispy shaving to be sure of no discrepancies.
The picture shows a comparatively small herd.
P.S. Not being as fickle as you American chaps I have to this day managed quite well with the stock Stanley or Record blades that the planes came with, despite having to work unkind timbers like Iroko and Makore...If someone were to be overwhelmed with sympathy I could receive a Hock or similar from them since this is soon to be the season of good will for all mankind....
Very nice herd there, Philip.
Glad to hear your report too.
It's funny, but I really suspected that the frog seating could not result in noticable difference, but it seems like there is one. Probably accounted for by some other differences in the particulars between the two individual planes like thickness/weight of the body casting, sharpness/angle of the blades, and other variations too small and numerous to really be accounted for that all together are more than the sum of their parts so to speak.
Oh, and I hope Santa brings you a LN Stanely replacement blade to try out. I've found many of the older Stanely blade to perfectly adequate, but the LN blades are very nice too.
Edited 11/17/2006 10:26 pm ET by Samson
Samson,
Currently, the only vintage plane of Bedrock design I own is the #605, and I have a couple non-Bedrocks, one Stanley, one Sargent. Like Philip, I don't notice a performance difference between them now. But the Stanley required a little filing of the mating surfaces of the body and frog in order to stop some chatter on harder woods.
To me, the main difference concerning the two styles of planes is simply the mechanical one mentioned. But another is that while I have had many vintage planes I needed to fuss with the frog's mating surface or the face of the frog, never on a Bedrock which seems to me means grater care was taken during machining.
Overall, while I can take finer shavings easily with the OEM blades, I can more easily take thicker shavings and hone less with a Hock or LN replacement blade. To me, fine shavings are, well, fine. But being able to more readily remove more waste with less honing makes the replacement iron cost a good upgrade.
Take care, Mike
Can't rely on Santa these days-the place is too far off the beaten track-hence the humanitarian appeal.
"I really suspected that the frog seating could not result in noticable difference, but it seems like there is one." This suspicion is baseless unless there is a poor marriage between frog and bed (??) due to the presence of foreign bodies or ill fitting screws, you understand?
The above scenario is not found with that Bedrock system as the manufacturer used closer manufacturing tolerances or it would not work.Well that is what I surmise.Philip Marcou
I think the Bedrock is a superior frog design overall. Having said that, my go to jack is an 1892 Bailey #5. Since I tend to set the throat and leave it be, I haven't had too much cause to regret not having a 605.
For finishing, I use a LN 4 1/2. It has a Bedrock design with a few refinements, and it does everything I need a finisher to do. In this case, I might desire to change the throat settings depending on the wood and grain, so having the Bedrock design is an advantage.
The problem I have with the Bedrock's is their price. Because of their collectability, it is much greater than a similarly sized Bailey. When I bought my #5, I paid $35 for it, and it was in very good condition. A 605 (~1910) in similar condition at the same shop was $350. For that price, I could have a LN with an A2 blade, a dead flat sole and everything brand new and fettled. Hard to justify unless you are a collector...
Glaucon
If you don't think too good, then don't think too much...
Edited 11/18/2006 1:50 pm ET by Glaucon
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled