1955 Date for introduction of Continentals

[poplar1]

Here is confirmation of the 1955 date for Continentals. There is no mention of Imperials:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Addendum C32.111 Issue 2, March, 1955
Hand Telephone Sets
Desk Type
Description

                    1.01....This addendum is issued to add
                    information pertaining to colored desk-type hand telephone sets....



                    1.05   Add paragraph as follows: Colored Finishes:...The 202, 203,
                             206, 207, and 215 types are available in the colored finishes
                             shown below.

                            Apparatus Color                  Color Code
                         
                            Black                                   -3
                            Ivory                                   -4
                            Gray-Green                          -19
                            Pekin Red                            -20

                           Example: A pekin red 202A hand telephone set would be coded 202A-20.

                           Note: Sets other than black finished in the above colors
                                    will be equipped with a white laquered dial case and a
                                    clear plastic finger wheel.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Phonesrfun]

Interesting.  When the Continentals and Imperials came out, some had the F handset with the T1/U1 combinations that were mated with the 685A subset.  Other than the name Continental and Imperial, did they have another numerical designation other than 202 for that combination?  Does the BSP make reference to the upgrade to the 500-based technology?

[paul-f]

Bill,

Are you remembering the GN4676?
  http://www.classicrotaryphones.com/forum/index.php?topic=7103.msg80142#msg80142

[Phonesrfun]

Bill,

Are you remembering the GN4676?
 

No, As you know, that one uses the same induction coil and capacitor combo that the 684 subset.  Also, as you know, the 102 was a handset-type sidetone phone/subset combination; the 202 was the same thing only antisidetone, and the 302 was the same as the 202 circuit-wise, but a combined set in one housing.

My questions was if there was any other model number assigned to a Contintental/Imperial mount that was paired up with a 685 subset.  Using the designation of a 202 to me implied the older subset based on the 101a induction coil rather than one based on the 425 network.  Perhaps I am trying to make this complicated.

By the way, I sure wish I had gotten one of those GN4676's!

[poplar1]

Bill, the handset you describe is the F4-type. Some Continentals have F1s and some have F4s. All the Continentals and Imperials that I have seen so far, including those with F4s, have 4-conductor mounting cords. Therefore they were to be used with 684BA or equivalent subsets with 101A induction coil, and not 685A. The 685A would have required a 5-conductor mounting cord in order to be wired correctly.

So far, I have not found a code that would indicate either a 202 with F4 and 4-conductor mounting cord or any 202 with 5-conductor mounting cord. In fact, the diagrams in the TCI library for wiring a 202 to a 685A, using a 5-conductor mounting cord, were derived from BSP diagrams for a 211.

So with an F4 handset, 4-conductor mounting cord, and 684 subset, it would be equivalent to a 302 with F4 handset (302GX?) and to a 5302G-3G (5302 with G1-type handset and T1/U1 units). One use for a T1/U1 transmitter/receiver with a 302-type circuit is on long loops.

Bottom line: even if a 202 has an F4 handset, it doesn't mean it was originally used with a 685A. A 685A requires a 5-conductor mounting cord and moving the black handset wire from BK on the dial.

[Phonesrfun]

David:

Thank you for that clarification.

It just seemed possible that with the F4 handset, and the availability of a 685A subset, that combination with a 5-conductor mounting cord would have been a natural one for the Bell System to use since the performance would have been close to that of a 500.  Apparently, then, the F4 handsets along with the 684 subset were mostly used on long loops. 

I knew the diagram in TCI of the 685 with the 5 conductor cord was derived, but I guess I was jumping to the conclusion that the combination did exist in the eyes of the Bell System.

[poplar1]

I agree that the combination of a 202 and 685A must have existed. In fact, that is the only combination allowed in part 68 FCC regulations regarding grandfathered equipment. EDIT: SEE REPLY #8 and #9 for BSP REFERENCE.

There seem to be too many Continentals with F4 handsets, and 4-conductor mounting cords, for all of them to be used with a 101A induction coil on long loops. I seem to recall that there was a revision in the BSPs that warns against the pairing of a network type subset (685A) and a T1/U1 combination. If this revision was later than 1956, then that might explain why F4s were thought to be OK with a 4-conductor mounting cord and 684BA. The problem is that on short loops, there is too much sidetone. We had a 5302G with G1 (not GF) handset in the 1960s-early 1970s and I still recall the high sidetone.

[poplar1]

OK, here is one reference found in TCI library:

http://www.telephonecollectors.info/index.php/document-repository/doc_details/2743-502-200-404-i9-subscriber-sets-685a-use-with-hand-telephone-sets-tl

BSP 502-200-409 Issue 9, June 1968:
This shows hand telephone sets (202, 203 and 215 desk type; 201, 211, 212, 213 hangup type) used with 685A. The 202s have 5-conductor mounting cords. There should be another BSP showing the wiring inside the 202, since it is not included here. 

[poplar1]

502-320-414 issue 1, December 1971 in TCI library shows 202s with F4 handsets and 5-conductor mounting cords connected to 685A subsets. They are still coded 202A (manual), 202B (all numerals on number plate), 202C (numerals and letters), and 202D
(numerals + J,M, R and W).

http://www.telephonecollectors.info/index.php/document-repository/doc_details/2780-502-320-414-i1-service-202b-c-d-hand-telephone-sets-tl

[poplar1]

It might be correct to refer to any 202 with a 5-conductor cord by the usual code + "modified." I am basing this on Table D in the above BSP (Section 502-320-414 Issue 1).

                                                       TABLE D
                                          COMBINATION OF APPARATUS

HAND
TEL SET
CORD {code]                           COMPONENTS

MODIFIED                            HANDSET                HANDSET               DIAL OR                        MOUNTING          HANDSET
                                                                        MOUNTING            APPARATUS BLANK           CORD                  CORD

202A-3E                             E1E-3                       D1-3                    50J-3 94A-3                      D5                       H3
202A-3F                             F1A-3 F1G-3             D1-3                    50J-3 94A-3                      D5                        H3
202A-3F                            F4A-3                       D1-3                    50J-3 94A-4 {-3]             D5                        H3

202C-3E                             E1E-3                      D1-3                    4H 5H                              D5                         H3
202C-3F                             F1A-3 F1G-3             D1-3                   5H 6A                               D5                        H3
202C-3F                            F4A-3                       D1-3                   6A                                  D5                          H3   

[Phonesrfun]

David:

Thank you very much for the information.  That was a fair amount of research.  I need to look at the references and digest the information. 

[unbeldi]

Bill, the handset you describe is the F4-type. Some Continentals have F1s and some have F4s. All the Continentals and Imperials that I have seen so far, including those with F4s, have 4-conductor mounting cords. Therefore they were to be used with 684BA or equivalent subsets with 101A induction coil, and not 685A. The 685A would have required a 5-conductor mounting cord in order to be wired correctly.
....
Bottom line: even if a 202 has an F4 handset, it doesn't mean it was originally used with a 685A. A 685A requires a 5-conductor mounting cord and moving the black handset wire from BK on the dial.

I am not disagreeing with most in this thread, only that the "requirement" of a 5-conductor mounting cord when used with a 685A subset appears no where mandated, except perhaps by FCC requirements, which may or may not have been in place in the 1950s. The 685A subset was introduced in the spring of 1955 or perhaps even a few months earlier, so the coincidence with the launch of the Imperials and Continental is striking, and would support that many of these model could possibly been equipped with a 685A.  Has anyone researched just what the FCC rules stated in 1955 and 1956?  The cited BSP didn't appear until 15 years after the 202s were reissued in the mid 50s, so appears rather inappropriate to make statements about Continentals and Imperials.

In fact, using a 425-type network works very well using only a 4-conductor cord with very similar performance to a 101A-based subset. It is even possible to tune the desired amount of sidetone suppression to adjust for loop length. Obviously one doesn't gain all the benefits of the 425 network without the additional lead in the cord and an additional or modified switch in the desk set.  The terminal designations of the 425 network actually appear to suggest a traditional four-conductor connection may have been intended to be possible.

When I have to use a 425 network for lack of a period-correct subset for an older 202-type circuit, I use a 425 network with the authentic 4-conductor cord.  Even sidetone operation with a 3-conductor cord and a candlestick works well.

Frequently one sees requests for 5-conductor cords when someone is restoring an old 202 set, using a 685A, lacking a period-correct subset. I find such replacements utterly ridiculous, when the original 4-conductor cord is historic and authentic. The original wiring should be maintained and the new subset should be adjusted to the old equipment and not the other way around, modifying the authentic equipment to newly contrived requirements.

This perceived 'requirement' appears contrived by the existence of the BSPs showing modified wiring for 211 sets later-on. 211s were still produced new in the 1960s, so naturally would the Bell System want to implement all the advantages of the 425 network and use a 5 or 6-wire mounting cord, but I think this states nothing about what was done in 1955 and 1956 for the Continentals and Imperials.  Obviously any use of a circuit without the full benefits of a 425 network is limited by certain constraints on zoning, but that was well understood at all times.

I probably have some more items to add to this thread.... perhaps later.

[unbeldi]

I agree that the combination of a 202 and 685A must have existed. In fact, that is the only combination allowed in part 68 FCC regulations regarding grandfathered equipment.

There seem to be too many Continentals with F4 handsets, and 4-conductor mounting cords, for all of them to be used with a 101A induction coil on long loops.

This may be a keen observation or induction and I cannot deny or confirm it. All I can say, I see no reason for them not to be used with a 685A network. After all the new elements were designed to be used with the new subset, and the use of a four- or five-conductor cord has little bearing on it.

The gain with the new T1 and U1 elements was achieved only in part by electrical improvements, 50% was by the mechanical design of the handset, and obviously that part is lost with the F4 handset.

I seem to recall that there was a revision in the BSPs that warns against the pairing of a network type subset (685A) and a T1/U1 combination. If this revision was later than 1956, then that might explain why F4s were thought to be OK with a 4-conductor mounting cord and 684BA.

Warns against the designed combination?  Interesting... I would like to examine that publication. This would perhaps apply to certain loop characteristics.

The problem is that on short loops, there is too much sidetone. We had a 5302G with G1 (not GF) handset in the 1960s-early 1970s and I still recall the high sidetone.

Well of course, but this does not establish any kind of rule or practice for the Bell System, perhaps this was a local mis-installation.

[poplar1]

There would not have been any shortage of 684 and 634 subsets in 1955. 302s and 5302s were still being installed until the early 60s; so that circuit was not yet discarded completely. So the reason 202s from the early 1930s thru the Continentals with F1s had 4-conductor cords may be that they were intended to be used with 634- or 684-type subsets, even after 685As were produced.

The F4 and 4-conductor cord does still seem contradictory, however, since this would limit its usefulness, not being suitable on short loops with a 634 or 684.

I have to disagree about using a 4-conductor mounting cord with a 685A. While you may have found a way to make it work, I don't think you'll find any BSP documentation showing same. The 425 network, unlike the 101A, is loaded, so disconnecting the handset does not disconnect the line. For that reason, the switch hook and dial pulsing contacts are isolated from the transmitter/receiver circuit in the 500-type circuit.

Also, there is no need to modify the switch hook in order to use a 202 or 211 with a 685A subset and 5-conductor cord. It is only necessary to move the black handset wire in order to connect it directly to B on the network.

The FCC Part 68 Regulations for grandfathered equipment were I believe much later than 1955 or 1956; i.e., after Carterphone. But I am certainly not suggesting that their pairing of 202s and 685As means much. If anything, it's not logical that the FCC would include only this arrangement, yet allow 302s and even 1317s as is.

In fact, a 1956 BSP cited below indicates that a 202 with F4 handset could be used with a 685A on short loops, but it was not OK to use it with other subsets. This is because of the "uncontrollable gain" if used without a 425B network.

The info cited by G-man in topic 10429 reply #58 does have apparent contradictions between the zone information of 1956 and another quotation from 1965. (I have asked for the actual section numbers.) The 1956 BSP said that 200-type hand telephone sets could be used in Zone 1 and 2 when equipped with F4, F5 or G1 handsets and connected to 685-type subsets. It said not to use 200-types with F4, F5 or G1 handsets connected to other than 685 subsets in Zone 1, Zone 2 or on short on-premise PBX loops. It also said not to use 300, 400, 5300 or 5400 sets equipped with F4, F5 or G1 handsets in Zone 1, zone 2, or on short PBX loops. The 1965 info states that 300, 400, 5300 and 5400 sets can be used *only* on loops up to 10,000 feet. But if said 5300 set with G-type handset produces crosstalk and sidetone problems, substitute another set suitable for Zone 2.

[unbeldi]

I have to disagree about using a 4-conductor mounting cord with a 685A. While you may have found a way to make it work, I don't think you'll find any BSP documentation showing same. The 425 network, unlike the 101A, is loaded, so disconnecting the handset does not disconnect the line. For that reason, the switch hook and dial pulsing contacts are isolated from the transmitter/receiver circuit in the 500-type circuit.

The 425 network as such is not 'loaded'.  It is only so when connected as used in the 500 set, and the set therefor has additional switches.  It can be used much alike a 101A, by not employing the split configuration of the primary winding(s), which is what makes it 'loaded', in your language, in the 500 set.  Of course I would not expect a BSP to specify this, after all they hardly would have anticipated reissuing 202s when they designed the 425, and they probably knew that the re-issuance of 202s in 1955 and 56 was a short term measure to meat demand for colored telephones and use up some parts inventory until they got the color processes finished for the 500 sets. It is clear that in 1955 they did a lot of strange things to meet demand, even issuing the odd two-tone 500 sets, whether this is documented in a BSP or not.

I think I agree with your other comments.  In regards to the contradictions, I would say it is dangerous to average the specifications over a long time span. Requirements changes, supply changes, many factors involved that are hard to reconcile after 50 years looking back. What may look contradictory today, is evolution of design and practices on a year-to-year or so basis. The telephone network overall was not built on the principles of absolute logic, but best practices, convenience, economics, and many other factors, creating compromises at each junction.

The controversy, I guess, is mostly caused by the use of the F4 handset and a four-conductor cord. Surely a shortage of 101A-type subsets at the time appears unlikely, and if they were, surely the system had enough 302 bases that could have been covered and made perfect substitutes and used up that supply as done later in the year with the 5302.  My take on this is that such sets were used for specific zones where they needed some extra gain.