Help! Restoring a Vaughan and Bushnell 905 (Stanley Bedrock Clone)

You can use PSA sandpaper adhered to the bottom of the frog, trimmed flush. Then rub back and forth until a smooth even wear pattern is seen. As for the iron mating surface, I typically remove (carefully) the lat adjuster and yoke and adhere sandpaper to a flat surface and rub it around till flat, smooth, even, and shiny. Replace the lat adjuster/yoke and then set up the plane. It isnt as bad as it seems.

Nick, what is making it seat poorly now? If there is dirt/grime/junk in there, then clean it out. If there is paint, scrape it off. Otherwise I’ve never seen a Bedrock plane that needed much more work to seat the frog properly. If it was machined well (and I don’t have any experience with V&B planes, only pure Bedrock’s) then it shouldn’t require much more if anything. If they did such a poor job of replicating a Bedrock that it requires a ton of work to just get the frog to seat properly, then perhaps finding a real Bedrock is more worth your time?
:D
Ryan

-- I restore the finest vintage tools! If you need a nice plane, saw, marking tool or brace, please let me know!

I totally agree with Ryan. To be honest, most Baileys don’t need much in that area and I’ve never seen a bedrock that needed anything. I’ve not worked on a Vaughan and Bushnell either, so its a general statement.

What’s it doing that you think it needs work?

-- There is nothing like the sound of a well tuned hand plane. - http://timetestedtools.wordpress.com (timetestedtools at hotmail dot c0m)

@ ShaneA: Good idea with the self adhesive PSA sandpaper. I think that will do what I’m looking for. I can’t believe I didn’t think of it.

@ RS Woodworks: The real answer to your question is that the plane probably doesn’t need the work. I got a bit of chatter out of the plane working on some fairly badly case hardened 5/4 cherry, but there are a lot of reasons why I might of had chatter. A wise man once said that there is a difference between fiddling and fettling, and it pays to know the difference. I think I’m probably doing the former.

The reason I started using valve grinding compound with the frog and frog seating area is that the machining on the frog seating area didn’t seem that great (but I have nothing to compare it to). I posted a picture of the frog seating area on the Vaughan and Bushnell 905 in question. I painted the whole seating area with a black sharpie and then did a bit of abrasion by sliding the frog back and forth with valve grinding compound in the frog seating area. The area in red didn’t seem to be getting even contact with the frog. If you look at the area in yellow, there is a channel that is 1/8” wide, and 1/16” deep that sits to the left of the frog seating runner (it’s right in the middle of the yellow box). The runner is getting contact the whole way down, so the valve compound started grinding a 1/1000” groove in the underside of the frog from the grinding compound. I don’t really want to grind a groove in frog, which the reason I stopped doing it and then posted the question. I think that ShaneA’s solution of using self-adhesive PSA sandpaper would solve the problem.

Ultimately though, the plane is working pretty damn well. I think I’ll use it for a while longer before I worry about tuning it.

Thanks for the input,

-- “Congratulations. You’ve just figured out the most complicated way to hold a board 30 inches off the floor." Tage Frid

I would kind of doubt that it’s the frog seating that is causing your chatter. But if your real concerned about it, sand or file away some of those paint globs that seem to be there, especially on the right side of that photo. In fact, a flat file to that whole area might easily clean things up for you withour screwing around with valve grinding muck. :D

-- I restore the finest vintage tools! If you need a nice plane, saw, marking tool or brace, please let me know!