Typewriter Talk

You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?



08-11-2017 16:09:31  #11


Re: 1955 Olympia SM-3

Interesting. OK. I have been misinformed in my online reading then. 

 

08-11-2017 16:23:25  #12


Re: 1955 Olympia SM-3

Here is a good summary of the carriage shift SMshttp://xoverit.blogspot.com/2015/02/olympia-sm-series-part-1-1948-1964.html

Uwe is right that 1) the "De Luxe" marking seems to not be consistent and 2) you differentiate the -3 from the -2 by whether it has a tabulator or not, and by the type of the paper support. (And the SM-4 kicks things up a notch with the keyset tabulator.)

 

09-11-2017 11:02:27  #13


Re: 1955 Olympia SM-3

gnuyork wrote:

... I have been misinformed in my online reading then.

​The internet is a fountain of misinformation. And this holds true when it comes to the subject of typewriters; I've lost track of the number of 'blogs' online that make incorrect statements about typewriters, and that do so with a surprisingly authoritative voice. Take what you read on your computer with a grain of salt; a lot of the self-proclaimed experts out there are nothing more than echo chambers propagating misconceptions and poor research.

Although I haven't taken the time yet to prove this with concrete evidence, its my theory that the "De Luxe" badging only appeared on earlier SM3s to identify them as being the premium Olympia portable of the time. That badging was dropped later on - understandably - with the introduction of the SM4 (around 1958), which replaced the SM3 as being the more deluxe SM.


"To save time is to lengthen life."
 

09-11-2017 11:52:02  #14


Re: 1955 Olympia SM-3

^ I see. Yes, I know to take online information with a grain of salt...btw it was actually you tube video comparing an "SM3" and SM3 deluxe where I "learned"...so it seems he had an SM2 then, not a non deluxe SM3.

 

09-11-2017 12:17:24  #15


Re: 1955 Olympia SM-3

Uwe wrote:

gnuyork wrote:

... I have been misinformed in my online reading then.

​The internet is a fountain of misinformation. And this holds true when it comes to the subject of typewriters; I've lost track of the number of 'blogs' online that make incorrect statements about typewriters, and that do so with a surprisingly authoritative voice. Take what you read on your computer with a grain of salt; a lot of the self-proclaimed experts out there are nothing more than echo chambers propagating misconceptions and poor research.

Not to mention all those guys who know a correct thing about their own one typewriter and assume and advise that it applies to all of them. In a way, it's kinda cute to watch the fresh enthusiasm and "helpful" camaraderie, though I'm sure it causes a good deal of frustration and damage. ("Just take the carriage off to have a look.")

Some people complain, "Jeez, do some research before you post such a question on this (any) forum!" but we should remember that this is their research. I'm glad we have so many knowledgeable people on Typewriter TALK. Thanks, Uwe!

 

09-11-2017 16:36:10  #16


Re: 1955 Olympia SM-3

I agree, Michael. No question is a bad question (although I wish more people would read the FAQ for this forum first! ​).

I realize that I tend to rub a number of people the wrong way here, but what appears to be nitpicking on my part is honestly just an effort to prevent this forum from being a source of misinformation. The Maintenance & Repair sub-forum is the one exception for me and I've completely given up on it. Countering some of the bad advice that was being given there became a source of frustration, and I feel bad for a newbie who won't be able to discriminate between good guidance and repair tips from those who shouldn't be giving them.


"To save time is to lengthen life."
 

09-11-2017 22:36:48  #17


Re: 1955 Olympia SM-3

Yes the internet is a double-edged sword; both fantastic access to skilled, experienced people willing to share what they know and uninformed blatherers who simply can't keep quiet.  The best course, I think, when it comes to most topics is simply to give little credit to internet advice not accompanied by the reasoning behind it and the facts to support it.  And patience; take you time and gather all the opinions that you can.
  When researching a book on marine navigation, I tested scores and scores of on line sights offering instruction by using the same simple test, and found that about 85% of them repeated the same mistaken bit of folklore - giving it as advice that could prove fatal to the student navigator.
  Patience and healthy scepticism are very useful tools when it comes to learning from the web.


Sincerely,
beak.
 
 

10-11-2017 13:15:24  #18


Re: 1955 Olympia SM-3

"The problem with what you read on the internet is that you can't be certain it's true. " - Abraham Lincoln

     Thread Starter
 

10-11-2017 13:41:49  #19


Re: 1955 Olympia SM-3

There's an example right there -- I am pretty sure Churchill was the one who said that.

 

12-11-2017 07:52:40  #20


Re: 1955 Olympia SM-3

Uwe wrote:

gnuyork wrote:

... I have been misinformed in my online reading then.

​The internet is a fountain of misinformation. And this holds true when it comes to the subject of typewriters; I've lost track of the number of 'blogs' online that make incorrect statements about typewriters, and that do so with a surprisingly authoritative voice. Take what you read on your computer with a grain of salt; a lot of the self-proclaimed experts out there are nothing more than echo chambers propagating misconceptions and poor research.

Although I haven't taken the time yet to prove this with concrete evidence, its my theory that the "De Luxe" badging only appeared on earlier SM3s to identify them as being the premium Olympia portable of the time. That badging was dropped later on - understandably - with the introduction of the SM4 (around 1958), which replaced the SM3 as being the more deluxe SM.

So you mean that the badge 'jumped' from the SM3 to the SM4 by the time that was introduced? Because that could very well be, considering my SM3 does not have a badge, but both SM4's ( 1958 and 1961 ) and my SM7 (1964) had them, and they were the most 'deluxe' models available in those years.

Another question, related to this.
I now have a SM3 (1954 I believe) which has a paperbail that can be set in three positions (like Royal standards etc.), whereas all other Olympia portables I've seen so far (in total around a dozen) only have two position paperbails. Would the three-position one be an anomaly or is that usually the case with SM3's (it's my first SM3, the other SM's were other models)? 

 

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum

Typewriter Talk