Bedrock planes vs. standard Bailey planes?

[David Tiell]

Hello all. I don't get to post here often, although I lurk when I get the chance.

I'm getting ready to "downsize" my planes to pretty much one of each to clear out some space in the shop. I have the standard Bailey versions of the 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, some corrugated soles, some not. In the Bedrocks, I have a 604, 604C, 605, 605C, 606C, 607C, and 608. For those of you that have and use both, are the Bedrocks so much better than the Baileys to justify keeping them, or should I keep the Baileys and sell the Bedrocks since they will bring more money? I see on Patrick Leach's B&G site, he doesn't seem to be too impressed with the Bedrock over the Bailey. I understand I'm pretty much asking for opinions here, and we all have our own. I'm just looking for some sort of consensus to base a decision on.

Thanks,

Dave

[Nick Stokes]

I would keep the ones that make better shavings...

[Mike Henderson]

There are two kinds of Bedrocks - ones with flat top sides and ones with round top sides. The flat top side Bedrocks are more valuable. The round top sides Bedrocks often don't bring a lot more than the Baileys.

I have both Baileys and Bedrocks and find that the blade makes the most difference. Either plane with a modern thick blade works well.

Mike

[Jim Koepke]

I tend to sell Bedrocks that come my way and keep the Baileys.

The Bedrocks are nice, but the wood doesn't see any difference.

jtk

[Sean Hughto]

Choose based upon the actual feel and performance of each plane - not based on some theoretical advantages of a given design. Yogi Berra said something like, "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is." Each plane will vary in tons of subtle ways from the details of the sole landscape to the tote shape to the frog bedding to the mouth size and on and on - not to mention that the sum of the parts may add up differently in each.

[Tom M King]

Once I've gotten a frog where I want it on any bench plane I own, I've never moved it again. Method of moving it hasn't mattered much at all.

[Judson Green]

Once I've gotten a frog where I want it on any bench plane I own, I've never moved it again. Method of moving it hasn't mattered much at all.

^^^^^ This!

And easy frog adjusting (on paper anyway) is really about the only benefit of a bedrock, less you buy into the idea that heavier is better. But like the others have said you should keep the ones that preform best for you.

I've one bedrock a flat top one and probably won't sell it but I nearly never use it.

[Kyle Iwamoto]

Im not a plane expert by any means... Sweethearts? I would keep them. I'll go along with keeping the ones you like. I only have 1 Bedrock, and I like it. But my main question, why downsize? :confused: Stack them in a corner, build a little shelf...... Put them in a shoe box..... (Under the wife's shoes. If she's like my wife, she won't even notice they're there)

[David Tiell]

Thanks for the input everybody! I guess I will give each a test run to make some decisions. And I need to downsize to make some room in my shop for the fishing stuff the wife has threatened to throw out if I don't get them out of the garage. And she is dead serious!

[Ray Selinger]

I just got a very rusty 605, my first, and tore it apart for it's bath. There is a lot more machining on a Bedrock than a Bailey but the frog hold down on a late model Bedrock isn't as positive as a Bailey, a small wedge versus a nice solid screw. I'm not sure if really matters. But as a machine, it's not as good.

[Allan Speers]

I don't disagree with anyone here, but I don't think the OP actually got a direct answer:

The Bedrocks with the flat tops (made after type 4, I believe) allow you to adjust the frog while the blade is installed. This certainly does save a little time, but would not be a huge advantage unless you need to open & close the mouth a lot for different woods, etc.

One other advantage, whether in theory or in practice, is blade support: All the Bedrocks (even the early ones) support the blade all the way down to the heel of the bevel. They also fit tighter on the sides, making it much less of a hassle to get the edge parallel with the sole.

--------------

Ray, above, brings up the one weakness of the flat-top Bedrock design. The screw system is not well designed and easy to overtighten / damage.

[Niels Cosman]

I'm not sure how much practical difference between the two once the planes have been set up.
Stanley marketing would tell you that the large machined surfaces between the frog and sole was more robust or that the adjustment of the frog was a massive convenience. Beyond initial fettling either can be made into excellent users.
I have a personal preference for 1920-30 bedrocks (before the jelly bean lever cap), but that is mostly aesthetic.
My 603 and 605 are some of my favorite planes.

[Stew Denton]

Hi David,

Good comments above, but I do have a thought or two to add.

The original big advantage of the Bedrock planes was not the quick frog adjustment feature of the later Bedrocks, it was that the entire bottom of the frog was milled flat as was the bed, so that the bedding of the frog to the body of the plane was inherently more solid than the Bailey style planes. The Bailey planes had two relatively small flat surfaces where the frog seated against the bed of the plane.

If everything was Kosher on the Bailey planes, this system was just fine. The problem was that small errors were more of a problem with the Bailey system than it is with the Bedrocks where the entire surfaces were milled flat.

The potential for this problem is evidenced by at least one video on Youtube showing how to fettle the bed of a Bailey plane to overcome the problem of such a bedding problem. Clearly this is a more common problem with the Baileys than with the Bedrocks, although I have to say I do not think it is very common at all with either system.

This was thus the reason for the Bedrock design, to make the bedding of the frog to the body of the plane more solid, thus the name "Bed Rock" or rock solid bedding.

As was pointed out by Jim and others above, if everything is Kosher, then it does not make a bit of difference which type of plane you use, either plane type will do exactly the same job, and just as well the other type.

With regard to the secure holding of the frog by the wedge type system in the later Bedrocks, most of my Bedrocks are the earlier ones, because they are cheaper, but I do have a few of the later ones, and I think they are just as secure as the Baileys. With either type you can over tighten the bolts and mess things up. That said, I am a user, not a collector, of planes, and so I don't have all that many planes so haven't played with tons of planes, but can say that none of my planes of any kind have problem with the frog not be securely attached to the plane body.

I don't want to be too critical, but I have to say that I don't completely agree with one of the posts above, because from the time that the first Bedrock was produced until they changed the design of the face of the Bailey planes in 1933, the faces of both the Bedrock design and the Bailey design, where the iron bedded to the frog, were nearly identical.

I will say this, however, I think the advantage of the easier to adjust feature of the later Bedrocks was a bigger advantage back in the day than it is today. Back when the Bedrocks were being made, at least early on, I don't think folks had as many planes as most of us do today. People didn't have the money we do now, and a plane was a bigger investment than it is now. Also, a carpenter, for example had to carry his tools to the job. Thus, flexibility of tool usage was important.

A carpenter could carry a #605 Bedrock with a couple of extra irons, with different amounts of curvature to the cutting edge, and use that one plane for different tasks with different irons, by simply changing the irons. When he did that he would likely have had to adjust the frog, thus the reason for the advantage of ease of adjustment. If I was carpentering back then, and had to carry a heavy tool box, I would have likely carried a later type 605 Bedrock and extra irons.

That is why you seem so many 605s and Bailey #5s, I think, they could do a fair job of several different jobs. Thus the carpenter carried a #5 and the handyman, hobbyist, and homeowner probably only had that one plane too. A Bedrock maximized the flexibility of that one plane by making it quicker to adjust for the differing tasks it had to do.

Today, many of us have more than one of a given plane size, some set up differently for different types of wood and for different jobs. That would not have been the case, I don't believe back in 1930, especially for a carpenter who had to go to the job instead of bring the job to his shop.

Just my two bits.

Stew

[Robert Engel]

Simple: if there is no real difference in your hands, sell the Bedrocks they will bring more $$.

In fact, if you're interested in selling the 608, PM me.

[Kyle Iwamoto]

[QUOTE=David Tiell;2449800] And I need to downsize to make some room in my shop for the fishing stuff the wife has threatened to throw out if I don't get them out of the garage. QUOTE]

Wow, tough one. How about building an overhead rack, to store the fishing poles, and a shelf to hold the tackle? I have all my fishing gear overhead.... Yep, I'd downsize to save fishing gear too..... Sell a Bedrock and buy her something nice to distract her?

[Ray Selinger]

Stew the only thing I disagree with is the availability of #5s, certainly around here. Not that #5 are uncommon, it's just that the #4 are four times as common.

[Pat Barry]

... buy her something nice to distract her?

+1 - Always a very good idea

[David Tiell]

[QUOTE=David Tiell;2449800] And I need to downsize to make some room in my shop for the fishing stuff the wife has threatened to throw out if I don't get them out of the garage. QUOTE]

Wow, tough one. How about building an overhead rack, to store the fishing poles, and a shelf to hold the tackle? I have all my fishing gear overhead.... Yep, I'd downsize to save fishing gear too..... Sell a Bedrock and buy her something nice to distract her?

Now that is an idea that hadn't crossed my mind, but just might work!!

[Curt Putnam]

[QUOTE=Kyle Iwamoto;2450006]

Now that is an idea that hadn't crossed my mind, but just might work!!
My fishing gear is mostly stored overhead. Since my wife wants me to build stuff I'd have some leverage by saying: No, the fishing stuff stays and if you want to push it, the woodworking stuff goes and I won't be able to build you what you want. Fortunately, she knows what is important to me and would never push it that far.

Look at the racks on boats - they are all overhead while other gear is stuffed around the boat in various places.

Just sayin'

[Daniel Rode]

My planes are mostly vintage with bailey style frogs. I have one modern plane with a bedrock style frog. I can adjust the frog without removing the iron. That's the only functional difference I can find. In the normal course of my woodworking, I do not make adjustments to the frog, so the value to me is nill. Because they have collector value (I'm not a collector), I'd sell the bedrocks and never give it a second thought.

FWIW, I have a K5 Keen Kutter. It's a clone of the round top bedrock #5. The frogs in those are bailey style. I believe it's only the later bedrocks with flat top sides that have the distinctive frog design.

[Mike Henderson]

FWIW, I have a K5 Keen Kutter. It's a clone of the round top bedrock #5. The frogs in those are bailey style. I believe it's only the later bedrocks with flat top sides that have the distinctive frog design.
That is correct. On the early round top Bedrocks, the screws that hold the frog go in from the top, just like the Bailey planes. On the flat top Bedrocks, the screws go in from the back.

Mike

[Stew Denton]

Hi Daniel and Mike,

I have been debating how to respond on this, because I don't want to be offensive, but finally decided to go ahead. First I want to say that I have appreciated the comments from both of you on the different subjects and respect your views. That said, I have to say that on this one item my thinking is that your view on this is incorrect.

The essence of the Bed Rock frog design is the BOTTOM of the frog, not how the screw that hold the frog to the plane body are tightened. The bottom of all of the Bedrock frogs is milled dead flat as is the bed of the body of the plane where the frog beds to the body. This is the case of the earlier round sided Bed Rocks, and also the later flat sided Bed Rocks. Neither of these types of frogs is of the Bailey style.

The Bailey style frogs bed on two strips, one on the front and one on the back of the bottom of the frog. There are two equivalent milled flats on the bed of the body of the plane where the frogs bed.

The bottom of the frog on any Bed Rock plane is dead flat. The bottom of any of the modern (1900 and later?) Bailey frogs is stepped, not one large flat.

I do agree with both of you that the way you tighten and loosen the screws to move the frog is the same on the round sided bedrocks as it is on the Baileys, but the frog designs certainly not the same style.

As you point out, although you do point out that in your use it is of nominal value, the later Bed Rocks did have the feature of being able to move the frog without having to remove the lever cap, cap iron, and iron. Stanley did this by lengthening the frog and the bed of the body so that the bed could be drilled and threaded from the back, so that the two screws could wedge into the beveled portion of the pins. Thus, for example, the length of an early 604 frog is less than that of the later type 604 frog. They also removed the threads from the mounting pin holes so that the pins could be moved up and down by the wedging action of the screws. That said, the bottom of the later design is just like the bottom of the round sided design, one large flat.

At any rate, I hope that I am not being offensive, but do disagree with you on this point.

Regards,
Stew

[Mike Henderson]

Hi Daniel and Mike,

The essence of the Bed Rock frog design is the BOTTOM of the frog, not how the screw that hold the frog to the plane body are tightened. The bottom of all of the Bedrock frogs is milled dead flat as is the bed of the body of the plane where the frog beds to the body. This is the case of the earlier round sided Bed Rocks, and also the later flat sided Bed Rocks. Neither of these types of frogs is of the Bailey style.

Regards,
Stew
I don't disagree with you on this point but I don't think I ever said the Bedrock frogs mated the same way as the Bailey's. I'm aware that both round top and flat top side Bedrocks were machined the same way for the frog mating. I think the reason that was never specifically mentioned is that it was assumed to be known.

What is different between the round top and the flat top Bedrocks is the way the screws are put in to hold the frog in place - and that is what I was posting about.

In re-reading the posts above, I can see that I should have been more specific in replying to Daniel that the frog mating on the round top is the same as the frog mating on the flat top Bedrocks. I assumed that, and jumped to the way they are held to the body.

Mike

[Brian Holcombe]

I have everything camouflaged by neatness.

[David M Anderson]

I tend to sell Bedrocks that come my way and keep the Baileys.

The Bedrocks are nice, but the wood doesn't see any difference.

jtk

David,

About a month ago did a comparison test with two #5's.

A Type 17 against a Bedrock, had a PM-V11 and swapped it out in both, for a proper comparison.
And then the Type 17 with original blade, finely sharpened, against the Bedrock with the PM blade.

Results surprised me.

318809

The Bedrock looks good and performs great on walnut.
But the under rated Type 17, was smoother in feel and did a great job also, and that was with a stock blade.

+ one with Jim
Course it is nice to say I have a Bedrock...