Is this a truly "RARE" 302 handset on ebay? D97758--not mine

[allnumbedup]

This ebay auction is from my home town but not mine nor that of anyone I know. ( i guess if I bid and win this I can save over $8 on shipping but somehow I don't think this is meant to be mine.)  What do the experts think this is ?

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Western-Electric-Handset-D97758-Sample-Prototype-Un-Drilled/114599962986

I have posted a picture to save it but the listing is worth a look because this undrilled handset also has some very odd caps --they look melted but might be a design feature similar to the ridges on some candlestick receivers I suppose.  I have found a discussion and info on a similar item I think:

http://www.classicrotaryphones.com/forum/index.php?topic=6775)

[FABphones]

Few additional screenshots from listing for reference after link breaks:

[rdelius]

That rec  cap might be off of a 706 receiver

[TelePlay]

http://www.classicrotaryphones.com/forum/index.php?topic=18672.msg192359#msg192359

[allnumbedup]

sold for $103.50

[poplar1]

That rec  cap might be off of a 706 receiver

I have never seen a receiver cap with brass threads on a 706A receiver. However, there is a heavy duty cap with brass threads, 7 holes, and the hill and dale pattern. It is for a #144 receiver and may have been used on 2-piece pay phones.

[Jack Ryan]

I have never seen a receiver cap with brass threads on a 706A receiver. However, there is a heavy duty cap with brass threads, 7 holes, and the hill and dale pattern. It is for a #144 receiver and may have been used on 2-piece pay phones.

Example:

[Doug Rose]

Handset has that never used Bakelite sheen to it. I spent more than I wanted to but this is a piece of history....Doug

[paul-f]

Glad you got it, Doug.

Upon closer inspection, are there any other obvious differences between the handle and the handle of a standard production F1?

[Doug Rose]

thanks Paul....it is really great. It seems a bit longer, insides are the same. Caps fit are interchangeable. Seems strange with it not being drilled. I took some side by side pics....Doug

[Jim Stettler]

Nice find.

I have seen this style of handset on a small plunger 302.
The set was overpriced and gutted so I didn't buy it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think they experimented with design options on  small plunger 302 sets.

There are variations on these sets.
Here is the chart prepared by Hal Beldon (link is from Paul F.'s site)
http://vintagephone.com/HB302.htm

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding no cord hole: I have heard about handsets w/o a cord hole.
I think the cord hole was drilled later in the manf. process.

Handsets w/o the cord hole were probably used as part of the research process or were snuck out the back door.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some of the handsets w/o cord holes were color F handsets and a clear G handset.
I think the color F handsets didn't  all match the standard colors of color 302's. This make me think they were trying out different materials.

Your handset may of been part of the design process for developing the F handset. My guess is it should go on a small plunger (aka short ear) 302.

This is just guesses and opinions,
Jim

[Doug Rose]

thanks Jim....I do appreciate your insight on this....Doug

[SUnset2]

[...]
Regarding no cord hole: I have heard about handsets w/o a cord hole.
I think the cord hole was drilled later in the manf. process.
Handsets w/o the cord hole were probably used as part of the research process or were snuck out the back door.
[...]

Maybe it was a prototype of a cordless handset

[paul-f]

It seems a bit longer, insides are the same.

Thanks for the additional photos. Different dimensions would certainly explain the D- code. A new set of molds would be required -- a big investment in tooling cost.

With the caps off, measuring the distance from the transmitter end to the receiver end would clarify the "seems a bit longer" observation. Measuring both the total length and the clearance between the ends would be useful. Checking the fit on a 302 would also show any difference.

I agree with Jim's observation that the cord hole was probably drilled later in the manufacturing process. If they were checking the fit of a different handle length on a 300-type set cradle, it could have been pulled from the line before drilling, as a cord wouldn't be required for the test.

They were periodically improving the handle design, so experiments that didn't make it into volume production were likely.
http://www.paul-f.com/we300typ.htm#F1evolution

Also, it's possible that a D- numbered set was created for a limited production run for a project or special order run that wasn't large enough to justify assigning a regular production model number.

It's unlikely that we'll find documentation to clarify the purpose.

[Doug Rose]

Paul with the caps off, it is exactly 9" from outside of threads to outside of threads on other end ..Doug