Kellogg Red Bar

[Ed Morris]

I lucked upon a Kellogg Red Bar for $12.50 on eBay.  I'm not sure why there wasn't any interest in it as it looked to be in pretty good condition aside from the dirt.  The photo below shows the as found condition.  I did find a couple minor issues once it arrived. In the following post are images of the phone disassembled and cleaned up.

[Ed Morris]

This example is a 1000 BA K.  It looked pretty clean inside, but the block was loose, held only by one screw on the left side.  The center post was broken, probably during shipping, and the right side screw was missing.  I glued the center stud back in place and replaced the missing screws. 

The dial would not return without help.  I was unable to loosen the screw holding the fingerwheel to the dial, and I was afraid of breaking the dial if I applied too much force, so I squirted contact cleaner inside the dial from the holes on the back of dial.  I then oiled the pivot points on the back of the dial.  That freed the dial up.  It will dial out correctly, although it is clearly slower than spec.  At some point, I need to get the dial apart for a better cleaning and lubrication.

After washing the handset cord and body parts with Simple Green, I cleaned buffed the handset and shell with Novus 2.  That restored a nice shine.  I made a new dial card and cut a new dial cover from clear acetate.

[unbeldi]

Thanks for the detailed pics.    Could you show a detail shot of the rear of the receiver element as well ?

The center post do tend to break off, sometime this can be caused by overly tightening that mounting screw, or by excessive distortion of the base plate. It was probably already broken before shipping, I would guess. I have received sets this way too.   This seems to be a problem of the somewhat over-engineered nature of these sets with that connection block.  They sure are convenient and make the finished product look nice and clean, but using just wires as in WECo's telephones, is more robust and cheaper.

Do you have a high-resolution image of the interior of the wiring/connection block ?  In the largest open area, you might find some manufacturing codes stamped in white or silver ink.  Did you find any ?   Sometimes these are stamped on the top side, but I don't see it there on yours.
Here is an example:

[Nick in Manitou]

Nice job!

[Doug Rose]

Beautiful Ed...love the red bars, such a cool design....you done good!....Doug

[unbeldi]

Your set was originally a manual telephone, i.e. without a dial, when it came from the factory.   This is indicated by the lack of "D" leading the type code  1000 BA K.   1000 is the type, BA is for high-impedance straight-line ringer, and K indicates that the cord is from the Koiled Kord's company, a company controlled (?) by Kellogg.

The dial was installed after ca 1951.

[Ed Morris]

Thanks for the comments, guys, and also the information about this model.  Here are images of the transmitter, receiver, and wiring.  I didn't notice any stamps inside the block, but I could have overlooked them.  Looks like there might be a smudge of a red stamp just to the right of the broken center post.  Also I forgot to mention that the audio level was very low when I tested the phone.  If the receiver isn't bad, the capacitor in the audio circuit may be dried out.

[unbeldi]

Thanks much for the extra pics.
That receiver element is interesting, because it is not often seen.  At least not on civilian telephone sets.
It is a type 83-B which was issued as a replacement for the TS-9-K handset for the US Army Signal Corp.

I don't know whether that has a connection with the low volume you encountered.  The resistance should be the same, but perhaps it has different impedance characteristics. I am not aware that the TS-9-K handset was used for special sets of high impedance for long lines.  I would try to find the standard 89-A element and see whether that make a difference.  Kellogg handsets are fairly easy to find for replacement parts.

The transmitter, oth, is the standard type.

Yes, I can see the smudge of ink.  Too bad, it likely was a code.

[mentalstampede]

Nice score. I was watching this one, but I forgot to bid on it. I'm glad a member got it.

[Ed Morris]

Unbeldi, thanks again for the information.  Your knowledge is impressive.  I will look for the correct receiver and see if that makes a difference.

Kenn, thanks--I'm not usually so lucky.

[unbeldi]

Unbeldi, thanks again for the information.  Your knowledge is impressive.  I will look for the correct receiver and see if that makes a difference.

Kenn, thanks--I'm not usually so lucky.

For reference here is a picture of the standard parts from another thread on this forum:



Receiver:  89-A

[Alex G. Bell]

I've had the experience with a Kellogg handset that tightening the receiver cap fully caused the receiver to cut out due to an intermittent (broken) connection in the conductors embedded in the handset handle. 

The problem was not the receiver unit, the contacts on the back nor the contacts in the receiver cavity.  At the time this happened others reported having seen this too.  I finally had to settle for instructing the owner whose phone I was repairing to leave the cap tight but not fully tightened as much as possible.

Might be worthwhile to try this in this case even though the receiver seems weak but is not cutting out completely.

[Ed Morris]

Unbeldi--I checked the resistance on the receiver element.  It measured 49.4 ohms.  I noticed a "48" stamped on the 83-B receiver.  I wonder if that is the the spec resistance or is that the year of manufacture?  If it is the resistance, then the 83-B should be ok.

The standard 89-A in the photo you posted shows a rated resistance of 42 ohms.  I don't know if the difference between 42 ohms and 49 ohms would be enough to affect the audio level?

AGB--I will check to see if the tightness of the receiver cup has any effect.

[unbeldi]

Unbeldi--I checked the resistance on the receiver element.  It measured 49.4 ohms.  I noticed a "48" stamped on the 83-B receiver.  I wonder if that is the the spec resistance or is that the year of manufacture?  If it is the resistance, then the 83-B should be ok.

The standard 89-A in the photo you posted shows a rated resistance of 42 ohms.  I don't know if the difference between 42 ohms and 49 ohms would be enough to affect the audio level?

AGB--I will check to see if the tightness of the receiver cup has any effect.

That is an interesting point.  I have wondered about the difference between the stated 42 Ω resistance to 48 Ω myself.  48 Ω is 'advertised' rating of the 89-A in the catalogs, I believe.   A deviation of 1 or 2 ohms would be insignificant for performance, and within manufacturing tolerance (1 Ω is 2%).  I may have measured several of these before, but I have to see if I kept the data records.  I have records of phones that state 48 Ω for the resistance of the 89-A, but I don't have pictures that would show whether I read it off the markings, or whether I measured it.  I have other 89-A examples, where I recorded 42 ohms, and the picture shows 42 as on the picture I posted.

[unbeldi]

Here is another 89-A that is clearly marked 48 Ω.