I have started to learn to get along with hand planes. To that end, I bought a Record plane and put an Clifton iron and cap in it. When the iron is sharp and the plane is properly adjusted, I get wonderful results. Sharpening the iron is the easy part. Adjusting the plane is a complete pain. . . It wasn’t designed to easily accomodate the thickness of the Clifton iron.
So, I’ve decided to buy some older (hopefully better) planes. I went to ebay and bid on a bedrock plane. I was sniped at $110. That seems like an awful lot of money for what looked in the pictures looked like a plane that need a fair amount of tuning. It seems that bedrocks routinely sell for more than what I think is reasonable. Shoot, Veritas sells new planes for not a whole lot more than that. Then I started looking around. Stanley Bailey planes sell for less than what the bedrocks go for. Millers Falls planes are even cheaper. How does the quality of the Bailey planes compare to the Bedrocks? Where does Millers Falls fit in? Are there other brands that are worth considering?
Thanks for any advice
Replies
Wow. A lot to consider here, but some of the same questions I've been wrestling with, so I'll jump in.
First, from what I've read in books and from users on these forums, Bailey planes really don't begin to compare to Bedrocks - different frog, etc. However, my main beef with Bailey planes is the amount of backlash one encounters which makes them very difficult to adjust. I've played with them for hours trying to tighten things up to correct this, but with little success.
A few months ago I purchased a wooden smoothing plane on eBay. After spending a bit of time fettling, I began to play with it. Thought the bloody thing was going to drive me mad. However, just at the point where I was about to use it to test the strength of my concrete floors, I remembered once having seen a nice little "plane adjustment hammer" in a catalogue. Got out my smallest ball-peen hammer, used very light taps, and, voila, easy adjustment.
Having used it for some time now, I have to say it really is easier to use than my metal planes, although I still seems a bit light in my hand. At the same time, My #3 and #4 Baileys haven't left the shelf. Right now I plan to replace all my metal bench planes with wooden ones.
My advice to you is a bit wishy-washy, I suppose, but here 'tis.
1) Go to an antique store or junk shop (eBay prices are getting a bit ridiculous) and find a decent Bailey for $25 or so. Take it to the shop and play with it. If it works to your satisfaction, good.
2) Get a wooden smoothing plane and learn how to use it. I suspect you will come to love it in a very short time. (BTW, many deals can still be found on eBay for these. I'd look for a new one. Steve Knight regularly sells a few of his excellent planes there at very good prices.)
Finally, Millers-Falls is every bit as good a plane as a Stanley Bailey, but no better either. That being said, I'd give an eye tooth for a nice Millers-Falls "Buck Rogers" model - sweet!
Jeff
I too was in your shoes a few years back. I went the Stanley Bailey route as do many others. I tuned them using Garret Hack's instructions and replaced the blades with Hock blades. The jointing planes #s 6-8 work well with the replacement blades as does th #5 jack. However, the #4 that I used as my smoothing plane I replaced the blade with a Clifton as well as the cap iron. I had been using it for about two years like this with results that I was never truly pleased with. Not long ago I bit the bullet and bought a Lie-Nielsen #4 1/2 smoothing plane. Well, this plane works like a dream. After using it I now relegated my Bailey smoother with the Clifton blade to the step before I use the Lie-Nielsen #4 1/2 for finish planing prior to finishing. I have used the Lie-Nielsen on the narliest crotch grain for drawer fronts or raised panels with never, I repeat, never a bit of tear out. And by the way this performance is from a plane out of the box, without any tuning. Some may say to you that they cannot justify the cost of the Lie-Nielsen. Well, I can tell you that the results are worth every penny that I paid. My advice to you, from someone who has been there, is use your tuned jointers and jack with replacement blades, they work fine. But, as your smoother save your money until you can buy a Lie-Nielsen #4 1/2. I bought mine from Best Things, they sold it for $265.00 and this cost is with the A2 cryo blade. You, as I will be very glad that you did.
I hope this helps, and happy planing.
Ditto Jeff K's comments.
I'd take a look at the chinese planes from Woodcraft, I have three (jack, lg smoother, sm smoother) and they work great. The iron in them a thick and hard, sharpen up nicely and hold and edge. For the money $40 or so, they are great planes.
I have a Stanley/Bailey #5 and only use it when flattening a board. The rest of the time it sets on the shelf.
Once you get used to using a wood bodied plane, the metal ones just seem like a lot of work, although I did just purchase a LN low angle smoother and it is a sweet plane.
Watch out though, once you get started on planes they almost become an obsession.
DG,
The difference between a Bailey style plane and a bedrock is that the bedrock's frog is adjustable without removing the iron. If you've ever fussed to set the mouth on a Bailey plane you know the advantage of a bedrock.
But ease of setting the frog doesn't really justify the added cost of a bedrock. After all, once the mouth is properly set there's rarely a reason to fiddle with it further. But there are other advantages to bedrocks:
The bedrocks are heavier than bailey planes of the same size. The bedrocks have larger mating surfaces for the frog; the frog itself is beefier; and the casting is generally more robust. A heavier plane means more momentum, and more momentum makes for easier planing.
The bedrocks are better made. Back when Stanley made both Baileys and bedrocks, the bedrocks were the more expensive, "premium" tools. The bedrocks' fit and finish is better, the machining is done to closer tolerances, and some of the materials used may be of higher quality--rosewood totes, for example. The better machining can affect a plane's performance: the matched machining on the casting and the frog, for example, makes for a more "solid" tool; and out of the box the sole is usually flat and the sole and sides square to each other.
There are other reasons to prefer a bedrock style over a Bailey style, but the bottom line is that the bedrocks are higher quality. The question then becomes, is the bedrock, Clifton or Lie-Nielsen so much better to clearly justify the additional cost. Unfortunately, that's not an easily answered question. You have to decide for yourself what the difference in quality is worth to you.
For me, the answer is no. I own two Lie-Nielsen planes, an adjustable block plane and a #4. They were gifts, and they are truly wonderful tools--but they aren't two or three-hundred dollars better. I'll keep them both; I enjoy using them both; but I won't buy one myself.
I got a Record jointer at a widow's sale a decade or so ago. I sharpened, tuned and fettled and got it working just fine. I later added a Clifton iron and cap iron and it now works great. I just can't see spending four or five hundred dollars for what I think would be a marginal increase in performance.
Alan (again going on too long)
Hey DG,
If the mouth on your Record plane is too tight with the thicker Clifton iron you could take a needle file or a diamond hone and carefully smoothe the front edge of the mouth a little at a time until the shavings can clear the narrow opening better. A couple things to try before you do this are to set the cap iron a little further back on the plane iron (the thick Clifton isn't going to chatter much), also back the frog out as far as you can while checking that the iron still clamps flat to the frog. This may be your main problem , I've experienced this on old bailey planes where upgraded to a thicker iron. The filing the mouth trick worked for me after I addressed all the other issues and still could not get the leading edge of the bevel to clear the front edge of the throat. I'm wondering if regrinding the bevel on the plane iron itself to a more acute angle could free up some extra clearance?
Its annoying but a handplane that's not cutting due to the problem you mention but in my experience the difference between unsatisfactory and truly sweet performance is minor. Another thing that can subtly open up the throat is to joint the sole of the plane flat using wet-dry sandpaper on a flat reference surface. The Record jack plane I own has a thick rough sole casting that can benefit from lapping flat. Having the sole of the plane surrounding the plane's throat sit completely flush to the workpiece cannot be underestimated. If you do file the throat just check you progress frequently because if you were to take a mill file and remove a lot of material you could wind up with a tool that's only suitable for rough work (throat more open. As for your question about other brands of antique planes my advice would be to keep an open mind and keep looking and keep experimenting with the planes you already have. Some Stanley Bailey planes are very nice, the earlier ones have really nice lower front knobs and the feel of rosewood can't be beat. Bedrock's have that great frog mechanism the the L-N and Clifton planes you can but today use. I have one Millers Falls plane and haven't made it an everyday user but its definitely got its own strengths. These planes I believe have a slightly taller bedding angle...something like 50 degrees which could be good with hardwoods. Also, Millers Falls handplanes have one of the prettiest, most well-built lever caps that I've seen and the machine work is first rate. Their is also less slop (backlash) in the blade adjuster than a comparable Stanley. Hope these comments help and good luck.
DGermeroth,
I think Alan had a great point about the "marginal increase in performance". It's like, can you hear the difference between a $5k stereo and an $7k model. If you can, great; spend the money and enjoy- if you can afford it.
I have what some (including my wife!) would describe as "many" planes. Some purchased strictly as users and some solely for resale in the future. I've flattened and fettled, sharpened and honed. I went the "Hock" route on a couple that I thought would be great users and it made a "significant" improvement.
My plan is to eventually sell all but a few nice collectables and a few great users and use the proceeds to invest in LN or Veritas tools.
My suggestion would be to let your budget and type of work dictate your investment. If you have considerable resources get the LN's to use. You'll never regret it. On the other hand, if money is an object, then start off with some old Stanley's, Union's or whatever and play with them. Try to get your hands on and use a LN so you know what the goal is and then work toward it. You will always be able to get you money back is you shop/work wisely.
Main thing is enjoy! MHOFWIW
Regards,
Mack
I knew when this string began I would see posts stating that a well tuned Bailey, Miller's Falls or Record plane with a replacement iron does a wonderful job and that one cannot justify the cost of a Lie-Nielsen for the slightly better results. Well, I can accept that logic when it comes to the jointers and jacks. However, the performance of a Lie-Nielsen smoother, particularly the #4 1/2 is not slightly better or marginally better. Believe me the difference in performance is dramatically better! If you have never used the Lie-Nielsen #4 1/2 you simply cannot know. When I bought mine I was simply amazed.
I have a Bedrock 4.5 and love it, but nothing holds a candle to a well tuned Norris or Spiers smoother both of which i have used but alas do not own (yet). I have 2 Lei Neison's and I say they are worth every cent.
In part, Jer writes:
"...but nothing holds a candle to a well tuned Norris or Spiers smoother both of which i have used but alas do not own (yet)."
This is a comment I'd like to see backed up. My experience tells me there are just a few features that make for performance of a dedicated finishing smooth plane. Not to minimize the importance of a finishing smooth plane, it's also important to point out that a finishing smooth plane is far less than suitable for about 98% of work done with hand planes. One wouldn't use a finishing smoother for most tasks any more than you'd attempt to use a scraper for all planing applications.
The few features that make for a great finishing smooth plane include the accuracy of the sole, the quality of the bedding and support of the iron, the size of the mouth opening, the quality and sharpness of the iron, and the cutting geometry.
So let's look at these in light of an infill plane like the Norris or Spiers. Neither Norris or Spiers were all that picky about the bedding of the iron and, instead depended on thick irons to make up for the lack of effort. For a mouth opening most people who know what they're doing suggest a mouth opening of three to eight thousandths of an inch. The tightest spec of the Norris/Spiers line was ten thousandths for Norris' A-17 and it had a steel sole that was sweated on after the plane was built. The average Norris or Spiers plane will have a mouth opening of 25 to 35 thousandths. If you want a tight mouth, you can count on making a custom iron for one of these.
How about accuracy of the sole? Well, you can also count on having to lap the sole of an infill, or any other plane for that matter, in the tuning process. Even then, you'll find enough flex in the sole that you set for almost no cut of the iron because when the screw for the cap is tightened for use the set will change. Do you use a torque wrench to set your cap irons? Some people use this flex for fine setting of the plane but it's pretty hit or miss. Some were wedge set planes so that may not apply in some instances.
Then you get to cutting geometry or bed angle. Bailey planes are common pitch or 45º which is great for soft woods. For hard woods York pitch (50º) is better and middle pitch planes (55º) work better on figured hard woods. Both Norris and Spiers used a compromise bed angle of 47 1/2º. Yes, that 47 1/2º is an improvement over 45º on hard woods but plane makers were commonly offering the other pitches for a couple hundred years before Norris. For someone used to a Stanley Bailey plane, the slight increase to 47 1/2º of the common infill planes will offer marked improvement in performance but, if they had experience with steeper bed angles, they'd find the infills lacking. I have seen a few infills by Matheson, Buck, Slater and maybe some others at middle pitch but Norris and Spiers never offered them.
I used to have a highly tuned Norris A5 I used only to demonstrate geometry differences. Last year I was offered twice what it was worth because it was so highly tuned and I don't miss it. I have other planes that are better finishing smoothers. I'd sure like to see the infill myths debunked but I suspect all I can hope for is that those with "infill disorder" eventually get some broader experience with hand planes.
It's just an opinion...not a big deal Larry.
I would suggest that you log onto http://www.supertool.com/StanleyBG where you will find the cult classic about handplanes....
This is a 200+ page tounge in cheek diatribe about all the planes that Stanley ever made and lots about Bedrocks etc. I promise if you are the least bit interested in hand planes you will be fascinated with this web site.
Let me know what you think!
Take Care Dick
Will do. Thanks.
Well I have just spent the last hour or so perusing this website. All I can say is thanks! The information is perfectly exhaustive yet it is his tongue in cheek commentary and attitude that kept me clicking on to the next page. It's good to be passionate and serious about a hobby or profession but what a relief to be able to lighten one's self up. I didn't look, but I wonder if this is available in book form. Thanks again.
Not that I am aware of. I copied it at the rate of 3-4 sections a night till it was done. Punched holes
and put it in a three hole binder. That gave me a chance to read as I copied.
If you are somewhat serious about hand planes I would suggest that you register for Leach's periodic e-mail announcing the sale and price of many planes. He does find a lot of good stuff. Some of the old planes are worth a bunch to collectors. For instance, I found a gold mine about 15 years ago at a local antique store (didn't know it at the time). Spent $125 and could sell the six different planes for somewhere around $3500-$4000. However I do not want to sell for a while.
There are a load of sites out there about all kinds of planes. Go to Google.com and type in Stanley 602C and see what happens. By the way...if you find something you really want...it is a lot of fun (and lots of patience required) to "tune up" some of these old guys. However, the new Lie-Nielsens are a lot better, "usually".
Have Fun ; Merry Christmas Dick
Dick said:
<<If you are somewhat serious about hand planes I would suggest that you register for Leach's periodic e-mail announcing the sale and price of many planes. He does find a lot of good stuff. >>
I have bought, at this point, only a couple of things from Patrick Leach, but I think that I can confidently say that i) he charges a decent price for things; not too much and not too little, ii) what he chooses to sell is/are almost always "good of their kind" i.e., all of the important aspects of the tool are fully functional, and if not- he is sure to explain *honestly* in what way(s) they are deficient, and iii) he really does hold customer satisfaction as a top priority ... absolutely. I would absolutely not hesitate to buy anything from him.
No, I have no affiliation/finacial tie with him whatsoever.
FWIW. Peter T.
JPAR12,
I don't have a Lie-Nielsen #4 1/2, just the #4 I mentioned above, and I don't have another #4 to compare. But I do have a Brand X #3 that I picked up at an estate sale for five dollars. It's not a Stanley, Record, or any other well known brand: Brand X indeed.
I spent some time tuning it up, and I got a new Hock iron and a replacement cap iron. I happily used this Brand X for several years before I was given the Lie-Nielsen.
There's no doubt the Lie-Nielsen performs better--but definitely not dramatically better. I rarely use the #3 these days; there's no doubt that I enjoy using the LN more than the Brand X. But the difference in performance is, IMHO, marginal. Had I not been given a Lie-Nielsen I would have happily continued using the Brand X.
Alan
My favorite user plane is a thick casting Stanley 4-1/2, type 11. After that, it's a toss up between the #80 and the #112 scrapers.
PlaneWood by Mike_in_Katy (maker of fine sawdust!)PlaneWood
I totally agree.. the 41/2 with the york pitch frog is an education ..... awsome tool.Mike Wallace
Stay safe....Have fun
Like so many things, this comes down to what you like to do, how much time you have, and how much money you have (or are willing to spend).
If you like working on your tools, you can play around with Stanley/Bailey, etc. You can get them to do good work. I have "many, many" of them. I have cleaned, sharpened, honed, and "restored" quite a few of them. This served as a good education for me on what to look for in a plane, and whether I wanted to smooth wood or restore planes.
I don't regret the time I have spent on the planes, but that is not what I primarily want to do. So, in my opinion, if you want to plane wood without having to spend a lot of time on the tool itself, go buy a L-N.
Alan -- planesaw
I'm right in line with what Alan says. I have the full line of Bailey bench planes, four Bedrocks, three LN, and a handfull of useless fanciful types (core box etc). I have restored maybe a third of them. It takes time. I ain't got lots o time right now. The Bailey's are just fine if they are in top tuned conditioned. I use them as a trim carpenter almost on a daily basis. If however you are doing high end fine woodworking, LN planes or the equivalent are the only way to go.
Thanks for your comments and the one that followed. I have quite a few scarce Stanleys like #1 & 602C etc....Good to collect/tune use for fun once in a while. Actually I do use the #1 as a block plane once in a while because it is WELL tuned.
Lie-Nielsens are great and I believe Bridge City is way too high priced.
Dick
In my own not very humble opinon... :-)
the difference between all other planes and the Lie-Nielsen ones...
is the difference between dating someone, and being married to the same person for 20+ years...
it's a totaly different experience... and I will never go back to something else. Though the older wood ones look neat.
Christmas is coming..... should I buy the wife that new tablesaw ....hmmmm
AdamB,
If that is the case...an LN is like being married 20 years....I'll never buy one. Who needs two things not talking to me...
LOL
In my post >
the difference between all other planes and the Lie-Nielsen ones...
is the difference between dating someone, and being married to the same person for 20+ years...
I suppose I should have added "in a satisfying relationship" sorry for the vague response folks.
But seriosly I really like the LN planes they got so many things rightChristmas is coming..... should I buy the wife that new tablesaw ....hmmmm
I don't agree that the BedRocks are heavier or of higher quality. My Type 14 #4 weighs more than my Type 15 604. The 14 does better in difficult grain. I persued the #4 after the sides of the 604 begin to dig in after about 30min.
What Bill mentioned about filling the front edge of the mouth makes a huge difference to Baileys and BedRocks and is essential to a tuneup. I take a thin file and file that edge back as far as possible, as far down to the bed as possible. This lets the shaving curl freely so the cutting edge gets to work and the chip breaker effect helps out. I can tighten the mouth further and set the chipbreaker closer.
My best plane is now my WW2 Bailey 4 1/2. The front edge of it was terrible..rough, straight up. Now with it filed back smooth, sole lapped, Clifton capiron, Hock iron, its unreal.
Got the plane for $40. About $80 in the cap and iron. 2 hours tuning. Now if i can figure out how to raise the blade pitch...
Arcwood said:
< Now if i can figure out how to raise the blade pitch... >
Give its back a back bevel. I can't see how that would be any different than a higher-angle frog (and certainly my own planes behave VERY differently once I have done that to their blade).
Btw- I also have a WW2 4 1/2. I had it precision surface ground, loaded it with a L-N A2 cryo blade AND Clifton 2 part cap iron and bedded the frog where the iron sits on it in a skim coat of epoxy, and filed the front aspects of the frog where it meets the sole in the back of the throat ... it even has a GORGEOUS!!! front knob and tote by Knots' own Mike-in-Katy (Planewood) Basically almost everything that one can do to a plane of this sort. For some reason it doesn't hold a candle to any of my premium planes (L-N, Clifton) ... yes, I did put a mirror polish on both the bevel and the back of the iron. The only thing that I can think is that the fit of the entire frog in its area-of-contact of the sole is simply not adequate. Anyone's thoughts would be appreciated (though I realize that this is not the substance of the original poster's question).
An aside- could someone tell me if my comments above constitute a theft-of-thread (or whatever it is called). I frequently find myself wanting to ask a question/make a comment on something that someone else says that is somewhat peripheral to the original thread author's initial question(s). I just want to be sure that I am not missing a chance at feeling bad ... lol :-)
-Peter T.
Pete:
It's no skin off my nose. If it means anything to you or anyone else, I found your post, along with the rest, interesting. Piracy-smiracy is what I say.
From reading these posts, my plan (plane?) of action is as follows:
1) I bought a Steve Knight coffin smoother
2) I've purchased several used planes from 'second tier' manufacturers (sargent, union and fulton) that I'm going to fool around with. My father-in-law is also going to give me a couple of old baily planes that I'll have in the mix.
From this experiment, I'll decide if one of these manufacturers was superior to the others. I've pretty much decided that I won't fool with the bedrocks unless I can get an real deal on one. In a few months, I'll have a clearer course of action: either expand my new wood-bodied collection, fill out my needs from one of the old manufacturers, or save my pennies and take the LN plunge.
DG
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled