Ross No. 4 plane

[whiskywill]

At this morning's car boot sale I was offered a Ross No. 4 plane in excellent condition for just £4. I refused because I already have too many no. 4's but does anybody know anything about the brand. Is it yet another Bailey copy?

 

[Trafalgar]

Nope, it's actually a copy of a Lie-Nielsen.... :wink:

 

[MIGNAL]

Junk.

 

[Tony Zaffuto]

Is Ross another LN knock-off?

 

[bugbear]

Is Ross another LN knock-off?

IIRC it's more like a Silverline knock off.

BugBear

 

[Trafalgar]

I was just being facetious in that some would assert that L-N is the only company with the 'right' to copy a Stanley/Stanley-Bailey design when in reality there have probably never been fewer than six companies doing just that and this has been going on continuously for the last one hundred years or so (and many more copyists at points in time -- a couple dozen, easily).

Copies of varying quality, but copies nevertheless.

 

[Vann]

I was just being facetious in that some would assert that L-N is the only company with the 'right' to copy a Stanley/Stanley-Bailey design ...

Ahem. With the exception on their No.1, L-N did not copy the Stanley Bailey design. Lie-Nielsen did us all a favour by copying a design that had been out of production for 50 odd years, making it available once again to woodworkers (and collectors). I think that's why some feel that L-N deserves special treatment. Then others jumped on the bandwagon, making copies of planes still in production, undermining L-Ns efforts.

Record copied the Stanley Bailey design soon after the patents ran out, right down to the (by then) non-standard threads.

I thought I'd better correct your mis-representation of the situation.

Cheers, Vann.

 

[undergroundhunter]

I was just being facetious in that some would assert that L-N is the only company with the 'right' to copy a Stanley/Stanley-Bailey design ...

Ahem. With the exception on their No.1, L-N did not copy the Stanley Bailey design. Lie-Nielsen did us all a favour by copying a design that had been out of production for 50 odd years, making it available once again to woodworkers (and collectors). I think that's why some feel that L-N deserves special treatment. Then others jumped on the bandwagon, making copies of planes still in production, undermining L-Ns efforts.

Record copied the Stanley Bailey design soon after the patents ran out, right down to the (by then) non-standard threads.

I thought I'd better correct your mis-representation of the situation.

Cheers, Vann.

Please excuse my ignorance but why did L-N do everyone a "favour" by copying an old design? I genuinely cant see how an L-N no4 can perform better than my Stanley 4 or even my coffin smoother, then again I have never used one so maybe I'm missing something.

Matt

 

[bugbear]

I was just being facetious in that some would assert that L-N is the only company with the 'right' to copy a Stanley/Stanley-Bailey design when in reality there have probably never been fewer than six companies doing just that and this has been going on continuously for the last one hundred years or so (and many more copyists at points in time -- a couple dozen, easily).

Copies of varying quality, but copies nevertheless.

An interesting point, and not one I've seen made before. :roll:

BugBear

 

[Vann]

Please excuse my ignorance but why did L-N do everyone a "favour" by copying an old design?

Well original Stanley Bedrocks often sell for big money (as much as a new L-N) and they are all old and usually carry the scars of the years use, abuse, and storage. And no-one was making new ones. As far as I'm concerned they did me a" favour" by taking the finacial risk to start making new Bedrocks that are as affordable as a battle-weary Stanley. I couldn't/wouldn't have afforded an original Stanley Bedrock. I now own an L-N Bedrock.

As to whether it will out perform a Stanley Bailey - I'm not going down that path. Is a Holtey better performing than a Bedrock? Is a Bedrock better performing than a Bailey? You ask ten different people if you want ten different opinions. Go read a few old threads on the subject.

My point is: Lie-Nielsen made new Bedrocks available to the woodworking world, for the first time in 60 - 70 years. Others copied them.

My other point is: CStanford was wrong to suggest that L-N copied Stanleys' Bailey design.

Cheers, Vann.

 

[Trafalgar]

"My other point is: CStanford was wrong to suggest that L-N copied Stanleys' Bailey design."

That's interesting in light of the fact that L-N acknowledges their planes are largely copies:

Standard Bench Planes

We make all sizes that Stanley did, from the tiny No. 1 to the huge No. 8. Each has its own charm, but personal preference plays a large part in choosing the right bench plane for a particular job.

Our Standard Bench Planes (except for the No. 1) are based on the Stanley Bedrock design, last produced in 1943. In their golden years, the Bedrocks were the top of the line. They featured a fully machined mating fit between the frog and body, and the ability to adjust the mouth opening from the rear without removing the cap and handle. Lie-Nielsen Bench Planes include these features as well as a Bronze cam lever cap, lateral adjustment, and spinwheel blade adjuster.

 

[Vann]

"My other point is: CStanford was wrong to suggest that L-N copied Stanleys' Bailey design."

That's interesting in light of the fact that L-N acknowledges their planes are largely copies:

...of Bedrock planes, not of Bailey planes (hammer)

Standard Bench Planes

We make all sizes that Stanley did, from the tiny No. 1 to the huge No. 8. Each has its own charm, but personal preference plays a large part in choosing the right bench plane for a particular job.

Our Standard Bench Planes (except for the No. 1) are based on the Stanley Bedrock design, last produced in 1943. In their golden years, the Bedrocks were the top of the line. They featured a fully machined mating fit between the frog and body, and the ability to adjust the mouth opening from the rear without removing the cap and handle. Lie-Nielsen Bench Planes include these features as well as a Bronze cam lever cap, lateral adjustment, and spinwheel blade adjuster.

Cheers, Vann.

 

[Trafalgar]

True I suppose, though I have to admit to having never seen the Ross. It must be another Bailey copy.

Patrick's Blood and Gore:

"In a world where good enough usually ain't good enough, Stanley decided to produce another series of metal bench planes, called Bed Rock planes. These planes are, for all intents and purposes, nothing but a variation of the more popular Bailey series. They all have an adjustable frog, the brass depth adjustment knob, the lateral lever, a lever cap, rosewood knob and tote, etc., just like the Bailey's. The key difference between the two designs is found in the way the frog mates with the bottom casting. For such a seemingly minor difference, the Bed Rock planes were offered at a premium over the Bailey's, and it was a design that never seemed to be very static nor nearly as popular as Stanley's wildly successful Bailey line."

I see a cloud in the sky. Does it look like a brontosaurus or the Blessed Virgin? Depends on who's looking I guess.

The propensity to see differences rather than similarities is directly proportional to one's investment in one or the other. If you have both, you'll likely notice hardly a difference in the actual working. This is why, I believe, the Bed Rocks were never that popular. The price difference was not justified, nor was the hoopla (then or now). All of these planes will take a thin, whispy shaving in almost any species which seems to be the metric by which they're judged, even though in the actual prepping of lumber by hand smoothing accounts for only ten percent or less of the entire process from start to finish. Anybody removing more than the barest perception of thickness (or width or anything else) of a board, with a smoothing plane, has a fundamental misunderstanding of the process. Full stop.

 

[Vann]

...All of these planes will take a thin, whispy shaving in almost any species which seems to be the metric by which they're judged...

...I'm not going down that path. Is a Holtey better performing than a Bedrock? Is a Bedrock better performing than a Bailey? You ask ten different people if you want ten different opinions.

Cheers, Vann.

 

[Trafalgar]

None of these really perform better, they only provide the user a different planing experience. Far too many people raise shavings of essentially unmeasurable thickness with Baileys to be able to assert otherwise, though I understand you aren't making this argument. It's a shame this fact makes some people snarl (not you).

Some people like to plane and not really feel what's going on (heavy plane/1976 Cadillac Coupe de Ville going over a pothole). Baileys don't provide this sort of ride.

Have a great weekend.

 

[bridger]

Tom Lie Nielsen copied the bedrock line of planes once offered by Stanley. I would be (slightly) interested to know where the frog seat design originated, whether Leonard Bailey had anything to do with it- I think that the timeline would suggest not. Tom L.N. made a few changes, though. he held the machining to a higher standard than Stanley ever did, he offered (and promoted) high angle frogs and he changed the chipbreaker design. in order to make the improved machine work possible he had to make the castings thicker. this made the planes heavier than necessary, which he vigorously promoted as a "feature". the chipbreakers that L.N. offers are marginal for actual chip breaking, indeed many of them are geometrically insufficient to be brought into the cut. this suggests that L.N. never particularly understood the function and working of the double iron, an assertion backed up by his vigorous promotion of high angle frogs.

now, don't get me wrong- L.N. planes are things of beauty, extremely well made especially at the price point at which they are offered and entirely capable of producing fine work. however, to claim that they are unequivocally superior in all respects to a well tuned turn of the century Bailey is flat out wrong.

 

[woodbrains]

Hello,

Get a new LN and a new Stanley and see which performs better! Let us not forget, we have fettled and fussed and flattened and spent hours getting our old Baileys to work as they should, perhaps getting aftermarket blades and cap irons. Comparing like for like, the LN is superior, by a large degree. And let us be honest, most of our pampered Baileys are of a vintage when Stanley et al, were at their best, so even the old ones were not as good as the new LN's. If someone wants to work wood, then LN's get them going, without fault, from the first instance.

Regarding cap irons, Stanley ones never worked as chip breakers, either, and were simply blade adjustment devices, so let us not be too harsh on LN not understanding the full use of them. LN ones at least were better at stiffening the blade assembly and did offer a method of planing difficult woods, by making York pitch frogs etc. most fine plane manufacturers preferred this method as well, so is a legitimate path for the toolmaker to take over the other. There are many ways to kill a cat. Contending LN's are not better than anything Stanley made is daft, they clearly are. Whether this matters is another issue and if it doesn't, then fine, but that doesn't diminish LN tools in any way.
Incidentally, I do not own any, most of my tools are fussed over old Records. If I had the funds to have got LN all those years ago and saved me time effort and money cajoling my tools to perform as good as they do, I probably would have. There is certainly less fun in getting the tool to work wood than working the wood itself for some. TBH I actually prefer to make wooden planes than flatten the soles of old iron ones, so I'm glad that there are fine tools around that work, for those who want to get straight at woodwork.
Mike.

 

[bridger]

Mike-
The bailey pattern chipbreaker works very well as a chipbreaker. It was designed for that purpose. The L.N. chipbreaker can be made to work with a bit of adjustment, if you are lucky to get one that is long enough.


I'm not comparing new L.N. to new stanley. I'm comparing it to Bailey planes circa 1880-1920. The main reason most of those planes need the amount of work that they do is due to the wear they have sustained in a century of use. The L.N. planes (and modern veritas, woodriver and likely clifton as well) are definitely machined better than the old Bailey planes were. They have modern metallurgy to draw from as well.

The thing is that if the chipbreaker is working properly there is no need for a high angle frog. Set the chipbreaker properly on a bailey plane and it will cut tearout free in the most difficult woods, thin iron, bailey chipbreaker, thin castings and all. Flat soles to within .002" are unnecessary. Just not concave. Backlash free adjusters are nice but irrelevant to the surface produced. We still have a thing or two to learn from those victorian19th century engineers, I think.

 

[Mr_P]

Everyone needs a Ross no.4 or equivalent.

Prepped some reclaimed timber yesterday, did I reach for an old Bailey type or an infill ?

Of course not, Rapier 400 did the job nicely.

I once snapped a nearly new tuffsaws blade on a bit of reclaimed with hidden nails, lesson learned.

 

[Trafalgar]

Tom Lie Nielsen copied the bedrock line of planes once offered by Stanley. I would be (slightly) interested to know where the frog seat design originated, whether Leonard Bailey had anything to do with it- I think that the timeline would suggest not. Tom L.N. made a few changes, though. he held the machining to a higher standard than Stanley ever did, he offered (and promoted) high angle frogs and he changed the chipbreaker design. in order to make the improved machine work possible he had to make the castings thicker. this made the planes heavier than necessary, which he vigorously promoted as a "feature". the chipbreakers that L.N. offers are marginal for actual chip breaking, indeed many of them are geometrically insufficient to be brought into the cut. this suggests that L.N. never particularly understood the function and working of the double iron, an assertion backed up by his vigorous promotion of high angle frogs.

now, don't get me wrong- L.N. planes are things of beauty, extremely well made especially at the price point at which they are offered and entirely capable of producing fine work. however, to claim that they are unequivocally superior in all respects to a well tuned turn of the century Bailey is flat out wrong.

I'm pretty sure Vaughan and Bushnell were the first firm to copy the Bed Rock frog design. There have been others and L-N's could very well be a copy of somebody else's copy.

It's too bad L-N didn't pay more attention to the chipbreaker when making their copy of a Stanley plane.