I Like Old Tools

[ken hatch]

I just don't like rehabbing "em. My love of old tools as MsBubba would tell you ain't because I'm cheap nor is it because of some hippy dippy notion of connection to the past. It is simply the fact a good tool from the late 19th to early 20th Century will usually work better than its new replacement. That is not always the case but in general it is a good rule.


If you have ever spent any time looking at Russian aircraft you will see many copies of Western aircraft. Usually poorly executed copies, like the designer saw the Western aircraft several years before he/she put pencil to paper but close enough you can recognize the lineage of the design. I think many modern tools suffer from the same fault. The manufacture makes a tool that looks like one of the old ones and usually makes 'em "better" but missed some of the details that make using the tool a pleasure.


It's not that modern tools are poorly made because most are beautiful works of art but, there that damn but, they miss some of the important details. LN planes are a perfect example if compared to a early 20th Century Bailey pattern plane. The Bailey plane was light so you could use it all day with out tiring. The irons were thin, made of good HC steel and had a good balance between edge retention and ease of sharpening on any available stone. The chip breaker is much better for controlling tear-out than any of the modern back irons. The need for a moveable frog while the iron is in place is selling the sizzle instead of the steak. I'm not picking on LN, they make beautiful planes but I believe they missed the mark in making a working tool. Full disclosure, I own most of the LN planes, all sit gathering dust.


Chisel are the same story, come on, a paring chisel made of A2 steel? You have to be kidding. For that matter any chisel made of A2 is less useful than one made of HC steel and hammer forged. For a hammer forged chisel, for the most part, you have to go back to pre-war chisels or .Japanese chisels. I will not go into balance and feel but hold a pre-war Marples chisel and then hold almost any modern chisel and you will understand.


Joinery planes such as plow, fillester, or rabbet are much the same. The old wood stock ones, if you can find or fix, just work better.


OK enough for now....I'm back on my meds.


ken

[Derek Cohen]

I think that you do need to go back on your meds, Ken :D

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Todd Stock]

Great to see the Stanley aluminum bench planes get the recognition they deserve as the penultimate development of that company's bench planes...even the frail or physically compromised can do a full day throwing an 2-1/2 lb A5 around the bench, and a little hard anodizing addresses any oxidation streaks (plus puts a nice polish on anigre). Pure awesomeness for anyone that pays for a gym membership, but spends 20 minutes waiting for a parking space 30 feet closer to the grocery store. ;-)

[ken hatch]

I think that you do need to go back on your meds, Ken :D

Regards from Perth

Derek

Derek,

I hate to admit but you may be right :p

ken

[Bill McDermott]

I like old tools because of the hippy dippy connection to the past. Really.
I also like new, premium quality tools.
Excepting junk, I like all manner of tools.
They allow us to make things - which is something I like even more than tools.

In my personal (and limited experience), it's not a matter of old / new. It is a matter of useful / not useful. Or maybe quality / junk.

In any case, certain tools should not be used while on certain meds. Consult your virtual Neanderthal psychologist.

[Bob Glenn]

I like old tools because of the hippy dippy connection to the past. Really.
I also like new, premium quality tools.
Excepting junk, I like all manner of tools.
They allow us to make things - which is something I like even more than tools.

In my personal (and limited experience), it's not a matter of old / new. It is a matter of useful / not useful. Or maybe quality / junk.

In any case, certain tools should not be used while on certain meds. Consult your virtual Neanderthal psychologist.

Bill, at least with hand tools, it takes longer to hurt yourself badly!

[Jerry Olexa]

Well said, Ken...I agree.

[ken hatch]

Well said, Ken...I agree.

Thanks Jerry

ken

[Stew Denton]

Ken,

Nice comments, and well said! You said it for a lot of us. I like the old CS irons too, and like the balance between quick sharpening time and edge life.

I like old tools because because my experience with them has been good, as opposed to many of the newer tools over the years. That said, I have not used any of the premium new hand tools.

I think history is on your side as well, because late in the 19th century and early in the 20th century there were not hand held power tools, but there was a long history of folks using hand tools.

Makers such as Stanley, Disston, Millers Falls, etc., knew they had to make good tools to be able to continue to sell them, they knew their customers, and many of the folks at those companies not only made tools, but they also used them. Since there were so many customers that knew "light weight" is good, some of whom had used light weight wooden planes, companies like Stanley were not going to make heavy planes that wore out the guy that had to use one all day. If they made heavy planes like that, it would be the last one the guy would buy, and he would recommend some other company to his apprentice and friends.

I think that the new premium makers make great tools, but we have lost that decades of experience, both by the user and by the maker, that taught the companies how to make tools that were at the peak of design excellence.

By the dates you mention, the makers had improved their tools and materials to the point of excellence during that time period. Then came the depression, and tool makers had to find ways to still build good tools but make the price a bit lower so people could afford to buy them in a time where money was very tight.

Then the war started, and with it world wide destruction of housing and industry, and there was such a huge demand for tools to rebuild that the tool companies could sell just about any reasonable tool that they could make because their competition in foreign countries had been destroyed. Quality went down a bit, but the companies still made fairly decent tools. However, the nice features like very comfortable handles on saws, rosewood totes on planes, etc. were lost.

Then came the 60s, and "the new management" philosophy took over, and the managers of the companies were bean counters and MBAs, not woodworkers, and their plan was to figure out how to make the tools as cheap as possible to build, to maximize profits at the expense of quality. They hired engineers to design things in exactly that way. Few to none of them, executives, engineers, accountants, etc., were woodworkers with a long history of experience with wood working hand tools, and the ones who had such experience were overruled by the "quick profit" guys.

This is not to say that some tools were not suitable for woodworking. I have some Stanley carpentry tools from that time period that were very usable. My Stanley chisels are still with me, and I couldn't afford the better chisels, so bought the handy man grade. I beat the tar out of them with my carpenters hammer, and they stood up to that, but they didn't have the nice feel or balance of the Stanley 750s, the feel and balance that makes guys like Christopher Schwarz talk about for chisels for cutting dovetails. On the other hand, you couldn't give me on of the Stanley bench planes of that time frame if I had to use it. (I hear that the block plane guys didn't get the message from management, and continued to make pretty decent planes.)

Finally we are starting to see really good hand tools again, and I say "wonderful," and think that the new premium makers will continue to improve them. Hopefully they will find the wonderful "user friendliness" the old ones have to go along with the good design, quality materials, quality machining, and love of quality that they now have.

Yes, I think you hit the nail right on the head!

That said, the idea of using 100 year old tools has a strong appeal and seems really neat too, and especially ones that belonged to my father and grandfather. Yes I know, a feeling related deal....not just a cold hard evaluation of how the tools work. I guess that is "hippy dippy" thinking.

Stew

[Gary Cunningham]

<sir mix-a-lot>I like old tools, and I cannot lie.

New crappy stuff just don't work for this guy. <smal>

:D

[Frederick Skelly]

Good post Ken!

[Patrick Chase]

<sir mix-a-lot>I like old tools, and I cannot lie.

New crappy stuff just don't work for this guy. <smal>

:D

"Baby got rust (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JphDdGV2TU)"

[Jim Koepke]

My reason for old tools was because of them being less expensive than new tools at the time they were acquired. Most of them are pretty decent survivors.

Some of my old planes may look like they have been through the ringer, but they still do their job.

jtk

[Stew Denton]

Hi Jim,

Good point, I didn't think about that when I read Ken's initial post and replied to it, but that is a main reason why I buy them too. I have to work on almost all of the tools I buy though, to restore them to good condition.

That said, the latest I have restored was a 10" back saw I wanted for learning to cut dovetails. It is a Jackson (Disston variety) made in the 1880s or 1890s I think, from my study of the net. It was about $35 delivered, and I think it is going to be a very good saw. (I still need to retooth and sharpen it, but the rest of the work on it is done.) I had to spend way too much time restoring it, and should have spent a little more to start with.

Is $35 going to buy a good new steel back back saw now....I don't think so. Same story with my planes and chisels. Old and used costs a fraction of what good new costs. Even now when it seems like the price of vintage tools is way up from what they were a few years ago, but they are still radically less expensive than new tools of similar quality.

Again, very good point.

Regards,

Stew

[Jim Koepke]

Good point, I didn't think about that when I read Ken's initial post and replied to it, but that is a main reason why I buy them too. I have to work on almost all of the tools I buy though, to restore them to good condition.

If one has more time than money, restoring tools helps to fill one's tool chest.

If one has more money than time, buying new helps to save more time for using the tools.

My guess is someone who takes the time to restore old tools tends to learn more about using them than one who merely takes them out of a box before using them.

jtk

[ken hatch]

If one has more time than money, restoring tools helps to fill one's tool chest.

If one has more money than time, buying new helps to save more time for using the tools.

My guess is someone who takes the time to restore old tools tends to learn more about using them than one who merely takes them out of a box before using them.

jtk

Jim,

That is how I ended up with a till full of LN and LV dust collectors. All are beautifully made but when it comes time to do some work I'll reach for one of the type 13 or earlier Stanley's. My favorite "type" are the 9's, low knob and everything a plane needs and nothing it doesn't.

ken

[ken hatch]

Ken,

Nice comments, and well said! You said it for a lot of us. I like the old CS irons too, and like the balance between quick sharpening time and edge life.

I like old tools because because my experience with them has been good, as opposed to many of the newer tools over the years. That said, I have not used any of the premium new hand tools.

I think history is on your side as well, because late in the 19th century and early in the 20th century there were not hand held power tools, but there was a long history of folks using hand tools.

Makers such as Stanley, Disston, Millers Falls, etc., knew they had to make good tools to be able to continue to sell them, they knew their customers, and many of the folks at those companies not only made tools, but they also used them. Since there were so many customers that knew "light weight" is good, some of whom had used light weight wooden planes, companies like Stanley were not going to make heavy planes that wore out the guy that had to use one all day. If they made heavy planes like that, it would be the last one the guy would buy, and he would recommend some other company to his apprentice and friends.

I think that the new premium makers make great tools, but we have lost that decades of experience, both by the user and by the maker, that taught the companies how to make tools that were at the peak of design excellence.

By the dates you mention, the makers had improved their tools and materials to the point of excellence during that time period. Then came the depression, and tool makers had to find ways to still build good tools but make the price a bit lower so people could afford to buy them in a time where money was very tight.

Then the war started, and with it world wide destruction of housing and industry, and there was such a huge demand for tools to rebuild that the tool companies could sell just about any reasonable tool that they could make because their competition in foreign countries had been destroyed. Quality went down a bit, but the companies still made fairly decent tools. However, the nice features like very comfortable handles on saws, rosewood totes on planes, etc. were lost.

Then came the 60s, and "the new management" philosophy took over, and the managers of the companies were bean counters and MBAs, not woodworkers, and their plan was to figure out how to make the tools as cheap as possible to build, to maximize profits at the expense of quality. They hired engineers to design things in exactly that way. Few to none of them, executives, engineers, accountants, etc., were woodworkers with a long history of experience with wood working hand tools, and the ones who had such experience were overruled by the "quick profit" guys.

This is not to say that some tools were not suitable for woodworking. I have some Stanley carpentry tools from that time period that were very usable. My Stanley chisels are still with me, and I couldn't afford the better chisels, so bought the handy man grade. I beat the tar out of them with my carpenters hammer, and they stood up to that, but they didn't have the nice feel or balance of the Stanley 750s, the feel and balance that makes guys like Christopher Schwarz talk about for chisels for cutting dovetails. On the other hand, you couldn't give me on of the Stanley bench planes of that time frame if I had to use it. (I hear that the block plane guys didn't get the message from management, and continued to make pretty decent planes.)

Finally we are starting to see really good hand tools again, and I say "wonderful," and think that the new premium makers will continue to improve them. Hopefully they will find the wonderful "user friendliness" the old ones have to go along with the good design, quality materials, quality machining, and love of quality that they now have.

Yes, I think you hit the nail right on the head!

That said, the idea of using 100 year old tools has a strong appeal and seems really neat too, and especially ones that belonged to my father and grandfather. Yes I know, a feeling related deal....not just a cold hard evaluation of how the tools work. I guess that is "hippy dippy" thinking.

Stew

Stew,

Thanks, good points.

ken

[ken hatch]

Good post Ken!

Thanks Frederick,

Being older than dirt, sleep comes hard and MsBubba will fuss if I start chopping mortises too early in the AM. Many times and yesterday morning was one of them, I will have my second or third cup of coffee sitting on the shop stool enjoying my tools. Sometimes I'll pick one up and maybe sharpen the iron if needed. Yesterday's post was the result of that early morning coffee.

BTW, I'll make coffee in a couple and I expect I'll be on the shop stool soon. I'll have the mortises for the kitchen cart's shelf to mark out but it will be several hours before I can chop those suckers.

ken

[Frederick Skelly]

I think I get it. It's not unusual for me to grab a cup and do something similar. (Not quite as early as you, though. ;) ) It's just a pleasant, comfortable place to kick back and think. Take a few passes with a couple different planes, look over the new Highland catalog or read something I bought from Lost Arts Press.

Have a good one Ken!
Fred

[bill howes]

Ken,

Nice comments, and well said! You said it for a lot of us. I like the old CS irons too, and like the balance between quick sharpening time and edge life.

I like old tools because because my experience with them has been good, as opposed to many of the newer tools over the years. That said, I have not used any of the premium new hand tools.

I think history is on your side as well, because late in the 19th century and early in the 20th century there were not hand held power tools, but there was a long history of folks using hand tools.

Makers such as Stanley, Disston, Millers Falls, etc., knew they had to make good tools to be able to continue to sell them, they knew their customers, and many of the folks at those companies not only made tools, but they also used them. Since there were so many customers that knew "light weight" is good, some of whom had used light weight wooden planes, companies like Stanley were not going to make heavy planes that wore out the guy that had to use one all day. If they made heavy planes like that, it would be the last one the guy would buy, and he would recommend some other company to his apprentice and friends.

I think that the new premium makers make great tools, but we have lost that decades of experience, both by the user and by the maker, that taught the companies how to make tools that were at the peak of design excellence.

By the dates you mention, the makers had improved their tools and materials to the point of excellence during that time period. Then came the depression, and tool makers had to find ways to still build good tools but make the price a bit lower so people could afford to buy them in a time where money was very tight.

Then the war started, and with it world wide destruction of housing and industry, and there was such a huge demand for tools to rebuild that the tool companies could sell just about any reasonable tool that they could make because their competition in foreign countries had been destroyed. Quality went down a bit, but the companies still made fairly decent tools. However, the nice features like very comfortable handles on saws, rosewood totes on planes, etc. were lost.

Then came the 60s, and "the new management" philosophy took over, and the managers of the companies were bean counters and MBAs, not woodworkers, and their plan was to figure out how to make the tools as cheap as possible to build, to maximize profits at the expense of quality. They hired engineers to design things in exactly that way. Few to none of them, executives, engineers, accountants, etc., were woodworkers with a long history of experience with wood working hand tools, and the ones who had such experience were overruled by the "quick profit" guys.

This is not to say that some tools were not suitable for woodworking. I have some Stanley carpentry tools from that time period that were very usable. My Stanley chisels are still with me, and I couldn't afford the better chisels, so bought the handy man grade. I beat the tar out of them with my carpenters hammer, and they stood up to that, but they didn't have the nice feel or balance of the Stanley 750s, the feel and balance that makes guys like Christopher Schwarz talk about for chisels for cutting dovetails. On the other hand, you couldn't give me on of the Stanley bench planes of that time frame if I had to use it. (I hear that the block plane guys didn't get the message from management, and continued to make pretty decent planes.)

Finally we are starting to see really good hand tools again, and I say "wonderful," and think that the new premium makers will continue to improve them. Hopefully they will find the wonderful "user friendliness" the old ones have to go along with the good design, quality materials, quality machining, and love of quality that they now have.

Yes, I think you hit the nail right on the head!

That said, the idea of using 100 year old tools has a strong appeal and seems really neat too, and especially ones that belonged to my father and grandfather. Yes I know, a feeling related deal....not just a cold hard evaluation of how the tools work. I guess that is "hippy dippy" thinking.

Stew

Stew, perhaps its unfair to put the blame entirely on the bean counters.

There are more than enough well made tools from the pre WW2 era still in circulation for the shrinking number of knowledgeable consumers who want non-disposable hand tools and hence the market for well made tools is too small to support tool makers on a large scale.

Perhaps the blame is on the original toolmakers for making too enduring a product. Many modern producers ( excluding of course LV and LN and a handful of craftpersons) are remedying that.

I too love the old tools, many of which I inherited. I look after them and hope most will be passed on to a grandson who I am attempting to instill with a love of well made tools.

Bill

[Philipp Jaindl]

I like Old tools for their History and simple efficiency for lack of a better term, also a big fan of CS blades.

That said i do envy you guys from the States or the UK, here in Austria the vast majority of tools were made from Wood Handplanes, Framesaws etc and are by this point often just rotten, twisted or the insects got them and i havent really come across any chisels really worth restoring yet.
Where as you folks across the Pond have all those nice Metal Planes, Chisels and Handsaws, granted for the latter i do prefer the Framesaw, still i really love the Stanley planes with their easy adjustments compared to Wooden planes shame they are almost impossible to get here and importing from the UK or US is very expensive.
Oh well enough rambling.

[Mike Holbrook]

I think some of you people may have just gotten old and learned to relate better to other old things. Maybe when I get old I will feel the same.

[Jerry Olexa]

If one has more time than money, restoring tools helps to fill one's tool chest.

If one has more money than time, buying new helps to save more time for using the tools.

My guess is someone who takes the time to restore old tools tends to learn more about using them than one who merely takes them out of a box before using them.

jtk

VERY well said, Jim!!!!!!

[Jerry Olexa]

I think some of you people may have just gotten old and learned to relate better to other old things. Maybe when I get old I will feel the same.

HA!!! Funny but true

[John C Cox]

I have had nothing but bad luck with old tools.. Especially chisels... And it's not for lack of trying....

So... If any of you guys are willing to have compassion on a fellow woodworker who wants some GOOD old chisels that have already been verified for good steel properly hardened - shoot me a PM.. I can put new handles on...

[ken hatch]

I have had nothing but bad luck with old tools.. Especially chisels... And it's not for lack of trying....

So... If any of you guys are willing to have compassion on a fellow woodworker who wants some GOOD old chisels that have already been verified for good steel properly hardened - shoot me a PM.. I can put new handles on...

John,

The eBay burn rate can be quite high even when you know what you are looking for. Pick a brand, do a little research so you can (maybe) identity the time of manufacture. Stick with that brand and time period if there was a change in process and there almost always is. An example, for Stanley planes I like Bailey pattern type 9 to type 13. The type 9 is the start of "modern" planes and after type 13 the quality starts going down. Can you find good planes outside that range, sure but there will be more frogs than princess so why bother. I collect for use and pleasure pre 1933 Marple chisels. The chisels made after 1933 are not hammer forged, I think hammer forging makes a better chisel so I will not buy a post 1933 Marple chisel. Back saws are back saws, LV's are so cheap why bother with rust. Marking gauges and knifes are also cheap, just buy new. Squares, spend the money. Wood stock planes either bench or joinery have a very high burn rate which is a shame because a good one is wonderful to have, a not very good one's best use is firewood.

I hope this helps,

ken

[Patrick Chase]

I have had nothing but bad luck with old tools.. Especially chisels... And it's not for lack of trying....

So... If any of you guys are willing to have compassion on a fellow woodworker who wants some GOOD old chisels that have already been verified for good steel properly hardened - shoot me a PM.. I can put new handles on...

Stunning though this may seem, there exist a group of people whose profession is to provide old tools in known-good or at least known condition. They're called "tool dealers". A couple of them (most notably Pete Taran, who specializes in saws) even frequent this forum.

You'll pay more to get old tools from a dealer than by rust-hunting or trawling eBay for "bargains", but IMO the reduced hassle is more than worth the cost.

[Phil Mueller]

I agree Patrick. I will occasionally find a gem in an estate or garage sale, flee market, etc. But sometimes even then, when bringing it home, find I didn’t notice some issue with it at time of purchase. So when I really need (want) a specific vintage tool, I’ll go to Patrick Leach, or Hyperkitten, or similar source. With these folks, you know if it’s complete and it will come with an honest assesment of condition. Doesn’t mean there won’t be some clean up/set up needed, but generally worth the extra $ IMHO.

[Todd Stock]

I think some of you people may have just gotten old and learned to relate better to other old things. Maybe when I get old I will feel the same.

Old for old's sake? Think you nailed it, just as there are the 'new for new's sake' folks.

[John C Cox]

There are exceptionally good hand tools available now.... At least as good as the best of the past.... But - they are coming out of "boutique" makers at a premium price.... Honestly, truth be told - they always did.... Mathieson wasn't a high volume shop.. I bet neither was Witherby (at least until after WWII)..

As to why they went away?
It wasn't the bean counters - it was the carpenters, cabinet makers, and furniture makers...
2 words:
Power Tools....

Jointers no longer use sash mortise chisels and paring chisels to make window frames - they use large automated routers and saws.. No doubt they own a chisel or 2 for some clean up work... And just because....

Mills no longer manually plane and carve details into trim - it's all done on big router units....

It's the same with high quality hand saws... The Skil saw was the death knell of the Diston panel saw....

And electric sanders were more or less the end of scraper planes....

