Stew the only thing I disagree with is the availability of #5s, certainly around here. Not that #5 are uncommon, it's just that the #4 are four times as common.
Member
Stew the only thing I disagree with is the availability of #5s, certainly around here. Not that #5 are uncommon, it's just that the #4 are four times as common.
Contributor
+1 - Always a very good ideaOriginally Posted by Kyle Iwamoto
[OP]
Member
[QUOTE=Kyle Iwamoto;2450006]Now that is an idea that hadn't crossed my mind, but just might work!!
Contributor
[QUOTE=David Tiell;2450235]My fishing gear is mostly stored overhead. Since my wife wants me to build stuff I'd have some leverage by saying: No, the fishing stuff stays and if you want to push it, the woodworking stuff goes and I won't be able to build you what you want. Fortunately, she knows what is important to me and would never push it that far.
Look at the racks on boats - they are all overhead while other gear is stuffed around the boat in various places.
Just sayin'
Contributor
My planes are mostly vintage with bailey style frogs. I have one modern plane with a bedrock style frog. I can adjust the frog without removing the iron. That's the only functional difference I can find. In the normal course of my woodworking, I do not make adjustments to the frog, so the value to me is nill. Because they have collector value (I'm not a collector), I'd sell the bedrocks and never give it a second thought.
FWIW, I have a K5 Keen Kutter. It's a clone of the round top bedrock #5. The frogs in those are bailey style. I believe it's only the later bedrocks with flat top sides that have the distinctive frog design.
-- Dan Rode
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit." - Aristotle
Contributor
That is correct. On the early round top Bedrocks, the screws that hold the frog go in from the top, just like the Bailey planes. On the flat top Bedrocks, the screws go in from the back.
Mike
Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good.
Contributor
Hi Daniel and Mike,
I have been debating how to respond on this, because I don't want to be offensive, but finally decided to go ahead. First I want to say that I have appreciated the comments from both of you on the different subjects and respect your views. That said, I have to say that on this one item my thinking is that your view on this is incorrect.
The essence of the Bed Rock frog design is the BOTTOM of the frog, not how the screw that hold the frog to the plane body are tightened. The bottom of all of the Bedrock frogs is milled dead flat as is the bed of the body of the plane where the frog beds to the body. This is the case of the earlier round sided Bed Rocks, and also the later flat sided Bed Rocks. Neither of these types of frogs is of the Bailey style.
The Bailey style frogs bed on two strips, one on the front and one on the back of the bottom of the frog. There are two equivalent milled flats on the bed of the body of the plane where the frogs bed.
The bottom of the frog on any Bed Rock plane is dead flat. The bottom of any of the modern (1900 and later?) Bailey frogs is stepped, not one large flat.
I do agree with both of you that the way you tighten and loosen the screws to move the frog is the same on the round sided bedrocks as it is on the Baileys, but the frog designs certainly not the same style.
As you point out, although you do point out that in your use it is of nominal value, the later Bed Rocks did have the feature of being able to move the frog without having to remove the lever cap, cap iron, and iron. Stanley did this by lengthening the frog and the bed of the body so that the bed could be drilled and threaded from the back, so that the two screws could wedge into the beveled portion of the pins. Thus, for example, the length of an early 604 frog is less than that of the later type 604 frog. They also removed the threads from the mounting pin holes so that the pins could be moved up and down by the wedging action of the screws. That said, the bottom of the later design is just like the bottom of the round sided design, one large flat.
At any rate, I hope that I am not being offensive, but do disagree with you on this point.
Regards,
Stew
Last edited by Stew Denton; 08-01-2015 at 3:34 PM.
Contributor
I don't disagree with you on this point but I don't think I ever said the Bedrock frogs mated the same way as the Bailey's. I'm aware that both round top and flat top side Bedrocks were machined the same way for the frog mating. I think the reason that was never specifically mentioned is that it was assumed to be known.
What is different between the round top and the flat top Bedrocks is the way the screws are put in to hold the frog in place - and that is what I was posting about.
In re-reading the posts above, I can see that I should have been more specific in replying to Daniel that the frog mating on the round top is the same as the frog mating on the flat top Bedrocks. I assumed that, and jumped to the way they are held to the body.
Mike
Last edited by Mike Henderson; 08-01-2015 at 3:39 PM.
Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good.
Contributor
I have everything camouflaged by neatness.
Bumbling forward into the unknown.
Member
David,
About a month ago did a comparison test with two #5's.
A Type 17 against a Bedrock, had a PM-V11 and swapped it out in both, for a proper comparison.
And then the Type 17 with original blade, finely sharpened, against the Bedrock with the PM blade.
Results surprised me.
Type 17 No5 Vs Bedrock No5.jpg
The Bedrock looks good and performs great on walnut.
But the under rated Type 17, was smoother in feel and did a great job also, and that was with a stock blade.
+ one with Jim
Course it is nice to say I have a Bedrock...
"Have no part plane's just keep restoring them"
"aka; acowboy"
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote