Stanley Bedrock 607

  • Advertise with us

« back to Hand Tools forum

Forum topic by James Gallo posted 09-30-2016 06:07 PM 432 views 0 times favorited 17 replies Add to Favorites Watch
View James Gallo's profile

James Gallo

56 posts in 1529 days

09-30-2016 06:07 PM

Hi all,
I purchased a lot of 7 hand planes off of craigslist for $20, and have begun restoring and trashing them as needed. I came across a Stanley Bedrock 607, and as I was preparing to reassemble it, I thought I would do a little research on the bedrock design. All of the info I found state that the frog locates by 2 pins that are on the body of the plane. However, my 607 does not have the pins, it locates and adheres to the body with 2 screws instead. From what I can tell, this is a very early version of the plane, as it has the 3 line logo on the lever cap.Has a previous owner messed with this plane and replaced the pins with screws?
The plane otherwise seems to be in excellent condition, with only very slight surface pitting on one side, and some of the japanning missing.
I want to return this plane to original condition and use it, but do not want to have a frankenplane. Thanks for any advice.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

-- Jg, Pittsburgh

17 replies so far

View bobasaurus's profile


2587 posts in 2602 days

#1 posted 09-30-2016 06:19 PM

According to this type study:

the pin attachment of the frog only happened on type 5 (1911) and on. Yours might be an earlier type.

-- Allen, Colorado

View JayT's profile


4670 posts in 1629 days

#2 posted 09-30-2016 06:40 PM

You have very good example of a type 3 Bedrock. Types 1-4 all had the round sides and the frog attached with screws. What made them different from the Bailey line of the same era was the machined frog to base contact area and the adjustment screw at the rear of the frog. In 1911, Stanley added the frog adjustment screw to the Bailey line and changed the Bedrock design to flat sides and pin retention of the frog.

As far as I can see, all the parts and pieces are consistent with a type 3 Bedrock, so rest assured you do not have a Frankenplane. I have a whole user collection of early round sided Bedrocks, mostly type 4’s with a couple type 3’s thrown in, and love them. Tune it up and put it back to use.

-- "Good judgement is the result of experience. A lot of experience is the result of poor judgement."

View James Gallo's profile

James Gallo

56 posts in 1529 days

#3 posted 09-30-2016 07:38 PM

Thanks so much for the replies and link. I’m not familiar with the type 1,2,3,etc. Are certain type numbers better or worse than others? Also, how can I tell the manufacture date of my plane?

-- Jg, Pittsburgh

View ColonelTravis's profile


1154 posts in 1312 days

#4 posted 09-30-2016 07:41 PM

For jealously purposes only, was that Bedrock in that lot of 7 for $20?

View JayT's profile


4670 posts in 1629 days

#5 posted 09-30-2016 08:07 PM

All the “types” do is give a range of manufacture dates based on the features and marking on the plane. As far as one type being better or worse, the answer is “depends”. For Bedrocks, they are all good planes. Types 1-4 are all basically the same design with just small changes in what numbers are incorporated into the castings (7 vs 607 or patent dates or the lever caps, for example) and the logos on the irons. Types 5-11 all have similar features and design when compared to each other, as well.

As a type 3 Bedrock, your plane was manufactured between 1900-1908. Just go to the type study linked and compare the features of your plane to the lists under each type. It’s tough to narrow down a specific date any more than that. Sometimes you come across a plane that has characteristics of a couple types. If the parts are all original, that can give a clue that it was manufactured close to the crossover date of those two types. For instance, a plane with a type 4 body and lever cap, but an iron with a logo like a type 3 was probably made around 1908.

Is a type 5 better than a type 3? Well, they are two different designs and both are good planes. Some people prefer the later, flat sided types, so will pay more for them, but that doesn’t really make them “better”, just more desirable. Personally, I don’t consider the frog adjustment mechanism to be that important. Once a frog is set, I don’t move them, so wouldn’t want to pay extra for the feature.

