What Do I have here? I thought it was a 307

[Doug Rose]

I thought it was a 307 until I matched it up to a 307. The second pic is a 307

What do I have here??...Doug

[unbeldi]

Well, looks like the base is from a 307 originally, as indicated by the three-unit 387A condenser can, but it has been converted to central office battery operation by exchanging the induction coil and removing the 266A inductor.

[Doug Rose]

Karl....do you think this was done by WE or in the field. I connect DT and it rings. I am in the process of rebuilding the manual set. If it is not a 307 and not a 302.....what is your guess?....thanks.....Doug

[unbeldi]

There is no designation for a converted set other than calling it what it is, a 302 converted from 307.  Any markings/stamps on the bottom? A WECo shop might have marked it with 302 plus suffix letter.
The ringer seems to belong to the Al base, as it has the A marking. It is just interesting that the A precedes the date, usually it follows it. The date on the ringer is perhaps also just a little late for aluminum bases. I am not sure I have seen a 1949 aluminum base. Perhaps that is a refurbishing date mark.

[Doug Rose]

thanks Karl....no markings on the bottom....Doug

[Doug Rose]

I finished up the quasi 307 and was shocked by the date on the shell 2 19 65 or 3 21 1965. It is a fully functional Manual 302 but was a 307 as it has the 307 parts. Plus it has the holes where parts were removed.

Base is dated 3/48 by the rear screw and not in the front where dates usually are. 3/49 on the ringer, 2-49 on the transmitter and 8 31 49 the receiver.

This seems like there was an awful lot of trouble to convert a 307, but then again WE did not waster anything.

This came out of the lot of Hotel phones Janet found about five years ago. It was covered with awful green specs of paint where they must have painted the rooms. That is why it was in the back of my to do phones. I have many that had a few specs, this guy was covered.

I am bored and working on anything I can find. I am on Disability until 1/25. Why couldn't this have happened in JULY!!...Doug

[unbeldi]

I finished up the quasi 307 and was shocked by the date on the shell 2 19 65 or 3 21 1965. It is a fully functional Manual 302 but was a 307 as it has the 307 parts. Plus it has the holes where parts were removed.

I somehow doubt that the last five-digit group is the date.  It's probably one of those 'serial numbers' that we see often on earlier phones.  Until Fall 1941 they were stamped in big vermillion digits, but starting ca. November 1941 they used this small type with silver-gray ink along the edge. I think they still did that for some time on sets manufactured after the war.

Base is dated 3/48 by the rear screw and not in the front where dates usually are. 3/49 on the ringer, 2-49 on the transmitter and 8 31 49 the receiver.

So indeed, the ringer was also replaced when it was converted, apparently in 1949, and this explains the oddly formatted date stamp on the ringer.  The ringer was not marked at the factory, but in the repair shop where they used the stamp available to indicate that the ringer was adjusted for an aluminum base.

This seems like there was an awful lot of trouble to convert a 307, but then again WE did not waster anything.

This came out of the lot of Hotel phones Janet found about five years ago. It was covered with awful green specs of paint where they must have painted the rooms. That is why it was in the back of my to do phones. I have many that had a few specs, this guy was covered.

I am bored and working on anything I can find. I am on Disability until 1/25. Why couldn't this have happened in JULY!!...Doug

[Dan/Panther]

I'd like to hear more input on this. I'm really curious what you have Doug. Could it be experimental, Prototype, or just a Frankenphone.  ?

Just curious, I have a phone designated 440EC-3, inside it has the vermilion numbers as shown below.
So my guess the phone listed in this thread is dated  2-8-43, and the other numbers are a serial.

D/P

[unbeldi]

I'd like to hear more input on this. I'm really curious what you have Doug. Could it be experimental, Prototype, or just a Frankenphone.  ?

Why suspect anything more than a refurbishment of a 307 base with new components to make a 302? By the care taken with the ringer dating, it appears to be a shop modification with the proper equipment to tune the ringer.
Prototypes would be specially marked anyways.

Just curious, I have a phone designated 440EC-3, inside it has the vermilion numbers as shown below.
So my guess the phone listed in this thread is dated  2-8-43, and the other numbers are a serial.

D/P

I think I have seen the XXXXX stamping before on key sets, perhaps they used the X the avoid stamping a 'serial number', if in fact those number were serials.

[Doug Rose]

The marking on the shell still has me wondering. All thermoplastic 302s have a date on the front of the shell, as this does.  There is no  marking on the back where H7, AB1 or AA1 etc would have been.

As I stated before, a lot of work for just making it into a 302.....Doug

[unbeldi]

The marking on the shell still has me wondering. All thermoplastic 302s have a date on the front of the shell, as this does.  There is no  marking on the back where H7, AB1 or AA1 etc would have been.

As I stated before, a lot of work for just making it into a 302.....Doug

I don't see where there is great extra work, swapping an induction coil only takes seconds. Almost everything is modular. Ringers had to be checked for performance anyways.

[Dan/Panther]

I'd like to hear more input on this. I'm really curious what you have Doug. Could it be experimental, Prototype, or just a Frankenphone.  ?

Why suspect anything more than a refurbishment of a 307 base with new components to make a 302? By the care taken with the ringer dating, it appears to be a shop modification with the proper equipment to tune the ringer.
Prototypes would be specially marked anyways.

I was under the impression that Doug also wanted to know what he had.
I'm not real familiar with prototypes, so I can't really argue the point.
Seems I've read somewhere here about prototypes. I'll do a search to find out more.
D/P

[Doug Rose]

Hey Dan....not much knowledge on this phone. I agree with Karl about it was a 307 and made into a 302. Date still has me shaking my head. A lot of elbow grease went into it and I am very happy with the way it turned out. Manual 302s are just a sharp looking phone!

[Babybearjs]

I have several 307's. I got one once where it had been converted to a 302, but they left all the parts in it. they just disconnected the inductor and stored the wiring. Thank God, because I was able to change the inductor coil back to a 104 from a 101. check to see if anyone has parts for one of these... so you can restore it to a 307. (old phone works only has the 104 coil.... that's where I got mine.)