It's the same in many other trades. I visited an old, well known Luthier a month ago.... His main chisel was an old Witherby paring chisel... He "inherited" it from his master when the man retired... And that man "inherited" it from his master when he retired.. And it was perhaps 1" shorter than new... So 3 professionals used the same chisel for the bulk of their work careers - and didn't use it up... But then honestly - Luthiers don't really beat up chisels like a Jointer bashing out window mortises would...

[Warren Mickley]

There are exceptionally good hand tools available now.... At least as good as the best of the past.... But - they are coming out of "boutique" makers at a premium price.... Honestly, truth be told - they always did.... Mathieson wasn't a high volume shop.. I bet neither was Witherby (at least until after WWII)..

As to why they went away?
It wasn't the bean counters - it was the carpenters, cabinet makers, and furniture makers...
2 words:
Power Tools....

Jointers no longer use sash mortise chisels and paring chisels to make window frames - they use large automated routers and saws.. No doubt they own a chisel or 2 for some clean up work... And just because....

Mills no longer manually plane and carve details into trim - it's all done on big router units....

It's the same with high quality hand saws... The Skil saw was the death knell of the Diston panel saw....

And electric sanders were more or less the end of scraper planes....

It's the same in many other trades. I visited an old, well known Luthier a month ago.... His main chisel was an old Witherby paring chisel... He "inherited" it from his master when the man retired... And that man "inherited" it from his master when he retired.. And it was perhaps 1" shorter than new... So 3 professionals used the same chisel for the bulk of their work careers - and didn't use it up... But then honestly - Luthiers don't really beat up chisels like a Jointer bashing out window mortises would...

I have experience making sash and window frames by hand. We don't bash out window mortises or beat up our mortise chisels. If we did the sash would look even crappier than the machine made stuff. My mortise chisels haven't lost an 1/8 inch in length after thousands of mortises and thirty years. Hand work is about finesse not bashing. For somebody with skill, there is no trouble competing with millwork shops; their insurance costs and workman's compensation costs are horrendous.

I like to use 19th tools because the steel is much better. Manufacturers today don't even know what to look for in a good tool.

[Todd Stock]

I know there are luthiers out there with mallets, but they are seldom necessary, so compared to a sash joiner, there's a lot less noise and whacking things about. We might forgive John a bit of hyperbole in the service of a little humor.

[Matt Lau]

I dunno. I'm a total noob, so take my words with a grain of salt.

When I started my hobby of building guitars, I immediately found that some older tools worked far better than the what I'd find with many modern suppliers--eg. my Grizzly #4 handplane would not get sharp despite multiple days of lapping on float glass. I lusted after the old infill planes, the Bedrocks, Sweethearts, etc.

After getting into this a bit, I find that there's good tools and bad.
The Japanese stuff that I bought is superior to anything I've handled, but the old Berg, Swan, Witherby chisels do take a wicked edge and have a special charm. I love my Lee Valley BU planes, but a well tuned Stanley works just as great.

Not any financial affiliation, but I'd challenge you to try any of Stan Covington's recommended tools...they are phenomenal, and new.

[Ray Selinger]

When I started my carpentry apprenticeship in '71, they were still making hand tools back then. Maybe not great ones, but we did use hand tools daily, handsaws ,brace and bit. They were expensive and carefully thought out purchases for an apprentice. My chisel set was an English made Stanley #5002s, Stanley "Blue Chips". I left carpentry for millwrighting after 10 years. I'm retired now and can do what I love, making sawdust. At a fleamarket I found I could buy Sandvik #280s for $5. When I was an apprentice, I paid $46 ! There I found a Swedish made, Footprint labeled chisel. With it in hand , I was Errol Flynn , sword in hand , fighting on a pirate ship. What balance. I have Beavers, Wm. Marples, and E.A.Bergs now.

[Jerry Olexa]

It's the same in many other trades. I visited an old, well known Luthier a month ago.... His main chisel was an old Witherby paring chisel... He "inherited" it from his master when the man retired... And that man "inherited" it from his master when he retired.. And it was perhaps 1" shorter than new... So 3 professionals used the same chisel for the bulk of their work careers - and didn't use it up...

Well said, john...The above is amazing: 3 generations using the same tool...refreshing..Not much of this anymore. Thanks

[Robert Zschoche]

I confess to liking the old hand tools just because they are old and have that "patina". I do get extra enjoyment when using some of the hand tools that were owned by my grandfather and my great-grandfather. My favorite old tool from Grandpa might be the workbench he built ~ 1941.

[Jim Koepke]

I confess to liking the old hand tools just because they are old and have that "patina". I do get extra enjoyment when using some of the hand tools that were owned by my grandfather and my great-grandfather. My favorite old tool from Grandpa might be the workbench he built ~ 1941.

Howdy Robert and welcome to the Creek. It is kind of nice to have family history in your tools. Any chance you can post a picture of the bench?

jtk

[Stewie Simpson]

Because very few seem to appreciate the depth of history and skill that went into making these earlier made tools.

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/moving%20fillister/DSC_0311_zpsoyugxqpx.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/moving%20fillister/DSC_0311_zpsoyugxqpx.jpg.html)

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/moving%20fillister/DSC_0312_zps9xq4vhfk.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/moving%20fillister/DSC_0312_zps9xq4vhfk.jpg.html)

[Stewie Simpson]

Work on refurbishing this traditional moving fillister plane has been completed.

Reglued the boxwood wear strips;
Reworked the irons bed to flat;
Flattened the sole of the plane;
Shortened the wedge length at the toe by 1/4";
Resharpened the iron and nicker;
Restored the patina to the worked areas of bare wood;
2 coats of wax;
Tested the planes performance;

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/moving%20fillister/DSC_0317_zpscpu17xsy.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/moving%20fillister/DSC_0317_zpscpu17xsy.jpg.html)

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/moving%20fillister/DSC_0318_zpsmwtli4gm.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/moving%20fillister/DSC_0318_zpsmwtli4gm.jpg.html)

The planesmaker is Griffiths-Norwich. The following covers their history.
https://www.sgriff.com/planes/griffiths-of-norwich-and-other-planemakers-of-that-city/#planesandproducts

[Phil Mueller]

Stewie, as always your restoration work is superb.

[Stewie Simpson]

For those that share an interest in refurbishing these early made traditional moving fillister planes I removed the depth stop adjuster to allow you to view their basic design. Unfortunately if the top mounting screws are made of steel their likely rusted in by now and can be a challenge to remove. I will be replacing mine with 7/8" brass wood screws.

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/moving%20fillister/DSC_0320_zpsolwfdb4d.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/moving%20fillister/DSC_0320_zpsolwfdb4d.jpg.html)

[Frederick Skelly]

The planesmaker is Griffiths-Norwich. The following covers their history.
https://www.sgriff.com/planes/griffiths-of-norwich-and-other-planemakers-of-that-city/#planesandproducts

That was interesting to read. Thank you Stewie.
Fred

[James Waldron]

For those that share an interest in refurbishing these early made traditional moving fillister planes I removed the depth stop adjuster to allow you to view their basic design. Unfortunately if the top mounting screws are made of steel their likely rusted in by now and can be a challenge to remove. I will be replacing mine with 7/8" brass wood screws.



Stewie:

If they are available in your area, you may want to look into using silicon bronze screws rather than brass. They are much stronger in all ways you might be interested in (and here in the U.S. are not much more expensive than brass). If all else fails in sourcing them, they are often used in wooden boat building and should be available in marine supply sources. You're very unlikely to ever break off a silicon bronze screw by over torquing with hand drivers, brace and bit or most power screw drivers. Maybe you could overpower one with a hammer drill driver. Or maybe not. I've never tried to over drive to that extent.

Edit: One (certainly not the only) US mail order source for anyone interested: https://www.boltdepot.com/Wood_screws_Slotted_flat_head_Silicon_bronze.aspx

[Stewie Simpson]

2 more Moving Fillister Planes to refurbish.

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/moving%20fillister/DSC_0322_zpsqbgqzfaj.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/moving%20fillister/DSC_0322_zpsqbgqzfaj.jpg.html)

[Jeff Heath]

Here's a little love shown for a vintage Greenlee 3" slick I just picked up. I really like vintage Greenlee chisels (all their cutting tools, for that matter, as I have a drawknife from them that is excellent) as they were made not 50 miles from where I live now. This slick arrived in the usual state, with about 20 or 30 different bevels, all thrown in at 45°. I bet it wasn't much fun to use, as it was as dull as the back side of a butter knife.

Anyway, I had to re-establish a proper bevel. I chose 25°.

I still have to hone it and flatten the back, but it's going to make a fine user for the larger work I do, as well as trimming tenons and scarfs on an upcoming timber frame building I'm making.

379175379176

[Stewie Simpson]

Work on the 2nd of 3 vintage Moving Fillister Planes is close to completion. The replacement sliding fence was made using the original brass hardware.

middle plane, (prior to refurbishment)
http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/moving%20fillister/DSC_0322_zpsqbgqzfaj.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/moving%20fillister/DSC_0322_zpsqbgqzfaj.jpg.html)

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/2nd%20fillister%20plane%20refurbishment/DSC_0324_zps6pog60oa.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/2nd%20fillister%20plane%20refurbishment/DSC_0324_zps6pog60oa.jpg.html)

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/2nd%20fillister%20plane%20refurbishment/DSC_0325_zpsx7abp7a2.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/2nd%20fillister%20plane%20refurbishment/DSC_0325_zpsx7abp7a2.jpg.html)

[Frederick Skelly]

Beautiful work, as always Stewie! Thanks for showing us.
Fred

[steven c newman]

Like old tools? Hmmm....even my power tools are Vintage
379830
That came in a green & yellow hammer toned metal case....6" SKIL saw..
379831
Well....maybe the tape measure isn't quite "Vintage" yet...
379837
My Jointer is about twice as old as I am...
379841
Same with this #4 smoother...handle is not broke, tape is for a better grip, with sweaty hands....
Like old tools...and USE old tools...

According to Hyperkitten..the Stanley No. 4 is a Type 10.....made about the same time as my Stanley No. 6c. Still trying to "type" the Stanley No. 8....ah...a Type 7!

[ken hatch]

Work on the 2nd of 3 vintage Moving Fillister Planes is close to completion. The replacement sliding fence was made using the original brass hardware.

middle plane, (prior to refurbishment)



Stewie,

I have a couple of older fillisters both work well but I can see a refurbishing in their future.

Thanks for the posts,

ken

[William Fretwell]

Thanks Stewie, I want one! Just don't see them round here. Good old tools are very hard to find now. It was much easier 30 years ago.

There are a few good modern tools that are a pleasure to use with no compromise in their construction, the good 'old' tools of the future, that is what I try to buy. Moving fillister planes don't fall in that category unfortunately.

[Lasse Hilbrandt]

I like old tools too, but im sick of flattening. If one wanted lets say a # 3,4,5 and 7 Stanley Bedrock, would´nt it end up more expensive than buying new from LN ?

[ken hatch]

I like old tools too, but im sick of flattening. If one wanted lets say a # 3,4,5 and 7 Stanley Bedrock, would´nt it end up more expensive than buying new from LN ?

Lasse,

There is a good chance but the real question is why would someone want Stanley Bedrock planes. Compared to a Stanley Bailey type 9 to type 13 they are a lesser plane for too much money, of course YMMV.

ken

[John C Cox]

I like old tools too, but im sick of flattening. If one wanted lets say a # 3,4,5 and 7 Stanley Bedrock, would´nt it end up more expensive than buying new from LN ?

Lasse,
It could well be impossible depending on the quality of the casting. I have a Type 16 Stanley #5 where the mold must have shifted during casting - as the whole sole is badly warped and out of square inside and out... I ended up stumbling into a Type 16 replacement sole on the cheap - and it was good..... Likely, on a real Bedrock - you would be out of luck...

This is a case where I believe you would be well served speaking with a reputable vendor of old tools.. Speak with the fellow and explain what you want... While a pure collector may be perfectly happy with a warped sole given otherwise original condition/patina - a user certainly would not.... And vice versa... A collector will likely discount the value of a plane which has been ground and trued up as "Non-original" - where a user will want that one because the worst of the hard work is already done..

[Lasse Hilbrandt]

Lasse,

There is a good chance but the real question is why would someone want Stanley Bedrock planes. Compared to a Stanley Bailey type 9 to type 13 they are a lesser plane for too much money, of course YMMV.

ken

Ok, I was of the understanding, that the Bedrock models were the most coveted versions and therefore I thought they must be the better ones.
How do i know if it is a type 9 or 13 ?

[Lasse Hilbrandt]

Lasse,
It could well be impossible depending on the quality of the casting. I have a Type 16 Stanley #5 where the mold must have shifted during casting - as the whole sole is badly warped and out of square inside and out... I ended up stumbling into a Type 16 replacement sole on the cheap - and it was good..... Likely, on a real Bedrock - you would be out of luck...

This is a case where I believe you would be well served speaking with a reputable vendor of old tools.. Speak with the fellow and explain what you want... While a pure collector may be perfectly happy with a warped sole given otherwise original condition/patina - a user certainly would not.... And vice versa... A collector will likely discount the value of a plane which has been ground and trued up as "Non-original" - where a user will want that one because the worst of the hard work is already done..

There is so much knowledge to be obtained when dealing with vintage tools that its much easier just to buy new tools

[steven c newman]

And miss out on all that extra knowledge, too. Even though it MAY coming handy..one day. Too much like work, right?

[steven c newman]

You can go to Hyperkitten's plane typing page...take a few notes as to WHAT to look for in a certain type, make that into a shopping list of sorts....then spend a wee bit of time ( coffee breaks?) and do a bit of shopping...

[Jim Koepke]

Ok, I was of the understanding, that the Bedrock models were the most coveted versions and therefore I thought they must be the better ones.
How do i know if it is a type 9 or 13 ?

Type 9 brought on a change in the base casting which has a few distinctions that started in 1902:

379871

Before this there was no rib in the base casting. Starting with type 9 the frog not only sat on an area under the holding screws, it also seats at the very front of the frog's blade bed. On the left is an early type 9. On the right is a later design which endured.

Another change is the Bailey name was added to the casting. There are also two patent dates ending in 02 right behind the frog. In ~ 1907 (type 10) frog adjustment hardware was added under the depth adjuster. In 1910 (type 11) a third patent date was added behind the frog. In ~1920 (type 12) the front knob was changed to a tall knob, this was followed by a larger (1-1/4") depth adjusting wheel and the SW Hart trademark on the blade. In ~1925 (type 13) the only patent date remaining was for the 1910 patent.

