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



11-3-2014 17:36:23  #1


1945 Royal MM

I'm hooked on standard machines right now and in the last two days bought three of them: a 1936 Royal KHM, a late '40s Olivetti Lexikon 80, and this bizarre machine, a 1945 Royal MM.

It was a bit of an odd purchase. I had just finished agreeing to buying the KHM from the seller when he mentioned that he had another machine he wanted to sell. Of course I was interested and agreed to check it out. The machine was one of the filthiest I'd ever seen; the keys were so caked with dirt that it looked like they were made of mud. The first thing I noticed aside from the dirt was that this Royal was missing the shift keys, so I immediately balked at the thought of buying it.

"Looks like this thing was gutted for parts," I mentioned pointing at the empty spaces on both sides of the keyboard.

Just before I told him that I wasn't interested, I opened the ribbon cover and quickly changed my mind. The spool holders held tiny plastic spools meant for an ultra-portable, which was a definite minus.

"This machine won't work properly - if it even works at all - with these spools," I said as I spun one freely on its post. "These Royal models need specific spools for the ribbon transport mechanism to function properly."

I had a brand new set of the special Royal spools at home, but even so it seemed like a waste to use them on this pile of junk. 

"I'll give you $20 for it." It probably wasn't even worth that. Typers that look this bad usually need more work than they're worth, but I was curious by what I had seen under the ribbon cover and didn't want to lose this rarity, even if it would never type again.

"Someone else is interested in it, and has offered me $25 based on the photo I sent him," he replied with a poker face. 

It bothered me that I was being leveraged for a extra $5, but it would have bothered me a lot more to have lost this machine for a few extra bucks, so I reached into my pocket for the money and put the nasty typer in the car beside the KHM.

After a cursory cleaning, and a new set of Royal spools with vintage (dried-out) ribbon, I was surprised to find that the machine worked perfectly. It was fantastic to discover that it types well, but I was still stumped by the history of this Royal.

What I had seen under the ribbon cover and had changed my mind about this typewriter was its slugs.My first thought when I had spotted them was that this typewriter was a radio mill. However, now that I've seen the type on paper, I'm not so sure. The typeface is massive, and the character set extremely limited, so it has me wondering what other uses this machine might have had. Was the character set custom made for military use? Given its 1945 production date it certainly could be a possibility. Maybe it was used for typing out telegraph messages? Probably not; surely you would at least need a question mark at your disposal for such a use and this machine doesn't have one.

It looks like this Royal's purpose-built use will remain a mystery. However, I am hoping that someone will stumble across this post who will have a definitive answer concerning its history. In the meantime I still have a LOT of cleaning to do.


This photo was taken after the MM was first cleaned. It's obviously had a rough life, but a little love will turn this wallflower into something far more attractive. Note the screw that has been placed in the ribbon colour selector opening to prevent the lever from being switched to red type. The slugs in this machine are so big that they use up the entire ribbon surface.



See the shift keys? Yeah, neither did I. The keys were covered in thick grime when I bought the machine; had I seen them in this state it would have immediately been obvious why there weren't any shift keys on this Royal.



Ever seen a set of slugs like these? They're quite an imposing sight when you first flip open the ribbon cover.



Obviously this machine is in desperate need of a full tear down. She might be as ugly as a bag of stones, but she works great. Go figure.


This comparison will give you some idea as to the size of this typeface. The smaller type on the bottom is from the other Royal I bought. It's 10-pitch and yet completely dwarfed by the MM's massive typeface. The blotchy/uneven type can be attributed to the new, yet terribly old ribbon on the NOS Royal spools that I installed. 


The pronoun has always been capitalized in the English language for more than 700 years.
 

12-3-2014 12:06:22  #2


Re: 1945 Royal MM

Fascinating. I love the slugs. 

 

12-3-2014 12:54:18  #3


Re: 1945 Royal MM

JanetLand wrote:

Fascinating. I love the slugs. 

I quite like escargot too! ;-)

I agree, and it really was the only reason to buy this machine.
 


