I have to agree with Repartee about the 1960's Underwood Touchmaster V (roman numeral five, not to be confused with Underwood Five).  The small firm I worked for in the 1970's and early '80's had bought a large quantity of secondhand typewriters from the US Air Force.  Amongst them were quite a few Touchmasters.  These were perfectly good typewriters but were very difficult to sell through the shop.  People just didn't like the look of them.  I think the 'outrigger' carriage rails used to put people off, because they were used to 'conventional' typewriters.  Never mind that from an engineering point of view it is a more stable arrangement

I don't mind the design of the Touchmaster 5 as much as I mind the design of the Royal 440 or the Remington 24. At least this one is reminiscent of the earlier Underwoods...

thetypewriterman wrote:

Yes Uwe, the machine in your pictures is the 'Touchmaster V' that I was referring to.  I've never seen one of these labelled as a 'Five'.  As I said, perfectly good machine, but it seemed the buying public couldn't warm to it !

Indeed. This is the kind of design I was referring to:
<broken photo link>
being a "Golden Touch".

A similar design...
<broken photo link>

This one is actually a cause of remorse. I could have had both for 50 USD net but negotiated with the seller to send me ONLY the canvas dust cover for more than half that amount! I was put off not only by the design but the defaced front and the mildewed keys. Later he tried again to sell just the machine, and not realizing I had already seen it this time my attention focused first on the top:
<broken photo link>

The chrome is bright and pristine and of course it has exact copies some classic 5 features which had been cheapened out of existence on the "Golden Touch". Quite handsome, actually. With amusement I realized was looking at the machine I had already turned away and I wrote a friendly note to the seller with smilie faces and such, sharing the joke with him.

I may have been hoping he would offer me an additional discount since I had already bought the other half of the set, but had he merely replied "Well, it's still there if you want it" I probably would have paid again for the part what I could have paid for the whole, to his advantage. No reply. I suppose he was offended I even mentioned that the keys were mildewed, preferring to take offense rather than money. There are such curmudgeons in the world. I could have learned to love it, but perhaps today it sleeps with the fishes. Lake Michigan, most likely. I feel like I turned a proud old campaigner away, not noticing the care he had taken to maintain his medals and focusing only on his frayed cuffs.

But the Golden Touch - ugh!

KatLondon wrote:

OOPS - Repartee! Pinterest doesn't work. 

Not sure what you are referring to. The hosting of my photos?

<Looks up "Pinterest"...>

Aha! Maybe this is in reply to my question about organizing ideas and projects? I will check it out, but not sure how to take your glowing recommendation "doesn't work". Irony?

That name is an awful neologism: pin + interest. It sounds like one of those too clever by half shop names, like "Hats Outrageous!".  Anyway, stimulated by our exchange, I might try something wild like "folders", which would segregate the piles into the piles over the firmament and the piles under the firmament. I never would have come up with the sophisticated folders idea without a learned exchange - some internal miswiring apparently.

KatLondon wrote:

OOPS - Repartee! Pinterest doesn't work. 

He tried to use a link to Google hosted files, which should work.

Repartee, you can PM the url (link) to the Google page you're using to me if you want and I'll let you know how to use those images here.