The high-water mark for typewriter design, in my very subjective opinion, was sometime in the mid-'60s. The machines leading up to that point in time were for the most part were visually seductive and functionally practical. 

Toward the end of the manual era plastic replaced metal body work and chromed trim, smooth and sexy curves became angular protrusions, and the mechanisms themselves took on a built-to-a-price feel. 

I recently picked up a Smith-Corona Corsair Pride Line and was quite disappointed with it. I have no idea when it was built (the Database doesn't list its serial number), but it has to be from the late '60s or early '70s. I found it to be very disappointing in every aspect and has to be the worst Smith-Corona I own by a long shot.

So to pick the ugliest typewriter, I would probably look to the swan song years of the manual machines for a champion.

A perfect example of what I'm talking about is the Hermes 3000. The original model, which I think was introduced in 1958, is an intriguing typer with a distinctive case and wonderful lines. Its design was updated in 1966 (I think) with a case that looks to have been beaten with an ugly stick for hours on end.

I appreciate these designs are reflections of their time, so maybe the late '60s was just a bad period for industrial design overall, but this Hermes is not one that will ever end up on my shelf:



The Schreibmaschinen website has a nice page that shows the evolution of the Hermes 3000. 

Hi. This topic raises the issue of typewriter aesthetics in general. If we make selections for the most ''ugly", which typers make the list for most "beautiful"?  I take Uwe's comment "I appreciate these designs are reflections of their time" to heart. I love the lines of the original Hermes 3000, but I also love the squared 'boxy' look of the 70s model -- it is a product of it's time. Industrial design is tricky as it has to incorporate functionality. Which typers perform best from a functional aspect? We hear a lot about 'intuitive' use of websites and software. Which typers are easiest to use intuitively? Does user intuition change over time? ie. would a typist in the 20s have a different intuitive response to a machine than we do today? 

Last edited by Valiant (17-3-2013 21:26:17)

Yes, I think we have to rule out 'boxy' as part of any ugliness quotient. Consider the Olivetti line, which play on the lines of a modified box, for great aesthetic effect.

I simply can't stand the more "modern" types...they look like ugly plastic behemoths...