I've looked very closely, but can't seem to find the finger stop on this mercedes dial.
The finger stop on a Mercedes dial is held on by one screw and it tends to come loose with use. For some reason they are more often missing on UK and French dials.
Actually a finger stop won't fit on that dial because it has the wrong number plate.
Is that phone what it looks like or one that is made up?
Regards
Jack
That is a very interesting looking number plate.
I would like to take a closer look at that.
It sure looks like one of the 100% cellulose-acetate plates by Cox et al. that were used (rarely) by (some?) Western Electric refurbishing shops in 1933 and 1934.
The outer edge of the plate appears to be warped downward, and the cutout for the finger stop is clearly visible.
Compare to my specimen:
Is this phone for sale anywhere?
Quote from: unbeldi on February 09, 2016, 05:25:20 PM
Is this phone for sale anywhere?
Good question. And aside from the number plate, is the phone a "specialprojects" restoration?
Jack
Here is a clearer look. Looks like 50 or 51 with 144 receiver and a brassed-out transmitter mounted upside down.
AE dials were commonly used in the Bell System until perhaps the mid 1920s, and the practices of the time had maintenance instructions for them. But were they actually mounted on WECo desk stands or only on equipment that AT&T took over from acquired companies?
Here is an example from "specialprojects". It has nickle highlights rather than brass and it has a 20B perch.
What is the dial mount normally used on?
Often these are optimistically called "Norfolk Phones". I don't know the details of the dial mount on real Norfolk Phones. Illustration attached but it lacks detail.
Jack
Quote from: unbeldi on February 09, 2016, 10:24:09 PM
AE dials were commonly used in the Bell System until perhaps the mid 1920s, and the practices of the time had maintenance instructions for them. But were they actually mounted on WECo desk stands or only on equipment that AT&T took over from acquired companies?
Both but as I noted in my last I'm unclear of the mount used to fix an AE dial to a 50AL. WE/Bell preferred their own dials and the #1 was, I believe, used as a replacement for the Mercedes in the field. It appears that they were not happy with its performance though as the Norfolk installation used AE dials. The Dallas rationalisation (1921) used #2 dials - perhaps converted from #1 as much as possible.
Jack
Quote from: unbeldi on February 09, 2016, 05:25:20 PM
Is this phone for sale anywhere?
I saw it on Proxibid. It's paired with the buttset behind it.
Quote from: Jack Ryan on February 09, 2016, 10:46:29 PM
Quote from: unbeldi on February 09, 2016, 10:24:09 PM
AE dials were commonly used in the Bell System until perhaps the mid 1920s, and the practices of the time had maintenance instructions for them. But were they actually mounted on WECo desk stands or only on equipment that AT&T took over from acquired companies?
Both but as I noted in my last I'm unclear of the mount used to fix an AE dial to a 50AL. WE/Bell preferred their own dials and the #1 was, I believe, used as a replacement for the Mercedes in the field. It appears that they were not happy with its performance though as the Norfolk installation used AE dials. The Dallas rationalisation (1921) used #2 dials - perhaps converted from #1 as much as possible.
Jack
A dial adapter should not be very hard to conceive. The AT&T practices for the AE dials mention that an adapter was used that was attached to the base with 4-36 nickel plated round-head screws and a hex-nut, using a spring washer under the nut.
No. 2 dials should probably have been pretty well established by 1921.
Couldn't find it on Proxibid anymore.
Quote from: unbeldi on February 10, 2016, 09:24:38 AM
A dial adapter should not be very hard to conceive. The AT&T practices for the AE dials mention that an adapter was used that was attached to the base with 4-36 nickel plated round-head screws and a hex-nut, using a spring washer under the nut.
Unbeldi, I would like to identify *the* adaptor. Clearly there is an adaptor on these telephones but I don't know if it is a WE item or if it is the one used in WE's acquired auto areas or at Norfolk to mount AE dials on WE telephones.
Quote
No. 2 dials should probably have been pretty well established by 1921.
Yes that's true but some 2AG dials have turned up with #1 parts, well, finger stops anyway.
Regards
Jack
Quote from: Jack Ryan on February 10, 2016, 08:04:01 PM
Quote from: unbeldi on February 10, 2016, 09:24:38 AM
A dial adapter should not be very hard to conceive. The AT&T practices for the AE dials mention that an adapter was used that was attached to the base with 4-36 nickel plated round-head screws and a hex-nut, using a spring washer under the nut.
Unbeldi, I would like to identify *the* adaptor. Clearly there is an adaptor on these telephones but I don't know if it is a WE item or if it is the one used in WE's acquired auto areas or at Norfolk to mount AE dials on WE telephones.
Quote
No. 2 dials should probably have been pretty well established by 1921.
Yes that's true but some 2AG dials have turned up with #1 parts, well, finger stops anyway.
Regards
Jack
Well, that's all I could find right now. I'll let you know if I find more info.
Quote from: unbeldi on February 10, 2016, 08:21:37 PM
Well, that's all I could find right now. I'll let you know if I find more info.
Many thanks.
Jack
Quote from: unbeldi on February 09, 2016, 10:11:15 PM
Here is a clearer look. Looks like 50 or 51 with 144 receiver and a brassed-out transmitter mounted upside down.
So is this a "mutt" phone?
Quote from: Brinybay on February 10, 2016, 10:50:25 PM
So is this a "mutt" phone?
I'm not totally sure what "mutt" means.
It looks like a WE candlestick with some issues:
1. it is brassed out
2. OK, the transmitter is upside down but that's not a biggie
3. It has a Mercedes dial with the (seriously) wrong number plate and a missing finger stop (don't know if it is otherwise complete & working)
4. There is a dial mounting adaptor but I don't know if it is correct because I can't find a detailed description or picture of what *is* correct.
Does that make it a "mutt"?
Are there any more pictures?
Jack
Jack, so far this is all that I have been able to find regarding AECo dials used in Bell System instruments. This document was printed in 1922 and references the dial being used by the Bell System in both Automatic Electric and Western Electric instruments. Unfortunately it only shows a small portion of the adapter that was used when the dial was installed in WECo sets.
Thanks G-Man.
I think the adaptor referred to in that document is the same one that used by AE to mount the Mercedes dial on its residence set (the black wooden wall telephone). The adaptor used at Norfolk looks like a 1/2" (or so) standoff. It is difficult to see in the newspaper image I posted earlier but looks similar to the adaptor used on this telephone. I do not know if they are the same.
I have attached an image of the adapter shown in the procedure.
Regards
Jack
Thanks Jack. Your photo presents a more detailed view.
On a separate note, I seem to recall Gary Goff with a wooden Western Electric wallset that had an early AECo dial, apparently factory installed by WECo.
I believe he told us that it was produced when Pacific Telephone took over the Home Telephone Company's Strowger automatic exchanges in Los Angeles.
I've always thought that even with the finger stop missing, there is a limit on how far the dial will turn. Am I wrong on this?
G-Man,
Quote from: G-Man on February 11, 2016, 02:31:53 AM
On a separate note, I seem to recall Gary Goff with a wooden Western Electric wallset that had an early AECo dial, apparently factory installed by WECo.
Presumably a large 10/11 digit AE dial. I don't recall seeing such a thing documented but I see no reason why it should not be.
The merger of the Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company and Home Telephone and Telegraph Company retained the telephones already in place except that the AE telephones were upgraded to automatic ringing and some were apparently downgraded for LB operation. In addition, subscribers (other than PMBX subscribers) could choose automatic or manual service so it is likely additional auto telephones were required. The only additional auto phones I have seen documented were AE but there may have been others.
I would like to see a picture of the "upgraded" WE telephone – is there an image doing the rounds or do I need to contact Gary?
Quote
I believe he told us that it was produced when Pacific Telephone took over the Home Telephone Company's Strowger automatic exchanges in Los Angeles.
Pacific didn't actually take over Home. The city required a merger to produce a single telephone service and the Southern California Telephone Company was organised to acquire the assets of Pacific and Home.
Regards
Jack
Quote from: andre_janew on February 11, 2016, 01:15:42 PM
I've always thought that even with the finger stop missing, there is a limit on how far the dial will turn. Am I wrong on this?
I've never known a dial not to have a stop other than the finger stop although I don't know if that internal stop is always robust.
The finger stop is a bit of additional feedback for the subscriber - tactile and visual. It is to stop the subscriber from suffering psychological meltdown.
If there were no finger stop, the subscriber would always be wondering if the dial was rotated to the proper position before releasing it. He may abandon dialling and start again just to make sure - holding up the exchange equipment while he is at it.
It is related to - did I turn the gas off?...
Jack
Here's an example of a rotary dial without a fingerstop:
(http://telephonelines.net/images/7330.jpg)
And no, that isn't a touch-tone (or touch-pulse) dial! ;D
Quote from: AdamAnt316 on February 11, 2016, 08:13:49 PM
Here's an example of a rotary dial without a fingerstop:
And despite the awards won for the Grillo design, without a finger stop it is not immediately obvious how to operate the dial.
(Even with a finger stop, you would have to know to press the button before attempting to rotate (which way?))
Jack
Quote from: Jack Ryan on February 11, 2016, 08:59:25 PM
And despite the awards won for the Grillo design, without a finger stop it is not immediately obvious how to operate the dial.
(Even with a finger stop, you would have to know to press the button before attempting to rotate (which way?))
Jack
Yep, it's less than intuitive, though there's
some to be found. For example, the hole-button for 1 is in roughly the same position you'd expect to find it on a standard rotary dial (it would've been nice if they'd included a direction arrow on the center sticker, though). It was probably more intuitive in the days before manufacturers started making touch-tone/pulse phones with buttons in a rotary dial-style round pattern; nowadays, I've seen people try to press the 'buttons', and get puzzled when doing so doesn't dial a digit. And even if you know the 'correct' way to operate it, the likelihood of one's finger prematurely slipping out of the hole is far too common...
-Adam
Quote from: AdamAnt316 on February 11, 2016, 09:41:14 PM
For example, the hole-button for 1 is in roughly the same position you'd expect to find it on a standard rotary dial
Of course you would have to say which standard you meant. The position of the '1' varied by almost 90 degrees on the most common of the "standard dial numbering systems" used.
Jack
Quote from: Jack Ryan on February 11, 2016, 10:12:01 PM
Quote from: AdamAnt316 on February 11, 2016, 09:41:14 PM
For example, the hole-button for 1 is in roughly the same position you'd expect to find it on a standard rotary dial
Of course you would have to say which standard you meant. The position of the '1' varied by almost 90 degrees on the most common of the "standard dial numbering systems" used.
Jack
Actually, best I can tell, the position of the first hole on 3" US dials seem to vary fairly little between what WE used (roughly the 1 o' clock position) and what AE/SC/etc. used (maybe closer to 2 o'clock). As for what most Italian phones used, I don't know for sure, but am guessing it was similar. If you're referring to phones in Norway or whatnot whose dials were laid out 0-9 or 9-0, perhaps, but the initial hole on the dial was roughly in the same spot, from what I've seen.
Bringing this back around to the topic at hand, I'd like to see where the 1 position is on the number plate, vs. the first hole on that Mercedes dial. I have a feeling they'd be different, given the location of the fingerwheel notch in the OP's pic, which seems to be closer to the 3 o'clock position........
-Adam
Jack, I found the photos and it turns out that my memory was faulty and it is a Strowger set that was modified by WECo with their own transmission components. Also, Bell improved the by then antiquated Strowger offices by converting them from 3-wire to 2-wire service and as you have already mentioned, provided common-battery and automatic ringing.
Actually the "merger" back then was much the same as now; "Merger of Equals" typically is a mask for a takeover. In this case, as you have already pointed out, Pac Tel was about to have their franchise expire without any prospects of it being renewed and with a hostile City Council and the subsequent referendum preventing discontinuation of dial service, they were left with no other clear cut choice than to absorb their competition.
Due to service complaints regarding the poor condition of the outside plant the acquired from the independent company, the State Railroad Commission, forerunner of the Cal PUC, forced them to create a subsidiary of Pacific Telephone, The Southern California Telephone Company. In turn, the Pacific Company was owned by AT&T.
A further order issued by the Commission dictated that the president of Pacific Telephone move from Northern California and reside in the L.A. Basin until the problems were finally cleared up. In its order, the Commission lamented that if were in their power they would have also forced the president of AT&T to move to Southern California as well.
Interestingly, even though the referendum and Commission ruling prevented Pacific from discontinuing automatic service and to provide it to any subscriber who wanted it, for many years, until the manual offices were cutover, subscribers were almost evenly split almost 50-50 between those subscribing to manual and automatic service. I believe the last manual exchange in the L.A. Basin was cutover in the early 50s.
I believe is was also during this decade that Pacific Telephone also cut-loose their Pacific Northwest subsidiaries located in Washington, Idaho and Oregon.
Thanks
G-Man,
Quote from: G-Man on February 12, 2016, 01:40:12 AM
Jack, I found the photos and it turns out that my memory was faulty and it is a Strowger set that was modified by WECo with their own transmission components.
OK, thanks for that. I guess it is still possible that some WE telephones were converted to auto but I haven't seen a record of it.
Quote
Also, Bell improved the by then antiquated Strowger offices by converting them from 3-wire to 2-wire service and as you have already mentioned, provided common-battery and automatic ringing.
It looks like the contemporary historians I have read (most by Lee W Campbell and DE Wiseman) disagree with others on exactly what changes took place. The technical write-ups say that automatic ringing (already a part of modern Strowger) was added but that because of war shortages, only LB three wire equipment was available and that was used in the conversion from manual to auto.
The first of the "two wire" dials were converted "three wire" dials but the only conversions I have read about were part of the development of the two wire system. Have any two wire Strowger dials survived?
Quote
Actually the "merger" back then was much the same as now; "Merger of Equals" typically is a mask for a takeover. In this case, as you have already pointed out, Pac Tel was about to have their franchise expire without any prospects of it being renewed and with a hostile City Council and the subsequent referendum preventing discontinuation of dial service, they were left with no other clear cut choice than to absorb their competition.
The same fellows also state that both Pacific and Home were taken over by a new identity, the Southern California Telephone Company. However, the circumstances leading up to the "takeover" and the end result were as you stated. Company records would tell an accurate story but I have not attempted to research them. Where does your information come from?
Quote
Interestingly, even though the referendum and Commission ruling prevented Pacific from discontinuing automatic service and to provide it to any subscriber who wanted it, for many years, until the manual offices were cutover, subscribers were almost evenly split almost 50-50 between those subscribing to manual and automatic service. I believe the last manual exchange in the L.A. Basin was cutover in the early 50s.
That is interesting but I don't know what it means; was there reluctance to convert from manual to auto on the part of the operator or were there subscribers who preferred manual exchanges?
It'll be interesting to compare sources.
Regards
Jack
This part if from memory but as I recall, Bruce Toomey, the engineer for Pacific Telephone, in charge of Strowger switching for the entire Southern California area and was later was loaned to Bell Labs to improve Strowger switching, told us that part of Bell's agreement for the Norfolk and subsequent purchases of Strowger equipment, automatic ringing was one of their required specifications. Some of those improvements were already made by the time (circa 1916) Bell standardized on Strowger 700-pbx's, There were a number of other improvements that Bell engineers worked with AECo to refine their product.
Lack of C.B., 2-wire, automatic ringing, party-line signaling, etc., features on early Strowger were some of Bell's objections to its use in Bell exchanges.
