Markmotown wrote:

The thread on Hebrew/Yiddish typewriters brought me to this 1997 Atlantic article on "The Typewriter Man" by Ian Bremmer, all about the legendary typewriter master, Martin Tytell. He writes:

"I asked Mr. and Mrs. Tytell what machine, of all the manual and electric typewriters ever made, they thought was the best. Mrs. Tytell said you couldn't really compare manuals and electrics. 'I'm prejudiced,' Mr. Tytell said, 'because I spent so many years servicing Underwoods. Actually, I love all typewriters the same, but an Underwood manual with a serial number in the eight millions' -- he climbed riskily onto a stepladder at another shelf and shakily handed one down -- 'which would be an Underwood made around 1959, is a beautiful machine.' He pulled away the plastic that wrapped the typewriter. Its grayish-beige buffed finish, still in good shape, was pure 1959."

Now I want one, just based on that. 
 

There were two Underwood models made that year:  The first was based on the older 1953 body shell, on which the "Golden Touch" was based.  There were also "Touch-Master" series typewriters based on the same shell.  From the description of the color, being grayish-beige, it had to be this earlier model.  Then Underwood came out with the "Touch-Master II."  It is a bit more streamlined about the features, meaning the side profile is much smoother.  It has 44 keys instead of just 43.  It is a darker shade of gray with an almond-colored insert surrounding the keys.  There is a button on the front cover that you just press and it pops open.  The carriage sides have a squarer profile.  In other words, take a look at an Underwood Touch-Master Five, paint it medium gray with an almond insert around the keys, put a chrome carriage lever on it, and you'll have what a Touch-Master II looks like.  I know.  I have owned both 1959 typewriters--the Touch-Master II was my mother's last typewriter before she died.  Yes, I'm holding onto that one.  Last thought:  Just my opinion now--the "pure 1959" description should probably go to the Touch-Master II since it was designed, or debuted, in 1959.  And, yes, its serial number is still in the eight millions. 
 

Markmotown wrote:

"...'an Underwood manual with a serial number in the eight millions' ...'which would be an Underwood made around 1959, is a beautiful machine.' ...Its grayish-beige buffed finish, still in good shape, was pure 1959." 

It's an Underwood 150 with the marketing 'Golden-Touch' badging.

Although the serial number does indicate that it's a standard model, there is speculation as to the actual year of manufacture. The unspecific reference made to the eight million range only narrows down the manufacture year to between '57 and '63. "Grayish-beige" is a hint, but "buffed" is a poor adjective because it can mean two opposite things when describing a typewriter. The Underwood 150 was available in a "Beach Beige" finish, which could easily be described as "grayish", but what did the author mean by buffed? The 150's "no glare" paint could be described as being buffed in reference to a yellowed, napped surfaced, but what if he meant a high polished surface that comes as the result of buffing something?

What lead me to believe that it was a 150 was the final description of the machine as being "pure 1959." In the context of the article it seems that the author meant pure '50s, and the 150's design was exactly that, an iconic representation of '50s Underwood typewriter design. The classic Streamline Moderne treatment abruptly ended with the introduction of the Touch-Master II, which ushered in the '60s and a new design era. There is nothing pure about the Touch-Master II design. It was a transition model that cautiously probed the waters of a new Underwood style, and it certainly was not a typewriter that would you would ever pick to define it.

Uncovering Underwood model names can be a very frustrating exercise given how prone the company was to slapping marketing rhetoric onto its machines. The name game is further muddied by some contemporary collectors who have a tendency to create their own model names on the fly based on what they might find written on a typewriter's case, or through a misinterpretation of its serial number. Just look at the Underwood model names listed on the Database and you'll see what I mean; it's a bit of a mess, in part because there a few fictional (collector created) model names on that list.

Another issue that pops up often in typewriter model discussions is that we rarely (if ever) distinguish between manufacturing and model years; they are not the same thing and when looking at a specific model's history it can lead to confusion if the two are interchanged. 

TypewriterKing wrote:

...the "Touch-Master II." It is a bit more streamlined about the features, meaning the side profile is much smoother. ...an almond insert around the keys, put a chrome carriage lever on it, and you'll have what a Touch-Master II looks like. 

The 150 had a streamlined case, not the Touch-Master II, which utilized a more austere design that became popular in the '60s. And you were probably referring to the trim panel that helped protect the machine's keyboard, because I don't recall having ever seen a Touch-Master II with a key surround, which is a feature I've only seen used on electric typewriters of the era.  

Also, while bringing up an observation on all the Undeerwood 150s, Golden Touch machines, and the Touch-Masters I've worked on, I can tell you that the Underwood 150 machines, from 1953 through 1957 had a big bar in the back of the machine that aided in shifting; there was a rack frame that was a part of the spacing mechanism; the ribbon mechanism was driven by movement from the lower half of the escapement mechanism.  The "Golden Touch" machines (which are also known as later 150 machines), are more in tune mechanically to the Touch-Master series:  The heavy bar in the shifting mechanism has been removed, with parts underneath the typewriter doing the heavier part of the shifting;  the rack frame (the characteristic square-looking "thingy" behind the escapement wheel found in Underwood machines since at least World War I) is removed, simplifying the escapent mechanism with the lever below contacting the escapement mechanism more directly;  the ribbon mechanism is driven by a small chain whose prime movement is generated by the escapement wheel itself--the only typewriter I've seen designed this way).  Again, these are just my observations.  And, again, no formal schooling--just years and years of hobbying with typewriters.

Oops, no edit function! So I was going to say, most of us here in fact probably have a few different sub-genres of collection on the go. I have a pink Olympia SF - well, pink and grey - but it is one of the scorched ones, as its lever fell off in my hand when I bought it (for a fiver). It's had a full life. Works fine, if you don;'t mind manually returning it, and my daughter loves it because it's pink: 'Mummy, don't sell that one!!'

'Don't worry honey, it's broken!'

'Good.'

I guess the Princess 300 is the most 'collectible' one I own on those sort of 'looksist' grounds (and btw, Typewriter King, I totally got what you said about the Easter Egg Colours. I find the straight grey QDL rather depressingly stolid, like a little squat grey stone sitting on the desk. Fitting that they were manufactured in granite country!) The green-&-cream one is awaiting repair but the red one, which is actually a sort of coral red, very nearly hits the magical 'pink' zone!

I think in my list I left out the importance of categorising, which is such a driver for various people on this board - cf that thread about all the variants of the SG1 or whatever it was... OMG, right. Not me. But very useful when one of us less detail-oriented ones has a question! 

Anyway, I like that there are all these factors - I think they apply with any collectible item - & I love that they overlap, and are ultimately held together by one person's taste. It's a great thing.

 

KatLondon wrote:

And everyone collects with a different purpose... several of us on here consider ourselves primarily users; if I discover that I don't love a particular machine to USE, I will ruthlessly sell it. 

When it comes to typewriter collecting that happens to be my personal mantra. I have little interest in machines that aren't practical to use, and although I'm more tolerant of ones that aren't stellar performers, I don't collect early or otherwise quirky models. For example, a Mignon is a neat little typewriter, but it's such a chore to use that I would never consider buying one. 

Since I gravitate toward typewriters that are practical, high performing, and visually intriguing, I find that I mostly collect models from the '50s. In my opinion the '50s represents the fulcrum of typewriter development, the tipping point between machines that were built to last and those that were built to a budget.

KatLondon wrote:

I had an Underwood Golden Touch once and was so profoundly underwhelmed, I couldn't believe it.

Sounds like it was a portable, most likely either a De Luxe, Universal, or Leader model. And I would have to agree with your assessment: Underwood portables from that era (pre Olivetti buyout) are very lackluster in comparison to those that the competition were producing at the same time. 'Golden-Touch' wasn't a specific model, but rather one of many Underwood marketing terms that were used to describe a type action and they slapped that name of many different models. There were 'Golden-Touch' labelled standards too, which unlike the portables were good machines - and very nice to use.