Northern No. 1 Mahogany Brown

[wds]

That's it!  Looks very nice.  Do you use it, or just for display?

[CanadianGuy]

Sorry were you talking to me? If so, this was a customer of mine. They still use it! It's in amazing condition.

[DNO]

I like the Uniphone.  I didn't know that it predated the 302, however.  Interesting.

I've only found one so far.  I picked up this black manual No. 1 a year ago at a Salvation Army store outside of Toronto.  I used Brasso to clean up the bakelite...it worked quite well.  I'd love to come across a mahogany version.

[DNO]

Sorry, forgot to mention that it has all 1948 dates.

[DavePEI]

I like the Uniphone.  I didn't know that it predated the 302, however.  Interesting.

I've only found one so far.  I picked up this black manual No. 1 a year ago at a Salvation Army store outside of Toronto.  I used Brasso to clean up the bakelite...it worked quite well.  I'd love to come across a mahogany version.

I think a lot of us like the Uniphone. It is unique style, very 40'ish in design, and it is built like a brick sh$t house. You can drop it and chances are you won't even break its case. I have always had a fascination in them, and its many variations.

Yes, it preceded the 302 by several years, and I often wonder who had the idea first of a completely unitized phone, WE, or NE. I guess one can answer that by saying the Europeans. However, what is interesting are the design similarities, re: network, capacitor, ringer between the two models.

The number 2 version, the wall phone is even more interesting with its truly unique shape. I often wondered who designed the case, and that I never did know. Then there are the gutless stand versions, the number 5 and 6!

The first catalogue reference to the Uniphone I have seen is in the NE T6 First Edition Catalogue (1936)....

[unbeldi]

Yes, it preceded the 302 by several years, and I often wonder who had the idea first of a completely unitized phone, WE, or NE. I guess one can answer that by saying the Europeans. However, what is interesting are the design similarities, re: network, capacitor, ringer between the two models.

Europe it was; as for the US it was probably AE.
In Bell territory, the answer probably lies in the fact that prototypes have been found dated 1932 by WECo in both desk (D-95467) and wall-mount (D-95137) varieties of the (to be) 300-series. The 101 induction coil was ready and documented by summer 1931, and the A1A ringer already looked like the later B-type.  The missing piece was the handset until 1936. F-transmitter came in 1934, H-receiver in 1936 (previously D-96337).

[unbeldi]

Dave ....    Is this the set you were talking about ?   This set graced the pages of eBay in 2010.   I call it the "Butterscotch Uniphone".     The loss of rigidity in the case is visible in the picture showing the set's interior.    The color corruption in the more or less ivory color is also very visible, of course I'm assuming the intended color was ivory.    I'm assuming it was made from something other than true bakelite.      One of the inherent characteristics of bakelite is the fact that once injected into a mold, sets and cools, it holds the shape of that mold.    The handset in the pictures, is also somewhat transparent, enough so, that the 2 receiver conductors are visible through the handle of the "N" series handset.      For whatever significance it might have, the date on the ringer is 1943.  I'm thinking the material may be Catalin, since it's a  phenol formaldehyde resin as well, but unlike bakelite, it doesn't contain any of fillers used in bakelite.     But that's only a guess on my part.      The presence of a Siemen's dial is a little odd on this set.    Dave may be aware of any independents on the east coast that used Siemens dials, but the only one I'm aware of, is the Manitoba Telephone System, or "MTS" for short.   

Enjoy the rest of the day.

Jeff Lamb

Several plastics come to mind that this 'ivory' set could be made of.
> urea formaldehyde resin,  which is similar in principle to Bakelite, but uses urea instead of phenol. It was used by the GPO for some colored telephones. Plaskon was a variety of that, often used for white/ivory radios, for example, in the US.
> cellulose acetate (Tenite, CAB)
> Catalin, perhaps less likely as this was used primarily for simple shaped small pieces (decorative items, custom jewelry), but was indeed often translucent as it didn't use opaque fillers.

BTW, Bakelite and similar resins are not injection molded, but pressure molded.

[Ktownphoneco]

Karl   .....     Yes your absolutely right.    The "odd ball" Uniphone could have been made from several other materials.     But my suggestion was based on several things.   (1)   Northern were already working with phenol formaldehyde resin with the manufacture of bakelite, so it isn't a major stretch to conclude that they already had the material on hand, were using it, knew how to use it, had the required equipment, tools and machinery required.
(2)   The other thought that came to mind, was a conversation I had probably 8 years ago, when I sold an antique telephone to a gentleman in Pompano Beach, FL., who collected (of all things) jukeboxes.      Jukeboxes as it turns out, were made using Catalin.      This fellow was somewhat of an expert as it turns out.     He was from Brooklyn, NY., and his dad distributed jukeboxes throughout many boroughs in NYC.     This fellow enjoyed nothing more than talking about jukeboxes, and because I liked antiques as well, I was more than willing to listen.   We finally got around to the many colors used to make jukeboxes, and in the explanations that followed, he carefully explained that Catalin will change colors dramatically over time, especially when exposed to UV light sources.     In particular, "white" Catalin, and the "odd ball" Uniphone could have been white originally, apparently turns "butterscotch" when exposed to UV light, and over time.
In addition to jukeboxes, Catalin was also used to make radios.

I've attached a short "pdf" from a web site page explaining how Catalin changes colors.    I'm sure there are other web sites dealing with the issue as well.

Unless someone on the forum has this "odd ball", Uniphone, and is willing to submit it to a lab for testing, I guess we'll never know for sure what it's made from.       But my money is still on Catalin.

But you did get my undivided attention with regards to your second post and the "F-1" handset, and the "D-96337" receiver.      Could you be more specific as what handset the D-96337 receiver was used.    A prototype F-1 ?   Do you have any pictures showing the D-96337 installed in an F-1 handset, or any documentation that would suggest that it was used in a Western handset ?

Yes, your right, Northern didn't make the first combined telephone set.      It may well have been A.E., and other European telephone makers.       The Uniphone was "NORTHERN ELECTRIC'S" first combined telephone set.        That was the issue Northern was facing, and what accelerated the testing and production of the Uniphone.      Northern as I mentioned, was supplying independent telephone companies, as well as the Bell Telephone Company of Canada, and it's sales to independents were being undermined by other telephone makers, who already had combined telephones for sale to independents, and Northern was starting to loose business.    So they couldn't get the Uniphone ready for sale fast enough.

Jeff Lamb

[unbeldi]

Catalin should be easy to identify actually if we could get our hands on that phone.  Upon rubbing, enough to cause slight heating, the phenol smell should be apparent.  It also passes the Simichrome test, which results in formation of phenol alcohols or similar compounds which tint a rubbing cloth yellow/brown.

Yes, it has been reported that many of the Catalin pieces of the time discolored and the formation of brown phenol alcohols might be an explanation.

I believe, the drawing number for that handset RX element actually came from a NECo catalog, I took it from my notes and have to see if it was in a BTL article too. I would think that at that time, NECo used the same numbers as WECo. I do seem to recall that I have seen a picture, it was kind of a closed capsule, but in the general shape of the HA1.
What was in the NF handset? Perhaps that's the one.  I don't have any.

[unbeldi]

PS:  the D-number for the receiver element is shown in the 1930s Northern Electric catalogs.  The 1937 version lists it as being used for the NF handset, while the F1 handset (and the NU type) already had the HA1 element.  Also shown in the 1937 catalog is a picture of the element.

While the F1 handset definitely was used during field trials in 1936, it was not available in quantities yet for the general release of the 302s in early 1937.  Several (two?) BLR article point out the readiness of the F1 in mass production quantities by mid-1937.

This was the reason that many early 302s are found with E handsets.

It should be noted that the D-96337 element had the same DC resistance with the HA1 and given the difficulty that BTL apparently had in completing the receiver in time with acceptable performance, I cannot imagine that the NECo element was a different development.

[Ktownphoneco]

Ok.    That's why I asked about the D96337 receiver.    The first Uniphone handset, the "NF" series, had the D96337 receiver.    It had more in common with the E1 handset receiver, than anything else I'd seen at the time.      The thing that peeked my curiosity, was the number printed on the back of the cup "D96337", in a reddish ink.
I've never known Northern to use a "D" prefix on any sort of prototype device, but it was very common with experimental equipment made by Western and / or Bell Labs.      As a result, I''ve had this burning question in the back of my mind ever since I started researching the Uniphone, as to whether or not that "NF" receiver, was a prototype or experimental receiver developed by Western or Bell Labs, but never used, and did they allow Northern to use it in the interim, until the HA1 was approved for general production.     As I think I stated earlier, the "NF" didn't last very long, and was replaced by the "NU" which used both the F1 transmitter, and the new HA1 receiver.
When you mention the F1 and the D96337  in the same sentence, I thought you had the answer to my 8 year old question.    The other issue that adds to that question, is the fact that the receiver cavity or receptacle in the "NF" is the same shape and dimensions as the receiver cavity in the "NU".     Only the contact springs are different.     Take the factory contact springs our of an "NF", and replace them with the contact springs from an "NU", remove a small bakelite alignment knob, and I could insert an HA1 receiver into a "NF" handset, and screw on the receiver cap and it's ready to go.
That being the case, it seems logical or plausible, that the D96337 could have been a prototype receiver for the F-1 while it was under development by Western / Bell Labs.
So that's why I asked where you'd seen it, and if you had pictures.     I was having a "Eureka" moment.
NF & NU comparison pictures attached.

Jeff Lamb

[unbeldi]

I've never known Northern to use a "D" prefix on any sort of prototype device, but it was very common with experimental equipment made by Western and / or Bell Labs.
...

I think you are enhancing the argument for it being the prototype of the HA1. There had to be prototypes.

The apparent lack of D-numbers in Canada probably was because most of the research was carried out in the US labs. The two companies probably worked a lot closer together still in the 30s than later. Bell Labs and WECo were the leaders in electro-acoustic research at the time.  One of the BSTJ articles states, that it was Bell Labs that actually transformed it into a science starting in the 10s.

Western Electric used D(rawing) numbers for development versions as well as for low volume production parts.  For example, the anti-fungus treated transmitter and receiver elements for the military TS-9 handsets also carried D-numbers.

Thanks for the pics!

[DavePEI]

The apparent lack of D-numbers in Canada probably was because most of the research was carried out in the US labs. The two companies probably worked a lot closer together still in the 30s than later.

Don't forget the work done by Bell Northern Research, the Canadian arm of Bell Labs. Both likely were involved.

Dave

[unbeldi]

Jeff, look at the receiver shown in this forum post of a 1936 302 trial set:

http://www.classicrotaryphones.com/forum/index.php?topic=3927.msg51771#msg51771

It is labeled D98399.

Undoubtedly there were more development versions.

So we have ...  D96337  ....  D98399 ... HA1

[Ktownphoneco]

That is very interesting !   I'll send "rdelius" a personal message, and see if he can send me the original pictures he took, and if he still has the set, and imagine he would,  and see if he can take several more pictures of the receiver and transmitter assembly from several different angles.   I agree with your hypothesis.    If there's one, well, maybe that was it, but if there are two, then there are more.  That's just common sense and logic.   
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. 

Jeff Lamb