The CPUC (Railroad Commission) dictated a separate operation under Pacific's umbrella. For one thing, if Pacific was not directly involved, then the CPUC would not have had the authority to force Pacific's president to move to SoCal nor consider forcing the president of AT&T to do likewise.
It's been a long while ago but I read extensively through old company and CPUC records while I was still at the Pacific Telephone Pioneer Museum in S.F. Admittedly my memory may be a bit hazy on some particulars but the this is the essence of what I recall.
The archives have since been moved to San Antonio under the Auspices of Roger Coughlin who is a great person to deal with. You may be able to persuade him to provide you with further information.
Pacific was not required to immediately cutover their manual exchanges and used p.c.i. to automatically interface them with the automatic equipment. Back in the day, many people actually preferred manual over automatic. The common complaint then was why should they have to perform the telephone company's work.
There were a number of positive aspects to manual working and a well run manual exchange was competitive to automatic workings. Plus, it was cheaper to install and rates were lower which I am sure factored in to some subscriber's decision to stay with operator service.
One of the biggest complaints about telephone service in the L.A. Basin was subscribers being forced to pay for service from two companies in order to call businesses or other subscribers.
Unlike today, people as a whole were certainly much more thrifty than they are now.
Here are some random excerpts from the Railroad Commission proceedings that are relevent to some of my previous comments:
BY THE COMMISSION FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER The Railroad Commission hereby declares that in compliance with conditions 1 2 and 3 of the order of November 4, 1916 in the above entitled proceeding stipulations in form satisfactory to the Railroad Commission have been filed herein by Southern California Telephone Company The Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company and United States Long Distance Telephone and Telegraph Company as follows 1 A stipulation by Southern California Telephone Company stipulating and agreeing for itself its successors and assigns as follows a That during the period of five years subsequent to November 4, 1916 Southern California Telephone Company will not make application to the Railroad Commission or any other public authority for any increase in the telephone rates now in effect in the territory in which the company is to operate except in such minor matters as may be necessary to remove discriminations b That except in exceptional cases to be passed upon until further notice in each instance by the Railroad Commission Southern California Telephone Company will install for each subscriber present and future the type of telephone station whether automatic or manual desired by the subscriber and in its solicitation for business and in all other respects will act with absolute impartiality as between the automatic and the manual telephone stations.
CPUC- Commission Proceedings February 25, 1947
Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company authorized to merge with its wholly-owned subsidiary Southern California Telephone Company, the former to be the surviving company.
Decisions of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California
California Public Utilities Commission - 1948 -
After 1915 competitive conditions in Los Angeles and surrounding cities were resolved by purchase and sale agreements. The Pacific Company on April 15, 1916 formed the Southern California Telephone Company, a wholly-owned subsidiary, hereinafter referred to as The Southern California Telephone Company.
1922-
We have also insisted that the claimed superior engineering and managerial organization of the American Telephone and Telegraph Company in New York to whom the Los Angeles Company pays a certain amount for services of this nature and for which purpose an allowance was made in our prior decision in this proceeding be made available to the fullest extent for the special problems confronting the company in Los Angeles The American Company with whom rests the ultimate control and ownership of the Los Angeles and the Pacific companies advertises itself throughout the land as a utility at all times ahead of the country s telephone requirements and as a model of corporate organization and efficiency In Los Angeles although forewarned the controlling company in the past has failed to make a reasonable estimate of the city's growth and its telephone requirements but it now seems to be aware of the extent of the work confronting it Adequate funds material and men have been provided and there is evidence that in a reasonable time good service will has re-established It must be remembered that we have no jurisdiction over the American Company in New York All this Commission is able to do is to regulate the amount that is to be allowed in operating expenses as payment to the parent company for service rendered and this amount should be in direct proportion to the value of the service received As a result of our insistence several special construction and service engineers from the American Company including the assistant chief engineer are in or on their way to Los Angeles and will remain there giving their entire time to this work until the program here outlined has been completed.
Service in general It is further ordered that for the purpose of supervision and in order to have on the ground the responsible head of the controlling organization the president of the Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company George E McFarland shall go to Los Angeles and take personal charge of the matters dealt with in this opinion and order and shall remain in such charge until further order of the Commission
Jack, you've probably have already seen this, but for the benefit of others on this forum, here is a photo from Campbell's article, showing instruments used in Los Angeles in 1915.
Thanks
Thanks for the information G-Man. I'll follow it up as time permits and as additional information comes to hand - it's certainly a topic worthy of research.
I don't know what to think of this:
For one thing, if Pacific was not directly involved, then the CPUC would not have had the authority to force Pacific’s president to move to SoCal nor consider forcing the president of AT&T to do likewise.
I would have thought that only court of law could dictate where one can live and only after a conviction resulting in a custodial sentence. The CPUC can ask "with menace" and compliance may be granted if the "victim" concludes that it would be better in the long run to comply. The CPUC would otherwise be on very thin (legal) ice.
Thanks again for the information - it is much appreciated.
Regards
Jack
Yes it was extremely intimidating but remember in 1922 the authorities were not always mindful of individual rights as they are now.
However, as you say, the ruling probably could have been challenged in civil court if McFarland had wished to, but he probably figured that they were walking on egg-shells as it were.
Besides, he may have wanted to move to Los Angeles and live in a comfortable abode with all expenses paid for by the company. After all, situated next door to Beverly Hills and Hollywood, he would have had the perfect opportunity to write-off those expenses while mingling with the affected subscribers.
Service in general - It is further ordered that for the purpose of supervision and in order to have on the ground the responsible head of the controlling organization, the president of the Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company. George E. McFarland shall go to Los Angeles and take personal charge of the matters dealt with in this opinion and order and shall remain in such charge until further order of the Commission.
In this case perhaps Mr McFarland suggested to the commissioner a suitable punishment that might help mitigate the telephone problems.
It seems I have plenty to catch up on.
Thanks again
Jack
Great info guys. The topic quickly went in another direction from Brinybay's initial enquiry but it all added up to a real good discussion. I decided to retitle the topic to give a better idea what it was about. Hopefully Briny doesn't mind too much. Let me know if the new topic isn't quite right for any reason. I puzzled somewhat over choosing a suitable topic name.
It always seems to me that very few Strowger phones materialize showing evidence as having been in use in the LA area. Most Strowger sets seem to have hidden in barns in Canada waiting to be discovered years later. Likely a result of the Bell System rather than private owners and/or Provincial Governments having owned the phones being removed from service I would guess. IE: The Bell owned phones may have more meticulously been scrapped and recycled.
Terry
Quote from: AE_Collector on February 15, 2016, 12:12:57 AM
Great info guys. The topic quickly went in another direction from Brinybay's initial enquiry but it all added up to a real good discussion. I decided to retitle the topic to give a better idea what it was about. Hopefully Briny doesn't mind too much. Let me know if the new topic isn't quite right for any reason. I puzzled somewhat over choosing a suitable topic name.
It always seems to me that very few Strowger phones materialize showing evidence as having been in use in the LA area. Most Strowger sets seem to have hidden in barns in Canada waiting to be discovered years later. Likely a result of the Bell System rather than private owners and/or Provincial Governments having owned the phones being removed from service I would guess. IE: The Bell owned phones may have more meticulously been scrapped and recycled.
Terry
Gordon Gerdes in Canada found many of the Strowger sets. He ran into an old installer who removed them from service and resold them as as Intercoms to many farms. Gordon drove around with the installer and the guy pointed out some of the farms he sold the strowger sets to. Gordon went back and bought as many sets as he could. He showed me a photo that had over 20 strowger sticks and many more compact wood sets. Gordon also commissioned reproduction buttons for the wood sets and dial faceplates for strowger dials. He is a member of ATCA. He used to bring a couple of sticks and 3-4 wood sets to the KS show every year, he always seemed to sell out. I got my wood set from Gordon..
Jim S.