AE D1 Continental clone? project

[TelePlay]

Given your household equipment, an error of 5% seems totally within possibility. Did you, for example, make sure no air bubbles remained in the screw hole posts to which the base plates would be attached?

Yes, the bases, because they are top heavy, ended up with the screw holes up allowing air to escape and when taking the base out of the water, I tried to shake as much of the water left on the base and in the screw holes back into the bath. Just too many variables with that quick and dirty measurement.

I'm going to get a #10 tin can Monday to drill a small hole in it near the top and solder a short piece of small diameter copper tubing to the opening. This would allow me to measure the volume of water displaced directly rather than difference by weight. That should also take care of the meniscus issue and also the error associated with relying on overflow and water retained by the base upon retrieving it from the water. A displacement can would be a one step process whereby the displaced water would be weighed directly, or measured by volume in a graduated cylinder, or both for accuracy. I think that's going to reduce the margin of error (can easily take 10 measurements quickly). Will post results the middle of next week.

[unbeldi]

You would make a good experimental scientist. :-)

Given your household equipment, an error of 5% seems totally within possibility. Did you, for example, make sure no air bubbles remained in the screw hole posts to which the base plates would be attached?

Yes, the bases, because they are top heavy, ended up with the screw holes up allowing air to escape and when taking the base out of the water, I tried to shake as much of the water left on the base and in the screw holes back into the bath. Just too many variables with that quick and dirty measurement.

I'm going to get a #10 tin can Monday to drill a small hole in it near the top and solder a short piece of small diameter copper tubing to the opening. This would allow me to measure the volume of water displaced directly rather than difference by weight. That should also take care of the meniscus issue and also the error associated with relying on overflow and water retained by the base upon retrieving it from the water. A displacement can would be a one step process whereby the displaced water would be weighed directly, or measured by volume in a graduated cylinder, or both for accuracy. I think that's going to reduce the margin of error (can easily take 10 measurements quickly). Will post results the middle of next week.

[unbeldi]

The inside view among your housing pictures shows that your gold-painted set was originally black, there is still that characteristic pattern of spray visible coming through one of the holes, almost identical to the other housing. So, whoever painted the set, must have blasted or sanded the exterior pretty well.

Would be nice to have another version, the Al body with patent info, next to it also.

I also noticed the '37 base has K-7 stamped into the metal near the II 37. The '35 base has a 5 point raised star and to the right of it A-5 stamped into the metal near the III 37.

I have been looking at pictures of my D1 sets, ... and I also have a III-35 Al body. It is marked F-5, raised in metal, yours was A-5.   I didn't understand the rest of your description at first, you ended the sentence with stamped into the metal near the III 37, but I see that should be III-35.

Since these codes (F-5, A-5,...) are from the mold, they may be mold numbers, but perhaps there is a pattern to these as well?

[unbeldi]

Perusing my pictures, I found at least four different housing versions between 1932 and 1937.

Some have a little diamond-shaped logo inside, I noticed that you posted the same some years ago:  http://www.classicrotaryphones.com/forum/index.php?topic=6803.msg77928#msg77928

I am wondering if these were made by outside suppliers/contractors, and not in-house at WECo. They also have a part number molded into the metal, P-224756.  The 1935 version of the base had part number P-224757 (catalog #9), but it was not molded into the body.

[TelePlay]

The inside view among your housing pictures shows that your gold-painted set was originally black, there is still that characteristic pattern of spray visible coming through one of the holes, almost identical to the other housing. So, whoever painted the set, must have blasted or sanded the exterior pretty well.

The Aluminum base was indeed black when I received it. I bought 3 items, the base with its badly chipped black paint, a gold looking plated cradle which is not WE and an F1 handset, in a eBay parts auction. The gold phone, the one that started this topic must have been black also as you pointed out. You can also see some on the top of the base where the cradle sits on the base. The gold came right off with no indication of a primer so they must have bead blasted it to get the black off. After 3 applications of Citri-Strip, I had to use airplane paint remover on the III 37 to get the last of that black paint off of the base.

I didn't understand the rest of your description at first, you ended the sentence with stamped into the metal near the III 37, but I see that should be III-35.

Yes, a type indeed. I did a proper edit to the original post. It should have read III 35 as you noted.

Since these codes (F-5, A-5,...) are from the mold, they may be mold numbers, but perhaps there is a pattern to these as well?

Yes, most likely something like that. Maybe plant, shift, date, batch, mold or anything else only someone working at casting these or making the molds would know. The date and metal stamps for the '35 and '37 phone are below. In both cases, the metal stamp was upside down to the date marking. I rotated the pictures for ease of viewing.

[TelePlay]

Since I had the digital microscope set up to take the above photos, I also grabbed close ups of the handset before and after, the before being as it looks right after the paint was removed and the after being after using the Bakelite polishing method I described above.

http://www.classicrotaryphones.com/forum/index.php?topic=12237.msg129385#msg129385

http://www.classicrotaryphones.com/forum/index.php?topic=12237.msg129393#msg129393

The lines on the reference ruler are 0.1 cm apart. The side by side photos are identical with the ruler laid on top of the handset on the left. On the after photo, you can still see some pits but without the high magnification, to the naked eye, it looks very nice. I finer buffing compound may make it even better but haven't taken the time to switch wheels yet. The bottom photo shows the approximate location where the two photos were taken.