Bed Rock versus Bailey Planes

[Michael Ray Smith]

I just picked up my first Bed Rock plane (no bragging rights on the price -- I'm not going to say what I paid because I'm sure I paid too much!). And I'm wondering -- are Bed Rocks really better than Bailey's? If so, precisely why?

Mike Smith

[Adam Cruea]

I seem to remember Bedrock was Stanley's higher end offering, and Bailey was the name of the guy that Stanley swiped a later design from.

Other than (I believe) a little more attention to machining detail, I'm not really sure of a difference, per se. I've used both, and I honestly couldn't tell you a difference. The old Bed Rock jointer I have doesn't have a few of the screws in the frog like my Baileys do (I think), and the design is slightly different (instead of smoothly curving sides, the sides plateau, stuff like that).

In my humble (and hickory reducing) opinion, neither are bad planes, and with a little TLC, neither plane is better than the other. If there is a difference, it's completely out of my league.

This might have some info for ya: http://www.supertool.com/StanleyBG/stan15.htm

[Karl Andersson]

As I understand it (not having a Bedrock), the design of the frog/sole mating surface in a Bedrock is supposed to keep the frog and blade bedded to the sole with more surface area as the frog is adjusted, making a more stable and chatter-free blade. At least moreso than a standard Bailey design. From reading comments on Patrick Leach's site and various woodworking forums, most people say it really doesn't make a noticeable difference in the planes' performance. It's probably easier to adjust and fettle, maybe stays within tolerances better.

Karl

[Zach Dillinger]

6 of one, half dozen of the other. The Bedrock is slightly easier to adjust the mouth opening, but how often do you do that? The Bedrocks are nice planes, for sure, but I've never understood the lust for them. Baileys work just fine too.

[Sean Hughto]

The Bedrocks are significantly differnt in the frog to bed connection. Arguably, this makes for a higher quality - more stable tool. It's a good design, but the differences in use are not really noticable to me. For details check out Patricks Leach's Stanley Blood and Gore: http://www.supertool.com/StanleyBG/stan15.htm

[David Weaver]

I also don't notice any difference in actual use. Once a frog is set on a plane, you rarely move it, so aside from that the difference would have to be how solid the plane feels in use, and a bailey plane that's tightened down everywhere is already solid.

Your evidence of whether or not bedrocks are measurably superior is in the sales numbers of bailey planes vs. bedrocks.

(I still keep one of the bedrocks that i got, anyway).

[Zach Dillinger]

I've sold every Bedrock I've ever owned. They are worth more to other people than they are to me.

[Matthew Hills]

From reading forums, I had the impression that Bedrocks were all-around better.
Paul Sellers has been advocating something of a contrarian position -- preferring the lighter Bailey plane:
http://paulsellers.com/2012/09/buying-good-tools-cheap-smoothing-planes/
His lament has been that we don't currently have a source for well-made Bailey planes, with the consolation that there is a goodly supply on ebay.

That said, keep your new plane sharp, get to know it, and enjoy!

Matt

[Derek Cohen]

I'd say that the main advantage of a Bed Rock lies with its ability to adjust the mouth size without having to remove the blade.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Prashun Patel]

Derek, do you agree with the other posters that this in practicality isn't such a 'have-to-have'?

[Derek Cohen]

Hi Prashun

I think that the difference in performance between an equally tuned Bed Rock and Bailey of the same vintage is probably nil. The mouth adjustment, although nice to have, is not a big deal since one does not re-set the mouth of a plane, with the exception of a smoother.

Part of the attraction of a Bed Rock lies in the fact that it is perceived to be better. It does not hurt that LN based their design on it (although LN do a lot more than simply use the Bed Rock design to improve performance). Overall the Bed Rock is a better design than the Bailey, however the planes are not optimised for interlocked and figured woods (although they can be made to work reasonably well by a skilled user), so this design difference is unlikely to be realised.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Prashun Patel]

Thanks, All. This thread was enlightening.

[Jim Koepke]

A Bedrock type study is available at:

http://www.antique-used-tools.com/brtypes.htm



I've sold every Bedrock I've ever owned. They are worth more to other people than they are to me.

Same for me.

The Bedrock design has the mating surface between the frog and the base of the plane fully machined. This produces a much larger mating surface between the frog and the base. In theory, this can eliminate resonate vibrations in the plane while working.

The Stanley Bedrock was introduced in 1895. Soon after this, the Stanley Bailey plains underwent a modification that made the union of the frog and base a bit more secure.

Like Zach, All of my Bedrocks have been sold to people willing to may more for them than me.

I do not like the "flat top" look of the later Bedrocks.

IMO, there is the slightest difference in the feel/feedback between Bailey and Bedrock planes in my experience.

There is also a difference in feel/feedback between wood bodied planes and iron bodied planes.

It is all in the eye of the beholder.

jtk

[David Weaver]

I've sold every Bedrock I've ever owned. They are worth more to other people than they are to me.

I feel pretty much the same way about it, I think I had 3 at one time and I keep one for novelty (plus I got a screaming deal on the one I kept).

My two favorite smoothers at this point were $11 and $20, respectively.

[john davey]

I have seen Graham Blackburn do a demo at a show and praise the bedrock design for ease of adjusting. I have also seen Paul Sellers at a show praise the baileys for lightness and he says they are just as good with the original blade and all. So I think it is just personal preference. If you move the adjustments allot get two baileys and set them differently for the price of a bedrock and use the leftover money for beer :)...

[Mike Henderson]

I'd say that the main advantage of a Bed Rock lies with its ability to adjust the mouth size without having to remove the blade.

