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



30-7-2021 21:55:43  #1


I want to love my SM9(s)...

because they are clearly superbly made machines, but damn, they are hard to type on. I'll admit it right now, I'm a hack typist, undisciplined as hell, but that isn't likely to change. My fingers do what they do, and I don't have the patience for "training" or (uggh!) "self-discipline". I'm getting the impression the SM9's really perform best under trained, disciplined fingers, kind of like my Royal FP which demands perfection. The SM9 isnt quite that demanding though, thankfully.

But that's not me. Some typewriters (59 Sterling) slow me down because of the shape and/or spacing of the keys, while on others (Royal QDL) my fingers just fly! Not sure whether its the angle of the keys or the fact they are so closely spaced on the SM9, or both, but it really slows me down. If I try to speed up, I get typos. And its frustrating because I really do like them. It performs great if I keep things slow.

Oh well, just a random gripe. Like I said, I'm not trainable so I either get used to it or I don't. If I ever come across a perfectly mint 1950s brown QDL for $20 I will probably marry it.

 

Last edited by overwood (30-7-2021 21:58:40)

 

31-7-2021 07:34:03  #2


Re: I want to love my SM9(s)...

I once had a much used, very smooth typing SM8. I made constant typos with that typewriter. That SM was too fast, too slippery. I do not have those issues with my little used, less smooth typing SM9.

 

05-8-2021 10:35:07  #3


Re: I want to love my SM9(s)...

There is something to be said about using a typewriter the way it was engineered to be used. I can't relate to using the hunt-and-peck style because I was lucky to have been taught touch typing when I was in Grade 7; in other words, I don't know how various models would compare when only the index (or other more dominant) fingers are being used. However, I am surprised about the observation that the FP requiring typing perfection: of the three that I own, all are very easy to use and comparable to other standard models. Maybe there's a issue with your FP that once corrected would allow it to perform better with your typing style?


https://i.imgur.com/OZeuKtA.jpg
 

10-8-2021 18:01:47  #4


Re: I want to love my SM9(s)...

Uwe wrote:

There is something to be said about using a typewriter the way it was engineered to be used. I can't relate to using the hunt-and-peck style because I was lucky to have been taught touch typing when I was in Grade 7; in other words, I don't know how various models would compare when only the index (or other more dominant) fingers are being used. However, I am surprised about the observation that the FP requiring typing perfection: of the three that I own, all are very easy to use and comparable to other standard models. Maybe there's a issue with your FP that once corrected would allow it to perform better with your typing style?

Its very possible there is an undiscovered issue with the FP. Unfortunately for my machines I'm less inclined toward tinkering than some. I just get them hoping they already work, with some cleaning.

However I found that if I type with 2 fingers, straight down, with even pressure, the FP doesn't skip. So it may be operator error. That is not my normal typing style. 

     Thread Starter
 

10-8-2021 18:07:38  #5


Re: I want to love my SM9(s)...

You may have to clean a machine several times. The first time will get some solvents worked in here and there but you may notice some issues, second time can serve better to flush things out, even a third time might be necessary to get a machine working perfectly, or within spec, considering age. After more than 50 years, a lot of springs may have become weaker, even though to us the machines may feel great. 
I've gone through my Noiseless Model 7 portable at least three times and I think I've finally gotten it to the point that it's as good as it can get.

Phil Forrest

 

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum