Ted,
Sounds like maybe an earlier Bedrock plane, see Bob
Kaune's pages for details of Bedrock types:
http://www.antique-used-tools.com/brtypes.htm
Type 4 and earlier Bedrocks didn't have the pins and
screws that the later types had, just regular frog
attachment screws like regular Bailey planes.
Hope this is of some help.

Jim Erdman (Menomonie, WI)

--- "Stevenson, Ted"  wrote:

>     I'll end (for any brave souls who've read this
> far) with a
> What-is-it? question. Once I started looking over my
> 'old tools,' I took
> out and dusted off an old #3 bench plane that had
> been bequethed to me
> by a retired carpenter friend. I'd been using it as
> a scrub. On
> dismantling it for a good cleaning, I figured I'd
> "type" it using the
> flow chart. But no luck. The only identifying mark
> on the entire tool is
> on the iron (Stanley Sweetheart logo). The body has
> no cast ID of any
> kind, BUT, the frog/bed mounting system -- and the
> form of the frog
> itself -- are apparently identical to the BedRock
> design (as found on
> B&G). That is a sloped (20 degree?), grooved, fully
> machined bed that
> meets the tongued, fully machined frog. There is a
> single frog-adjusting
> screw engaging a stud screwed to the frog proper,
> just as illustrated at
> http://www.supertool.com/StanleyBG/bedprop.htm. The
> difference is that
> the frog is retained by two screws into the bed, as
> with a Baily design.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Find a job, post your resume.
http://careers.yahoo.com

Greetings, Galoots:
    I've been lurking for a month or so, but it's so dark and lonely
under the porch I decided to step into the light and be counted.
    I found OT when I began looking around on the web to get some
information about what turns out to be a Type 2 #7 that I've been toting
around for decades (with a bunch of other user tools acquired over don't
ask me how many years at yard sales, etc.). I'd purchased a R. Hock
replacement blade and discovered (as I now knowPatrick Leach reports in
B&G) that it was too thick to work properly without filing the mouth.
"Hmmmmm. Better find out what I've got here before I start filing," I
thought to myself. I came across the Type flow chart and identified not
only the #7, but a Type 4 #8 that I'd likewise been toting around for
eons. Anyway, filing will not be done on the Type 2; I'll go back to
trying to flatten the (not original) iron.
    As a woodworker, I've been involved off and on (more off than on)
since the mid-60's. I was apprentice to a harpsichord builder, starting
in '70, who recreated (as much as possible) the building tradition of
the 18th Century, materials, processes, structure, even decoration. For
better or worse, that didn't last, but it was interesting . . .
    Some miscellaneous cabinet jobs and spates of restoring Civil
War-era houses have been interspersed with mostly publishing work for
the last quarter-century. Five years ago, I got interested in wooden
boats (as I know a number of you are), and have been working on a
Shellback Dinghy for a good part of those years. (It's built now; all
that remains is about 100 hours of filling, sanding, painting, rigging.
Oh dear!) Other boatbuilding and furniture projects are lining up to
occupy the next few years.
    I'll end (for any brave souls who've read this far) with a
What-is-it? question. Once I started looking over my 'old tools,' I took
out and dusted off an old #3 bench plane that had been bequethed to me
by a retired carpenter friend. I'd been using it as a scrub. On
dismantling it for a good cleaning, I figured I'd "type" it using the
flow chart. But no luck. The only identifying mark on the entire tool is
on the iron (Stanley Sweetheart logo). The body has no cast ID of any
kind, BUT, the frog/bed mounting system -- and the form of the frog
itself -- are apparently identical to the BedRock design (as found on
B&G). That is a sloped (20 degree?), grooved, fully machined bed that
meets the tongued, fully machined frog. There is a single frog-adjusting
screw engaging a stud screwed to the frog proper, just as illustrated at
http://www.supertool.com/StanleyBG/bedprop.htm. The difference is that
the frog is retained by two screws into the bed, as with a Baily design.
Anyone know what this might be?
    Regards,
    Ted

--
Executive Editor, ISP & ASP channels
internet.com Corp. - The Internet & IT Network
23 Old Kings Highway South
Darien CT 06820
http://www.internet.com

tstevenson@i...
voice: 203/662-2874

Welcome..!

> ... I was apprentice to a harpsichord
> builder, starting
> in '70, who recreated (as much as possible) the building tradition of
> the 18th Century, materials, processes, structure, even
> decoration....

I envy you. Although I don't even play any keyboard instruments I've been
wanting to build a harpsichord since reading Zuckermann's book a couple
decades ago.

> ... an old #3 bench plane that had been bequethed to me
> by a retired carpenter friend...
> Anyone know what this might be?

Vaughn & Bushnell #903 perhaps???

Your description sure sounds like a V&B smoother I have at home awaiting a
tune up (though mine has a logo & model number on the lever cap.) Its frog
looks like what you described (as best I can remember right now,) it's as
wide as a stanley #3 but slightly longer - as long as a #4. Mine's got "flat
sides" that look like a bedrock's.

AFAIK neither the user nor collector communities have any info on V&B
products on the web. Last time I looked, all I could find was some gossip
along the lines of "quality control is all over the place on V&B planes",
nothing more. No one on the porch admitted to ever using one when I asked.
Got any pictures of your #3??

Regards,
Chris O.

Thanks, Jim -
    Since I've gotten this second copy of your reply, I'll toss it back
out to the group.

I did check Bob's site more carefully and this time spotted the
BedRock/KeenKutter Comparison link. What I have is likely a KeenKutter,
type 4 or 5. At least the lateral lever (twisted) and lever cap (plain)
are consistent with that. However, Bob doesn't mention ANY models
completely devoid of marks on the main casting -- as mine is. An
anomaly, I guess.
    Thnx again
    Ted

Jim Erdman wrote:

> Ted,
> Sounds like maybe an earlier Bedrock plane, see Bob
> Kaune's pages for details of Bedrock types:
> http://www.antique-used-tools.com/brtypes.htm
> Type 4 and earlier Bedrocks didn't have the pins and
> screws that the later types had, just regular frog
> attachment screws like regular Bailey planes.
> Hope this is of some help.
>
> Jim Erdman (Menomonie, WI)
>
> --- "Stevenson, Ted"  wrote:
>
> >     I'll end (for any brave souls who've read this
> > far) with a
> > What-is-it? question. Once I started looking over my
> > 'old tools,' I took
> > out and dusted off an old #3 bench plane that had
> > been bequethed to me
> > by a retired carpenter friend. I'd been using it as
> > a scrub. On
> > dismantling it for a good cleaning, I figured I'd
> > "type" it using the
> > flow chart. But no luck. The only identifying mark
> > on the entire tool is
> > on the iron (Stanley Sweetheart logo). The body has
> > no cast ID of any
> > kind, BUT, the frog/bed mounting system -- and the
> > form of the frog
> > itself -- are apparently identical to the BedRock
> > design (as found on
> > B&G). That is a sloped (20 degree?), grooved, fully
> > machined bed that
> > meets the tongued, fully machined frog. There is a
> > single frog-adjusting
> > screw engaging a stud screwed to the frog proper,
> > just as illustrated at
> > http://www.supertool.com/StanleyBG/bedprop.htm. The
> > difference is that
> > the frog is retained by two screws into the bed, as
> > with a Baily design.
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Find a job, post your resume.
> http://careers.yahoo.com
>
> --
> +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
> Private replies: jlerdman@y...
> Public replies:  OLDTOOLS@l...
> To signoff or digest: listserv@l...
> Archive: http://mailmunch.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/archives/OLDTOOLS
>                      Quote sparingly.
> +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+

--
Executive Editor, ISP & ASP channels
internet.com Corp. - The Internet & IT Network
23 Old Kings Highway South
Darien CT 06820
http://www.internet.com

tstevenson@i...
voice: 203/662-2874

----------
>From: Jim Erdman  To: ted@i...,
>oldtools@www3.law.cornell.edu Subject: Re: Bio,// Bedrock(?) plane
>Date: Thu, Nov 8, 2001, 4:02 PM
>

> Ted, Sounds like maybe an earlier Bedrock plane, see Bob Kaune's pages
> for details of Bedrock types:
> http://www.antique-used-tools.com/brtypes.htm
[snip]

     He has a comparison of Bedrocks vs the models made by Stanley for
     Keen Kutter and Winchester. He also has a note on something he
     calls a type 3Z:

TYPE 3Z. c.1900

 - All characteristics of TYPE 3., except... €Beds marked with only
   slanted single digit numbers:"3", "8", lightly milled space where the
   "K" would have been for a Keen Kutter "Bed Rock." Perhaps planes made
   for Keen Kutter but later sold by Stanley in the general market. €No
   patent dates on the bed.

    It appears Stanley had a thing for milling off castings to remove
    writing they no longer wanted to be there. Assuming Ted's is not
    milled, maybe they got it right for once and made a run of Bedrocks
    for a hardware store and removed all the writing from the patterns?

    Vaughn and Bushell planes are marked "Dropped Forged" and I think
    they may have only been made with square sides.

Regards, Steve

Steve,

Actually, V&B made at least their model 805 with round sides. I have one
that exactly like a round side Bedrock, but without any casting marks,
and with the twisted lateral. George Langford could perhaps confirm if
the 905 was also make in a round sided version.

That would be my guess.

Regards,

Jim

>    It appears Stanley had a thing for milling off castings to remove
>    writing they no longer wanted to be there. Assuming Ted's is not
>    milled, maybe they got it right for once and made a run of Bedrocks
>    for a hardware store and removed all the writing from the patterns?
>
>    Vaughn and Bushell planes are marked "Dropped Forged" and I think
>    they may have only been made with square sides.
>
>Regards, Steve

> 
> Alright. It's about time for me to write a bio and get a little more
> active here.
> My name is Matt Wollnik and I was born in Germany almost 25 years ago.
> Ended up working in software R&D in the Suburbs of Minneapolis.
>

Hi Matt

 That was a great story on your evolution in Woodworking. And Welcome to the
top of the slippery slope(s). Hope it is a long and fun ride!

Chris

On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 05:44:18PM +0000, Richard.Wilson@s... wrote:
> Apart from Uncle Ron - Record were still making and selling their No 73
> blade, and I suppose Lie Nielson sell replacements, and Clico (Clifton)
> sell them - though as Paul Womack recently remarked, and my sad experience
> proves - they don't fit Records - being thicker.

Good point. I should have considered the metal shoulder plane replacement
blades right away. Makes me wish I had picked up that clearanced Clifton 311
blade a year ago at $5 at the local Woodcraft. Then again, it was awefully 
small...Probably shouldn't try to build a small infill shoulder plane the
first time around :)

Matt
-- 
  Matthias Wollnik
email: mwollnik@a...

> Well, LN's #73 is a big slab o' steel.
> Might do ya'

True...well my birthday is coming up soon ... and it's been marked in
all the catalogs I have for a while...so you never know :)

Then again....I am from south of the English Channel. Seems I'm supposed
to learn to not need a shoulder plane :)

Matt
-- 
  Matthias Wollnik
email: mwollnik@a...

Matthias (welcome to you) asks

>shoulder plane kit I may just cave in immediately. Does anyone have a
source
>for shoulder plane blades? Making my own is not an option since carpet
burns to
>easy.

Apart from Uncle Ron - Record were still making and selling their No 73
blade, and I suppose Lie Nielson sell replacements, and Clico (Clifton)
sell them - though as Paul Womack recently remarked, and my sad
experience proves - they don't fit Records - being thicker.

Richard Wilson Yorkshireman Galoot

------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------

For information on Christian Salvesen PLC visit our website at
www.salvesen.com.

The information contained in this e-mail is strictly confidential and
for the use of the addressee only; it may also be legally privileged and
or price sensitive. Notice is hereby given that any disclosure, use or
copying of the information by anyone other than the intended recipient
is prohibited and may be illegal. If you have received this message in
error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail.

Christian Salvesen PLC has taken every reasonable precaution to ensure
that any attachment to this e-mail has been swept for viruses. However,
we cannot accept liability for any damage sustained as a result of
software viruses and would advise that you carry out your own virus
checks before opening any attachment.