Thanks Thanks:  0
Needs Pictures Needs Pictures:  0
Picture(s) thanks Picture(s) thanks:  0
Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Jarrahdale WA
    Posts
    320

    Default So... I picked up a Bailey No6

    at the local markets on Sunday for $50.00. Seems to me, as no expert, a remarkably unmolested example. Should go nicely with my No7...
    Very light surface rust on the three faces, rear tote chipped at the top, with the adjuster a little bent. Seems like it got dropped on it's head.
    At some point someone has neatly stamped a name onto the rear tote, mostly worn off now.
    My 10mm glass sheet and wet and dry and WD40 shows the base(?) to be remarkably flat. A small depression right at the back and a very tiny hollow directly under the front tote..
    It does appear to be a quite early example so far as I can tell, could some good contributor point me to where I can source some dating info...it does carry three Pat'd dates, under the blade holder (Frog?)

  2. # ADS
    Google Adsense Advertisement
    Join Date
    Always
    Location
    Advertising world
    Posts
    Many





     
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Petone, NZ
    Age
    65
    Posts
    2,432

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by david.elliott View Post
    ...It does appear to be a quite early example so far as I can tell, could some good contributor point me to where I can source some dating info...it does carry three Pat'd dates, under the blade holder (Frog?)
    Any patent dates suggests it's a USA made model. For them there are some excellent sites. This is my favourite: http://www.rexmill.com/planes101/typing/typing.htm

    Enjoy.

    Cheers, Vann.
    Gatherer of rusty planes tools...
    Proud member of the Wadkin Blockhead Club .

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Jarrahdale WA
    Posts
    320

    Default

    Yep,
    Thats what I have with the short front tote. Whilst the rear tote is chipped at the top the timber used seems to me to be exceptionally nice.
    Pulled it apart for a good clean, sharpen and reassembled. With some jigging I managed to get a really fine continuous shaving. Nice!
    I am struggling to get a reasonable mouth opening with the chip breaker placed where it should be. Currently only a couple of mm, maybe a bit less. I suspect that the blade or chipbreaker may well be on the short side. But somehow that doesn't make sense either.
    When I have a tiny bit more than enough blade protrusion the chipbreaker is almost closing the mouth...
    Ideas?

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    3,053

    Default

    When I have a tiny bit more than enough blade protrusion the chipbreaker is almost closing the mouth.
    If I understand you correctly, then you need to back the frog off a bit.
    Cheers,
    Clinton

    "Use your third eye" - Watson

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/clinton_findlay/

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Brisbane (western suburbs)
    Age
    75
    Posts
    10,447

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Clinton1 View Post
    If I understand you correctly, then you need to back the frog off a bit.
    Or, if you would like more explicit instructions: Remove lever cap & blade assembly, loosen the two screws holding the frog and move it back a bit with the screw at the back (unless it's gone AWOL, in which case you'll just have to fiddle with it). Reassemble & check if you have sufficient front clearance. Repeat procedure until you have it where you want it. It usually takes me 3 or 4 tries to get it right! This is the one time I really appreciate the 'bedrock' frog - makes this operation so much simpler & quicker.
    On some planes, if you go too far back, the bevel of the blade can contact the sole & prevent proper bedding of the blade. I've only struck this on some modern 'cheapies', your plane sounds like an early 20th C model, so it's likely to conform to sensible tolerances...

    Cheers,
    IW

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Jarrahdale WA
    Posts
    320

    Default

    Hey Guys,
    thanks for the responses...I have an inkling of how these things work but no expert..
    the bevel of the blade can contact the sole & prevent proper bedding of the blade. This is exactly what happens if I back the frog off enough to get some kind of reasonable opening... The blade ends up clamped between the mouth entry and the top of the frog...I have the chipbreaker set back around 2mm. I seem to recall thats on the high side of what's acceptable...?

