Ampelmann wrote:

Well, on the subject of Royals, I only have a sample size of one to work with.  That being said, compared to my other typewriters, I find that my Quiet DeLuxe feels - for lack of a better term - slightly mushy.  Not a bad feeling per se, but compared to my two favourite typers (SM4 and Lettera 22), it's a little soft, even with the touch control adjusted up.

Exactly with the QDL although it's a good all around typer. If you ever run across the first Royal Portables, I would recommend giving it a test type. They feel different than the models that followed.

The way I rate typewriters is on three things: Looks/Styling, Touch, and Print Quality.  

Typewriters like the Royal 10 strike pretty high because they look awesome, and have (in my opinion...) a wonderful touch. But the print quality (of my individual typewriter) isn't the best, so it scores a solid 8 or 8.5. 

I don't think features and extras should be a make or break for keeping a typewriter or not. Sure I'd prefer the Torpedo 18b over the 18a because the 18b has a tabulator and, well, it's very easy for centering the carriage. And wouldn't it be nice if the Optima Elite 3 had some margin scales too? But those are just small things that shouldn't factor too much into deciding whether or not a certain typewriter is for you. 

ztyper wrote:

The way I rate typewriters is on three things: Looks/Styling, Touch, and Print Quality.

Grading or comparing styling is a subjective exercise, and to a lesser degree, so is touch. Touch (type action) and print quality are directly effected by the condition of the typewriter, so in terms of comparing typewriters, unless all the machines involved have been tuned to factory specifications and their parts verified to be free of excessive wear, how does one know if their comparison has anything to do with the true performance potential of the models being discussed?

On another note, I don't think a model's features should be dismissed so lightly when the value of certain features can vary so greatly from person to person. An alignment scale with a pencil guide might seem like a completely superfluous feature for someone who only writes letters, but it could be a critical component to another buyer who has to draw tables on a regular basis. Consequently, any relevant comparison between two models should include a concise list of each machine's features, and all of those features should be considered when trying to determine which model is the better buy. 
 

Uwe wrote:

unless all the machines involved have been tuned to factory specifications and their parts verified to be free of excessive wear, how does one know if their comparison has anything to do with the true performance potential of the models being discussed? 

Perhaps I was a bit unclear looking back now. What I had meant was the individual machines within my own collection. For instance, I really like the Olympia SM-4. I'd recommend it to anyone. But I only have one. So compared to the other typewriters I own, it scores pretty high. That's not saying that the one someone else owns the same model has a score that high either. 

I think every one of the models discussed does fall within a certain range of quality and performance. The cursive SM-9 that I have is so gently used, that the slugs barely had any traces of ink on them (sooo shiny!) and its touch is a bit different than my mother's SM-9 which was used for about 20 years straight, but its overall performance it similar enough to say that they are the same machine. So I suppose we should be aware that certain typewriters are going to vary in wear and tear, but we shouldn't be afraid to say what we think about a certain model. After all, usually all of the models discussed are owned by multiple people and perhaps they could give their two bits on what they think of a certain model of typewriter. So many opinions will form some sort of truth that will give an accurate representation of the specific model.

These last few comments relate directly to what I said in my last comment, about the QDL's habit of skipping, or bunching, etc. TypewriterKing writes: 

TypewriterKing wrote:

My take is this:  It isn't the ability of the typewriter that makes a good printed page, it's the typist. You can have the fanciest Alpina or Olympia, attempt to use it, and wind up with a mess that would take five people to figure out just what message you wanted to convey. On the other hand, you could put a Buddy L toy typewriter in front of an accomplished typist and they could produce a page, error free, easy on the eyes, and free-flowing of message.

Well, clearly the most pristine page of typed content is the result of both the sturdiness of the machine and the skill of the typist; some machines are more forgiving, more accommodating, than others. I found this myself when I was in the throes of teaching myself to type 'properly', and indeed as I get more comfortable with my own habits (and with my various machines) my own results are improving. At the beginning, I got the most predictably decent results on the Olympias, and the Hermes. These are beginner's notes, btw, based on a single machine. But my experience has grown and my general impressions hold (even given the differences between machines).

But there are still machines, like that QDL, on which if you get into what you're doing and forget to type like a metronome, you lose control over the type. Or putting it the other way, on which slowing down and typing at Lenore Fenton's steady rhythm will indeed produce vastly improved results. Mine certainly does this, and I've read numerous discussions online about how this is a common trait in a QDL. It makes me wonder why it's considered such a great, solid, reliable instrument. My mother had hers from age 15 and HATED manual typewriters - I can't help thinking she might have had a different impression of them if someone had given her a Hermes 3000 that would meet her halfway...

TypewriterKing wrote:

Some people don't like Royal typewriters for the lack of features, and that they may be a bit too "American." 

I'm curious about this - what do you mean?