Now, when you get into lines other than the Bedrocks, such as the Stanley Bailey, there is definitely a drop off in quality in the later types. Not that a later Bailey can’t be a good user, but the odds are better if you get a type that was made between the World Wars. Conversely, some of the early Baileys, while well made and collectible, aren’t quite as user friendly as far as features. For instance, the earliest ones don’t have a lateral adjustment lever, so that adjustment had to made with a hammer. To me, that is a very important feature, and while the plane is good quality, it’s more difficult to use, so I would not want a user of those types.

Also keep in mind that type studies were done after the fact as a way to try and date the tools. The manufacturers didn’t care at the time and just used up stocks of parts that fit each other to have a complete tool to sell.

-- "Good judgement is the result of experience. A lot of experience is the result of poor judgement."

View James Gallo's profile

James Gallo

56 posts in 1529 days

#6 posted 09-30-2016 08:15 PM

Thanks Jay. You cleared up a lot of things for me!!!!

-- Jg, Pittsburgh

View Johnny7's profile


201 posts in 508 days

#7 posted 09-30-2016 08:58 PM

You’re making me nervous—move that plane casting away from the edge of the tablesaw top!

View Smitty_Cabinetshop's profile


13569 posts in 2036 days

#8 posted 09-30-2016 09:00 PM

Like Col. said, if you got that bedrock 607 in the lot for $20, it’s You Suck territory for sure. Excellent pick-up, congrats to you!

-- Don't anthropomorphize your handplanes. They hate it when you do that. -- OldTools Archive --

View TheTurtleCarpenter's profile


795 posts in 484 days

#9 posted 09-30-2016 10:05 PM

Don’t comment back on the $20 question please,,,,,,,,,Its Friday and I don’t care for the Monday blues

-- "Tying shoelaces was way harder than learning to Whistle",,,,,member MWTCA area K. Kentucky

View James Gallo's profile

James Gallo

56 posts in 1529 days

#10 posted 10-01-2016 09:28 PM

Yep. $20. I tried to pass on the lot because he wanted $55 and he didn’t want to split them. There was a stanley no 5 in the group that I wanted, but didnt know what a 607 zctually was at the time. So i walked back to my car and he follows me and offers all of them for $30. I passed again. He was about to leave, but stopped and asked ” how about $20 for them all?” I bit and now I’m glad I did.

-- Jg, Pittsburgh

View Tim's profile


3029 posts in 1379 days

#11 posted 10-01-2016 11:31 PM

Now you’re just rubbing it in, hah!

View Don W's profile

Don W

17870 posts in 1985 days

#12 posted 10-02-2016 12:31 AM

$20 Bedrock. I got mine for $18. We’re in the same territory!

-- Master hand plane hoarder. -

View theoldfart's profile


7933 posts in 1869 days

#13 posted 10-02-2016 01:15 AM

I was happy for a 608 & 604 for $75, you beat that by a mile.

-- "With every tool obtained, there is another that is needed" DonW ( Kevin )

View TheFridge's profile


5672 posts in 904 days

#14 posted 10-02-2016 01:16 AM

Hell. I was has with a plain ol #5 for 30

-- Shooting down the walls of heartache. Bang bang. I am. The warrior.

View diverlloyd's profile


1244 posts in 1275 days

#15 posted 10-02-2016 02:29 AM

Well I feel I got my flat side corrugated bedrock for $5 at auction could have got it cheaper but I always start out at $5 on tools. I will just say congrats on the planes I love my bedrock it’s my go to plane. $20 for the lot is outstanding very nice and once you get a sharpening method that works for you you will enjoy them.

showing 1 through 15 of 17 replies

Have your say...

You must be signed in to reply.

DISCLAIMER: Any posts on LJ are posted by individuals acting in their own right and do not necessarily reflect the views of LJ. LJ will not be held liable for the actions of any user.

Latest Projects | Latest Blog Entries | Latest Forum Topics