# Ross No. 4 plane



## whiskywill (18 Jun 2015)

At this morning's car boot sale I was offered a Ross No. 4 plane in excellent condition for just £4. I refused because I already have too many no. 4's but does anybody know anything about the brand. Is it yet another Bailey copy?


----------



## CStanford (18 Jun 2015)

Nope, it's actually a copy of a Lie-Nielsen.... :wink:


----------



## MIGNAL (18 Jun 2015)

Junk.


----------



## Tony Zaffuto (18 Jun 2015)

Is Ross another LN knock-off?


----------



## bugbear (18 Jun 2015)

Tony Zaffuto":mii09lz7 said:


> Is Ross another LN knock-off?



IIRC it's more like a Silverline knock off.

BugBear


----------



## CStanford (18 Jun 2015)

I was just being facetious in that some would assert that L-N is the only company with the 'right' to copy a Stanley/Stanley-Bailey design when in reality there have probably never been fewer than six companies doing just that and this has been going on continuously for the last one hundred years or so (and many more copyists at points in time -- a couple dozen, easily).

Copies of varying quality, but copies nevertheless.


----------



## Vann (19 Jun 2015)

CStanford":2j1h58sq said:


> I was just being facetious in that some would assert that L-N is the only company with the 'right' to copy a Stanley/Stanley-Bailey design ...


Ahem. With the exception on their No.1, L-N did *not* copy the Stanley Bailey design. Lie-Nielsen did us all a favour by copying a design that had been out of production for 50 odd years, making it available once again to woodworkers (and collectors). I think that's why some feel that L-N deserves special treatment. Then others jumped on the bandwagon, making copies of planes still in production, undermining L-Ns efforts. 

Record copied the Stanley Bailey design soon after the patents ran out, right down to the (by then) non-standard threads.

I thought I'd better correct your mis-representation of the situation.

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## undergroundhunter (19 Jun 2015)

Vann":2u4spbvm said:


> CStanford":2u4spbvm said:
> 
> 
> > I was just being facetious in that some would assert that L-N is the only company with the 'right' to copy a Stanley/Stanley-Bailey design ...
> ...



Please excuse my ignorance but why did L-N do everyone a "favour" by copying an old design? I genuinely cant see how an L-N no4 can perform better than my Stanley 4 or even my coffin smoother, then again I have never used one so maybe I'm missing something.

Matt


----------



## bugbear (19 Jun 2015)

CStanford":1rh6lbbd said:


> I was just being facetious in that some would assert that L-N is the only company with the 'right' to copy a Stanley/Stanley-Bailey design when in reality there have probably never been fewer than six companies doing just that and this has been going on continuously for the last one hundred years or so (and many more copyists at points in time -- a couple dozen, easily).
> 
> Copies of varying quality, but copies nevertheless.



An interesting point, and not one I've seen made before. :roll: 

BugBear


----------



## Vann (19 Jun 2015)

undergroundhunter":fnzigb6v said:


> Please excuse my ignorance but why did L-N do everyone a "favour" by copying an old design?


Well original Stanley Bedrocks often sell for big money (as much as a new L-N) and they are all old and usually carry the scars of the years use, abuse, and storage. And no-one was making new ones. As far as I'm concerned they did me a" favour" by taking the finacial risk to start making new Bedrocks that are as affordable as a battle-weary Stanley. I couldn't/wouldn't have afforded an original Stanley Bedrock. I now own an L-N Bedrock.

As to whether it will out perform a Stanley Bailey - I'm not going down that path. Is a Holtey better performing than a Bedrock? Is a Bedrock better performing than a Bailey? You ask ten different people if you want ten different opinions. Go read a few old threads on the subject.

My point is: Lie-Nielsen made new Bedrocks available to the woodworking world, for the first time in 60 - 70 years. Others copied them.

My other point is: CStanford was wrong to suggest that L-N copied Stanleys' Bailey design.

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## CStanford (19 Jun 2015)

"My other point is: CStanford was wrong to suggest that L-N copied Stanleys' Bailey design."

That's interesting in light of the fact that L-N acknowledges their planes are largely copies:

Standard Bench Planes

We make all sizes that Stanley did, from the tiny No. 1 to the huge No. 8. Each has its own charm, but personal preference plays a large part in choosing the right bench plane for a particular job.

Our Standard Bench Planes (except for the No. 1) are based on the Stanley Bedrock design, last produced in 1943. In their golden years, the Bedrocks were the top of the line. They featured a fully machined mating fit between the frog and body, and the ability to adjust the mouth opening from the rear without removing the cap and handle. Lie-Nielsen Bench Planes include these features as well as a Bronze cam lever cap, lateral adjustment, and spinwheel blade adjuster.


----------



## Vann (19 Jun 2015)

CStanford":1b45btnm said:


> "My other point is: CStanford was wrong to suggest that L-N copied Stanleys' Bailey design."
> 
> That's interesting in light of the fact that L-N acknowledges their planes are largely copies:


...of Bedrock planes, not of Bailey planes (hammer) 

Standard Bench Planes

We make all sizes that Stanley did, from the tiny No. 1 to the huge No. 8. Each has its own charm, but personal preference plays a large part in choosing the right bench plane for a particular job.

Our Standard Bench Planes (except for the No. 1) are based on the Stanley *Bedrock* design, last produced in 1943. In their golden years, the *Bedrocks* were the top of the line. They featured a fully machined mating fit between the frog and body, and the ability to adjust the mouth opening from the rear without removing the cap and handle. Lie-Nielsen Bench Planes include these features as well as a Bronze cam lever cap, lateral adjustment, and spinwheel blade adjuster.

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## CStanford (19 Jun 2015)

True I suppose, though I have to admit to having never seen the Ross. It must be another Bailey copy.

Patrick's Blood and Gore:

"In a world where good enough usually ain't good enough, Stanley decided to produce another series of metal bench planes, called Bed Rock planes. These planes are, for all intents and purposes, nothing but a variation of the more popular Bailey series. They all have an adjustable frog, the brass depth adjustment knob, the lateral lever, a lever cap, rosewood knob and tote, etc., just like the Bailey's. The key difference between the two designs is found in the way the frog mates with the bottom casting. For such a seemingly minor difference, the Bed Rock planes were offered at a premium over the Bailey's, and it was a design that never seemed to be very static nor nearly as popular as Stanley's wildly successful Bailey line."

I see a cloud in the sky. Does it look like a brontosaurus or the Blessed Virgin? Depends on who's looking I guess.

The propensity to see differences rather than similarities is directly proportional to one's investment in one or the other. If you have both, you'll likely notice hardly a difference in the actual working. This is why, I believe, the Bed Rocks were never that popular. The price difference was not justified, nor was the hoopla (then or now). All of these planes will take a thin, whispy shaving in almost any species which seems to be the metric by which they're judged, even though in the actual prepping of lumber by hand smoothing accounts for only ten percent or less of the entire process from start to finish. Anybody removing more than the barest perception of thickness (or width or anything else) of a board, with a smoothing plane, has a fundamental misunderstanding of the process. Full stop.


----------



## Vann (19 Jun 2015)

CStanford":1kiac7tk said:


> ...All of these planes will take a thin, whispy shaving in almost any species which seems to be the metric by which they're judged...





I":1kiac7tk said:


> ...I'm not going down that path. Is a Holtey better performing than a Bedrock? Is a Bedrock better performing than a Bailey? You ask ten different people if you want ten different opinions.


Cheers, Vann.


----------



## CStanford (19 Jun 2015)

None of these really perform better, they only provide the user a different planing experience. Far too many people raise shavings of essentially unmeasurable thickness with Baileys to be able to assert otherwise, though I understand you aren't making this argument. It's a shame this fact makes some people snarl (not you).

Some people like to plane and not really feel what's going on (heavy plane/1976 Cadillac Coupe de Ville going over a pothole). Baileys don't provide this sort of ride.

Have a great weekend.


----------



## bridger (20 Jun 2015)

Tom Lie Nielsen copied the bedrock line of planes once offered by Stanley. I would be (slightly) interested to know where the frog seat design originated, whether Leonard Bailey had anything to do with it- I think that the timeline would suggest not. Tom L.N. made a few changes, though. he held the machining to a higher standard than Stanley ever did, he offered (and promoted) high angle frogs and he changed the chipbreaker design. in order to make the improved machine work possible he had to make the castings thicker. this made the planes heavier than necessary, which he vigorously promoted as a "feature". the chipbreakers that L.N. offers are marginal for actual chip breaking, indeed many of them are geometrically insufficient to be brought into the cut. this suggests that L.N. never particularly understood the function and working of the double iron, an assertion backed up by his vigorous promotion of high angle frogs.

now, don't get me wrong- L.N. planes are things of beauty, extremely well made especially at the price point at which they are offered and entirely capable of producing fine work. however, to claim that they are unequivocally superior in all respects to a well tuned turn of the century Bailey is flat out wrong.


----------



## woodbrains (20 Jun 2015)

Hello,

Get a new LN and a new Stanley and see which performs better! Let us not forget, we have fettled and fussed and flattened and spent hours getting our old Baileys to work as they should, perhaps getting aftermarket blades and cap irons. Comparing like for like, the LN is superior, by a large degree. And let us be honest, most of our pampered Baileys are of a vintage when Stanley et al, were at their best, so even the old ones were not as good as the new LN's. If someone wants to work wood, then LN's get them going, without fault, from the first instance.

Regarding cap irons, Stanley ones never worked as chip breakers, either, and were simply blade adjustment devices, so let us not be too harsh on LN not understanding the full use of them. LN ones at least were better at stiffening the blade assembly and did offer a method of planing difficult woods, by making York pitch frogs etc. most fine plane manufacturers preferred this method as well, so is a legitimate path for the toolmaker to take over the other. There are many ways to kill a cat. Contending LN's are not better than anything Stanley made is daft, they clearly are. Whether this matters is another issue and if it doesn't, then fine, but that doesn't diminish LN tools in any way.
Incidentally, I do not own any, most of my tools are fussed over old Records. If I had the funds to have got LN all those years ago and saved me time effort and money cajoling my tools to perform as good as they do, I probably would have. There is certainly less fun in getting the tool to work wood than working the wood itself for some. TBH I actually prefer to make wooden planes than flatten the soles of old iron ones, so I'm glad that there are fine tools around that work, for those who want to get straight at woodwork.
Mike.


----------



## bridger (20 Jun 2015)

Mike-
The bailey pattern chipbreaker works very well as a chipbreaker. It was designed for that purpose. The L.N. chipbreaker can be made to work with a bit of adjustment, if you are lucky to get one that is long enough.


I'm not comparing new L.N. to new stanley. I'm comparing it to Bailey planes circa 1880-1920. The main reason most of those planes need the amount of work that they do is due to the wear they have sustained in a century of use. The L.N. planes (and modern veritas, woodriver and likely clifton as well) are definitely machined better than the old Bailey planes were. They have modern metallurgy to draw from as well.

The thing is that if the chipbreaker is working properly there is no need for a high angle frog. Set the chipbreaker properly on a bailey plane and it will cut tearout free in the most difficult woods, thin iron, bailey chipbreaker, thin castings and all. Flat soles to within .002" are unnecessary. Just not concave. Backlash free adjusters are nice but irrelevant to the surface produced. We still have a thing or two to learn from those victorian19th century engineers, I think.


----------



## Mr_P (20 Jun 2015)

Everyone needs a Ross no.4 or equivalent.

Prepped some reclaimed timber yesterday, did I reach for an old Bailey type or an infill ?

Of course not, Rapier 400 did the job nicely. 

I once snapped a nearly new tuffsaws blade on a bit of reclaimed with hidden nails, lesson learned.


----------



## CStanford (20 Jun 2015)

bridger":xffjcccn said:


> Tom Lie Nielsen copied the bedrock line of planes once offered by Stanley. I would be (slightly) interested to know where the frog seat design originated, whether Leonard Bailey had anything to do with it- I think that the timeline would suggest not. Tom L.N. made a few changes, though. he held the machining to a higher standard than Stanley ever did, he offered (and promoted) high angle frogs and he changed the chipbreaker design. in order to make the improved machine work possible he had to make the castings thicker. this made the planes heavier than necessary, which he vigorously promoted as a "feature". the chipbreakers that L.N. offers are marginal for actual chip breaking, indeed many of them are geometrically insufficient to be brought into the cut. this suggests that L.N. never particularly understood the function and working of the double iron, an assertion backed up by his vigorous promotion of high angle frogs.
> 
> now, don't get me wrong- L.N. planes are things of beauty, extremely well made especially at the price point at which they are offered and entirely capable of producing fine work. however, to claim that they are unequivocally superior in all respects to a well tuned turn of the century Bailey is flat out wrong.



I'm pretty sure Vaughan and Bushnell were the first firm to copy the Bed Rock frog design. There have been others and L-N's could very well be a copy of somebody else's copy.

It's too bad L-N didn't pay more attention to the chipbreaker when making their copy of a Stanley plane.


----------



## CStanford (20 Jun 2015)

woodbrains":z7pyyj0v said:


> Hello,
> 
> Regarding cap irons, Stanley ones never worked as chip breakers, either, and were simply blade adjustment devices, so let us not be too harsh on LN not understanding the full use of them.



That's ridiculous Mike. They work now and they worked then. You can easily test it in your own workshop. Set one close enough to make the plane cease cutting and then start moving it back in tiny increments and watch the change in the chip, and the surface produced, with your own eyes.


----------



## woodbrains (20 Jun 2015)

CStanford":2rqjhtg9 said:


> woodbrains":2rqjhtg9 said:
> 
> 
> > Hello,
> ...



Hello,

If you consider having to file the mating surfaces to fit properly so as not to jam with shavings, smoothing the leading edge with abrasives and taking out some of the bend in them so they don't cock the iron into a banana, as working, then I'll concede the point. If you are trying to suggest that that awful bit of bent tin that Stanley fit as cap irons makes them better than LN, then you really have never used one! And before replying, think carefully about the amount of tinkering done to your cap irons, before you tell me I'm wrong. LN got the angle of the leading edge wrong, which can be corrected, well so did Stanley, for a true cap iron effect. At least LN ones fit, are better made and make the blades rigid, not bent. 

Mike.


----------



## G S Haydon (20 Jun 2015)

The Bailey cap iron is a marvel of design. Properly shaped to defeat tearout which it does easily, made out of appropriate materials to keep cost down. For me there is nothing not to like!


----------



## Vann (20 Jun 2015)

G S Haydon":17q4cxdu said:


> The Bailey cap iron is a marvel of design. Properly shaped to defeat tearout which it does easily, made out of appropriate materials to keep cost down. For me there is nothing not to like!


Except that Stanley (and others) have not made the Bailey cap iron correctly to the design since... maybe the 1930s.

The patent drawing of Mr Bailey's double iron shows the cap-iron laying parallel (flat) on the iron right down to the point where it begins the distinctive hump. 

While the design is great, in practice I've seen very few cap-irons of this design that are actually the correct shape. If the bottom edge is not bent down enough the cap-iron will not touch the cutting iron, making the whole thing useless. So manufacturers (including Stanley) ensured that the bottom edge is bent down more than enough. This causes the top end of the hump to not be in contact with the cutting iron - and the result is the bending of the cutting iron we're all familiar with, frequently resulting in chatter. 

So while cap-irons correctly manufactured to the design may be great, in practice it's too difficult for manufacturers to get it correct. Purchasers who know what they're doing can faff around with them to get them working well, but many a newbie has been put off (self included 40 years ago) by this and other defects in modern Bailey planes. 

Thank goodness TL-N came along and attempted to make a better plane (actually it was with a Veritas LAJ I bought ~7 years ago that I discovered I CAN plane wood)

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## CStanford (20 Jun 2015)

Once again, proof that I must be the luckiest guy on the planet. All mine seem to work fine. Ignorance is bliss I suppose.


----------



## Vann (21 Jun 2015)

CStanford":2hzbfprs said:


> Once again, proof that I must be the luckiest guy on the planet. All mine seem to work fine. Ignorance is bliss I suppose.


Or maybe you had a good tutor who taught you how to set yours up. Or maybe you've got all well made vintage (pre 1930s) Stanleys. 

Or maybe not the luckiest, just the most sarcastic... who knows?

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## G S Haydon (21 Jun 2015)

Hi Vann,

My current #4 is from the 1960's, works like a charm when the going gets tough. I have not experienced the issue you mention, I got lucky perhaps! They all seem to be made very well.

I reflected on this a bit recently https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiA6OAnLvrI . Just thinking out loud really. It'd be great to have the ear of Leonard Bailey!


----------



## MMUK (21 Jun 2015)

Mr_P":2onac8mq said:


> Everyone needs a Ross no.4 or equivalent.
> 
> Prepped some reclaimed timber yesterday, did I reach for an old Bailey type or an infill ?
> 
> ...




Exactly why I have "sacrificial" Acorns and cheapy Silverlines in my cabinet with the others.


----------



## CStanford (21 Jun 2015)

If a cap iron can cause a plane to cease cutting when set very close then it will function as a chipbreaker when moved back just to the point cutting resumes.

It's pretty much that simple. I think the top leading edge benefits from polishing on a wire wheel. Geometry can be tweaked a bit as well since the wire wheel will remove material from the soft cap iron.

