AE 35

[wds]

thanks for all the input.  Unbeldi seems determined to bust my bubble!  I'll know in a couple days what it is, and in any event, no matter what the configuration it's worth considerably more than the $39 it sold for.  I've had several of the AE35's and look forward to this new project!

[WEBellSystemChristian]

It is very possible that it has a 35 housing with a 50 base.

Remember Terry's Mahogany/Walnut Type 50? It looks like the original Mahogany base was broken, and was replaced with a Walnut version. That could very well be what happened to this. Another possibility is a smashed housing on an original 50, and it was replaced with a 35 housing.

Worst comes to worst, and you end up with a complete type 50, you still have a very early type 50 without vents. Has anyone seen one like that in the wild before?

[unbeldi]

thanks for all the input.  Unbeldi seems determined to bust my bubble!  I'll know in a couple days what it is, and in any event, no matter what the configuration it's worth considerably more than the $39 it sold for.  I've had several of the AE35's and look forward to this new project!

Not trying to bust anything, and not personal,... just applying rational thought to anything I would do or would acquire.
A 35-type housing is quite alright as a find, not degrading that one bit.
I saw someone selling a Type 50 housing recently on eBay, perhaps that would complete this set 'properly', however, I am not so sure that I would even try to change the configuration, unless it can be shown that this was done by a previous hobbyist type, in which case the authenticity of the find is destroyed anyhow.

I seem to recall observing that it is not uncommon to find a 35-housing on type 50 telephones and I think there are topics on the forum about that too.

The QA code LR1 on the base matches a Type 40 desk set that I recorded, which was an early 4020 set, also without dial, with the 1939 patent stamp, and which also had the "S" prefix.  Therefore, I inferred that this was also an early Type 50 set.  Inspection of the components might prove or disprove that.

[poplar1]

When the 35 was redesigned as the 50, the ringer gongs were moved from the bottom of the phone. With the ringer inverted, the gongs were now closer to the top of the phone. The "conventional wisdom" is that the housing now needed additional "vents" on the sides so that the ringer could be heard from anywhere in the house (since few people had extensions). The new 50-type housing was backward compatible so that it could be used as a replacement part on AE 35s.

Whether some early 50s were issued with 35 housings is debatable. More than likely, the mismatch happened in a refurb shop or by a phone tech that used what he had on the truck rather than return to the "pantry" to get the correct part.

[wds]

Finally got a chance to open up the phone a take a couple pictures.  50 base, 35 shell.  Other than being pretty dirty, everything looks good.  No flaws on the shell.  The bad part is I had a 35 base, complete, but sold it about a years ago because I didn't think I would every come across a shell to go with it.  Should know better than to sell parts!

[WEBellSystemChristian]

Nice phone! Maybe it doesn't have a matching base, but you still bought a flawless 35 housing!

[Jack Ryan]

Finally got a chance to open up the phone a take a couple pictures.  50 base, 35 shell.  Other than being pretty dirty, everything looks good.  No flaws on the shell.  The bad part is I had a 35 base, complete, but sold it about a years ago because I didn't think I would every come across a shell to go with it.  Should know better than to sell parts!

I can't see a design patent of the AE 35 case.

Jack

[Ktownphoneco]

Jack   ....    Here's a larger and adjusted photo of the label inside Dave's A.E. 35 case which makes the patent numbers easier to read.    I see the following numbers :
1,642,822 / 1,719,932 / 1.615,311 / 1,689,598 / 1,687,695 / 1,738,919 and DES 74,620.    But double check that against what you see on the label.

Jeff

[Jack Ryan]

Jack   ....    Here's a larger and adjusted photo of the label inside Dave's A.E. 35 case which makes the patent numbers easier to read.    I see the following numbers :
1,642,822 / 1,719,932 / 1.615,311 / 1,689,598 / 1,687,695 / 1,738,919 and DES 74,620.    But double check that against what you see on the label.

Jeff

Hi Jeff,

I checked all of those and none is specific to the AE 35. I don't think I have seen a design patent for the E 35.

Regards
Jack

[unbeldi]

The design patent for the Type 35 and 50 housings is this:

USD94158 1934 1934 Obergfell AEL--Design for a Wall Telephone

The date on the patent is December 25, 1934, so perhaps the 35 was available already before this date.




The patents on this stamp:

US1615311 1927 1923 Obergfell AE--Impulse-sending device.pdf (details)
US1642822 1927 1924 Obergfell AE--Calling Device.pdf (details)
US1687695 1928 1926 Pye AE--Anti-Sidetone Substation Circuits.pdf (details)
US1689598 1928 1925 Pye AEL--Telephone Substation Circuits.pdf (details)
US1719992 1929 1925 Obergfell AE--Calling Device.pdf (details)
US1738919 1929 1927 Obergfell AEL--Telephone Desk Set.pdf (details)
USD74620 1928 1927 Obergfell AE--Telephone Set.pdf (details)

[Ktownphoneco]

Jack   ....    And here is the Canadian Patent Information : Herbert OBERGFELL Inventor and assigned to A.E. Labs.

Jeff
 

[wds]

Here are pictures of the stamp in a couple of my other 35's.  Same numbers as this one.    I also had a couple more that did not have the stamp.

[wds]

Here's the base I used to have that could have used this shell.  Both Caps are dated IV 35, but no stamp on the broken shell.

[Jack Ryan]

The design patent for the Type 35 and 50 housings is this:

USD94158 1934 1934 Obergfell AEL--Design for a Wall Telephone

The date on the patent is December 25, 1934, so perhaps the 35 was available already before this date.

Thanks Unbeldi. I guess it was inconvenient for AE when releasing two telephones in the same year!

Some of those patents are hard to find (probably) because the OCR data contains errors. It certainly helps when others are looking as well. It would be easier if AE printed it on the label.

Regards
Jack

[Jack Ryan]

Jack   ....    And here is the Canadian Patent Information : Herbert OBERGFELL Inventor and assigned to A.E. Labs.

Jeff
 

Thanks Jeff.

I presume Canada did not have the equivalent of the US design patent. The Canadian patent is much more verbose that the US (design) patent.

Is there something missing from the second document? The second part ends leaving one expecting more.

Regards
Jack