Effect of frog bedding surface "style"

[Bill_Houghton]

The post from Smooth Jazz about aftermarket plane irons inspires me to post a related question.  I have three No. 6 planes.  I established a recentish policy on tools, that I will not keep more than two planes of any given size unless I can come up with a really good excuse.  I can't in this case come up with one, so one of the planes has to go.

One plane is an early Craftsman model, Sargent made, with a frog bed milled over its entire surface, so it looks kind of like this, but smoother:


It's got the wimpy Sargent lateral adjuster, like this:



The other plane is a Wards Master plane (these are, by the way, often very impressive planes).  The bedding for the iron on this frog is like the Stanley Type 16 and later, with depressed areas on the frog, and the bedding being non-continuous:

The lateral adjuster lever on the Wards Master looks like a post-Stanley Union: the end you grab is twisted to form a handle, and the operating end has a little wheel to engage the slot in the plane iron.

So I'm asking myself, what are the tradeoffs here?  Better to have continuous bedding for the iron and a wimpy lateral adjuster, or discontinuous bedding but better lateral adjuster?  I guess I'm kind of asking, "How much difference does the discontinuous bedding really make?"

[Derek Cohen]

The answer should come from using them - how do they function? Which is the better user? 

Given they they perform identically, I'd keep the one with the better adjuster. 

Then again, how often does one need more than ONE #6?!


(For comparison, I don't have more that one of each plane I own, outside of smoothers, where I have two #3s - but one is LN and the other a Stanley. On the other hand, I have several smoothers more than necessary
)

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Bill_Houghton]

I keep an extra in case I drop one and break it, although that's probably a foolish thing to do for sizes I can commonly find around.  You may be right, Derek; maybe I should release both of them into the wild.

[Downwindtracker2]

It's only a guess but the frog face that's milled might be flatter. I haven't checked any of mine.If I have, I don't remember what they were?!  A couple of the ribbed frogs were diffidently warped.  I blame this on green castings. Cast iron will stress relieve when it ages.  I asked about blades and  frogs at SMC . There is one reply that is truly a gem.

The ribbed frog face should make adjusting easier, less friction area. Would a person be able to tell ?.I don't think so.

I'm taking this from another , he said one should have a few smoothers, each with a different set up ready to go. It seems like a good idea ( excuse)to me.

[Adnick]

If one reads and believes the Stanley plane "experts" write ups then the fully machined frog is far superior, that makes since to me and my experience is that the older Stanley's are better planes in general. However just as Derek said you have to use it, my best # 4 is a post WWII Stanley with the ribbed frog.

At one time my Iron plane collection was quite good with multiplayers of different manufacturers, but they disappeared, but that's a long story in and of itself.....

Given the opportunity again, my plane rack would have more than one of each plane that proved useful to me and my style of work, but my inclination is to pick wood planes as my choice in building a multiplayer work force. They are plentiful, cheap and most of the time, in need of rescuing.

If funds were not an issue, my personal favorite to look upon, touch, hold and use are the old English type stuffed planes, would love to have a dovetailed miter plane, and I could careless about what name is on them, if any, as long as they work as designed.

I digress....the only Stanley's that exist in multiple forms on my rack today are #5's & 4's , anymore of them showed up they will probably be given to some aspiring woodworker.

Like nothing better than finding someone who wants to get started in woodworking and being able to give them a few tools, and show them how to use em, but in the medically disabled terminology, I'm "Homebound" which means, don't get out much ;-)

Completely understand collecting, but if you do decide to thin your collection and have the ability to pass on your knowledge/skills in hand tool woodworking, I urge you to do so, it's an outstanding gift/experience.....

Regards,
Andy
Mos Maiorum

[Admiral]

While traditionally the wisdom was that the flat machined frogs provided better support, in the end it is all about how well machined the frog bed is; its just a corregated frog in the end that theoretically has nothing to do with overall support. Up through early type 18s the machining was pretty good, after that not so much; and in the T11-T15 period it was likely the best, but I've seen some problematic ones in that period as well.

That being said, the suggestion of using each and keeping the one that performs the best is the way to go.  As far as the lateral adjustment arm, I don't think that matters much at all as I find that fine adjustment is better accomplished with a scrap piece of hardwood tapping the iron one way or the other and I rarely use the lever for anything other than gross adjustment.