Repartee wrote:

I am tending to the generalization that early 1940's machines emphasized form over function: .

 ​I'd have to disagree. Function was a very high priority for manufacturers; you only need to peruse the ads from the period to see how competitive the market was, and how much emphasis was placed on a machine's user friendliness. Supporting this is how well these machines still perform today (when they're in good condition). The differences between the performance of a streamlined standard or portable and one produced two decades later is a nuance at best. Form doesn't have to come at the cost of function, and don't forget that many internal designs outlasted their exterior ones, so the wrapper doesn't tell you the entire story. 

Repartee wrote:

Do those tiny blank convex keys mean (1) this was a teaching machine (2) they are missing key covers, or (3) they are worn down?

 Could have been 1 or 3. Well used machines with plastic keys were prone to wear, but I would think a closer inspection of the key tops should reveal something. Machines with worn key tops usually have various states of missing engraving and it's not very likely that they'd all be evenly worn without any sign at all of the past engraving - especially not for the lesser used letters. As for the camera comment, they are easily made to lie, intentionally or even just by someone who doesn't know how to adjust the white balance. With digital photography I'd even claim that it was never easier to make a camera tell a story that isn't real.  

Uwe wrote:

Repartee wrote:

I am tending to the generalization that early 1940's machines emphasized form over function: .

 ​I'd have to disagree. Function was a very high priority for manufacturers; you only need to peruse the ads from the period to see how competitive the market was, and how much emphasis was placed on a machine's user friendliness. Supporting this is how well these machines still perform today (when they're in good condition). The differences between the performance of a streamlined standard or portable and one produced two decades later is a nuance at best. Form doesn't have to come at the cost of function, and don't forget that many internal designs outlasted their exterior ones, so the wrapper doesn't tell you the entire story.

I freely admit I am basing my generalization on two examples - why wait, when two is the smallest number which is not "one"!?    The first is a Smith Corona Super Speed, an even more stunning study in streamlined multi-toned black which I bought for its looks, but there was something about its touch I did not care for. On the Remington I have as yet nothing to say about the touch - since it is not typing - and am basing my comment fully on the tiny keys. There is a lot of real estate left between them so they could certainly be a little more generous. Unfortunately bargain Remington does not live up to bargain Smith Corona, since Remington is frozen and seems actually to be missing some parts around the line space lever.   Looks pretty good though for price of dinner for two at a Zagat no $ sign restaurant, delivered.

Repartee wrote:

Do those tiny blank convex keys mean (1) this was a teaching machine (2) they are missing key covers, or (3) they are worn down?

Could have been 1 or 3. Well used machines with plastic keys were prone to wear, but I would think a closer inspection of the key tops should reveal something. ...

Yes. Thank you for confirming my thinking here. They are indeed entirely smooth but at the same time in a kind of manufactured looking way and not worn way - what's more the few with letters clearly shown engraving which would probably require removing .5 mm or so of material to fully efface. So I guess teaching machine, a few key tops replaced with salvage from ordinary machine.

Were this machine ever to type again I might sacrifice my sole box of Speed Company rubber key covers - same era - to make it more palatable to the touch. Tough call since they are nice NOS, and can't both keep them new looking and use them!

As for the camera comment, they are easily made to lie, intentionally or even just by someone who doesn't know how to adjust the white balance. With digital photography I'd even claim that it was never easier to make a camera tell a story that isn't real.  

Of course you are right! With CGI I am sure photos can be made to lie profoundly, not just about piddling color values. But the point of my use of this old chestnut was precisely what I think its original sense may have been - that the camera sometimes captures and seems to emphasize unflattering details which the eye forgives. In this case I think I even understand the reason - default digital camera settings probably aim for a "correct" image, whereas as trying to "correct" an image which is largely perceived as shades of black by the eye is likely to create something we did not perceive. (Don't bother trying to figure out if I am arguing pro or con at this point since I could not tell you ).  I was noting that the dirt and worn paint visible in the photo is of course really there but not what would be perceived, which I allowed myself the indulgence of capturing in the well worn cliche "the camera does not lie" without over-analyzing the poor old thing. 

Even my phone has decent editing functions for saturation and contrast which I frequently use, but I just left this image in its ugly default.  Let's try again...


Ah... not quite there, but looking a bit more darkly mysterious! If I were to resell this on eBay I would definitely go with photo #2. Not even sure if I'd be lying. Or not much.

Spazmelda wrote:

Mr E, that's nice! Where did you find it? Does it work?

I am not 100% sure this is addressed to me, but:

1) Ohio
2) No 

Only my eBay avatar went to Ohio, where some very friendly people whom I never met packed it up and sent it to me to my specifications for $54.21 all inclusive, triple boxed. 

I cannot attribute non-working and missing a few parts to malfeasance, although I cannot imagine what happened to the bits of grandma's line space mechanism! Maybe a grandchild removed a few helping grandma "fix" it.

I was actually talking to Mr E from the previous page Repartee, though I am glad to learn the details of your Remington as well.

I got excited for a moment, thinking you were in Ohio, but I see it was just your ebay personal.  LOL.  I'm in Ohio myself.

Repartee wrote:

Uwe wrote:

Repartee wrote:

I am tending to the generalization that early 1940's machines emphasized form over function: .

 ​I'd have to disagree. Function was a very high priority for manufacturers; you only need to peruse the ads from the period to see how competitive the market was, and how much emphasis was placed on a machine's user friendliness. Supporting this is how well these machines still perform today (when they're in good condition). The differences between the performance of a streamlined standard or portable and one produced two decades later is a nuance at best. Form doesn't have to come at the cost of function, and don't forget that many internal designs outlasted their exterior ones, so the wrapper doesn't tell you the entire story.

I freely admit I am basing my generalization on two examples - why wait, when two is the smallest number which is not "one"!?    The first is a Smith Corona Super Speed, an even more stunning study in streamlined multi-toned black which I bought for its looks, but there was something about its touch I did not care for. On the Remington I have as yet nothing to say about the touch - since it is not typing - and am basing my comment fully on the tiny keys. There is a lot of real estate left between them so they could certainly be a little more generous. Unfortunately bargain Remington does not live up to bargain Smith Corona, since Remington is frozen and seems actually to be missing some parts around the line space lever.   Looks pretty good though for price of dinner for two at a Zagat no $ sign restaurant, delivered.

Repartee wrote:

Do those tiny blank convex keys mean (1) this was a teaching machine (2) they are missing key covers, or (3) they are worn down?

Could have been 1 or 3. Well used machines with plastic keys were prone to wear, but I would think a closer inspection of the key tops should reveal something. ...

Yes. Thank you for confirming my thinking here. They are indeed entirely smooth but at the same time in a kind of manufactured looking way and not worn way - what's more the few with letters clearly shown engraving which would probably require removing .5 mm or so of material to fully efface. So I guess teaching machine, a few key tops replaced with salvage from ordinary machine.

Were this machine ever to type again I might sacrifice my sole box of Speed Company rubber key covers - same era - to make it more palatable to the touch. Tough call since they are nice NOS, and can't both keep them new looking and use them!

As for the camera comment, they are easily made to lie, intentionally or even just by someone who doesn't know how to adjust the white balance. With digital photography I'd even claim that it was never easier to make a camera tell a story that isn't real.  

Of course you are right! With CGI I am sure photos can be made to lie profoundly, not just about piddling color values. But the point of my use of this old chestnut was precisely what I think its original sense may have been - that the camera sometimes captures and seems to emphasize unflattering details which the eye forgives. In this case I think I even understand the reason - default digital camera settings probably aim for a "correct" image, whereas as trying to "correct" an image which is largely perceived as shades of black by the eye is likely to create something we did not perceive. (Don't bother trying to figure out if I am arguing pro or con at this point since I could not tell you ).  I was noting that the dirt and worn paint visible in the photo is of course really there but not what would be perceived, which I allowed myself the indulgence of capturing in the well worn cliche "the camera does not lie" without over-analyzing the poor old thing. 

Even my phone has decent editing functions for saturation and contrast which I frequently use, but I just left this image in its ugly default.  Let's try again...


Ah... not quite there, but looking a bit more darkly mysterious! If I were to resell this on eBay I would definitely go with photo #2. Not even sure if I'd be lying. Or not much.

Were you using the camera's flash? It looks like it -- and often that is the culprit. It blasts reflections back at you and you lose details in the harsh lighting. Try to illuminate the typewriter with strong room light instead, and see how the pictures look.