Bedrock 604 type 3 vs. Bailey 4 type 9

[Jim Koepke]

This is by no means a scientific testing of the two planes used.
To be fair, the same blade was used in both planes.

Recently a Bedrock type 3 No. 604c was bought at an antique shop as a fixer upper.
Today it was soaked in citric acid to get rust off of the various parts.
the sole was sanded to get rid of most of the remaining rust and some of the pitting. After this, a file was lightly drawn across the back edge of the mouth to break the wire edge.

The plane was reassembled and a sharp after market blade was installed. The blade is a little thicker than a Stanley blade. I have no idea who made it as it was part of a box of plane parts bought together.

Adjusting the frog on the Bedrock is a bit easier than on the Bailey style type 9 used for this test. Because it is an early style Bedrock, it is only a little easier than a type 10 Bailey. The Bedrock, for those not familiar with them, has the base of the frog and the plane bed machined to match. The frog on a Bedrock does not have any side to side or rotational movement to the plane bed like the frogs on a Bailey. The Bedrock planes were also the first ones Stanley made with an adjustment screw on the frog.

The Bedrock was tried first. Wonderfully thin wisps of shavings came out of the throat with just a little adjustment.

The blade and cap iron were then put onto the Bailey plane. With just a little adjustment, wonderfully thin wisps of shavings came out of the throat.

Not really sure if my aging brain might be missing something. Maybe if only one plane could be taken to a job site and it was known there would be some rough milled lumber there needing to be planed with an open mouth setting and then smoothed with a closed mouth setting, then this would be an advantage. But then again, the real advantage would be with the later Bedrocks wherein the blade does not have to be removed to make the adjustment.

All in all, it is a nice plane. It will be fun to work on it a bit more as a restoration project. Eventually, since somehow the No. 4 size planes in my shop seem to have mastered the art of reproduction, it may put up for sell. Surely it will bring more for my efforts than any of the others.

Jim

Self-initiated learning, once begun, develops its own momentum.
– Ray Hartjen

[Marcus Ward]

Not having to remove the blade is not that big of a selling point anyhow since moving the frog will cause the blade to change adjustment, and cause you to readjust it as if you had removed it anyhow. I think it was a sales gimmick, myself. ;) Thanks for the post.

[Phillip Pattee]

Jim,
What kind of wood did you do your test in? Maybe a difference would be apparent if you used figured hickory of some of the exotic Australian hardwoods.

[Jim Koepke]

Jim,
What kind of wood did you do your test in? Maybe a difference would be apparent if you used figured hickory of some of the exotic Australian hardwoods.

Pine, cedar, two types of oak, Philippine mahogany, true mahogany and a little rosewood.

One thing that should not cause any difference is the Bedrock has a corrugated sole and all the other planes have smooth soles.

There is a little less vibration with the Bedrock. This is mostly noted in the difference of the blade sound. It may be due to the Bedrock frog giving better support of the blade closer to the cutting edge.

The Bedrock may be able to take a slightly thiner shaving. At this point the difference is in the realm of one or two - ten thousands of an inch. I do not have a micrometer available to confirm this.

All and all, it is a very slight improvement in the work ability/feel. I can not think of times when this would be critical.

The big deal is the frog adjustment. There is more area for the frog to seat than on the Bailey style. This and a little more mass in the frog is likely to dampen some of the vibrations. I should have tried this today as I was planing some end grain with a Bailey and it was singing loud.

[OK, just ran out to the shop and tried both planes on a piece of end grain pine.]

The Bailey seemed louder and lower pitched than the Bedrock, #4 & #604c respectively. The same blade, Hock HC, was used in both planes.

So, this is not scientific, but my opinion is the Bedrock is a notch above the Bailey design.

Beyond the ease of frog adjustment and better vibration dampening, the design eliminates any torsional movement of the frog. It also eliminates the problem of multiple seating points. The Bedrock has a single plane for the seating of the frog. The Bailey has multiple planes of contacts. If this is machined beautifully, then all the planes are in proper relationship. I have had more than a few where the seating had to be fettled to keep the frog from rocking. Not a real killer, but a bit more to do.

Funny thing, on the Bedrock, the leading edge of the frog was square to the sides. The mouth was not.

The way the frog seats on a Bedrock also seems to give a little better over all range in the adjustment.

If one were to have a single 605 where they wanted to have a scrub blade, a jointing blade and a smoothing blade, this would be a real advantage.

As far as performance is concerned, the Bailey's do as good a job for all I have needed so far.

When I get one of those magical round to its, I will likely list it on the auction site that shall not be named. Then I will likely spend the money on some other collectors of rust to clean.

jim