Jim Koepke
02-19-2008, 10:07 PM
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
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