Quantcast

Stanley Bedrock 607

UKworkshop.co.uk

Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:

Dave65

Established Member
Joined
30 Dec 2017
Messages
23
Reaction score
17
Location
Manchester
On a visit to the local diy shop last week I found this rusty lump on one of the bottom display shelves.

018EC832-572D-4E25-8787-E037B7177BC7.jpeg

I asked if it was for sale, initially I just wanted the handles, and the bemused assistant said I could have it for a fiver a there were parts missing, deal done! They found it most amusing that someone would pay £5 for Something in this condition with bits missing.
A quick rub with a wet finger revealed it’s a bedrock 607, not a plane I’m familiar with or that I’ve seen before.

04D1D015-2001-4CD1-8DB9-4D336DFF8FFD.jpeg

BA1C54DC-2C27-4A17-BDA9-85AD6B642744.jpeg

So off Home to give it a wipe down and see how bad it was under all the dust.

B16CCF7F-A769-4DAC-A87A-A14B4358919D.jpeg

Not as bad as I had originally thought. Having not restored a plane before I had a read at the tool cleaning posts and decided to try citric acid. A few hours in a bath of acid, a rinse and a quick rub with some scotchbright and it came out like this.
E172BC70-B3FB-4B73-A562-97F535EC0583.jpeg
42731E7E-A154-4607-94A7-7133067D3A82.jpeg

Next it’s the handles, they are in quite good condition, I’m going to mix a batch of reviver as per AndyT’s post and give that a try.
If that doesn’t get the grime off them I will sand them back and re finish them. What’s the best finish for handles ?

The only parts missing are the blade, chip breaker and lever cap, I realise that finding a bedrock cap iron is going to be a tall order so I’m thinking of trying to find one of the old Stanley ones that are a polished cast finish with no markings, I think this would look better that a chrome plated one. Any advise on the best place to look for one would be appreciated. I can
As far as I can see bedrock blades are the same as standard Stanley blades and chip breakers so I should be able to find ones that will work ok, unless anyone knows differently.

I‘m quite happy with it up to now but if anyone has any tips or advise on how to finish it off they would be greatly appreciated.
 

AndyT

Established Member
Joined
24 Jul 2007
Messages
11,818
Reaction score
204
Location
Bristol
Wow, a bedrock for a fiver! You did really well there.
Looks good too. I suggest a wipe over with some boiled linseed oil, or if the handles are rosewood, nothing at all except for a little honest sweat!
 

Dakotapix

Member
Joined
29 Jan 2018
Messages
5
Reaction score
1
Location
Minnesota, USA
Fabulous find, Dave. My Bedrock 607 cost me $110 from a local (Minnesota US) online site and that was an excellent price. You’re correct that any Stanley lever cap and blade/chip breaker combo will work okay. The plane’s wood parts, if original, are probably rosewood. Clean them with some light scraping or sanding. I like to finish with shellac, dull that with steel wool or similar and apply a coat of paste wax over that. It just feels right to me.
 

Dave65

Established Member
Joined
30 Dec 2017
Messages
23
Reaction score
17
Location
Manchester
Wow, a bedrock for a fiver! You did really well there.
Looks good too. I suggest a wipe over with some boiled linseed oil, or if the handles are rosewood, nothing at all except for a little honest sweat!
Thanks Andy, will give the boiled linseed oil a try. Possibly rosewood, I will try and post a close up pic when I’ve cleaned them up.
 

Dave65

Established Member
Joined
30 Dec 2017
Messages
23
Reaction score
17
Location
Manchester
Fabulous find, Dave. My Bedrock 607 cost me $110 from a local (Minnesota US) online site and that was an excellent price. You’re correct that any Stanley lever cap and blade/chip breaker combo will work okay. The plane’s wood parts, if original, are probably rosewood. Clean them with some light scraping or sanding. I like to finish with shellac, dull that with steel wool or similar and apply a coat of paste wax over that. It just feels right to me.
$100 !!!! looks like it was more of a bargain than I realised ! Thanks for the advice on finishing the handles 👍
 

thetyreman

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2016
Messages
2,724
Reaction score
55
Location
North West
the bedrock is quite rare especially the 607, that is an incredible find for £5! wow, look up ebay prices and you'll find them selling for in excess of £100 thesedays, but if was you I'd keep this one, even more so if it does have rosewood handles.
 

Dave65

Established Member
Joined
30 Dec 2017
Messages
23
Reaction score
17
Location
Manchester
So tonight I’ve given the handles a clean with AndyT’s reviver and I’m happy with the results
D6EDCBC4-5FCF-444C-945A-A00387A1B42F.jpeg
ED068027-AB8A-4862-9EA6-EBCE2767DC57.jpeg

Next question is are they rosewood?
 

AndyT

Established Member
Joined
24 Jul 2007
Messages
11,818
Reaction score
204
Location
Bristol
They certainly look like it to me. They've come up really nice.

Any joy with finding a lever cap?
 

Dave65

Established Member
Joined
30 Dec 2017
Messages
23
Reaction score
17
Location
Manchester
Thats good, looks like they are the original ones then. No luck finding a bedrock lever cap, the only ones I could find were in the USA and they were too expensive with the shipping. I have managed to find an early stanley one though off a No6 ,off ebay, which I hope will look ok.
 

IWW

Established Member
Joined
15 Oct 2017
Messages
99
Reaction score
16
Location
Brisbane
I'll add my vote for Rosewood, which was the only wood Stanley used back then anyway. Just look at the beautiful shaping of that rear handle - almost oval in cross section. The tactile nature of the wood & the way it snuggles into your hand are unbeatable, imo. I have an old handle like that with the horn broken off that I use as my model whenever I need to make a new tote for someone. In fact I recently made a set for a 5, 4 & 3 from some Solomon Island "ebony" (Xanthostemon melanoxylon) , which comes up almost as nice as Rosewood (it goes almost black after a while, hence the "ebony" in its name). Brutal stuff to work, though:
6.jpg


The shape of the two knobs on the left was a result of cracks that I was trying to get rid of & lost too much off the top circumference. I got a more sound piece after this pic was taken & re-did them in the 'proper' Stanley shape

Pity about the lost original lever cap. Where do they all go? And why are they separated from a perfectly good plane anyway?? However, if your 607 fettles up as it should, I reckon you'll be so happy using it you won't notice or care that it doesn't have "Bedrock" on its lever-cap.... :)

Cheers,
 

Dave65

Established Member
Joined
30 Dec 2017
Messages
23
Reaction score
17
Location
Manchester
I'll add my vote for Rosewood, which was the only wood Stanley used back then anyway. Just look at the beautiful shaping of that rear handle - almost oval in cross section. The tactile nature of the wood & the way it snuggles into your hand are unbeatable, imo. I have an old handle like that with the horn broken off that I use as my model whenever I need to make a new tote for someone. In fact I recently made a set for a 5, 4 & 3 from some Solomon Island "ebony" (Xanthostemon melanoxylon) , which comes up almost as nice as Rosewood (it goes almost black after a while, hence the "ebony" in its name). Brutal stuff to work, though:View attachment 92326

The shape of the two knobs on the left was a result of cracks that I was trying to get rid of & lost too much off the top circumference. I got a more sound piece after this pic was taken & re-did them in the 'proper' Stanley shape

Pity about the lost original lever cap. Where do they all go? And why are they separated from a perfectly good plane anyway?? However, if your 607 fettles up as it should, I reckon you'll be so happy using it you won't notice or care that it doesn't have "Bedrock" on its lever-cap.... :)

Cheers,

Thanks for the info, the handles look great, something I would like to try making at some point, I have recently watched the Paul Sellers video showing how to make them.

I'm assuming the original lever cap and blade were removed for sharpening and never re fitted, which is a pity. I will be more than happy using the plane, but if i can get it to look right too it will be even more of a bonus.
I've managed to buy an early Stanley one off Ebay, advertised as being off a "1910 made in USA No 6", so hopefully this will look in keeping with the rest of the plane. The lever cap was part of some other spare parts, frog, lever cap and low front knob, all off the same plane which begs the question, what has happened to the rest of it ??? Is it worth more value to the seller to sell as parts, which would be a pity.
 

Ttrees

Iroko loco!
Joined
18 Nov 2012
Messages
2,141
Reaction score
21
Location
In me workshop
Hello Dave
Since I mentioned your plane in reference to a terrible video, and you queried me on this, I said before on another forum that no video exists on youtube that shows a method on how to lap a hand plane correctly.
Someone said to me, why don't you make a video, didn't think so...
So I obliged.
I ran out of battery and used the missus battery for part 2.
I only had cheap abrasives, and all was ready for the bin, but it shows the point/method.

The closest thing I've seen to that principal I'm talking about is Frank Klausz, using a short square of sandpaper whilst using the edges of it with very large stroked overlapping passes.
Maybe that's possible to bear down on the middle whilst at the edge.
Not something that would be practical or foolproof on a longer plane.
Frank mentions that he does not know how to use a Bailey correctly,
in the comment when working on that walnut I believe.

Anyone whom doesn't use the cap iron, or a shooting board would have little reason to want or check the sole for flat width-wise, and yes with a long plane it can happen.

I would have concerns about lapping your plane if it's very concave
This is my guess as to why the lever cap and double iron is missing.

One thing is for certain, if you lap that plane with a larger surface than the plane is
you won't be able to take that convex profile down to flat, so the toe and heel are doing nothing.
Combine that single area of contact compared to two areas of contact,
ala what I'm talking about, and then you introduce the likelihood of convexity in the width aswell as the length.

As I said in the other thread, you can polish something flat on a huge lap, but not flatten it, if the abrasive area is larger than the item to be flattened.

The only time you can believe the marker (cheap mans Prussian blue)
is when you test it with one rub.
When something is flat, that is 90% of the ink removed with one second of contact.
If you try to eliminate the ink on a plane that is not flat, the way I said dosen't work, you will be fooled into thinking its getting flatter, when you should be looking for a straight edge instead.

On a huge flat lap you can polish a convex profile, but you cant polish the opposite without making contact with the ends.
This is the principal of lapping correctly.

The edges of the plane must keep that ink and everything else must be removed.
I'm not talking about making a hollow more than the thinnest Rizzla paper...
this you can choose your tolerance, where as you cannot choose the other way.
Only when you test the plane with a large lap, that you figure out where the high spots are on the edges, with one stroke.
A localised area of abrasive can be used to correct this, might take a bit of back and fourth, but will end up with a lap getting close to the size of the plane.


You may choose to not believe me, and try and pick what I done wrong.
I will tell you that I failed many times in the past, hence why I will bang on about this until some guru will make this widely known gospel.
It's no fun to discover you have made things worse after much hardship.

Just to do a wee checklist incase anyone thinks I omitted anything, or done something wrong.
Flat lap, you will have to trust me on that as I have no super expensive machinists straight edge to verify, but there is other methods like a 123 block and a square, combined with something flat and using feelers, it gets the job done.
I buy the abrasive paper, cheap 100 grit or thereabouts by the meter,
and have it clamped down with blocks either end, tapped to make it tight to the plate.
Cleaning the detritus off and being meticulous about having a clean lap, after every 5 or so passes.
Being concentrated not to tip the plane, holding the tote and front knob and not doing hap hazard back and fourth rubbing quickly, lift and repeat instead.
Swapping the plane around as to not introduce any error from repetition.
Much scribbling, sweating, and tasting that cast iron.

Most likely one would presume the lap is not flat
I would say that its more trustworthy to use the method I'm talking about, on a less than ideal lap, rather than stick your head in the sand and trust a premium Starret lap and mindlessly rub until the ink is gone.

Keep those edges from getting into contact with abrasive, or you will get a convex profile.
You know what the result is of an incorrect method now.

May I suggest not doing anything to the plane if you are worried.
That casting looks very thin as it is to me, and you risk making the bed very fragile.
There can even be pockets in castings that you don't want to find.

Even if you do decide you want to lap the plane,
In hope of getting that area in front of the mouth polished to use for holding down wood fibers,AKA tight mouth,
don't bother with that mallarkey, the front of the mouth has no part to play in relation to elimination of fibres being plucked (tearout)
Just watch David Weaver as he is one of the only folks who actually uses a double iron on youtube.

He has owned or made every other plane under the sun, just so you know.
Study that woodcentral blog for more,
Like the profile on the cap iron being steeper than 50 degrees,
Obviously no corners taken off the iron like what some do.
The mouth cannot be tight, as it prevents the cap iron from working correctly.


Hopefully you will see that the plane will likely work very well as it is,
you don't need to lap it to see shiny in front of the mouth.
Better results and less effort is to be had with the cap iron than that messin.

Good luck with your plane, its looks sweet, you done a nice job on it.
All the best
Tom
 
Last edited:

Dave65

Established Member
Joined
30 Dec 2017
Messages
23
Reaction score
17
Location
Manchester
Hello Dave
Since I mentioned your plane in reference to a terrible video, and you queried me on this, I said before on another forum that no video exists on youtube that shows a method on how to lap a hand plane correctly.
Someone said to me, why don't you make a video, didn't think so...
So I obliged.
I ran out of battery and used the missus battery for part 2.
I only had cheap abrasives, and all was ready for the bin, but it shows the point/method.

The closest thing I've seen to that principal I'm talking about is Frank Klausz, using a short square of sandpaper whilst using the edges of it with very large stroked overlapping passes.
Maybe that's possible to bear down on the middle whilst at the edge.
Not something that would be practical or foolproof on a longer plane.
Frank mentions that he does not know how to use a Bailey correctly,
in the comment when working on that walnut I believe.

Anyone whom doesn't use the cap iron, or a shooting board would have little reason to want or check the sole for flat width-wise, and yes with a long plane it can happen.

I would have concerns about lapping your plane if it's very concave
This is my guess as to why the lever cap and double iron is missing.

One thing is for certain, if you lap that plane with a larger surface than the plane is
you won't be able to take that convex profile down to flat, so the toe and heel are doing nothing.
Combine that single area of contact compared to two areas of contact,
ala what I'm talking about, and then you introduce the likelihood of convexity in the width aswell as the length.

As I said in the other thread, you can polish something flat on a huge lap, but not flatten it, if the abrasive area is larger than the item to be flattened.

The only time you can believe the marker (cheap mans Prussian blue)
is when you test it with one rub.
When something is flat, that is 90% of the ink removed with one second of contact.
If you try to eliminate the ink on a plane that is not flat, the way I said dosen't work, you will be fooled into thinking its getting flatter, when you should be looking for a straight edge instead.

On a huge flat lap you can polish a convex profile, but you cant polish the opposite without making contact with the ends.
This is the principal of lapping correctly.

The edges of the plane must keep that ink and everything else must be removed.
I'm not talking about making a hollow more than the thinnest Rizzla paper...
this you can choose your tolerance, where as you cannot choose the other way.
Only when you test the plane with a large lap, that you figure out where the high spots are on the edges, with one stroke.
A localised area of abrasive can be used to correct this, might take a bit of back and fourth, but will end up with a lap getting close to the size of the plane.


You may choose to not believe me, and try and pick what I done wrong.
I will tell you that I failed many times in the past, hence why I will bang on about this until some guru will make this widely known gospel.
It's no fun to discover you have made things worse after much hardship.

Just to do a wee checklist incase anyone thinks I omitted anything, or done something wrong.
Flat lap, you will have to trust me on that as I have no super expensive machinists straight edge to verify, but there is other methods like a 123 block and a square, combined with something flat and using feelers, it gets the job done.
I buy the abrasive paper, cheap 100 grit or thereabouts by the meter,
and have it clamped down with blocks either end, tapped to make it tight to the plate.
Cleaning the detritus off and being meticulous about having a clean lap, after every 5 or so passes.
Being concentrated not to tip the plane, holding the tote and front knob and not doing hap hazard back and fourth rubbing quickly, lift and repeat instead.
Swapping the plane around as to not introduce any error from repetition.
Much scribbling, sweating, and tasting that cast iron.

Most likely one would presume the lap is not flat
I would say that its more trustworthy to use the method I'm talking about, on a less than ideal lap, rather than stick your head in the sand and trust a premium Starret lap and mindlessly rub until the ink is gone.

Keep those edges from getting into contact with abrasive, or you will get a convex profile.
You know what the result is of an incorrect method now.

May I suggest not doing anything to the plane if you are worried.
That casting looks very thin as it is to me, and you risk making the bed very fragile.
There can even be pockets in castings that you don't want to find.

Even if you do decide you want to lap the plane,
In hope of getting that area in front of the mouth polished to use for holding down wood fibers,AKA tight mouth,
don't bother with that mallarkey, the front of the mouth has no part to play in relation to elimination of fibres being plucked (tearout)
Just watch David Weaver as he is one of the only folks who actually uses a double iron on youtube.

He has owned or made every other plane under the sun, just so you know.
Study that woodcentral blog for more,
Like the profile on the cap iron being steeper than 50 degrees,
Obviously no corners taken off the iron like what some do.
The mouth cannot be tight, as it prevents the cap iron from working correctly.


Hopefully you will see that the plane will likely work very well as it is,
you don't need to lap it to see shiny in front of the mouth.
Better results and less effort is to be had with the cap iron than that messin.

Good luck with your plane, its looks sweet, you done a nice job on it.
All the best
Tom
Thanks for the detailed reply Tom, I will watch the video's tonight and try and digest all the info 😀. I have no previous experience on flattening planes so all the info is appreciated.

With regard to my plane , its only very slightly concave so I'm going to wait until its back together and give it a try, with the new cap iron in, and see if it works ok. If it does work ok , then it will be left alone and used as normal.
 

Ttrees

Iroko loco!
Joined
18 Nov 2012
Messages
2,141
Reaction score
21
Location
In me workshop
Judging by the thickness of the casting from your pictures,
I reckon its been badly lapped before, so I would guess that it's convex.

There still may be a hollow somewhere, but in the greater scheme of things
that equates to nothing if your flattening something that long.

I suggest you leave it alone if you don't have an accurate reference.
A long stainless steel ruler won't do.
A plane that is convex you can work with effectively, as you want to be planing a slight hollow into everything, like a thick rizzla papers worth.
The timber will stand this way, and pivot on the ends.
If a timber is planed the opposite it will pivot in the middle, which can make it unreliable for the next face or edges to get surfaced.

As said the cap iron (what you might be calling the chip breaker)
will take care of everything without having the need to move your frog forward.
It's safe to say most of the folks who specifically buy the Bedrock plane, don't know how close the cap iron is be set for elimination of tearout.
Which is a whole lot more effective than joking around moving the frog.

A tight mouth won't be gaurenteed to plane without tearout, where as the double iron method will in pretty much all timbers under the sun.

Tom
 
Last edited:

SammyQ

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2005
Messages
2,253
Reaction score
23
Location
A wee house on a hill
Oops. Posted two copies of lever cap; not used to new software yet. Angie, pls feel free to excise one of them, i have yet to locate the edit function key.

Sorry, Sam
 

Latest posts

Top