Picked this up at a yard sale today for $6.50. They wanted $7.50 but I talked them out of a buck because the cloth cord at the 4 prong connector was frayed. They wouldn't go to $5.
The inside is in very good condition except for some gold paint over spray in places. The dial sticks but that can be easily fixed. The base has all the parts but needs new suede/felt.
What is it? If WE, it might have been a continental but the paint is not factory and the phone as assembled is not WE. Did someone paint an AE version of a D1? Seems to have been improperly plugged directly into the line without a subset. No cheater R/C circuit inside either.
Base: II 37 in vermillion inside, D1 USA on the back
Dial: AE but can't read the smudged markings
Handset: F1W hollow core stamped 61 on the receiver end
Receiver: HA1 dated 5-9-52-1
Transmitter: F1 dated 2/56
Transmitter cap: Dated 6-51 in vermillion inside the cap
Cloth cords are in overall good condition except for the easily fixed line cord connector end.
The line cord retainer is stamped 5-6 D3AL and T 48;
The handset cord retainer is stamped 5-6 D3AL and T 50.
Seems to be a refurb with parts and then painted? I don't know. Only guessing. Hoping the AE experts can help out here.
I seem to keep picking up these orphaned projects in need of much work. I think the sellers keep them under the table and bring them out only when they see me coming. Is this worth the time, effort and money to clean it up?
xzzx-aed1-xzzx
These hot wired WE 202 telephones with AE dials were sold by retailers such as Grand Com and Metropolitan Teletronics in NYC.
Quote from: poplar1 on July 05, 2014, 09:05:04 PM
These hot wired WE 202 telephones with AE dials were sold by retailers such as Grand Com and Metropolitan Teletronics in NYC.
So, all I need is a WE dial with a black finger wheel, a nice F1 handset, a subset, some paint remover, paint and a piece of felt/suede to bring it "back from the dead?"
I can do that if you think it is worth it.
Upon dis-assembly for paint removal, I noticed they really slammed the paint job through the process. Didn't even take the elements out first.
Cheap paint, too. Coming right off with Citri-Strip.
How many lazy telephone retailers does it take to unscrew a handset cap? None, they won't even bother to. ;D
At least the paint is coming off easily. Whenever I get a repainted phone (usually made of plastic), the paint is polane most of the time. Polane has become my enemy... >:(
Well, the gold paint is gone from the F1W handset but it seems whomever painted it first blasted it with something to take the shine off of the bakelite to both create greater paint adhesion and to give the gold finish a pebble finish.
I will most likely be putting a good F1 on this D1 but this handset will give me a chance to try a few things to restore it to its original surface, if possible. Can't make it any worse, right?
Had a few minutes tonight so did a quick pass of two applications on one side of the handset to see what would happen. Quite encouraged by the results after only about 10 minutes of work on the handset.
Obviously, need more of step 1 to get rid of the uneven surface before applying step 2 to create the gloss finish. No oils, waxes or polishes were applies to the improved handset. Both pictures are of the same side, before on top and after below. Will go over it again tomorrow to try and get a mirror like original finish.
The top photo is of the back side which was not worked on, the bottom photo was the other side which improved with a few minutes of work. The bakelite restoration process I am using looks promising.
Put another 5 minutes into the flat left to center of one side of the handset. Use a combination of techniques already reported on the forum under Bakelite restoration. Getting the rounded areas shiny would take a bit more work and I will do that if the flat test area works out to my liking.
The top photo is the untouched side as it looked after stripping off the gold paint. Dull and pitted.
The bottom photo is near complete, at least in the flat left to center of the other side, the side being worked on.
I think I can get it to a mirror finish without using wax, polish or oils with a third step, call it the mirror finish step, yet to be tried by me for lack of time each evening. This is nothing more than mechanical transformation after no more than 15 minutes of processing.
The shiny Bakelite is just that, shiny Bakelite. It would be permanent as seen unless acted upon by a harsh chemical or a lot of use. I made the photos large enough (pixel size) so you can zoom into both to see the detail of the pits near lack of defects on the processed side.
.
Ah, I knew I forgot to type something.
1 ) If painted, first, remove the paint. I used Citri-Strip, two applications did it for this handset. I use aircraft paint remover for tougher paints.
1a) If not painted, start with next step.
2 ) I go over the phone with 000 steel wool and Brasso as many times as needed to clean the Bakelite surface.
3 ) I hand sand the Bakelite using 800 grit wet/dry sandpaper using Brasso as the wetting agent.
4 ) I sand an area until the Brasso dries out and becomes a black paste like coating on the Bakelite
5 ) I then use a Ryobie orbital buffer to remove the Brasso paste.
6 ) I repeat the sanding process (Steps 3, 4 & 5) until the surface is smooth or as smooth as desired.
7 ) I use a cotton wheel with red polishing compound on a 3400 rpm buffer
8 ) I buff in different directions each time I add compound to the wheel.
9 ) When looking well polished but still a bit dull, I move over to a white polishing compound with a different cotton wheel
10) Again, I buff in different directions each time I apply more compound.
11) When satisfied, I wipe the buffing dust off with a clean cotton rag and that's what you see in the picture.
The third process step, which I haven't tried yet, is to go to a polishing compound designed for plastic and a softer wheel which may put a gloss finish on what is seen in these photos. I start with 800 grit sandpaper. It may be quicker to start with 600 and move up to 800 or even 1000 before heading to the buffer. EDIT #1 - Stay away from 600 grit, start with 800, period. EDIT #2 - 600 grit dry sandpaper works well to get rid of most of the pit highs and can be used until nearing what you want or expect to be the final surface. It does leave the Bakelite dull from the grit but that is easily removed with the 800 grit/Brasso wet sanding. The 600 grit dry reduces the amount of time needed to get to a smooth finish.
The bottom picture shows very minor pitting which could be removed with more sanding before buffing. It's a question of what you want, what you are satisfied with. You can always go back to the sandpaper if you don't like what you see after buffing.
Any Brasso on the sandpaper will re-liquify simply by adding another small portion of fresh Brasso to the paper. I simply hold the paper over the Brasso can opening, shake it once, and that is enough to wet the paper for a few minutes of hand sanding. Water does not work with this process and the handset does get warm to very warm when buffing.
It's a lot easier and quicker to do that to type the process. I just did the right side of the bottom picture in about 10 minutes.
I still have a question as to what I have here. The base has D1 and USA underneath where it should be but the normal stamped patent info is not around the back bottom of the base. And, after taking off the gold, it seems this base was never painted black, or it was bead blasted off before being painted gold. It appears to be a lighter metal, maybe aluminum. Can anyone shed any light on this?
.
Quote from: TelePlay on July 10, 2014, 01:45:41 AM
I still have a question as to what I have here. The base has D1 and USA underneath where it should be but the normal stamped patent info is not around the back bottom of the base. And, after taking off the gold, it seems this base was never painted black, or it was bead blasted off before being painted gold. It appears to be a lighter metal, maybe aluminum. Can anyone shed any light on this?
Those are the two varieties of D1 bodies, D1 with USA mark on
Al Zn body, or D1 with patent info around rim on
Zn Al body. The Al housings are thought to be the earlier ones. Your housing appears to be marked 'II 37' though, am I reading that correctly?
If the paint job was a factory job, it would most surely have had a primer coating under the finish. It wasn't until much later that paint technology was advanced enough that separate primers weren't needed. Black housings weren't just painted, but coated by Japanning, until the mid-30s. Thereafter it was a backed-on enamel.
[PS: corrected Al/Zn confusion]
Quote from: unbeldi on July 10, 2014, 07:45:01 AM
Those are the two varieties of D1 bodies, D1 with USA mark on Al body, . . . Your housing appears to be marked 'II 37' though, am I reading that correctly?
Yes, the inside has a vermilion II 37 with spotty areas of gold overspray. I will post a picture tonight of the inside with everything removed. And, thanks for the Al info. I knew there were two types but other than their weight, didn't know of the marking differences.
Quote from: unbeldi on July 10, 2014, 07:45:01 AM
If the paint job was a factory job, it would most surely have had a primer coating under the finish. It wasn't until much later that paint technology was advanced enough that separate primers weren't needed.
