Thread: What Plane Do I Have Here?

it looks like a 5-1/2


as far as I know, Record bench planes were numbered 04, 05, 05-1/2, etc -- so I think it unlikely to be a Record plane

Likewise, AFAIK, Sorby planes included "Sorby" on the casting.

What you might have is an early UK Stanley, but that's just a guess

The proportions are strange, the casting is low in the front and very thick cheek-wise. You may wish to post this plane on the UK woodworking board - it seems like the group there is pretty well exposed to UK makers and their histories.

That's got me stumped too.

It's not a Record - definitely not. Record made quality Bailey knock-offs, but not Bedrocks.

It does look like a cheap Bedrock. There's a guy over here been listing a "Made in Sheffield" plane on Trademe, for the last five or six years (at an outrageous price) - I'm wondering if it might be the same maker - whoever that is.

DW is right. The UK forum (hand tools section) might be the best place to ask. View forum - Hand Tools - UKworkshop.co.uk

Cheers, Vann.

BTW, that frog doesn't look like a bedrock to me. As I understand it, the frog on a bedrock from can be adjusted with the blade in position, but as you note there is no frog adjustment screw.

Originally Posted by ian

BTW, that frog doesn't look like a bedrock to me. As I understand it, the frog on a bedrock from can be adjusted with the blade in position, but as you note there is no frog adjustment screw.

I agree, it just looks like an unbranded plane with an earlier frog design on it.

Originally Posted by ian

BTW, that frog doesn't look like a bedrock to me. As I understand it, the frog on a bedrock from can be adjusted with the blade in position,.

Originally Posted by D.W.

I agree, it just looks like an unbranded plane with an earlier frog design on it.

I disagree.

The "Bedrock" I believe, refers to the design of solid frog mounts, set on an angle. The ability to adjust the frog with the blade in position is not a feature of the "Bedrock" design. It's an addition to the design which could just as easily be fitted to the "Bailey" design by replacing the vertical frog screws with pins and horizontal screws. And of course, the early Stanley "Bedrocks" didn't have this feature.

This plane has an angled frog mount, like a "Bedrock" but with maybe only half the contact surface area* - which is still considerably more area than a "Bailey" frog has.

*hence the suggestion it's a "cheap Bedrock".

Cheers, Vann.

Basically there are a couple of Bedrock designs as Vann describes.
The early ones had round cheeks and the improved frog.
The later had the flattened off cheeks and the ability to adjust the mouth setting without any dismantling of the plane.
Most people seem unaware of the first variety and the squared off sided plane is what they assume a bedrock looks like.
Hans has just sold a huge collection of both types recently from a deceased estate in Vic.
The early ones have very fine castings and are quite sort after.
H.

Similar find here: Mystery: Made in Sheffield no.4 plane : Hand Tools - UKworkshop.co.uk

Originally Posted by Vann

I disagree.

The "Bedrock" I believe, refers to the design of solid frog mounts, set on an angle. The ability to adjust the frog with the blade in position is not a feature of the "Bedrock" design. It's an addition to the design which could just as easily be fitted to the "Bailey" design by replacing the vertical frog screws with pins and horizontal screws. And of course, the early Stanley "Bedrocks" didn't have this feature.

This plane has an angled frog mount, like a "Bedrock" but with maybe only half the contact surface area* - which is still considerably more area than a "Bailey" frog has.

*hence the suggestion it's a "cheap Bedrock".

Cheers, Vann.

I think it is its own animal. The contact area looks a bit sloppy, but maybe that's just because it's old and dirty.

I've never had one of the preferable type bailey's lack for contact surface, though, and I think in reality, it's probably better to have a few solid points of contact than attempt to make a whole area.

I talked to Rob Lee about that once on their BU planes after I made a couple of infills and biased them so the points of contact would be where I want them, and he confirmed that LV does the same.

At any rate, it looks like this plane suspends the iron above the casting a little bit, and i've never found the bailey designs with some distance between the frog and the sole to work as well as the ones that have the frog flush with the casting.

Thanks for all the speculation and insights gentlemen, I'll post some photos when I've got it all fixed up. Hopefully it will take some nice shavings even if I may never know who made it!

Zac.