Type 14 or ~1929 was when a ring was cast around the base of the front knob. My preference is for a short knob which doesn't work with the ring.

For more information about type this page is pretty good:

http://www.rexmill.com/planes101/typing/typing.htm

One problem with a type study is it gets spread around and if there is a change it is difficult at best to make it known. There is a type kind of between type 6 and type 7. In the study linked above, for type 6 it sates, "the brass adjusting nut now has left hand threads." This didn't take place until late in the type 6 years. Most of my type 6s have right hand threads on the adjusters. One of my planes that isn't clearly of any type falls into this crack. Some of the planes made in the early 1890s have different foundry marks than found on earlier or later planes. They seem to work just fine.

jtk

[ken hatch]

Type 9 brought on a change in the base casting which has a few distinctions that started in 1902:

379871

Before this there was no rib in the base casting. Starting with type 9 the frog not only sat on an area under the holding screws, it also seats at the very front of the frog's blade bed. On the left is an early type 9. On the right is a later design which endured.

Another change is the Bailey name was added to the casting. There are also two patent dates ending in 02 right behind the frog. In ~ 1907 (type 10) frog adjustment hardware was added under the depth adjuster. In 1910 (type 11) a third patent date was added behind the frog. In ~1920 (type 12) the front knob was changed to a tall knob, this was followed by a larger (1-1/4") depth adjusting wheel and the SW Hart trademark on the blade. In ~1925 (type 13) the only patent date remaining was for the 1910 patent.

Type 14 or ~1929 was when a ring was cast around the base of the front knob. My preference is for a short knob which doesn't work with the ring.

For more information about type this page is pretty good:

http://www.rexmill.com/planes101/typing/typing.htm

One problem with a type study is it gets spread around and if there is a change it is difficult at best to make it known. There is a type kind of between type 6 and type 7. In the study linked above, for type 6 it sates, "the brass adjusting nut now has left hand threads." This didn't take place until late in the type 6 years. Most of my type 6s have right hand threads on the adjusters. One of my planes that isn't clearly of any type falls into this crack. Some of the planes made in the early 1890s have different foundry marks than found on earlier or later planes. They seem to work just fine.

jtk

Thanks Jim,

You saved me from doing work I didn't want to do.

Good summary.

ken

[Lasse Hilbrandt]

Thanks Jim :-)

[Lasse Hilbrandt]

Is this a type 9 or 13 ?

379919

[Jim Koepke]

Is this a type 9 or 13 ?

379919

From that angle the only thing that can be seen is the front knob and the adjuster. It looks like a short knob, but can not be sure, and the size of the adjuster really can not be determined from this image.

A short knob could mean type 9-11. A tall knob or 1-1/4" adjuster would be either a type 12 or 13.

At the end of type 11 some of the factory output had tall knobs with a 1" adjuster.

The lever cap is better defined than the earlier caps, but my memory is failing me now as to exactly when that was changed. My planes have them all swapped around.

The area between the frog and the tote will tell the story better.

jtk

[Jim Koepke]

DOH!

The plane doesn't have Bailey anywhere in the image. Most likely it is a type 8 or earlier.

jtk

[Stanley Covington]

I have a question.

LN's benchplanes are, for the most part, reproductions of the old Stanley "Bedrock" design, or so I am told. I own 8 or 9 of them, and like them very much, but as Ken pointed out, they are heavy.

How do the new LN version planes compare in weight to the original Bedrock planes of the same designations?

Stan

[Mike Allen1010]

<sir mix-a-lot>I like old tools, and I cannot lie.

New crappy stuff just don't work for this guy. <smal>

:D


Just spit good burbon all over the keyboard- Gary thats hysterical!

[Mike Allen1010]

Stewie,


Thanks for sharing your pictures of the restored moving fillister plane. I couldn't agree more with your comments about the level of skill, expertise and execution to tight tolerances that were found in preindustrial tools. I'm no expert, but have to believe a couple hundred years of full-time hand tool woodworking experience is more than sufficient to gain a crystal clear understanding of exactly what works/doesn't and the value/importance the toolmaker invested in the critical elements of the tool that really matter to the final performance.


I'm grateful to the boutique toolmakers working today who build fantastic and tools. When I started hand tool woodworking in the 1970s, I would've given my left arm for the chance to buy the kind of quality and tools that are available today. That said, as much as I enjoyed the many LV/LN and Stanley planes I have, I increasingly find myself reaching for the wooden body planes I've built or those I purchased from Steve Voigt, whose planes I highly recommend.


I've got way too many full-size, vintage hand saws, but there's no way I would ever give them up in exchange for saws manufactured today, not out of sentimentality, just due to their pure functionality/performance.


Importantly, my preference for vintage tools does not hold with regard to backed, joinery saws. IMHO, the joinery saws made today by all the fantastic saw makers like Ron Bontz, BadAxe, Mike Wentzloff etc. Are absolutely worth every nickel., That comes from somebody who's spent lots of time and money making my own back saws, many of which turned out to be markedly inferior to those on offer from today's professionals.


All the best, Mike

[Patrick Chase]

How do the new LN version planes compare in weight to the original Bedrock planes of the same designations?

Pretty close, if L-N's specs are apples-to-apples with measurements by Patrick Leach and others.

For example the Stanley 608 is 9.75 lb while the L-N 8 is 10 lb. The Stanley 604 is 3.75 lb while the iron-bodied L-N 4 is 4 lb.

If both are to be believed the L-N 7 is lighter than the 607, but I think that one number or the other may be off in that instance.

[Stewie Simpson]

Test run with the latest refurbished Moving Fillister Plane. The wood used is Kwila (Merbau). The early W1 iron took a very sharp edge and kept it till the end of the rebate.

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/2nd%20fillister%20plane%20refurbishment/DSC_0326_zpsem45luax.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/2nd%20fillister%20plane%20refurbishment/DSC_0326_zpsem45luax.jpg.html)

[Lasse Hilbrandt]

DOH!

The plane doesn't have Bailey anywhere in the image. Most likely it is a type 8 or earlier.

jtk

Jim, lets say its a type 8. what are the differencies between this plane and a type 9 ? Im not talking about looks but what makes a type 9 a better plane ?

[Stanley Covington]

Pretty close, if L-N's specs are apples-to-apples with measurements by Patrick Leach and others.

For example the Stanley 608 is 9.75 lb while the L-N 8 is 10 lb. The Stanley 604 is 3.75 lb while the iron-bodied L-N 4 is 4 lb.

If both are to be believed the L-N 7 is lighter than the 607, but I think that one number or the other may be off in that instance.

Thanks, Patrick. Do you know if the Bedrock series had a reputation for heavy and cumbersome back in the day?

I only have one old Stanley jack plane with me here in Tokyo, and only a couple LN planes, so it is hard to compare apples to apples. But the LN does not seem cumbersome compared the Stanley in my mind's eye. What think ye?

Stan

[Jeff Heath]

Lasse,

There is a good chance but the real question is why would someone want Stanley Bedrock planes. Compared to a Stanley Bailey type 9 to type 13 they are a lesser plane for too much money, of course YMMV.

ken

I respectfully disagree. I own both styles as daily users, and I prefer the Bedrock design over the original. Without getting into all the nuances, I think it is fair to say that this would fall under the category of personal preference. I prefer the heavier weight, for momentum sake, but I am a large, strong human, and the weight of a plane is a non issue to me. Like I said, personal preference varies.

In the end, I think they can all be tuned to be good users if you know what to do (which isn't rocket science).

There's a really good reason why Lie Nielsen copied the Bedrock design over the Bailey design, and it wasn't, obviously, to save money. Frog adjustability and bed mating surface are just a few things that come to mind.

Cheers.

[ken hatch]

Stewie,


Thanks for sharing your pictures of the restored moving fillister plane. I couldn't agree more with your comments about the level of skill, expertise and execution to tight tolerances that were found in preindustrial tools. I'm no expert, but have to believe a couple hundred years of full-time hand tool woodworking experience is more than sufficient to gain a crystal clear understanding of exactly what works/doesn't and the value/importance the toolmaker invested in the critical elements of the tool that really matter to the final performance.


I'm grateful to the boutique toolmakers working today who build fantastic and tools. When I started hand tool woodworking in the 1970s, I would've given my left arm for the chance to buy the kind of quality and tools that are available today. That said, as much as I enjoyed the many LV/LN and Stanley planes I have, I increasingly find myself reaching for the wooden body planes I've built or those I purchased from Steve Voigt, whose planes I highly recommend.


I've got way too many full-size, vintage hand saws, but there's no way I would ever give them up in exchange for saws manufactured today, not out of sentimentality, just due to their pure functionality/performance.


Importantly, my preference for vintage tools does not hold with regard to backed, joinery saws. IMHO, the joinery saws made today by all the fantastic saw makers like Ron Bontz, BadAxe, Mike Wentzloff etc. Are absolutely worth every nickel., That comes from somebody who's spent lots of time and money making my own back saws, many of which turned out to be markedly inferior to those on offer from today's professionals.


All the best, Mike

Mike,

I could have typed that. The only things I would add are the traditional planes (wedge adjusted) from ECE are very good and a bargain and like Stewie, restored woodstock joinery planes can be a joy to use. The only caveat with the joinery planes is sometimes there are a few frogs to kiss and butt scratching to do to get to a useable plane. As an example I've a number of very good plow planes that I've "restored" but I also have 4 or 5 that are still in the butt scratching stage but whatever even the butt scratching ones are beautiful on the shelf :o.

ken

[ken hatch]

I respectfully disagree. I own both styles as daily users, and I prefer the Bedrock design over the original. Without getting into all the nuances, I think it is fair to say that this would fall under the category of personal preference. I prefer the heavier weight, for momentum sake, but I am a large, strong human, and the weight of a plane is a non issue to me. Like I said, personal preference varies.

In the end, I think they can all be tuned to be good users if you know what to do (which isn't rocket science).

There's a really good reason why Lie Nielsen copied the Bedrock design over the Bailey design, and it wasn't, obviously, to save money. Frog adjustability and bed mating surface are just a few things that come to mind.

Cheers.

Jeff,

Like at the end of the post YMMV but one area I disagree on is the frog adjustability of the Bedrock. A correctly installed Bailey frog, after type 9, is easier to adjust than a Bedrock frog if you are into that kind of thing (I can not remember adjusting a frog after initial install on either type plane). With the Bedrock frog adjustment changes cutting depth, the Bailey does not, both can be adjusted with iron and capiron installed on the plane.

Frog adjustability on the Bedrock is all sizzle and no steak.

BTW, Just to make sure I wasn't blowing smoke out my shorts (I'm older than dirt and memory is about the same) I went out to the shop and adjusted the frog on my favorite Bailey type 13 #4. And took test shavenings before and after. Without removing the iron, capiron or lever cap I could adjust the frog/mouth opening in either direction and cut depth remained the same, do that with your Bedrock:D. Again I never, that I can remember, adjust the frog after install but part of the install is to attach the frog where "it looks about right" then install the cutter. Once the cutter is installed and I'm taking shavenings that I like I adjust the mouth for the shavening thickness, usually never to be touched again.

ken

[Jim Koepke]

Jim, lets say its a type 8. what are the differencies between this plane and a type 9 ? Im not talking about looks but what makes a type 9 a better plane ?

Part of the design change was to increase the yield in making the base castings. The earlier planes had a larger amount of metal in the frog seating area. This was one cause for a tendency of castings to warp as they cooled.

Also consider my comment said it could be a type 8 or earlier. With a lateral adjuster it has to be in the range of type 5 - 8. Type 5 & 6 have right hand threads on the depth adjusters. This might be a point of confusion for some. It doesn't bother me, four of my planes have the early adjusters.

To best answer your questions you can learn these things at one of the same knowledge banks from which my understanding is derived:

http://www.rexmill.com/planes101/typing/typing.htm

When much of my out and about time was spent rust hunting it was easy for me to look at old planes without picking them up and knowing pretty much when they were made. Now with not much rust hunting taking place my memory is a little rusty. That is likely how the lack of the Bailey in the casting snuck by me.

jtk

[ken hatch]

Part of the design change was to increase the yield in making the base castings. The earlier planes had a larger amount of metal in the frog seating area. This was one cause for a tendency of castings to warp as they cooled.

Also consider my comment said it could be a type 8 or earlier. With a lateral adjuster it has to be in the range of type 5 - 8. Type 5 & 6 have right hand threads on the depth adjusters. This might be a point of confusion for some. It doesn't bother me, four of my planes have the early adjusters.

To best answer your questions you can learn these things at one of the same knowledge banks from which my understanding is derived:

http://www.rexmill.com/planes101/typing/typing.htm

When much of my out and about time was spent rust hunting it was easy for me to look at old planes without picking them up and knowing pretty much when they were made. Now with not much rust hunting taking place my memory is a little rusty. That is likely how the lack of the Bailey in the casting snuck by me.

jtk

Jim,

I'm in the same boat, haven't done the Stanley hunt in so long I can't type with any accuracy with a glance. I can tell if the plane is one I would be interested in refurbishing in a glance but that is a fair range of years and types. In almost all cases the final determent is the frog along with no cracks in the body.

ken

[Patrick Chase]

Thanks, Patrick. Do you know if the Bedrock series had a reputation for heavy and cumbersome back in the day?

Not that I know of. Again if Blood and Gore and similar sources are to be believed, then the Bedrocks aren't significantly heavier than the Baileys. I have a suspicion that the "other sources" may be copying B&G, though...

Can anybody measure "matching" (same size, same rough era) Bailey and Bedrock planes side by side and see what the real difference is?

[Jim Koepke]

Not that I know of. Again if Blood and Gore and similar sources are to be believed, then the Bedrocks aren't significantly heavier than the Baileys. I have a suspicion that the "other sources" may be copying B&G, though...

Can anybody measure "matching" (same size, same rough era) Bailey and Bedrock planes side by side and see what the real difference is?

Why would there be any significant difference?

Other than the way the frog is seated there really isn't much difference between the Bailey and Bedrock design. If the base casting was significantly thicker, it would likely have been included in many writings.

My understanding of Patrick's Blood & Gore is the weights and plane length measurements are somewhat of an average.

My type 6 #4s are definitely lighter than my type 11 #4.

jtk

[ken hatch]

Not that I know of. Again if Blood and Gore and similar sources are to be believed, then the Bedrocks aren't significantly heavier than the Baileys. I have a suspicion that the "other sources" may be copying B&G, though...

Can anybody measure "matching" (same size, same rough era) Bailey and Bedrock planes side by side and see what the real difference is?

Patrick,

My Bedrock 605 with OEM iron, high knob with ring, patent date of Apr 19-10, and a good bit of dust, weights 2106 grams.
The Bailey #5 with OEM iron, high knob without ring, patent date of Apr 19-10, weights 2031 grams.

Both are 355mm long and 62mm wide.

Hope this helps,

ken

[Jim Koepke]

Could it be there are 75 grams of dust on the old Bedrock? :eek:

jtk

[Ray Selinger]

Bedrock vs Bailey. The frog on a Bailey is more secure. It's a screw against a tiny wedge. I'ld bet on the screw everytime. Simple mechanics.

[ken hatch]

Could it be there are 75 grams of dust on the old Bedrock? :eek:

jtk

Jim,

It would not surprise me:p.

It has been awhile between now and the last time it was off the shelf.

Living in the desert has it advantages, there is no way I could have my tool collection and still live in Oregon, I'd never get any work done because I'd spend all my time fighting rust.

ken

[Jeff Heath]

I live an hour northwest of Chicago, where humidity in the summer hovers between 95% & 100%. You learn to deal with it. A combination of Boeshield T9, camelia oil (planes and irons) and and a wipe down of Johnson's paste wax do a good job of keeping rust at bay on cast iron and steel. I've got over 75,000 lbs. of cast iron in my shop, and am well aware of keeping iron oxide at bay.

[Jim Koepke]

Sometimes it seems like my daily exercise is a short swim out to the shop.

It didn't take me long to learn to live with high humidity after moving here from sunny California.

A light patina will actually help a bit to prevent further rust. After learning that my planes seldom have the sides lapped anymore.

jtk

[Patrick Chase]

Patrick,

My Bedrock 605 with OEM iron, high knob with ring, patent date of Apr 19-10, and a good bit of dust, weights 2106 grams.
The Bailey #5 with OEM iron, high knob without ring, patent date of Apr 19-10, weights 2031 grams.

Both are 355mm long and 62mm wide.

Hope this helps,

ken

Thank you!

Your BedRock is from 1923-30 (type 7 or 8 based on the patent date), while your Bailey is from 1925-28 (type 13). That's about as apples-to-apples as you can get. The Bailey acquired the raised ring in 1928 (type 14) which would close the weight difference a bit.

Jim, wasn't the Bailey sole+frog assembly from that era partially hollow, i.e. the two pieces don't mate into a near-gapless solid the way they do with Bed Rock? That would easily add 70 g.

I appreciate Ken's sneaky editorial comment about how much use the 605 sees. I feel the same FWIW.

[Jim Koepke]

Jim, wasn't the Bailey sole+frog assembly from that era partially hollow, i.e. the two pieces don't mate into a near-gapless solid the way they do with Bed Rock? That would easily add 70 g.

Yes, that likely accounts for the slight difference in weight.


I appreciate Ken's sneaky editorial comment about how much use the 605 sees. I feel the same FWIW.

Same here, my only reason for purchasing a Bedrock is to sell it at a profit.

jtk

[Stanley Covington]

Patrick,

My Bedrock 605 with OEM iron, high knob with ring, patent date of Apr 19-10, and a good bit of dust, weights 2106 grams.
The Bailey #5 with OEM iron, high knob without ring, patent date of Apr 19-10, weights 2031 grams.

Both are 355mm long and 62mm wide.

Hope this helps,

ken

So the Bedrock is 3.7% heavier. Not a lot.

Thanks

[ken hatch]

So the Bedrock is 3.7% heavier. Not a lot.

Thanks

Stan,

No there is not a lot of difference in weight between the two. I do not have the means to find where the C.G, of the two is but I suspect it is somewhere near the center of the frog and I suspect the difference in weight comes from the difference in frog and casting of the frog mounting surface. Going all Patrick without the skills: There is a slight difference between the two planes of about 5mm between the center of the tote and the mouth with the #5 having a longer arm. Making some probably unjustified WAG's, assigning the weight difference center to the mouth of each plane and using the arm from the center of the tote to the mouth you come up with a difference between the moments of about 3000. Cut to the chase, the Bedrock when compared to the Bailey is nose heavy. As you know being comfortable with a tool is dependent on feel, we talk about the "balance" of the tool, and of course that feel and balance is personal. When compared to a Bailey a Bedrock doesn't have that balance and feel in my hands.

It's all personal and there is nothing wrong with Bedrocks, I just do not think there is any real difference in function between the two and because of feel the Bailey is my more used plane. That said, while there is little or no difference in function between the two, because of hype and collectors there is a big difference in price.

BTW, I just weighted my LN #5 with OEM iron and it weighed in at 2601grams.

ken

[Roy Turbett]

There is so much knowledge to be obtained when dealing with vintage tools that its much easier just to buy new tools

Very true. But you can easily fall into a trap where you end up with an inexpensive new plane that doesn't perform or bust your budget on a high quality new plane that doesn't perform noticeably better than a quality vintage plane at a fraction of the cost. The bottom line is there is no substitute for learning how hand planes work and what effects performance. Once you gain this basic knowledge you'll be able to quickly evaluate a used plane and know if its worth buying.

[Mike Baker 2]

There is a lot of minutia between the Stanley planes. If you're a collector, or if you've used the different ones long enough to have preferences, I could see how someone might feel swamped with all the details.
For someone like me, who has little cash and just wants a good solid plane that will serve him well for a long time, at a price I can afford, I don't really care about all of that. If it was made somewhere between 1930-1970 or so, if it is solid, has all it's parts, the blade has good life in it, there are no cracks, the mouth, handle, tote, etc., is in good shape, everything works, that is all I care about.
I'll take it, restore it to working order, and put it back to work. And I'll love it, even if it's considered an ugly duck by others. I just wanna work wood.

[steven c newman]

Took me a LONG time to get the tools that work for me. learned a lot along the way, too. Stared out working with a Great Neck No. 4 plane (2!) and a Stanley #110 ( blue & chrome, ooh-aah) and an old Stanley 129.......About the same time that Norm started his TV show.

Keep going, learned HOW to rehab about any tool that came into the shop.....wasn't any messing around, it needed to be done and out of the way..had projects to do, and sell.

I tend to laugh now..mainly at those that complain about all the HOURS/DAYS they spend to rehab one tool? The same tool I can bring home one afternoon, and usually have it working like new by the next afternoon.

Learned what worked for MY shop, both in the tools I use, and the ones I rehab. Tried all sorts of brand names over the years....settled on a few that worked for me...those that didn't? Lost track of how many rolls of tape I have gone through, shipping things out to buyers. The items will either work for me, or they will soon be packed up and gone. Old Tools? Used a few today, actually..
380149
YMMV...

[Jim Koepke]

My tools make me feel young since most of them are older than me.

Besides, once a tools is cleaned up from years of neglect it only takes up a little time for maintenance.

Most of my bench planes are Stanley/Bailey planes. It is easier for me to keep track of all the parts that way.

Made a box today for a bunch of drill rod.

jtk