It is true that most will need to be honed in order to mate with the flat back of the cutter. Since chipbreakers are not hardened this is about fifteen minutes of work, at most, on medium and fine oilstones. Material is removed very rapidly. There is no need to break out mill files. A wire wheel will remove the burr at the leading edge produced by honing the flat side.

Very fine cap iron settings, and the purpose of same, were covered in Planecraft which was published seven or eight times in different editions. It's my understanding the cap iron information was a permanent feature of the book since the first edition. There are other British woodworking manuals with the admonishment to set the cap iron 'as close as you can get it to the cutting edge..." or words to that effect, when dealing with difficult grain.

None of this is new, any later manufacturers who ignored all of this did so or do so through hubris or ignorance (take your pick).


----------



## woodbrains (21 Jun 2015)

CStanford":2actyqdi said:


> I think the top leading edge benefits from polishing on a wire wheel. Geometry can be tweaked a bit as well since the wire wheel will remove material from the soft cap iron.
> 
> It is true that most will need to be honed in order to mate with the flat back of the cutter. Since chipbreakers are not hardened this is about fifteen minutes of work, at most, on medium and fine oilstones. Material is removed very rapidly. There is no need to break out mill files. A wire wheel will remove the burr at the leading edge produced by honing the flat side.



Hello,

Of course! You've fettled do your cap irons the same as everyone else does. Thanks for admitting it, at last, as this was the point I made, that you deemed ridiculous. So how is this essential component, which everyone in the world knows needs fixing, the brilliant Stanley innovation that makes them superior to LN planes? The cap iron wasn't a Bailey invention, all that had to be done was get it right, but didn't. So, it is down to the user to either back them off so as to not cause trouble, in effect using them only as an adjuster (wot I said) or fixing them to work properly (wot I said) you could similarly fettle a LN cap iron if a cap iron effect is what you need. But, and without any hubris or ignorance, LN conveniently provide us with alternatives to taming tear out, high angle frogs. These are also a tried and tested means of doing the same and along with setting a fine mouth opening, a significant advantage of the bedrock design we have circumvented the need for a cap iron effect. Obviously it is down to personal preference which method to go for, but again if you choose to fettle the Bailey, it can not diminish the virtues of the LN planes, which are very fine tools indeed. 

Mike.


----------



## MIGNAL (21 Jun 2015)

Last time I 'fettled' a bent tin cap iron ( just 3 weeks ago) it took all of 5 minutes. Fits the blade perfectly, has the correct effect on reducing tearout, if set close enough. It's just so easy, you can take a file to them if you must, I didn't need to and I can't remember ever having to do so.


----------



## Vann (21 Jun 2015)

G S Haydon":3t67zqlw said:


> My current #4 is from the 1960's, works like a charm when the going gets tough. I have not experienced the issue you mention, I got lucky perhaps! They all seem to be made very well.
> 
> It'd be great to have the ear of Leonard Bailey!


Hi GSH.

As I said in the previous post, the patent drawing of Mr Bailey's double iron shows the cap-iron laying parallel (flat) on the iron, right down to the point where it begins the distinctive hump. IIRC the patent emphasizes how the cap-iron supports the cutting iron at either end of the "hump" (in the same way that Record and Clifton assert that the two-piece cap iron does).

However, when you examine any "Bailey" cap-iron made from the 1930s on (and possibly earlier) you will see that the leading edge of the hump is too big and holds the cap-iron clear of the cutting iron in this important area. I tried a number of cap-irons in an old damaged No.4 to see if any seat the way Leonard Bailey intended.





1950s Stanley irons - note that the gap between the two irons begins just below the cap-iron screw, and grows larger the closer it gets to the "hump". This fails to comply with Baileys patent.




1960s Stanley irons - another fail




1940s Canadian Stanley irons - close, but not quite.




Marples irons - Fail




1950s Record irons - Fail




1950s Record irons - Fail




1950s Record irons - Fail




Wartime Record 2-piece - look at that !! 8) Nice and tight all the way down to the top of the deflector. This is why I believe the Record/Clifton 2-piece is a good design of cap-iron - it achieves what Leonard Bailey set out to do in 1867.

With the cap-iron screw pulling the two irons together in the middle, but the leading edge of the cap-iron forcing the two irons apart, there is a certain amount of tension in the irons (possibly a good thing). Most of the tension is relived by the softer cap-iron bowing, but it is inevitable that the cutting iron also bows a little. This will result in the cutting iron only contacting the frog face at the bottom (near the mouth) and towards the top. The lever-cap will to some extent counter this, but where it fails to - chatter.

It seems daft to install a pair of irons that, through poor manufacturing, are trying to lift off the frog face - exactly the opposite to what is wanted to avoid chatter.

In spite of this many experienced woodworkers get good results from their Bailey style planes - but many potential woodworkers fail and give up (like I did in the 1970s).

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## CStanford (22 Jun 2015)

woodbrains":2m7ldj10 said:


> CStanford":2m7ldj10 said:
> 
> 
> > I think the top leading edge benefits from polishing on a wire wheel. Geometry can be tweaked a bit as well since the wire wheel will remove material from the soft cap iron.
> ...



If you needed a high angle frog, you didn't have to wait for Lie-Nielsen. ECE have been selling 50* planes for a hundred years or so. Ulmia too.

Otherwise, I guess ten or fifteen minutes of work rises to fettling. If you say so. Barely above knocking off rust as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Vann (22 Jun 2015)

Vann":3gm8p5fa said:


> IIRC the patent emphasizes how the cap-iron supports the cutting iron at either end of the "hump" (in the same way that Record and Clifton assert that the two-piece cap iron does).


Found it ! This is from Leonard Bailey's patent application.


Letters Patent No.72 said:


> My object is to use very thin steel plane-irons, and in so doing I find that they are liable to buckle under the pressure of the cap, which causes them to chatter, and makes them otherwise imperfect; and *my invention consists in the providing of an auxiliary point of contact between the cap and plane-iron*, and at the point where the plane-iron tends to buckle or rise from its bed or base, and thus have a pressure at that point in addition to that at the cutting-edge, which firmly holds this thin plane-iron to it’s bed.


It seems ironic to me, that the majority of "Bailey" style planes feature the problem that Leonard Bailey himself wanted to overcome - i.e. the plane-iron not being supported at the point where the plane-iron tends to buckle or rise from its bed. Go figure.

Cheers, Vann


----------



## Downwindtracker2 (22 Jun 2015)

Vann, what you say makes sense. I'm no expert, but looking at the cap iron, screw , plane blade, and frog, things just didn't seem to be mating up . At the time,I was wondering why I was being so careful in flattening the frog face. I had in the past simply bought an plane blade and cap iron from Lee Valley and called it good. At 1/3 the price of a new Vertas plane. On the plane I'm working on, a Millers Fall #9 (Stanley #4 clone) with it's hinged lever cap I'm going to fit the cap iron like you suggest.


----------



## undergroundhunter (22 Jun 2015)

Vann":1prppts2 said:


> With the cap-iron screw pulling the two irons together in the middle, but the leading edge of the cap-iron forcing the two irons apart, there is a certain amount of tension in the irons (possibly a good thing). Most of the tension is relived by the softer cap-iron bowing, but it is inevitable that the cutting iron also bows a little. This will result in the cutting iron only contacting the frog face at the bottom (near the mouth) and towards the top. The lever-cap will to some extent counter this, but where it fails to - chatter.
> 
> It seems daft to install a pair of irons that, through poor manufacturing, are trying to lift off the frog face - exactly the opposite to what is wanted to avoid chatter.
> 
> ...



I agree completely until the part about chatter, all my bailey style planes have standard irons and chipbrakers, never once have I had chatter that want a result of poor technique, skewing or changing direction remedied this. 

I was once given one of these





Now that thing did chatter like hell but its only a single iron sat on 2 chunks of metal, makes a good scrub though.

As far as L-N planes are concerned, me personally I would rather spend £20 on a stanley and spend 20 mins tuning it than spend £294.96 on an L-N, I'd rather buy wood.

Matt


----------



## Corneel (22 Jun 2015)

Interesting discussion :lol: 

I find the Bailey design to be comfortably in the "good enough" zone. There have been all kinds of theoretical objections over the years, but in real practice, the thing just works, is easy to adjust and has all the little details just right. They were quite expensive around 1900, but still they sold in huge numbers. It can't have been so bad.

The capirons usually need attention to get them to fit properly at the leading edge on the face of the cutting blade. This can be a frustrating little job, when you remove material in the middle then suddenly a gap apears at the corners and the other way around. But even with a tiny gap in the middle when holding them with your fingers, it usually closes under the lever cap pressure. The leading angle of the capiron is in the area of 40 to 50 degrees, which is perfect.

The blade is bend upwards and doesn't bed on the frog in the middle. Duh. Wooden planes are exactly the same. They often had the bed hollowed on purpose. Even when you have one that sits flat, as soon as you take a thick shaving it puts pressure on the edge and the iron will bow a litlle and lifts of the bed in the middle. But all that is not a problem. The planes work without chatter anyway. The two part cap design is a solution in search of a problem.

The thin irons. No problem either. When you use the capiron and when you set the frog back so the blade has support from the sole too, the plane works very well even in very hard kinds of wood.

The slop in the adjuster. I suppose it could be iritating, but when it spins freely on the stud, it is just a flick with your thumb to take up the slop. You could hate it. Or not of course.

The lighter weight. Also a matter of personal preference. Wooden planes are even lighter and they work perfectly allright too.

The problem with the LN capiron isn't so much that you need to adjust the angle of the leading edge. It's a one minute job at best. You have to be carefull though, the land under the edge is very narrow. It's just a silly idea that you even have to do it. Why didn't they make the angle just right? Like Ron Hock does? Oh, and occasionally you hear from people who find the capiron being too short or something. They can't set the capiron close enough while still being able to adjust the iron through the mouth.


----------



## CStanford (22 Jun 2015)

I find the statements made by some of 'giving up' and 'not being able to plane wood' rather far-fetched. The truth of the matter is that one can move the cap iron back a strong eighth, taking it essentially out of the mix except for the greediest of shavings, and a Bailey will still plane wood quite well. Close up the mouth and in this state can produce a finished surface on more species than not.

If the plane chatters try tightening the lever-cap screw, or even loosening it. Too tight is not good, nor is too loose.


----------



## CStanford (22 Jun 2015)

This man makes a lot of sense:

http://www.theenglishwoodworker.com/set ... ker-video/


----------



## woodbrains (22 Jun 2015)

CStanford":2w4lzmqt said:


> This man makes a lot of sense:
> 
> http://www.theenglishwoodworker.com/set ... ker-video/



Hello,

Yet another woodworker fixing a defective Bailey cap iron! Yes he makes some sense, I fixed all mine more or less the same. If you take my original comment, I said that that the Bailey cap irons do not work as purchased, so cannot be used as a positive point for putting down another brand which, in all other aspects of manufacture, is far superior than Stanley ever was, past or present. I have a US 1910 patent Stanley number 8, and the cap iron is perfunctory, from an era when the manufacturer was reputed to be at its zenith. I generally have a preference for Rcord planes and almost all I have have cap irons better made than the Stanley equivalent. Funnily enough, a record 04 I bought new in about 1995 had a better made and designed cap iron than almost any plane I have had, surpassed only by Clifton two piece ones I retrofitted some of my others with. We can all get our planes to work with effort, even the Ross in the OP, but that does not mean we have to be happy about it, or other manufacturers should not try to make better tools. I think there is some sort of austerity woodworkers about, who refuse to acknowledge any tool maker who makes better tools as a valid offering. Are these people not trying to do their best as well? If they are, would they be happy if they were continually admonished for doing fine work, when rough work would do at a pinch, with some fixing by the end user?

Mike.


----------



## CStanford (22 Jun 2015)

I repeat, again, if a cap iron will cause a plane to cease cutting at a very close setting then it will function to break a chip when moved slightly back.

I've never seen one that won't do either.


----------



## Tony Zaffuto (23 Jun 2015)

Since the Clifton 2 piece chip breaker has been mentioned multiple times, will the present owner of Clifton make them available for sale? 

I have a Clifton #3 that is my favorite Bailey/Bedrock style smoother. Some don't like the 2 piece chip breaker, mainly because some have trouble with it falling off. I find it very convenient for a few swipes to hone a new edge. I have to add I had about fifteen minutes of "fettling" time on the chip breaker to get a good fit when assembling, plus touched up the flat that goes against the blade and a slight polish on the opposite side. All in all, a very nice set-up.

I have also heard that those that don't like the "falling apart" part of the 2 piece design sometimes put a dab of silicone caulking in the groove before reinstalling the chip breaker to the blade to the plane. When the caulk cures, it effectively stops pieces falling apart, yet is fairly easy to peel away to return to the original design.


