I Like Old Tools

[Lasse Hilbrandt]

Is this a type 9 or 13 ?

no7.jpg

[Jim Koepke]

Is this a type 9 or 13 ?

no7.jpg

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>

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.

[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 .

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. 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