Western Electric OST - pre #122

[wds]

I picked up a #110 receiver this week from a parts phone.  Also came with a nice rattlesnake cord.  This is my first #110, and it has me a little confused compared to the #112 or #122.  The #110 uses a cap that is the same size and thread as a #122.  (although a different profile)  The #112 uses a cap that is the same size and thread as the western electric long pole. 

Assuming that the numbering of the receivers is chronological based on production dates, why would the #110 us the smaller size cap and thread that was common to all the later #122, #143 &#144 receivers, and then go to the #112 which uses the same cap as the "out of production" long pole?

Also, can anyone confirm that the model numbers of the two receivers are even correct?

[unbeldi]

I picked up a #110 receiver this week - it was part of a parts phone that no one had bid on as I'm sure no one recognized the receiver.  Also came with a nice rattlesnake cord.  This is my first #110, and it has me a little confused compared to the #112 or #122.  The #110 uses a cap that is the same size and thread as a #122.  (although a different profile)  The #112 uses a cap that is the same size and thread as the western electric long pole. 

Assuming that the numbering of the receivers is chronological based on production dates, why would the #110 us the smaller size cap and thread that was common to all the later #122, #143 &#144 receivers, and then go to the #112 which uses the same cap as the "out of production" long pole?

Also, can any confirm that the model numbers of the two receivers are even correct?

Have you measured the D.C. resistances of each ?   I think that may be the deciding factor.

[wds]

I meant to do that before I made the post, and got sidetracked a couple different directions and forgot.  I'm having trouble getting a steady reading, which I'm sure is because the terminals are dirty, but it seems to be about 60 ohms.  The #110 is supposed to be 120 ohms according to Ron's chart. 

I've never been able to positively identify the #110 and #112 so it makes this a little difficult.

[unbeldi]

I meant to do that before I made the post, and got sidetracked a couple different directions and forgot.  I'm having trouble getting a steady reading, which I'm sure is because the terminals are dirty, but it seems to be about 70 ohms.  The #110 is supposed to be 120 ohms according to Ron's chart. 

I've never been able to positively identify the #110 and #112 so it makes this a little difficult.

Oxidation on the surface can yield unsteady readings of course, but it should be in the ball park.  From your measurement I would say it is not a 110.

[wds]

Do you have a #110?  If so, can you share pictures?

[unbeldi]

Do you have a #110?  If so, can you share pictures?

Not that I know.

How did you arrive at the #110 suspicion?
You pointed out that thread size also does not follow the pattern.

[wds]

I base the #110 designation from conversations with other collectors.  it's not a #122 as it does not have the center screw in the top cap.  Also the shape of the top cap is different than the #112 or the #122.  And the bottom cap profile is common to the #110.    Unfortunately WE catalogs are not available for that time period so I'm having trouble "proving" the model numbers of the receivers. 

[unbeldi]

Couldn't there be any number of imitations floating around too?  Or perhaps replacement caps and housings that may have slightly different shapes.

[wds]

If by imitation do you mean to ask did other manufacturers at that time period copy what western electric was making and make their own similar products?  Sure - saves a lot of R&D money.  Is this receiver a made in Japan/China knock off?  No - it's authentic.

I was hoping someone here had experience with these older receivers and could help identify or confirm the designations for these receivers.  Instead of a #110 this could be a #111.  It may take a while, but I will identify the model # of these receivers.  Thanks.

[unbeldi]

I didn't mean the "modern" knock-offs; it certainly seems to be a historical piece. I didn't mean to diminish your find.
I only think it can indeed be very difficult to properly identify them.

Given the resistance you measured,  #111 perhaps is the better starting point for the search.  The previous bipolar devices had much higher resistances.   Do you know whether the housing of a 110 could accommodate the magnet/coil of a #112 or 122?

[wds]

No, I've never had a #110(?) or a #112 apart.  And given the rarity of those receivers, I have no plans to dissect one.  I do plan to clean the receiver today - and the terminals - and will take another reading to check the resistance.  I'm convinced that this is a WE receiver.  Here's a picture of another #110 - notice identical profiles, and if you look closely, you can see the side of the cap is imprinted with the standard bell telephone verbage - "property of american ............"

[wds]

Here's a slightly better picture of the top cap.  Notice the serial number, and the letter "z" beside the hook.  Also after cleaning the large bottom cap, it clearly reads "Property of the American Bell Telephone Co" across the side.

Also, I'm getting consistant readings of 59 Ohms which maybe makes this a #111.  Although I've never seen a documented #111 receiver.

[wds]

So, I grabbed another # 110 / #111 off of Ebay this week.  Similar to the other one, but a different bottom cap, and is 1/4" taller than my other ost's. (measured with the bottom caps off)  This one comes in at 67.6 ohms and the bottom cap is marked.