----------



## Paul Chapman (23 Jun 2015)

Tony Zaffuto":2txekqdi said:


> Since the Clifton 2 piece chip breaker has been mentioned multiple times, will the present owner of Clifton make them available for sale?



http://www.flinn-garlick-saws.co.uk/aca ... ml#SID=535

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Paddy Roxburgh (23 Jun 2015)

CStanford":11i9isth said:


> This man makes a lot of sense:
> 
> http://www.theenglishwoodworker.com/set ... ker-video/




Cheers for that link. Watched some of his vids last night and really enjoyed them.
Paddy


----------



## Tony Zaffuto (23 Jun 2015)

CStanford":2vah3l5l said:


> This man makes a lot of sense:
> 
> http://www.theenglishwoodworker.com/set ... ker-video/



If I'm not mistaken, I believe David Charlesworth has a section in one of his books, showing the same methods for preparing a chip breaker. I also believe Garret Hack has some similar advice in "The HandPlane Book" (not positive about the title!).


----------



## Sheffield Tony (23 Jun 2015)

I think Vann's comments above about the Bailey chipbreaker and its contact with the blade are really quite interesting. And worth a more prominent place than tacked on the end of a thread about a-n-other cheap make of Bailey style plane ! I almost missed it.

It makes a lot of sense; sitting in contact with the iron without distorting it, it would function very like the two piece cap iron in where it applies pressure - the lever cap and cap iron work a bit like the linkages of a car windscreen wiper in spreading the contact pressure.


----------



## bugbear (23 Jun 2015)

Vann":3lfxg34j said:


> I tried a number of cap-irons in an *old damaged* No.4 to see if any seat the way Leonard Bailey intended.



This week's award for the most creative use of a broken piece of junk goes to...

Vann! =D> =D> =D> 

BugBear


----------



## Corneel (23 Jun 2015)

At the other hand, it is not really a problem when the blade and chipbreaker don't sit exactly like the bailey patent. The plane still works perfectly allright. Maybe that's one of the great virtues of the design, it has a large margin before a defect becomes a problem. None of mine are perfect in this regard, but they are clearly not as bad as some of the examples in Vann's post. Maybe you should just tighten the lever cap screw a bit more?


----------



## Vann (23 Jun 2015)

CStanford":3kzt2ugw said:


> I find the statements made by some of 'giving up' and 'not being able to plane wood' rather far-fetched...


Why do you find such statements far fetched? I've said that it happened to me. If I wanted to mar the finish on a piece of wood, my 1973 new Stanley UK No.4 was the tool for the job. For 30+ years I avoided using my handplane. 

There are plenty of almost unused handplanes on evilbay, suggesting a large number of people have failed to get satisfaction from their new planes - so it's not unreasonable to presume that many new owners have had difficulties and given up.

I feel that you are too quick to dismiss anyone who has more difficulties than you as idiots, and to similarly dismiss anyone who strives to buy anything of better quality than you would buy. Sure, if you know what you're doing you can get a common-or-garden Bailey type plane to plane very well. But for those of us who struggle to work out what's not working with our "plane shaped objects", please don't trash us for trying to eliminate some of the variables by fitting thicker irons, "better" cap-irons, or purchasing more expensive planes that will work out of the box.

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## CStanford (23 Jun 2015)

One can move the cap iron to a position where they are basically doing nothing but sitting there and the plane will still work. Whatever happened years ago most likely had more to do with a dull iron set rank and honed with no camber or corner relief at all. A dull iron, taking too big a bite, with the corners digging in as icing on the cake.

It's understandable, but it is not the plane's fault. 

My first outing with a plane was horrifying until I realized how little material each pass was supposed to remove and I either read, or somebody told me, to take some metal off the corners. Then the gates of heaven opened up and this was late model Record with cap iron screws instead of lever cap -- planes made when quality was supposedly a distant memory. But for a shop fire, I'm sure I'd still be using the very same ones. I bought jointer, jack, and smoother in one order all from Garrett Wade back when they and Woodcraft were the go-to mail order outfits in the U.S.

My difficulties had virtually nothing to do with the cap iron though I do recall keeping them set at less than a sixteenth or so. Don't know why, I must have read it in the Garrett Wade catalog or somewhere else at that time.


----------



## Downwindtracker2 (24 Jun 2015)

I'm just thinking this through. When I arch the iron, which is what tightening the cap iron screw does to the iron on my '60s Canadian made Stanley #4, I turn the iron into a flat spring under tension. Maybe there is enough meat between the cap iron and blade that it doesn't matter? Or may be that tension reinforces the cutting edge? It's something to think about in tuning up that forlorn piece of rust.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (24 Jun 2015)

"That forlorn piece of rust"? ... ah ... someone actually referring to the OP? ...


----------