If you look at the first photo posted above, in the first topic post, you will see a large area of grey above the dial. This was as received. The gold paint had come completely off. That is not a grey primer either. That is the aluminum metal. The gold paint that was left on the phone was a very thin coat and while stripping it off, did not see any instance of a primer. Most of it came off easily. Some of it trapped in pores of the metal took a bit more work. So, based on what you said, whomever created this hotwired phone must have stripped off the original paint and primer and put what seems to be a thin coat of almost metallic gold on the base and cradle. I will post photos of the inside and the outside after stripping tonight.
The D1s with patent dates on the outside rim are the earlier ones (1930-c.1934). These are always aluminum.
"D1 USA" without patent dates are later. Most of these are zinc (1936-1939), but there are some aluminum ones c. 1935.
Poplar just notified me that I got it backwards, which makes sense because those patent numbers are actually for the A1 mounting. I had commented about that at one time in another thread.....
Here is that thread: http://www.classicrotaryphones.com/forum/index.php?topic=10630.0
Zinc is almost 3x as heavy as aluminium. Specific mass is ~2.7 g/cm^3 for Al, and ~7.1 for Zn.
It would be nice to actually measure the mass of these housings to compare. I haven't had two of them completely stripped of paint and other parts.
Just looking at your 'inside' view of the phone again, and it appears to me that the surface doesn't really look like Al, rather has the appearance of an alloy.
Quote from: unbeldi on July 10, 2014, 12:52:49 PM
Just looking at your 'inside' view of the phone again, and it appears to me that the surface doesn't really look like Al, rather has the appearance of an alloy.
Good eye! I do have an aluminum D1 base for comparison. That base is stamped III 35 inside in vermillion. Both have "D1" and "USA" stamped in the back under the cradle mount and neither have the patent info at the bottom of the back base.
Both have been stripped of paint and are empty of parts. First thing I noticed is the cradle mount in the II 37 "project" phone is slotted all the way through and seems to be a "post like" casting versus the solid "shelf" in the '35 base and only slotted in about a half inch from the top.
I also noticed the '37 base has K-7 stamped into the metal near the II 37. The '35 base has a 5 point raised star and to the right of it A-5 stamped into the metal near the
III 37 III 35.
The '35 base has a mass of 174 grams. The '37 base is a whopping 400 grams, more than twice the mass of what seems to be a true aluminum base. When I get some time, I'll calculate the volume of each base and that should give a close approximation the density of each metal used.
So, poplar1, do we need another topic to track D1 bases as to year, stamped marks inside and exterior markings? Is there something worth tracking here? Your call on that.
The photos follow in sufficient resolution to see the detail. The '35 aluminum base is always on the right side. The exterior of the '35 has been polished; the '37 as is right after paint stripping. I also noticed the '37 base, which seems to be something other than aluminum, has black or dark spots within the metal which I would guess is something not getting mixed quite well enough before the alloy was poured. The '35 do not have such spots.
The surface of the inside has not been touched in any way - they are as received. When I get my digital microscope out, I'll take pictures of the internal metal stampings.
Good stuff !
I have to check the variability in density of aluminium and zinc alloys, but I didn't think it would account for the low ratio that you observed (400 / 174 = 2.3). Clearly the volumes are different for the two types, and if you can measure that it would be superb.
We have to look for sources that specify just what WECo used for alloying zinc, but zinc die casting using pressurized molds was developed in the 1920s. These alloys contained a small amount (3-4%) of Al, magnesium, and copper. Because of the composition they were called ZAMAK, after the German names of the metals. It wasn't until the 70s when Zn-Al alloys with high aluminium content (>40%) became common that only required gravity molding.
There is a series of publications by WECo that presents the materials used from around the world.
PS: It seems that Zn alloys with about 4% Al have a density of 6.6 g/cm3. So the ratio of Al/Zn-alloy is down to 6.6/2.7 = 2.44, not too far away from 2.3, which could easily be explained by change in volume between the two types.
I didn't realize that the cord hole in the back of the body was what appears to be a brass insert. They obviously discovered that a raw metal edge would probably, over time, tear into the cotton or silk finish of the cords. So it was easier to insert a grommet, rather than polish inside the hole.
Quote from: TelePlay on July 12, 2014, 01:12:15 PM
Good eye! I do have an aluminum D1 base for comparison. That base is stamped III 35 inside in vermillion. Both have "D1" and "USA" stamped in the back under the cradle mount and neither have the patent info at the bottom of the back base.
So you have a nice first-hand example of Poplar's distinction of the 1935 transition from Al to Zn, by which the last Al bodies do not have the patent markings.
Quote from: unbeldi on July 12, 2014, 02:18:40 PM
I didn't realize that the cord hole in the back of the body was what appears to be a brass insert.
Yes, I've stripped 4 D1s now and they all had the brass "grommet."
Now, as for density, I used a small plastic container ( just large enough to take the base), placed it on my scale (covered with Saran Wrap to keep it dry), put the scale on a rack to keep water from getting into it from the bottom and filled the container with water until the meniscus broke and water ran out from over the top. Once that stopped, I put the base in the water and let the water drain over the top until it stopped. I then carefully removed the base. I had set the tare on the scale to "0" before putting the base into the water so when the base was removed, the scale reading was the amount of water that ran out due to the volume of the base. I use the grams option on the scale.
The '35 base displaced 74 grams of water; the '37 base displaced 68 grams. I guess that had to do with the post on the '37 versus the ledge or shelf of the '35 (to hold the handset cradle). The notch in the top of the '35 is really only about a 1/4" deep, just deep enough to match the lug on the cradle).
A gram of water is 1 cubic centimeter so diving 174 by 74 and 400 by 68 gave about
2.35 g/cm3 for the '35 Aluminum base and
5.88 g/cm3 for the '37 alloy base. Now, I suspect that base is not pure Aluminum and the other base is not pure Zinc. But, this is what I got and I did the experiment for each twice, using the averaged numbers.
I wish a had a large graduated cylinder to determine the volume of each base. A plastic container and dealing with the water meniscus is not an ideal way to determine volume but it's close. If I can think of a better way to measure volume, I'll do this again.
EDIT: I didn't realize this topic existed until poplar1 sent me the link to it, this link.
http://www.classicrotaryphones.com/forum/index.php?topic=11422.msg125730#msg125730
Quote from: TelePlay on July 12, 2014, 02:39:07 PM
A gram of water is 1 cubic centimeter so diving 174 by 74 and 400 by 68 gave about 2.35 g/cm3 for the '35 Aluminum base and 5.88 g/cm3 for the '37 alloy base. Now, I suspect that base is not pure Aluminum and the other base is not pure Zinc. But, this is what I got and I did the experiment for each twice, using the averaged numbers.
Can't argue with results of an experiment.
However, both numbers do seem low. I can't imagine an Al alloy being substantially (not even 5%) lower in density than the pure bulk metal, it being so light as it is. Its liquid density is 2.4 and the result of any alloy should at least be that.
Almost any alloying might in fact increase it, as the crystal structure wouldn't change dramatically.
For Zn the liquid density is about 6.6 vs. 7.1 g/cm
3 for the solid, and the same applies for low content alloying with aluminum. I was going to point out before that the alloy has about the density of the pure liquid, which might be considered the lower limit.
Quote from: TelePlay on July 12, 2014, 02:39:07 PM
EDIT: I didn't realize this topic existed until poplar1 sent me the link to it, this link.
http://www.classicrotaryphones.com/forum/index.php?topic=11422.msg125730#msg125730
Yes, David has been very diligent in his efforts to record that stuff, a great resource. We just have to figure out how to optimize the display of such compilations given the limitations of forum content formatting, and the shear labor involved in updating the data.
Quote from: unbeldi on July 12, 2014, 02:08:06 PM
PS: It seems that Zn alloys with about 4% Al have a density of 6.6 g/cm3. So the ratio of Al/Zn-alloy is down to 6.6/2.7 = 2.44, not too far away from 2.3, which could easily be explained by change in volume between the two types.
Indeed, now that you got a difference value of the volumina of the two bodies, we can judge this assumption. 74/68 ~ 8.8 %. Even if your results have a systemic error of being too low, it may be argued that the difference is more accurate, canceling the error. So, 2.3 + 8.8% = 2.5, which is a bit closer to 2.44, albeit higher. I have no problem with the error margins in all of this. It seems somewhat consistent, qualitatively.
Hmm, or did I get this backward? Should it be 2.44 - 8.8% ==> 2.24 .... even closer.
Yes, I also noticed that the numbers were low. That's why I want to find a better or more accurate way to measure. To get 2.7 g/cm3, there would have to be additional metal volume of about 9.5 ml or 9.5 cm3. To get 7.1 g/cm3, that would take about 11.5 cm3 more volume.
That's a lot but watching the meniscus issue when doing the experiment makes me want to find a better vessel to make the measurement.
Quote from: TelePlay on July 12, 2014, 03:18:50 PM
Yes, I also noticed that the numbers were low. That's why I want to find a better or more accurate way to measure. To get 2.7 g/cm3, there would have to be additional metal volume of about 9.5 ml or 9.5 cm3. To get 7.1 g/cm3, that would take about 11.5 cm3 more volume.
That's a lot but watching the meniscus issue when doing the experiment makes me want to find a better vessel to make the measurement.
To eliminate the meniscus problem, you might try adding a few drops of dishwashing soap to the water.
Quote from: unbeldi on July 12, 2014, 03:20:44 PM
To eliminate the meniscus problem, you might try adding a few drops of dishwashing soap to the water.
That helped. I also found an old glass coffee carafe that had a pour lip that the base would just fit into. Reset the experiment so the pour lip would drop expelled water away from the scale and this time waited until the water stopped flowing from the pour lip. Having a small point run off is better than the complete top run over that I used in the first measurement.
For the Aluminum base, I got 68, 70, 70 and 68 grams in four tests = average of 69 grams.
174/69 = 2.52 g/cm3For the Zinc allow, I got 62, 64, 66 and 64 grams = average of 64 grams.
400/64 = 6.25g/cm3Both numbers are closer to but still below
2.7 and 7.1 g/cm3I'm stumped right now. Can't think of a better way to do it. Might have to sleep on it.
If I knew someone with equipment to do an qualitative and quantitative energy dispersive analysis of the metals, I'd like to see what they are made of, but, I haven't had any contact with anyone in that kind of a lab for years and I'm not about to pay the money to have it done in a commercial lab.
Scrap yards have that sort of equipment to determine the content of metals being brought in for scrap, don't they?
EDIT: I might try creating a displacement can and measure the water by volume rather than weight. The amount of water displaced is only about 1/3 of a cup - that's all the metal that was needed to make a D1 base.
That's a big improvement. Nice work.
I expect the actual density of the Zn alloy body to be around 6.6 g/cm3 and have around 4% Al as major addition to Zn. This was pretty standard for decades. For the Al body, it can't be that much different from the pure metal.
Given your household equipment, an error of 5% seems totally within possibility. Did you, for example, make sure no air bubbles remained in the screw hole posts to which the base plates would be attached?
You have two measurements involved, volume and mass, and when combined in a mathematical operation, the error propagation increases the deviation from each individual margin. Your volume measurement had an error of +/- 2 cm3 (for Zn) which is a range of 6% alone.
I doubt scrap yards do much of chemical analysis, unless they are specialties recyclers. Commonly used alloys such as these are pretty much standardized anyways. But WECo did have their own smelter facilities for metal recycling, but I doubt they made their own specific alloys. By 1935 this process was well established.
Quote from: unbeldi on July 12, 2014, 06:54:07 PM
Given your household equipment, an error of 5% seems totally within possibility. Did you, for example, make sure no air bubbles remained in the screw hole posts to which the base plates would be attached?
Yes, the bases, because they are top heavy, ended up with the screw holes up allowing air to escape and when taking the base out of the water, I tried to shake as much of the water left on the base and in the screw holes back into the bath. Just too many variables with that quick and dirty measurement.
I'm going to get a #10 tin can Monday to drill a small hole in it near the top and solder a short piece of small diameter copper tubing to the opening. This would allow me to measure the volume of water displaced directly rather than difference by weight. That should also take care of the meniscus issue and also the error associated with relying on overflow and water retained by the base upon retrieving it from the water. A displacement can would be a one step process whereby the displaced water would be weighed directly, or measured by volume in a graduated cylinder, or both for accuracy. I think that's going to reduce the margin of error (can easily take 10 measurements quickly). Will post results the middle of next week.
You would make a good experimental scientist. :-)
Quote from: TelePlay on July 12, 2014, 07:16:59 PM
Quote from: unbeldi on July 12, 2014, 06:54:07 PM
Given your household equipment, an error of 5% seems totally within possibility. Did you, for example, make sure no air bubbles remained in the screw hole posts to which the base plates would be attached?
Yes, the bases, because they are top heavy, ended up with the screw holes up allowing air to escape and when taking the base out of the water, I tried to shake as much of the water left on the base and in the screw holes back into the bath. Just too many variables with that quick and dirty measurement.
I'm going to get a #10 tin can Monday to drill a small hole in it near the top and solder a short piece of small diameter copper tubing to the opening. This would allow me to measure the volume of water displaced directly rather than difference by weight. That should also take care of the meniscus issue and also the error associated with relying on overflow and water retained by the base upon retrieving it from the water. A displacement can would be a one step process whereby the displaced water would be weighed directly, or measured by volume in a graduated cylinder, or both for accuracy. I think that's going to reduce the margin of error (can easily take 10 measurements quickly). Will post results the middle of next week.
The inside view among your housing pictures shows that your gold-painted set was originally black, there is still that characteristic pattern of spray visible coming through one of the holes, almost identical to the other housing. So, whoever painted the set, must have blasted or sanded the exterior pretty well.
Would be nice to have another version, the Al body with patent info, next to it also.
Quote
I also noticed the '37 base has K-7 stamped into the metal near the II 37. The '35 base has a 5 point raised star and to the right of it A-5 stamped into the metal near the III 37.
I have been looking at pictures of my D1 sets, ... and I also have a III-35 Al body. It is marked F-5, raised in metal, yours was A-5. I didn't understand the rest of your description at first, you ended the sentence with
stamped into the metal near the III 37, but I see that should be III-35.
Since these codes (F-5, A-5,...) are from the mold, they may be mold numbers, but perhaps there is a pattern to these as well?
Perusing my pictures, I found at least four different housing versions between 1932 and 1937.
Some have a little diamond-shaped logo inside, I noticed that you posted the same some years ago: http://www.classicrotaryphones.com/forum/index.php?topic=6803.msg77928#msg77928
I am wondering if these were made by outside suppliers/contractors, and not in-house at WECo. They also have a part number molded into the metal, P-224756. The 1935 version of the base had part number P-224757 (catalog #9), but it was not molded into the body.
Quote from: unbeldi on July 12, 2014, 09:06:42 PM
The inside view among your housing pictures shows that your gold-painted set was originally black, there is still that characteristic pattern of spray visible coming through one of the holes, almost identical to the other housing. So, whoever painted the set, must have blasted or sanded the exterior pretty well.
The Aluminum base was indeed black when I received it. I bought 3 items, the base with its badly chipped black paint, a gold looking plated cradle which is not WE and an F1 handset, in a eBay parts auction. The gold phone, the one that started this topic must have been black also as you pointed out. You can also see some on the top of the base where the cradle sits on the base. The gold came right off with no indication of a primer so they must have bead blasted it to get the black off. After 3 applications of Citri-Strip, I had to use airplane paint remover on the III 37 to get the last of that black paint off of the base.
Quote from: unbeldi on July 12, 2014, 09:06:42 PM
I didn't understand the rest of your description at first, you ended the sentence with stamped into the metal near the III 37, but I see that should be III-35.
Yes, a type indeed. I did a proper edit to the original post. It should have read III 35 as you noted.
Quote from: unbeldi on July 12, 2014, 09:06:42 PM
Since these codes (F-5, A-5,...) are from the mold, they may be mold numbers, but perhaps there is a pattern to these as well?
Yes, most likely something like that. Maybe plant, shift, date, batch, mold or anything else only someone working at casting these or making the molds would know. The date and metal stamps for the '35 and '37 phone are below. In both cases, the metal stamp was upside down to the date marking. I rotated the pictures for ease of viewing.
Since I had the digital microscope set up to take the above photos, I also grabbed close ups of the handset before and after, the before being as it looks right after the paint was removed and the after being after using the Bakelite polishing method I described above.
http://www.classicrotaryphones.com/forum/index.php?topic=12237.msg129385#msg129385
http://www.classicrotaryphones.com/forum/index.php?topic=12237.msg129393#msg129393
The lines on the reference ruler are 0.1 cm apart. The side by side photos are identical with the ruler laid on top of the handset on the left. On the after photo, you can still see some pits but without the high magnification, to the naked eye, it looks very nice. I finer buffing compound may make it even better but haven't taken the time to switch wheels yet. The bottom photo shows the approximate location where the two photos were taken.