I THINK I have an original Bailey Jointer

[Aaron Rosenthal]

A friend dropped off some tools collected by his late mother. They've been in his garage for 10+ years, and they look like it.
Since I can't woodwork in my garage (snow and below "0" Celsius) I've been trying to clean these planes.
2 Rapiers, one a 440 the other one I haven't disassembled; a Stanley #4 type 20; a Stanley #5 no research yet and a few braces (no bits).
One I didn't pay much attention to is a real long #8 sized piece - semi complete, with the front knob missing.
There's no markings on the body, nothing on the blade, nor the frog. On the chip breaker there's a patent to ? Bailey, 1867; and on the brass adjustment knob also bit partially eroded away, is an Aug 1867 patent.
I'm busy cleaning it and getting the rust off, but firstly it this of any historical value that would prompt me to go hunting for the correct knob and screw. and the appropriate tote, since there's some wood chipped off the back of the tote. Or are these plentiful enough that making a new one would not destroy any of it's "value".
I have enough to muscle around my Stanley #6 and my Veritas BU jointer, without adding a 150+ year old behemoth.

[Jim Koepke]

Aaron, pictures always help clear things up.

What you have is likely a type 6 or earlier Stanley/Bailey plane.

If the plane has a lateral adjuster, it will likely have two or three dates on it. If it has a disk to move the blade it is a type 6. If it has a bent up section of the lever it is a type 5. If there isn't a lateral lever, as long as the top of the frog isn't broken off or the lever removed, it is a type 4 or earlier.

Sadly one of the better type studies with lots of images is no longer available on the internet.

You might be able to see it here > https://web.archive.org/web/20191222...ing/typing.htm

Some may prefer this one > http://primeshop.com/access/woodwork...e/pftsynch.htm

My personal type study is a hybrid of the basis for the rexmill type study with some of my own images and notes on things left out in some type studies.

One example would be in the late 1880s or early 1890s there was a type between types 6 & 7. One study calls this a type 6a. Another example is the early type 9 planes are different from later type 9 planes. Some of the early type 9 planes have lateral levers that are from an earlier type. Stanley used up any parts on hand. There wasn't an concern about "type studies" when they were moving product out the door.

Once a type study is published, it is a major pain to try and correct earlier information.

jtk

[Aaron Rosenthal]

Jim I was hoping to hear from you.
There’s no lateral adjustment lever on the frog, not even the hint of any place to attach it.
Because I’m still trying to get the grime off and well as rust, I’ll only be able to photograph it Sunday.
No other marks on it at all except for those 2 patent dates.

[Chuck Hill]

Happy New Year Aaron! I am not at home to look at the type 4 examples that I have, but it sounds like one to me. If you want to get type correct pieces for it, you can try Michael Jenks (and perhaps others) in the "Just Plane Fun - the parts division" FaceBook group:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1690633051116716

[Aaron Rosenthal]

I am going to try and upload the .jpg files of the Bailey jointer.Bailey llength 23.75 inch.jpgBailey Frog.jpgBailey frog front.jpgBailey Adjutment knob jointer.jpg
The length is about 23 3/4"Bailey Adjutment knob jointer.jpg overall, and there is absol\utely no "Stanley" on it at all.
It will need a front knob and threaded rod, but if there is no value to it other than a nice period piece, I guess I can get one from Lee Valley.
Anyway, all you historically minded mavens, could you let me know if I should just make it into a user (I need another plane like I need a another wife.....)

[Jim Koepke]

Looks to be a type 4. One of my #6 planes is a type 4 and works quite well.

If you do not have one of this size it might be a good keeper.

The lateral is easy to adjust with a small mallet:

Plane Hammers mallet wood brass.jpg

Those are two of my plane adjusters.

The handle on the brass headed hammer has been altered since this picture was taken.

jtk

[Aaron Rosenthal]

Thanks for the information. It’s appreciated. My question regarding the front knob remains. Do I scour for an age appropriate one, or just get one and the devil take the hindmost?

[Jim Koepke]

Thanks for the information. It’s appreciated. My question regarding the front knob remains. Do I scour for an age appropriate one, or just get one and the devil take the hindmost?

Not sure there is any great collector value to the plane. Most collectors like something unrestored looking like it is brand new.

The knobs for Stanley/Bailey planes of this time period had a bead around the base. You are not likely to find many of those of the correct size. The tote would likely be easier to repair than to find one that would be proper for the type.

Purchasing the type correct tote & knob would likely cost a bit if you can find them.

Just now looking at completed listings on ebay it looks like prices have gone nuts for hand planes.

jtk

[Rick Whitehead]

I agree: it looks like a Type 4.I think that it has more value as a collector than a user.
I have sold most of my planes that fit into that category, and bought later types of those plane to use. The later modifications (lateral lever, frog adjustment, etc.) really were improvements that made the planes easier to use.
I'd put it on ebay as-is with a starting price based on the sold prices of similar planes in similar condition.
Rick

[Jim Koepke]

The later modifications (lateral lever, frog adjustment, etc.) really were improvements that made the planes easier to use.

Having a lateral lever is convenient.

The seating of the frog on type 9 and later also offers improvement over earlier types.

My big question is how often do people adjust their frog's position?

jtk

[mike stenson]

My no7 is a type 7. I've moved the frogs position twice during ownership. Once when I got it, once when I replaced the iron with an aftermarket one. I end up fine tuning the lateral adjustment with a hammer on all of my iron bench planes anyway, so while great for gross adjustment I could live without it and be Ok