Typewriter Talk / WTB: 15” Front Scale for Underwood Touchmaster

**Posted by Beachycove** 01-2-2022 18:57:32

I have what I will call a 1958 Touchmaster One (I believe this to be the right name) with a 15” carriage. Just love it.

I have brought this machine back from the grave in the past little while, but have a continuing problem. Unfortunately, much of the paint has worn off the front scale, and alas, artistic ability was not one of God’s gifts to me. The colour matching would be beyond me, plus, there is a lot of detail on the scale with the numbering, etc. The machine has an elite typeface and thus the scale numbers run to ~170 (-ish — hard to tell!), while the centre at the screw is at ~85.

At present the scale is more or less unusable. I would like to be able to use it, plus, I would like the machine to be cosmetically correct.

Does anyone have a parts machine from which a scale in good condition could be salvaged?

The machine in question goes under a number of names (Underwood Golden Touch, and even SX on the Typewriter Database), but in fact it is a Touchmaster One (c.1958), the briefly manufactured successor to the also briefly manufactured SX150. ( I suspect that my Touchmaster could take an SX150 scale as well, but the colours might be off so I would prefer the proper scale if possible…. )

First post here, but here’s hoping!

For the sake of clarity, and because there is so much confusion about late Underwood standard machine nomenclature, a generic image of the machine is attached via url (since I can’t see a way to upload a photo of my own machine). Remember, unlike this image, mine has the 15” carriage. The image, however, is the right colour.

https://www.typewriterdatabase.com/img/gunderwood%20_5154_1442048137.jpg

**Posted by Uwe** 02-2-2022 12:24:39

Unfortunately, I can't help with the part, which I hope you find: it's nice to see someone giving a standard typewriter the love it deserves.

Underwood nomenclature is a frustrating subject. The confusion you alluded to is in part because it's commonplace (including in the Database) for people to create their own model names.

I agree that simply calling your typewriter a Golden-Touch would be inaccurate because Golden-Touch was a feature that many Underwood models shared, and was not a model name. If I owned an example of the typewriter you have, I'd record it as being a "Touch-Master". Underwood was specific about the use of a hyphen in the name. And I'd omit the "One"; it may have been the first Touch-Master, but I don't recall having ever seen it labelled or referred to by Underwood as "One".

Then again, Underwood was inconsistent. I have three of the early '60s Touch-Master models, which are labeled "Touch-Master 5" on the back, and simply "Underwood Five" on the front. Go figure. I've never taken a deep dive into this subject, but from what I can tell this model wasn't the fifth iteration of the Touch-Master line.

**Posted by Beachycove** 02-2-2022 17:53:05

On naming, I am going by the OMEF Typewriter Age Guide 1977, which I, II, and V on pp. 99-100, and years of production from 1957 right into 1960, surprisingly. The guide is available (to members) on typewriterdatabase.com, and has the clearest treatment of Underwood model names, numbers and years of production for this era that I have been able to find.

**Posted by Beachycove** 02-2-2022 21:24:31

Beachycove wrote:
On naming, I am going by the OMEF Typewriter Age Guide 1977, which I, II, and V on pp. 99-100, and years of production from 1957 right into 1960, surprisingly. The guide is available (to members) on typewriterdatabase.com, and has the clearest treatment of Underwood model names, numbers and years of production for this era that I have been able to find.

Serves me right to peck that out on an iPad. I must have swiped, which is what got one to my words. That should have read, “which talks about the Touchmaster I, II, etc.”

**Posted by Beachycove** 02-2-2022 21:25:23

Dammit, “DONE to my words”!

**Posted by Uwe** 03-2-2022 12:51:58

I try to rely on the manufacturers speaking for themselves, which means I glean model names from their advertising, manuals, brochures, internal communications, parts and service books, and of course what is actually found written on their typewriters.

The OMEF book uses Roman numerals for the model numbers (which I've seen elsewhere too), and yet one other contemporary age reference book that I know of does not (it's listed as a "Touch Master Five"). So who is correct between those third party sources?

At the very least we're debating the same name being written differently, and in this scenario everyone understands which model is being discussed. What is irksome - to me - are the made-up names that appear in the Database that are in turn spread by those who consider its listings as being gospel.

**Posted by thetypewriterman** 03-2-2022 13:19:47

There may have been different iterations of the 'Touchmaster' number for different markets, but it was always my theory that 'Touchmaster V' was used to differentiate the model from the original 'Underwood 5' - especially since the 'Touchmaster V' uses a completley different ribbon spool.

**Posted by Uwe** 03-2-2022 14:11:59

I really like that theory - it makes sense; however, (I'm speculating that) the original Underwood 5 was sold in far greater numbers in North America than elsewhere (they were manufactured here in Toronto too) and Underwood didn't seem concerned about avoiding any confusion. The photo in my previous post and the one below shows Underwood was happy to use both the written and numeral five - on the same machine. No mention of it being a Touch-Master on the front at all! I can see how that might have led to some confusing phone calls during the early '60s: "Hi, would have a replacement space bar for an Underwood 5 in stock?"

**Posted by thetypewriterman** 03-2-2022 17:34:26

Probably going off on a bit of a tangent - the original Underwood 5 was sold in vast numbers in the UK and is probably one of the most common 'vintage finds' now. The Touchmaster was never popular in the UK, and - my theory again - it was the appearance of its' outrigger carriage that put people off. Compared with more 'modern' machines like the Olympia SG3 and Adler Universal it would have looked decidedly odd. Never mind that it was a technically sound idea, appearance seems to be everything with the general public !

**Posted by Uwe** 04-2-2022 13:45:51

Five out of five plastic surgeons would agree with you!