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Brisbane (western suburbs)
    Age
    75
    Posts
    10,447

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by david.elliott View Post
    Hey Guys,
    thanks for the responses...I have an inkling of how these things work but no expert..
    the bevel of the blade can contact the sole & prevent proper bedding of the blade. This is exactly what happens if I back the frog off enough to get some kind of reasonable opening... The blade ends up clamped between the mouth entry and the top of the frog...I have the chipbreaker set back around 2mm. I seem to recall thats on the high side of what's acceptable...?
    Hi David, yes a 2mm setback is definitely on the high side, it should be somewhere south of a mm, or less, if you want to follow the minimalist camp for cap-iron setback. However, the amount of setback of the cap iron shouldn't be the problem, unless someone's fitted a non-standard part on your plane.

    Something is radically wrong, for sure, you should be able to get quite a large gap between the blade & the front of the mouth without the blade bevel fouling on the sole. My first guesses are that you either have a ring-in frog, or a blade that's too thick. If the blade is significantly more than 1/8th" thick, that could be a problem, though thicker blades need a longer bevel, which gives you a bit more clearance when you pull the frog back.

    Can you post some pics of your frog (the frog for an older model like yours is distinctive), & the blade/cap-iron setup - that might help us diagnose the problem...
    Cheers,
    IW

  9. #8
    Old gunnie's Avatar
    Old gunnie is offline Old dog, learning new tricks (but slowly)
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Safety Bay
    Posts
    333

    Default

    There's some enjoyable reading here if you need more info.

    http://www.supertool.com/StanleyBG/stan1.htm

    And I drove past those markets that weekend too ...

    Cheers,
    Some give pleasure where ever they go, others whenever they go!

  10. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Petone, NZ
    Age
    65
    Posts
    2,432

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanW View Post
    ...If the blade is significantly more than 1/8th" thick, that could be a problem...
    If the iron is thicker than 2mm (not IanW's 3.175mm) you could have a problem with a well made USA Stanley. Standard iron thicknesses are in the 1.95 to 2.4mm range. Stanleys of that era usually have tight mouths ~4.2 - 4.5mm wide. A 3.175mm (1/8") thick iron requires a mouth over 5.5mm wide.

    You could file the mouth wider, but I would be reluctant to do that to a plane of that vintage. I think there's a probably simpler solution to your problem - we just have to figure out what it is .

    Cheers, Vann.
    Gatherer of rusty planes tools...
    Proud member of the Wadkin Blockhead Club .

  11. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Brisbane (western suburbs)
    Age
    75
    Posts
    10,447

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vann View Post
    ...If the iron is thicker than 2mm (not IanW's 3.175mm) you could have a problem with a well made USA Stanley....
    Vann, whether or not you get away with a thicker blade in an old plane does seem a bit hit & miss, though (at least in my limited experience). The adjuster yoke is a casting, and not exactly a precision piece, so you get a bit of variation in the 'reach'. I remember way back when it first became fashionable to put thicker blades in old planes, that quite a few folks had problems with the adjuster not reaching through to the cap-iron slot to engage properly, whilst others reported 'no problems'. I've had to build up the tip on at least one plane (a spot of brazing does nicely) to get it to work with a thicker blade. However, my old 5 1/2 (type 11, according to Hyperkitten), happily accepted a 1/8" LV replacement blade, all it required was a bit of frog set-back. The adjuster reaches comfortably, to give a full range of movement. I don't know if the mouth was got-at by someone previously, it may well have been, because there is plenty enough room available for very coarse shavings.

    I would add my voice to not taking a file to the mouth or doing anything irreversible until David figures out just what the problem is. As I said, some pics might help.....

    Cheers,
    IW

Similar Threads

  1. Picked up a Centauro 500 CO - opinions?
    By samthedog in forum BANDSAWS
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 6th October 2014, 08:11 AM
  2. Picked this up cheap
    By Ticky in forum WOODWORK PICS
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 16th January 2012, 10:57 AM
  3. Picked these Planes up at an Auction
    By Tex79 in forum HAND TOOLS - POWERED
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 13th November 2008, 09:03 PM
  4. Just picked up some new wood
    By ScrollZilla in forum WOODTURNING - PEN TURNING
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 11th July 2008, 10:57 PM
  5. Picked Up Today.
    By Termite in forum HAND TOOLS - POWERED
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 16th December 2005, 12:39 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •