# Bedrock Planes - now For Sale



## Karl (25 Jun 2009)

hi folks

Just a quick question - should the lever cap on a Stanley Bedrock plane have "Bedrock" written on it rather than "Stanley"???

Ones I have seen all seem to have BEDROCK.

Or is there a transition period where they switched from one to another?

Cheers

Karl


----------



## Paul Chapman (25 Jun 2009)

Hi Karl,

This link might give you some answers http://www.antique-used-tools.com/brtypes.htm

Cheers :wink: 

Paul

PS The best Bedrocks have 'Clifton' written on the lever cap :wink: :wink:


----------



## Aled Dafis (25 Jun 2009)

Paul Chapman":1am5q96f said:


> PS The best Bedrocks have 'Clifton' written on the lever cap :wink: :wink:



So true! :wink: :wink:


----------



## yetloh (25 Jun 2009)

My experience of having examined quite a few of each is that LNs are generally made to finer tolerances than Cliftons - but I'd rather have Veritas than either - quality as good as LN and more innovative. 

Jim


----------



## wizer (25 Jun 2009)

Well to be perfectly honest, I'd rather have JET written on the SIDE on mine :lol:


----------



## woodbloke (25 Jun 2009)

yetloh":6u1hkozs said:


> ... quality as good as LN and more innovative.
> 
> Jim


...except when they get it wrong, which happens from time to time. Most of the time, their stuff is very, very good - Rob


----------



## Karl (25 Jun 2009)

Paul Chapman":2rgflrnp said:


> Hi Karl,
> 
> This link might give you some answers http://www.antique-used-tools.com/brtypes.htm
> 
> ...



Cheers Paul - that link looks like it will do the trick.

I got this Stanley 606 for about 1/3 of the price of the equivalent Clifton, and it seemed a nice little plane for the price. And the handles weren't broken - which they often are on these older planes.

Cheers

Karl


----------



## Anonymous (25 Jun 2009)

yetloh":ffqcrlla said:


> quality as good as LN and more innovative.
> 
> Jim



As an engineer, I do not agree. I love veritas kit and own quite a lot, but it is not as good quality in materials and finish as LN (excpet their very expensive new block plane).

Nothing wrong with the kit, just with the statement!


----------



## Paul Chapman (25 Jun 2009)

Karl":3ru7evdn said:


> I got this Stanley 606 for about 1/3 of the price of the equivalent Clifton, and it seemed a nice little plane for the price. And the handles weren't broken - which they often are on these older planes.



Sounds like a good buy, Karl, and if you don't like it you'll probably get a good price for it from a collector.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## yetloh (25 Jun 2009)

> As an engineer, I do not agree. I love veritas kit and own quite a lot, but it is not as good quality in materials and finish as LN (excpet their very expensive new block plane).]


 
I certainly agree about the new block plane, I have one and it is superb. Streets ahead of the LN 60 1/2 in my opinion - after getting the Veritas, I sold my LN and haven't missed it except for the frustration of lateral adjustment. 

As for their other planes, I think they are well made although I wouldn't argue with anyone who said the aluminium lever caps are a bit naff. I agree they do occasionally get it wrong; their sliding bevel is rubbish. Nice idea but if you adjust it so as to really securely lock it, the mechanism is apt to bend.

Jim


----------



## Karl (25 Jun 2009)

Paul Chapman":14thvmhx said:


> Sounds like a good buy, Karl, and if you don't like it you'll probably get a good price for it from a collector.
> 
> Cheers :wink:
> 
> Paul



I don't think this plane will be making it's way into the hands of one of those COLLECTORS :lol: 

I bought it off e-bay for £78. It's always a risk buying stuff of the bay, although if it turned out to be pants I could always put it back on there!

I've popped in a Hock blade and chipbreaker which I had been using in another plane, and it performs beautifully







The shavings were from edge grain Iroko, and were 1thou thick. With no fettling etc etc.

Well chuffed.

Although the item description said "completely original". Not so - it has a record blade and an unspecified chipbreaker. Also, I need to work out whether the lever cap is original - hence my OP. 

It will be getting a bit of a clean up over the next week, and i'll post some pics when finished if anybody is interested.

Cheers

Karl


----------



## DaveL (25 Jun 2009)

Karl":26eexyu6 said:


> i'll post some pics when finished if anybody is interested.


Must be a rhetorical question, I think? :shock: :roll: :wink:


----------



## Paul Chapman (25 Jun 2009)

Karl":43zdkazo said:


> i'll post some pics when finished if anybody is interested.



Yes please  Looks like a good buy - the #6 is a very useful size.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Karl (25 Jun 2009)

Paul - thanks for the link. I've now been able to identify the plane as a Type 6A, 1922 model. It also confirms my original suspicion that the lever cap which came with the plane is not original.

Cheers

Karl


----------



## Paul Chapman (25 Jun 2009)

Karl":3qph6czu said:


> I've now been able to identify the plane as a Type 6A, 1922 model.



When you consider how long planes last, I think it demonstrates that even the expensive ones (and the Stanley Bedrocks were expensive in their day) represent very good value for money.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Karl (25 Jun 2009)

Paul Chapman":1kf1yjgm said:


> When you consider how long planes last, I think it demonstrates that even the expensive ones (and the Stanley Bedrocks were expensive in their day) represent very good value for money.
> 
> Cheers :wink:
> 
> Paul



Definitely. With good care this plane will give another few generations worth of service.

I've just stripped the plane and given the handles a scrub down to remove the laquer, ready for a good oiling over the next couple of days. I've also put the "nuts n bolts" in a jar of brush cleaner to get the gunk off them.

Cheers

Karl


----------



## Karl (30 Jun 2009)

Ok, so this was how it started






And after a bit of stripping, sanding, painting, sanding, polishing and a bit more sanding, this is how it came out
















The only thing I haven't bothered to clean up is the lever cap. This is not original to the plane, and I intend to keep my eyes peeled for a proper "Bedrock" one. 

Here's a picture of how I test the flatness of the sole






The sole was already nice and flat - a tiny bit of convexity in the length, but less than the thickness of the cigarette paper under the straight edge in the picture.

And finally the money shot






Had a bit of a result with this plane. I had bought it off e-bay for £78, with it being described as original and complete. However, the lever cap, blade and chipbreaker were not original parts, so I contacted the seller, who kindly agreed to refund half of the purchase price! Result  

Cheers

Karl


----------



## Paul Chapman (30 Jun 2009)

You've made a fabulous job of that, Karl - you must be very pleased.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Karl (1 Jul 2009)

Thanks Paul. And yes - I am very pleased with the results, although I have probably destroyed it's "collectors" value :lol: 

Cheers

Karl


----------



## bugbear (1 Jul 2009)

Karl":188ddlhq said:


> The only thing I haven't bothered to clean up is the lever cap. This is not original to the plane, and I intend to keep my eyes peeled for a proper "Bedrock" one.
> 
> Here's a picture of how I test the flatness of the sole



Hmm - you show the plane reposing majestically on a rather splendid surface plate, and test for flatness with a straight edge ?!?!

Not only would a surface plate check show 2D flatness (as opposed to 1D straightness), I'll bet the spec of the plate is better than the straight edge.

Granted, the 1d check is "good enough", but it seems a little odd.

BugBear


----------



## Karl (1 Jul 2009)

Hi BB

I use the surface plate to check for any rocking of the plane's sole. The straight edge is used to measure the flatness at various points in the length - on this plane I checked the fit of the cigarett paper at 6 points along the length, then moved the straight edge along the width of the plane and checked again, thereby taking, say, 24 "measurements".

Having said that, if only I got off my pineapple and got a set of feeler gauges, then I wouldn't need to bother with the straight edge test.

The straight edge is from Veritas, and has a stated tolerance of .001" over its 24" length. From memory the certificate which came with the plate showed that it had better tolerances, as you say.

Cheers

Karl


----------



## bugbear (1 Jul 2009)

Karl":19tqaiwl said:


> Hi BB
> 
> I use the surface plate to check for any rocking of the plane's sole. The straight edge is used to measure the flatness at various points in the length - on this plane I checked the fit of the cigarett paper at 6 points along the length, then moved the straight edge along the width of the plane and checked again, thereby taking, say, 24 "measurements".
> 
> Having said that, if only I got off my pineapple and got a set of feeler gauges, then I wouldn't need to bother with the straight edge test.



Don't use feeler gauges - use marking blue!

Alternatively (hoping geocities is still there):

(using a dial indicator gauge)

http://www.geocities.com/plybench/flatt ... ml#measure

BugBear


----------



## head clansman (1 Jul 2009)

hi karl 


nice , nice one , money wise your about right that what i have paid in the past that sort of level , i do like thread that show old Stanley etc being restored , good old quality bit of tweeting here and there new blade etc a little fettling and it's performs equally along side the over priced posh job :wink: .hc


----------



## Karl (1 Jul 2009)

Martin 

If that is your sort of thing, then keep your eyes peeled - I have received an old 1911 (I think) Stanley 4 1/2 in the post today, ready for similair treatment.

Cheers

Karl


----------



## head clansman (1 Jul 2009)

hi karl 

yes please, i 'll look forward to that thank you karl . old is the best .hc


----------



## Karl (2 Jul 2009)

bugbear":zn8do4u5 said:


> Don't use feeler gauges - use marking blue!
> 
> Alternatively (hoping geocities is still there):
> 
> ...



Hi BB

Interesting. If I understand your method correctly, the marking blue will highlight the high spots on the planes sole. These are then removed using sic, and the sole re-blued. Hopefully now the blue marking will have gotten larger as more of the planes sole comes into contact with the blue. And continue until you have a sole which is pretty much covered with blue.

Correct?

Cheers

Karl


----------



## newt (2 Jul 2009)

Karl, that is a really nice job and looks to be a very useful plane, you must be well chuffed. You can spend a lot of time getting the sole very flat as BB has mentioned and it can be quite satisfying, but if you have contact at the front of the sole, front and back of mouth and at he rear of the sole, and this is consistent across the width then things are looking good. 

I know some state that producing a thin shaving is pointless exercise, however I believe it is very useful for judging flatness. If you can produce a genuine one thou shaving with just reasonable downward pressure then I think its ok, in fact its fine. However beware, I can remember someone who was producing one thou shavings with a no 7 but only if he pressed down really hard and flattened the concave sole.


----------



## Karl (2 Jul 2009)

Hi Pete

I agree about the sole of the plane - thankfully this one was nice and flat to start with. 

Although it can take very fine shavings, I envisage using this plane more in the stock preparation side of my work - after the scrub plane, and with a cambered blade.

Cheers

Karl


----------



## Karl (2 Jul 2009)

newt":3emksgln said:


> If you can produce a genuine one thou shaving with just reasonable downward pressure then I think its ok, in fact its fine. However beware, I can remember someone who was producing one thou shavings with a no 7 but only if he pressed down really hard and flattened the concave sole.



I've been thinking a little more about this Pete, and decided to do a little test.

If the plane can cut a 1thou shaving with do downward pressure, then it must be as good as needed. So I tried a test shaving with NO pressure, thereby just using the weight of the plane. Same result - full length 1thou shaving. Also tried it with my Clifton 7 - same result. 

I doubt this test would work for smaller/lighter planes though.

Cheers

Karl


----------



## bugbear (3 Jul 2009)

Karl":52d7r3yo said:


> bugbear":52d7r3yo said:
> 
> 
> > Don't use feeler gauges - use marking blue!
> ...



Note that the "blued surface plate" technique simply tells you (to some extent) the shape of your plane's sole - wether you choose to simply go "hmmm", or remove the high spots (with SiC or a file , or an angle grinder) to make the sole flatter is up to you.

You have the method nearly right - as the plane becomes flatter, you should make the blue layer thinner - a completely blue plane-sole actually tells you very little. If you read my "theory" page I describe this carefully, with diagrams, yet.

BugBear


----------



## newt (3 Jul 2009)

Karl, I would suggest that you have a *good one *


----------



## Benchwayze (7 Jul 2009)

wizer":kh03w90b said:


> Well to be perfectly honest, I'd rather have JET written on the SIDE on mine :lol:



I'm gonna buy a plane with a dust bag on the side too! I can sit down to use it then

Just a further thought. Are they going to develop a remote controlled power plane? I could lie back and put me feet up then!


----------



## Karl (24 Jul 2009)

As the edited title says - I have decided to sell this plane and have listed it on the 'bay if anybody is interested.

Cheers

Karl


----------



## mahking51 (26 Jul 2009)

Hi Karl,
Currently having a crack at this plane and the other bits you have listed, be interesting to see what it makes.
May I ask how much the Hock kit is new?
Cheers,
Martin (mahking51)


----------



## Karl (26 Jul 2009)

Hi Martin

I hate selling stuff on e-bay - especially when all those "watchers" leave bidding to the last minute..... :lol: Good luck with the auction - I have no idea what it will fetch.

The hock set was just over £70 from memory.

For all those wondering why I decided to sell the Bedrock, there is a method in the madness which will be revealed in due course.

Cheers

Karl


----------



## mahking51 (31 Jul 2009)

Hi Karl,
Ah well, came second again, such is life.
Hope your are happy with the price realised.
Cheers,
Martin


----------



## Karl (31 Jul 2009)

Hi Martin

There were 58 watchers at the end, but I didn't really have a clue how much it'd go for. It can be really hit and miss with selling stuff on the bay - sometimes it goes for peanuts, others it fetches way more than you expect. The good thing is that, combined with the sale of the Hock blade and chipbreaker set (which were always going to be loss makers) and e-bay/Paypal fees, I managed to break even. Of course I spent some of my own time on doing the plane up, but that's another matter.....  

Anyway, the plane went to make way for this which I got the other day off e-bay......







I always inteded to sell the Stanley when a Clifton 6 came up on the bay. It's just that one came along a little quicker than I expected :lol: 

Cheers

Karl


----------



## bugbear (31 Jul 2009)

Karl":1ie1csgo said:


> Of course I spent some of my own time on doing the plane up, but that's another matter.....



Hell - look on it is as free practice material.

Have you checked the Clifton's sole on your surface plate...? :twisted: 

BugBear


----------



## Karl (31 Jul 2009)

bugbear":3ive2y1i said:


> Have you checked the Clifton's sole on your surface plate...? :twisted:
> 
> BugBear



No, but I did check it over with my straigt edge and Rizzla papers.....  

Cheers

Karl


----------

