My #604 dramatically outplanes my #4. However one must take into account that the #604 also has a LN blade and chipbreaker, plus several hours of tuning in it. The #4 has none of this.the difference between normal Stanley planes and bedrock?
Fair point, Dave; sloppy wording on my part. [-Xdmount":3e29w673 said:I don't think it's right to say that he thinks the Bedrock's are *all* hype, just that the magnitude of the hype is more than the actual improved functionality (his opinion, though an informed one).
Gabriele..Can anyone explain me the difference between normal Stanley planes and bedrock?
Are those more better of the others?
Ha hum. Two current producers of Bedrock pattern planes, methinks. You'd be stretching the definition of a Bedrock quite a bit to include the LV.Midnight":24c1uuyt said:3 current producers of Bedrock pattern planes (Lie Nielsen, Lee Valley & Clifton)
Which comment had rather more to do with my expectations from the unusual frog design, than any lackage in the frog/bed contact department I have a feeling. I was just expecting even more I think. It's a while since I had a Bailey in bits in front of me, but I still don't think there's that huge a difference - certainly not compared to that between a Bailey and a Bedrock (haven't had one of those in pieces for a while either, mind you). But I agree, I think the Veritas has the edge over the Bailey. However where those points of contact are, that probably makes more of a difference. I have a feeling I was pulled up about that at the time in fact... wait, yep, here we are. BB emailed me about it:I’m was mildly surprised at how small the areas where the frog meets the body are, but on reflection I don't think they're that much different from a Bailey.
To which I replied:But look! There's one more point at the back, rendering the whole frog contact strongly triangulated and stabilised, as compared to "other" planes.
A position on the fence to which I shall continue to tightly cling. :wink:Yep, good point. That's why I'm a woodworker and not an engineer
Dave, the description you gave of the standard Bailey frog only making contact at "four contact points spread over two different planes" is essentially inaccurate. This is descriptive of Type 18 and 19 Bailey frogs of the past 50 years or so (I'm guessing at this time span), but frogs of the Sweetheart (1919 - 1932) era, and especially all the Bed Rocks, have frogs that are one solid face and do not have any cast recesses. With the exception of the way in which the frog is attached, my #4-1/2 Type 11 (1910 - 1918) Bailey has a near identical frog to my flat top Bed Rock #604.It is my belief ... that the machined bedding surface on the LV is substantially more than a standard Bailey