The pronoun has always been capitalized in the English language for more than 700 years.
     Thread Starter
 

12-3-2014 19:45:43  #4


Re: 1945 Royal MM

I have been keeping my eye out for standards, too. They're fantastic writing machines and easily trump anything in my portable arsenal. (The Olivetti Studio 44 I picked up a couple of weeks ago comes close.) But standards are not easy to come by locally, cost a mint to ship, and are mighty hard to store.

Last edited by RWWGreene (13-3-2014 09:07:07)

 

17-5-2014 13:47:43  #5


Re: 1945 Royal MM

Hi Uwe,

Cool find! 

*I hope I'm not hijacking here, feel free to move this if you feel that's more appropriate*

I'm interested in the Lexikon you mentioned at the beginning - how is it? Is yours a really early one with the glass keys still? I'm looking for a full-size standard to have a faster/more permanent machine, and I'm kind of torn between the Olivetti and a Royal KMM or similar standard. I love the Olivettis, but I find even the Studio 44 jams up a bit at speed (it's that pesky parallel typebar problem, for example 'i' and 'm'... 'time' becomes 'tiie'). I type close to 100 wpm and it drives me CRAZY. Does the Lexikon suffer from this problem? How does it compare to the Royals?

Thanks again for sharing this cool machine, and for your input!


 


Thunder-clacker.
 

18-5-2014 10:11:06  #6


Re: 1945 Royal MM

"Thunder-clacker." Love it!

I should qualify my comments by mentioning that I don't type anywhere near your speed. I probably average half your rate, consequently key jamming is something that I've only really encountered on portables, and even then, on older machines that perhaps weren't in the best state of tune.

To be honest I don't know how the Lexikon would fare when pushing speeds of over 100 wpm, but I can offer my impressions of how the typewriter feels when compared to the other standards I own. I bought the Lexikon purley because of its design and to complement my Studio and Lettera models. It types well enough, but its action feels more utilitarian than precise, which in a way is in direct contrast with the elegance of its design.

Moving to the Royal standards, especially the post-war era models like the KMG, HH, and FP, they feel more like serious typing tools - machines that were built to crank out ream after ream of copy. I can definitely type more comfortably on those models than I can on the Lexikon. 

Of course such comments are fairly subjective, and there are other factors that can skew an impression, like the condition of the typewriter or even the physicality of the person using them, which is why I am constantly comparing the machines that I own against each other. One indicator that I'm on the right track is that there is a remarkable consistancy between the action of those Royal machines, just as I find a similarity between the feel of say my Studio 44 and the Lexikon.

To sum up my impressions of the machines you asked about, I would buy the Lexikon for display and to use for casual typing, but I would opt for a Royal instead if my objective was to do a lot of typing on a daily basis. Trumping all of this, if I could only own one standard, it would be the Olympia SG1.   


The pronoun has always been capitalized in the English language for more than 700 years.
     Thread Starter
 

08-6-2014 07:39:39  #7


Re: 1945 Royal MM

Have you found out any more about the Royal MM, or done more clean up on it - love to see pics when you can.  I'm facsinated by novel, specialty machines! Good luck

 

08-6-2014 16:37:42  #8


Re: 1945 Royal MM

I haven't really spent any more time with the MM, but the more I've thought about it, the more I'm convinced it was made to transcribe messages - either by morse code or voice - onto paper. Every other example of a shift-less keyboard that I've come across were typewriters that were used in that capacity, such as these, which look like they might be Remington Portables:
 


The pronoun has always been capitalized in the English language for more than 700 years.
     Thread Starter
 

25-6-2014 12:58:05  #9


Re: 1945 Royal MM

Just to expand the topic a little,   I have two Royal Standards, one from 1919 and the other a 1948 KMG--I think.  The 1919 Royal types better, tighter action, no skips.  The 1948 feels looser in the action of the keys, and often skips a space after the "a".  Though another guy uses his 1948 Royal as his favorite long distance typer--his favorite--I couldn't say that of mine.  Is there something out of adjustment on mine or just worn?  How could I adjust it?  

 

26-6-2014 10:14:53  #10


Re: 1945 Royal MM

The "skips" as you call them are often a result of a malfunctioning escapement. A proper cleaning and oiling usually cures the issue. Adjustments might also be required, but I like to start with the more likely suspects when trying to solve such problems.


The pronoun has always been capitalized in the English language for more than 700 years.
     Thread Starter
 

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum