My Bits O' Phone 5302

[Phonesrfun]

Here is a picture of a nice 5302 that I assembled from the dead.  OK, Frankenphone, but it looks pretty good.

Shell - 8-30-62 NOS bought from Jon Finder
Dial - unknown date, from Steve Hilsz #6A
Handset NOS, also from Steve Hilsz:

• Transmitter - 6-56
• Transmitter Cap - 2-56
• Receiver - 7-56
• Receiver Cap - 4-56

Handset cord - Cannot determine date but it is a nice one I had and cleaned up well and recoiled using heat and cold
Base - 3-52 - Probably from a 302, which I also had from some parts I once bought
Ringer - 8-45 - also from Steve Hilsz
Inductor - IV-51
Line cord from an AE 80
Dial number ring - from another crappy 5302 shell
Dial inside ring with the dots, 164C-3 - I had it around - dated III-62

I need to send the feet off to Dennis Hallworth for recovering.

All in all the plastics, being NOS, looks pretty nice.

-Bill

[Dennis Markham]

Very nice Bill!  The thing looks like new.  Is that the F3 handset that Steve was selling?  I bought a few from him but haven't taken them out of the box yet.  The F3 has the U1/T1 handset elements, like the 500, as you know, but for the benefit of the others.

[JorgeAmely]

Bill:

It is a very nice looking set. MaBell would have done the same (and collected rent for many years). 

[Phonesrfun]

Dennis:

Actually, it is a NOS F2 which uses the F1 transmitter and  the HA1 receiver, but it was designed for four conductor operation to be used at a switchboard in lieu of a headset.  3 conductors work just fine on them.  In fact they used a pretty ingenious way of using the cord restraint screw to be used for the R terminal when used in a 4-conductor configuration.  For three conductors, you just wire as normal.  Makes me wonder why they even bothered making F1's if the F2 could be used either way.

-Bill

[Phonesrfun]

Thank you Jorge, but all I had to do was assemble it.  Just like Ma Bell would have done.  For once, no polishing or sanding was required.   

-Bill

[LarryInMichigan]

I thought that 5302s, by definition were all "Frankenphones" as they were made from old 302 parts with a new shell.  Mine is mostly from 1946 with a shell from 1960 and handset from the 1950s.

Larry

[Phonesrfun]

Larry:

I believe you are right.  By definition, the 5302 was a conglomoration of parts.  Particularly since they came out a few years after the 500 was introduced.  Do you think the Continental and the Imperial were pretty much the same thing?  Dare I say "lipstick on a pig", to use an overly trite expression?  At the time a 202 was just a junky old phone.  All dressed up, they looked pretty good as Imperials and Continentals!  And we collectors love them now!  Oh, do we love them.

-Bill

[McHeath]

I thought that 5302s, by definition were all "Frankenphones"

Ha!  That's pretty funny and I never thought about them that way, but it certainly seems true. 

[HobieSport]

As has been discussed before, I think part of the very charm of 5302s is their "Frankenphoneness". I have a similar original 5302 to Bill's, but with an F1 handset. I haven't checked any of it's dates yet, but it's in really good shape, and it's a favorite. (Yeah, I know, I always say that all my phones are my "favorites". I guess it's like my step children; I love them equally but in different ways... )

Anyway, I think that anyone who likes 302s and 500s should always also have at least one 5302 around, to show the fascinating transition and resourcefulness of Western Electric.

-Matt

[Greg G.]

Thanks for reminding me about mine.  I had the dial center ring kicking around here, needed to get that on it.  I think I'll try my hand at stretched cord repair.  Sanding, ugh, I hate that chore!  Not so bad on the flat parts, but around the handset cups and cradle area is a real you-know-what!

[LarryInMichigan]

I recently posted about my 5302 including dates and pictures (http://www.classicrotaryphones.com/forum/index.php?topic=1833.0).  My experience with sanding the 5302 shell was not good, as I described at the end of that thread.

Larry

[Greg G.]

I recently posted about my 5302 including dates and pictures (http://www.classicrotaryphones.com/forum/index.php?topic=1833.0).  My experience with sanding the 5302 shell was not good, as I described at the end of that thread.

Larry

I never took a close look at that ebay ad until now.  You know what's missing?  The word "rotary" isn't used anywhere in the ad.  "Vintage" is, "telephone" is, "dial" is, but not "rotary".  I've always stuck the word "rotary" in somewhere when doing searches.

I don't really consider these "Frankenphones" because my idea of a "Frankenphone" is something that was done by the end user.  I actually consider these an example of free market ingenuity.  They had an excess of 302 bases and networks, but the 500s were in such high demand they couldn't keep up, so they designed a shell for the old 302s they had left that would satisfy the customer's desire for a "modern" look.  I like the looks of these, and I've never heard of anyone back when they were issued complaining about them.

[bingster]

The best way to find the vast majority of phones on ebay is to pull up:

ebay > collectibles > radio, phonograph, tv, phone > telephones

Believe it or not, not many people use the word "rotary" in their descriptions.  You're probably missing out on hundreds and hundreds of phones!

[Dennis Markham]

In addition Bingster, think of how many ways we've seen rotary spelled.   I've even seen one listing where they called it a "circle dial phone". 

[LarryInMichigan]

One of my favorites is "wind-up phone" description for magneto phone.

Larry