Regards from Perth

Derek
This is true, but there's a catch. The frog is mounted on a ramp, so when you adjust the frog up or down (or in or out), it changes the depth of cut. So you often have to make a blade adjustment after making a frog adjustment. But you don't have to remove the blade to make a frog adjustment.

Mike

[Jim Koepke]

But you don't have to remove the blade to make a frog adjustment.

This is correct for the flat top Bedrocks. Their production began in 1911.

The round sided Bedrocks have screws under the blade that have to be loosened to adjust the frog.

There are some round sided Bedrocks that have pins. To my knowledge this isn't a Stanley feature. It is caused by people who didn't like the flat top filing the sides to make them look like the Bailey style planes.

jtk

[Jim Neeley]

The Bedrocks were targeted to professionals where time is money but are not necessary to get a well-planed surface.

I agree that you have to re-adjust the blade depth after adjusting the mouth but I'm doing that all the time as I'm planing, so no big deal for me... your mileage may vary.

Not having to disassemble the plane to adjust the throat is a time-saving convenience; that is not a frequent event but whether or not that is "worth it" to each person is a matter of personal preference.

[David Weaver]

All of the bailey and bedrock planes at the time the bedrock was introduced were marketed to professionals, even though they were offered in catalogs like montgomery wards, etc. If you look at the cost of a #5 or #6 back in those days, they were about a day's wage (or more), and the majority of the population at that time had very little discretionary income. Spending a day's wage on a marginally needed item was a lot less common.

Being that it was stanley (who either bought and used or bought and discontinued anything they thought was a threat), I would guess that they were brought to market less as an improvement or need and more as sort of casting a lure in the water to see what you'd catch. Presume their designers were plenty competent with using the tools, and they could well use the bailey pattern planes for anything, but the company itself knew the value of appearing to have an innovation, even if the innovation didn't provide a material improvement.

Though some of us now would adjust the mouth of a plane fairly often (not me) based on the type of wood that's involved, or the coarseness of cut, I doubt professional tradesmen at the time would've done such a thing. It wouldn't have been unlikely for them to adjust the cap iron, though. The evidence of that is that despite the bedrock not costing much more than the bailey, it still didn't sell in great numbers like the bailey pattern planes did.

[Jessica Pierce-LaRose]

The only planes I find myself wanting to adjust the mouth size regularly are my block and jack planes. So I got ones with adjustable mouths. I've never found myself wishing for a different mouth on my smoother or jointer. If I had two jack planes (or rather, a fore plane and a shooting plane, or whatever) I'd probably not think to change that one, either. The block plane spends most of it's time with a fairly open mouth, and just gets closed up to keep it from hanging up on an edge sometimes.

I'm also incredibly lazy, and anything that requires a screwdriver is too much like work if I think I can do without. So I like the block-plane style mouth adjustment on BU planes over the dig out a long screwdriver and fiddle method with Bedrock-style planes. Same reason I don't use the depth stop on my fillester too often, I suppose.

I doubt I'd actually use it, but a bevel up plane with a tool-less mouth adjustment like found on BU planes is something I'd be intrigued by.

[Greg Wease]

According to the Stanley 1902 catalog a Bailey #4 cost $2.20 and a Bed Rock #604 cost $2.50. I believe the Bed Rock design is worth the extra 15%--but not the 300% difference you often see for Baileys and Bed Rocks today.

[Chris Griggs]

For the prices that Bedrocks go for I've always felt that the money is better spent on a new LV or LN plane... though, I've never owned a true bedrock... but unless I get one for a song (and maybe a jig) I probably never will...

Old Stanley Bailey's and Bailey style MF's and Sargents on the other hand, can give you a lot of bang for the buck.

[Charles Bjorgen]

I may be the contrarian here but my own experience with Bedrocks is that they seem to have been manufactured with finer tolerances and that seems to be mainly in the frog and it's bedding area. Having said that I've this year sold off four Bedrocks but still have a 605 and 604 in my arsenal. For some reason they seem to accept third party cutters and chip breakers better than the standard Bailys although I can't explain this. I've had a few Bailys (and Millers Falls) that were difficult to set up because the machined areas in the frog bedding area were done carelessly. I suspect those planes never did work right for their original owners. Never experienced that with a Bedrock.

[Jessica Pierce-LaRose]

I've come across a few planes that had similar machining problems, required a fair bit of fettling to get working right; only messed with one of them, sold one, and passed on a few others I've stumbled across. It's always been when I find the ones that look almost unused that I see this. I think I know why they weren't used! Seems like the best users are when you find those planes that are worn and old looking, but don't seem to have suffered from abuse. If I stumble across a plane with what appear to be replacement parts that still seem fairly old, I always take a look at it - the idea that someone cared enough to keep that thing working always seems like a good sign.

[Jim Koepke]

I've had a few Bailys (and Millers Falls) that were difficult to set up because the machined areas in the frog bedding area were done carelessly. I suspect those planes never did work right for their original owners. Never experienced that with a Bedrock.

I have also seen this.

In my opinion, at one time planes were made for craftsmen and woodworkers who depended on their tools to work well so they could make a living. As time passed and the world laborers changed to an industrial model, hand tools were relied upon less and less. It may have been the most common reason for some of the smaller planes being sold was a homeowner had a sticking door. They would buy a plane, take it out of the box, make some shavings and put it on a shelf until the grandkids had an estate sale.

That of course is a bit over simplified, but manufacturers were looking to cut cost of everything they made and attention to detail cuts into profits.

jtk