bedrock types. What ones are best?

[Corey Filkins]

I have recently acquired two 607's type 5 and type 9.

Both are flat tops, so I am wondering what one might be better and why?

The only difference I can see is that the type 5 has a thicker sole and the type 9 has slightly thicker sides.

Thanks in advance for your input.

[Jim Koepke]

Some folks like to keep their planes in a single type. Others mix it up.

The other main differences in the two types is the type 9 has a cupped ring to better seat the knob and the depth adjuster is larger.

Here is where this information is listed:

http://www.antique-used-tools.com/brtypes.htm

If you are thinking of selling one, set them both up as best as you can. Use them both and see if you notice any difference. Keep the one you like best and the other one should bring a good price.

jtk

[Jeff Heath]

In addition to the good advise you've gotten from Jim, I would add that unless you're a collector, it's about the condition of the plane. If you take the time to fettle them both, they will both be very good user planes. You will also learn alot about what makes a plane work well when you start to see the results differences. A sharp iron, a well bedded frog, and flatness in the critical areas of a plane......toe, heel, and before and after the mouth, all in the same plane........will make most planes work very well. Especially in a jointer plane, where precision in fettling isn't quite as important as on some other planes, like smoothers, moulding planes, shoulder planes, etc....

Personally, I have never paid attention to plane "type-ing", as I'm not a collector. The value for me is in the quality of use in the tool. period.

[Jim Koepke]

Personally, I have never paid attention to plane "type-ing", as I'm not a collector. The value for me is in the quality of use in the tool. period.

There is a lot to be said for Jeff's statement. If a plane works or if it is a dog isn't dependent on type.

My preference is for a short knob. In the 1930s a ring was cast around the base of the knob to help prevent premature cracking of the tall knobs.

Some put a lot of value on having a frog adjustment screw. It isn't all that important to me.

Stanley made a cost cutting move also in the 1930s with a change to the frog. This is referred to as the 'ogee' frog due to the shape of its top. The design lessened the amount of machining time needed on the blade bed. The Bedrock series never had this cost saving feature. To me that is almost an endorsement of the full surface machined frogs.

The Bailey design is more pleasing to my eye than the 'flat top' of the later Bedrock design. Of course, others may prefer the Bedrock style.

So Corey, any chance for some pictures?

jtk

[Corey Filkins]

So Corey, any chance for some pictures?

jtk

I am traveling this week but will post some pictures when I get back home. Both are nice planes, came out of Milwaukee public schools.

[Corey Filkins]

Here are some images. 607.1.jpg607.2.jpg607.3.jpg607.4.jpg

You should be able to see how the castings are slightly thicker at on end on one plane and then opposite on the other end with the other plane.

Here are two drawers I finished in my RAS cabinet that sits next to my bench: (mising is a record 010 that I just picked up)
The Plane missing the frog is early 608 round top. Here is the run down; 8, 608, 607, 607, 6, 5-1/2, 5, 4, 4, 3 in one drawer. Other drawer has a 78, 289, 60*1/2. 9-1/2, 65, 151, 151M, 51, 80, 80M. 71, LN62 (Present from my wife, she is the best) plus a few other block planes.
plane.1.jpgplane.2.jpg

[Stew Denton]

Hi Corey,

+1 on what Jim and Jeff said. I personally don't think that there is a huge difference in the planes. When you look at the type studies, the main changes between the two are in things like the patent dates cast in the body, what was written on the lever cap, and similar changes. Those things may be of great interest to the collectors, but to us users they are trivial differences.

Fundamentally, however, there was little change in the actual construction of the planes themselves. Jim listed the main real differences in the planes, and I think the bigger of the two is the diameter of the adjuster wheel.

Thus, from my perspective the guys above are spot on. If one happens to work better than the other one, I would keep the one that, for what ever reason, seems to work better. My guess is that they will both be excellent, when tuned up.

I would check one thing, however.

Take the frog loose on each plane, and clean up the bedding and bottom of the frog if they need it, removing any compacted sawdust, dirt, etc. Then check to see if both frogs fit dead flat against the bedding, with no rocking. There should not be any rocking what so ever, but you never know. If one of them does not set dead flat with no rocking, sell the one that rocks.

The same thing can be said about the sole of the plane. Put them on something that is virtually dead flat, the in or out feed table on a high quality jointer etc. to see if the plane sole is dead flat. Same thing with the top of the frog.

There should not be anything wrong with any of these items, but again, you never know. I have seen pictures of planes that had quite serious problems with these simple tests.

I guess there may be other things to check, but the one thing I would be certain to check is that all of these parts are dead flat.

You have wonderful problem to resolve. I wish I had to 607s to compare and choose between.

Stew