1 of 1- Fleetwing
- Typewriter Talk Vet
Offline - From: Hartford, CT USA
- Registered: 30-6-2015
- Posts: 1,011
Remington Standard (1960s version)
- Uwe
- Moderator
Offline
- From: Toronto, Canada
- Registered: 12-3-2013
- Posts: 4,410
Re: Remington Standard (1960s version)
Looks like a Remington Model 24 to me. I have one, albeit in a different colour, and it was made in Canada.
The pronoun I has always been capitalized in the English language for more than 700 years.
- Fleetwing
- Typewriter Talk Vet
Offline
- From: Hartford, CT USA
- Registered: 30-6-2015
- Posts: 1,011
Re: Remington Standard (1960s version)
Looks like yours came from the drafting table of Carl Sundberg, along with the Fleetwing and several other Remingtons of the era. Plastic upper cover, I suppose? Also somewhat reminiscent of the Olympia SG3.
How is it as a typer, especially as compared with other contemporaneous standard machines?
- •
Thread Starter- ztyper
- Key Master
Offline
- From: Somewhere in New Jersey
- Registered: 01-10-2014
- Posts: 773
Re: Remington Standard (1960s version)
I had this one awhile back, and if I recall, I thought the action and type was average. I got it along with a Royal 440, and I feel that the 440 was better in feel because it had that classic Royal snappiness to it. But if you can talk the price down, just go for it.
A high schooler with a lot of typewriters. That's pretty much about it.
- Fleetwing
- Typewriter Talk Vet
Offline
- From: Hartford, CT USA
- Registered: 30-6-2015
- Posts: 1,011
Re: Remington Standard (1960s version)
Actually someone locally has a 440 for sale. And there is a KMM for sale also. I am wondering whether I "need" another standard machine, given that I have an SG3 already! Hard to believe any of the others would be better than that.
- •
Thread Starter- ztyper
- Key Master
Offline
- From: Somewhere in New Jersey
- Registered: 01-10-2014
- Posts: 773
Re: Remington Standard (1960s version)
If you have the space, yes, you need another standard. Even if you don't have space, you still need another standard. 
P.S. The Royal KMM is a pretty good typewriter, so why not snag it?
A high schooler with a lot of typewriters. That's pretty much about it.
- Fleetwing
- Typewriter Talk Vet
Offline
- From: Hartford, CT USA
- Registered: 30-6-2015
- Posts: 1,011
Re: Remington Standard (1960s version)
Get thee behind me, Satan! I may just do that. Recently I picked up its little brother, a '47 QDL, and love it. The question is whether something newer, like the 440, makes more sense.
But standard typewriters, as a general rule -- given the real estate they occupy, you're making a significant commitment.
- •
Thread Starter- Uwe
- Moderator
Offline
- From: Toronto, Canada
- Registered: 12-3-2013
- Posts: 4,410
Re: Remington Standard (1960s version)
Fleetwing wrote:
Also somewhat reminiscent of the Olympia SG3.
I don't see the connection between the two. The SG3 is far more robust, and has a metal case whereas the 25 feels like a standard that was built to be competitive on a cost basis.
How is it as a typer, especially as compared with other contemporaneous standard machines?
It actually performs far better than it looks and if it was your only standard I'm sure you would feel satisfied with it. However, when compared to other standards from that era, you would be equally well served by machines such as the Smith-Corona Model 72, Underwood Touch-Master, and Royal Empress - all of which had metal cases. Placed in a head-to-head comparison with an Olympia SG3 there would be no contest; I like the Model 25, but really love the SG3.
The pronoun I has always been capitalized in the English language for more than 700 years.
- Fleetwing
- Typewriter Talk Vet
Offline
- From: Hartford, CT USA
- Registered: 30-6-2015
- Posts: 1,011
Re: Remington Standard (1960s version)
Good info on the comparison with the other machines. My comment that it's reminiscent of the SG3 was more about the styling -- the descending line separating upper shell and lower. And I figured from the elaborate molding of the top cover that it was plastic, not necessarily a positive in my view. (Thus bolstering your point about it having been built with cost competitiveness as a major factor.)
- •
Thread Starter