To be quite honest, I look for everything in a typewriter. Quality is a huge one, if it doesn't type well, then it doesn't stay. Another factor is styling, how attractive does it look? If it looks absolutely stunning, but types OK, then why not? But if it looks meh, and types like it too, then out it goes. Condition usually doesn't have much of a say, unless it has nothing working with it. Uniqueness is an interesting one. I really don't have many machines that are considered "unique" besides maybe my Antares Parva. Which leads me to collectability. I've never heard of an Antares before I saw one going for cheap. They're a good ultra-portable, looks nice too and somewhat uncommon. But not very collectable. So why are Remingtons and Olympias more collectable than Woodstock and Antares? I may be wrong, but I think it may be due to how large the company was before they all died out. Remington was the leader during the first half of the 20th century. Woodstock was not. Therefore, people remember Remington more than Woodstock because more had a Remington rather than a Woodstock. They're not bad machines, just not as well known so therefore not as disirable. But someone correct me if I'm wrong about this. 

I actually find portable to be more interesting, mechanically speaking, because they had to fit all of the office functions and do-dads into a space half of the size. So I guess I agree with you on portable. But one of my favorite typewriters is a Royal KMG standard so go figure .  And age is definitely important. After the mid 60's, typewriters declined in quality and even how they looked. Big, boxy, and worst of all horrible colours... Either bright orange, or office grey. Yuck...

KMG's or KMM's, they're all good. If you do see one, get it. With sturdy insides, Magic Margin, and even glass keys, they're perfect.

I enjoy funky colours (ever seen an early Royal portable? They came in some WEIRD paint jobs for the 30's) but the 70's colors were either too boring or too bright. And the 80's just went to white-grey so that sucks too. Oh well, there are plenty of better machines out there.

Well, I have a few criteria for what I want to buy - which isn't really to do with whether a typewriter 'is collectible'... I think once you get into collecting anything it quickly becomes really personal.

For me, it's looks, typing, and an algorithm that involves make and model, age, space in the flat, and other aspects. Looks are inprtant to me but then beauty is in the eye of the beholder. for instance I love my 1978 SG3 and those other big white Olympias! The lines are so clean, that big sweep is exhilarating, and I even like the red circle logo. But I'm not interested in the big boxy upright old ones from the 30s and earlier, they often look a bit clunky and sad to me. I love the portables from that period though. 

For me it also has to type well, which for me means a certain kind of action I guess, and of course we all have our favourites. And I don't bid on anything if you can see even in the picture that the platen is shot to hell. .

The whole key-touch thing is very tactile and personal. I love my Remington Envoy, and all the Olympias, and the big Adler - very brisk! But I even like my Lettera 22 a lot, even though I can feel a sort of muddiness there. It's a not unpleasant muddiness. But I've just sold the 32. Many of my favourites I have seen rants against at some point or another!

But really, really key is PRICE. For me, 'collectible' does NOT mean 'will pay more'! I collect if they're cheap and then I fix, as much as I can. I've got one or two things I'm going to have to get The Typewriter Man to fix, as and when I get the money together, & if I hadn't got them so damn cheap in the first place it would be killing me!
 

Last edited by KatLondon (05-4-2015 10:05:36)