Author Topic: Date ranges for WE Parts  (Read 43176 times)

Offline unbeldi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5584
  • opus in senio
Re: Date ranges for WE Parts
« Reply #150 on: May 17, 2016, 07:01:04 PM »
This 202 has a 5H dial marked  H-5-46

http://www.ebay.com/itm/301922179728

Or is it  H-3-46 ?


Here is another one:   http://www.ebay.com/itm/281873864746
H-8-46

Could it be that only dials were marked with H- ?
« Last Edit: May 17, 2016, 07:11:39 PM by unbeldi »

Offline andre_janew

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1409
Re: Date ranges for WE Parts
« Reply #151 on: May 18, 2016, 12:08:16 PM »
That second one is on a 302.  It is supposed to be a WW2 era phone.  Really?  With 1946 dates on it?

Offline unbeldi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5584
  • opus in senio
Re: Date ranges for WE Parts
« Reply #152 on: May 18, 2016, 01:23:22 PM »
So far we only have H- marks on dials, and all in 1946.
We need more data, but given the rarity of H- marks, I have to wonder.
The S- marks stop suddenly by Q1 47, when the aluminum bases took off,
and no more H- marks.

From documents we know that some manufacturing equipment was moved from St. Paul to Hawthorne in 1946.  But other than ringer parts, this is not well documented yet.


Offline unbeldi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5584
  • opus in senio
Re: Date ranges for WE Parts
« Reply #153 on: May 21, 2016, 11:42:05 PM »
Here is the cutover for date encoding marks on 557B receiver elements, unless these types were used with some overlap.

430 (Q4 1930) --->  I 31  (Q1 1931)


PS: Here is another I 31 with pretty vermillion stamps:  http://www.ebay.com/itm/222128720660
« Last Edit: May 28, 2016, 10:11:50 AM by unbeldi »

Offline unbeldi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5584
  • opus in senio
Re: Date ranges for WE Parts
« Reply #154 on: May 22, 2016, 03:31:23 PM »
Here is a new-in-box  F1 transmitter dated 10-51-I.
It does appear unused, as the contact surfaces are uniformly oxidized, and pretty dark at that, so it hasn't been polished in a long time.  There are no signs of contact scratches.

Is it correct to assume that this is a factory carton and not from a distributing house?

Offline poplar1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5553
  • 102C-6 = "Old Brass" Hand Telephone Set
Re: Date ranges for WE Parts
« Reply #155 on: May 22, 2016, 04:25:55 PM »
The parts that had gone through the repair shops would normally be placed in cartons with green ink, and/or "Telco Property" tape on the boxes. Bill said they didn't always take the time to stamp dates on the transmitters before reusing them in the repair shop, later called "service center."  ("Distributing House" contained both warehouses for new items as well as repair shops for telco-owned returned items.)
"C'est pas une restauration, c'est une rénovation."--François Martin.

Offline unbeldi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5584
  • opus in senio
Re: Date ranges for WE Parts
« Reply #156 on: May 22, 2016, 04:56:21 PM »
Here is a box from a shop, no print on it on any side, but that doesn't prevent them from using printed boxes, I suppose.

Offline unbeldi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5584
  • opus in senio
Re: Date ranges for WE Parts
« Reply #157 on: May 28, 2016, 10:14:22 AM »
Here is another E1 with pretty vermillion stampings:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/222128720660

I 31

Offline poplar1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5553
  • 102C-6 = "Old Brass" Hand Telephone Set
Re: Date ranges for WE Parts
« Reply #158 on: May 28, 2016, 10:21:24 AM »
Here is another E1 with pretty vermillion stampings:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/222128720660

I 31

Since the handset is an  E1E (625A xmtr), and the seller is a collector, we can't be sure that the 557B receiver is original to the handset.
"C'est pas une restauration, c'est une rénovation."--François Martin.

Offline unbeldi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5584
  • opus in senio
Re: Date ranges for WE Parts
« Reply #159 on: May 28, 2016, 10:43:21 AM »
Still, it would be hard to reproduce or exchange the stampings inside the transmitter.
And the combination with the handle fits the pattern I have seen.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2016, 11:02:37 AM by unbeldi »

Offline poplar1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5553
  • 102C-6 = "Old Brass" Hand Telephone Set
Re: Date ranges for WE Parts
« Reply #160 on: May 28, 2016, 11:17:07 AM »
The capacitor inside the 625A transmitter is dated I 35. The receiver is dated I 31. Even without the date on the capacitor, that style transmitter is too recent to have been original to a 1931 handset. Also, the caps are not matched -- the xmtr mouthpiece has a groove, while the receiver cap does not.

I'll agree that it is possible that the receiver is original to the handset. The transmitter may have been added in the field, or, in any case, replaced without changing the receiver, since only the transmitters were upgraded when converting from an E1B to E1E.         "I 31" also does not conflict with the dates found on all original handsets:


                 9-line logo with patent dates                                 [228] - [FEB '31]*
                 5-line logo
                      red patent numbers inside                              *[MAY '31] - [MAR '32]


The dates in brackets were based on the 395B transmitters found on these E1B handsets, if I recall correctly.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2016, 11:20:33 AM by poplar1 »
"C'est pas une restauration, c'est une rénovation."--François Martin.

Offline unbeldi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5584
  • opus in senio
Re: Date ranges for WE Parts
« Reply #161 on: May 28, 2016, 11:59:12 AM »
I meant not to dispel or refute other markings or date ranges,
but just to record that there are other markings that aren't accounted for.  Whether these occurred in parallel or only regionally or whatever remains to be seen.

The type of transmitter or the dates thereof are not really important for this one aspect. We know when the F1 transmitter came out, and we know that millions of them had been used to replace bad 395B parts, whether in the field or in refurbishing, by the time the 302 came out. That is not the point.

We don't have to have 100% factory-original telephone sets to observe parts history and draw correct conclusions.
The worst endeavor would be to ignore some parts that clearly exist, just because something else was changed.
The pattern is established nevertheless. I have seen at most half a dozen of these combinations: When the handle had bright patent dates as shown, the receiver had similar markings.
We should note also when they don't match, but I haven't seen that.  Surely it would be logical to exist.  But the fact is that receivers needed replacements only rarely.


Offline unbeldi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5584
  • opus in senio
Re: Date ranges for WE Parts
« Reply #162 on: May 28, 2016, 12:06:23 PM »
Perhaps these were simply parts that were sold to independents, or a similar non-technical reason.
This would agree with the practice by WECo to mark F1 transmitters, for Signal Corps TS-9 handsets with a patent number.


Notice that the receiver cap does not have the groove,  same situation on mine, btw.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2016, 12:23:13 PM by unbeldi »

Offline poplar1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5553
  • 102C-6 = "Old Brass" Hand Telephone Set
Re: Date ranges for WE Parts
« Reply #163 on: May 28, 2016, 12:29:04 PM »
While non-standard cords (and entrance to the wrong subset opening) and polished brass gongs are red flags, indicating recent modifications, the main reason for using only all original handsets is that the pre-1935 handles are not dated. Therefore, the dates have to be determined by the dates on surrounding parts (transmitter case or condenser, receiver unit, H3B cord, B-, C- or D-type mounting, dial, number plate,  mounting cord). If the other 7 dates match, it is more likely that the E1 handle is also from the same date range.
"C'est pas une restauration, c'est une rénovation."--François Martin.

Offline unbeldi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5584
  • opus in senio
Re: Date ranges for WE Parts
« Reply #164 on: May 28, 2016, 12:34:28 PM »
Well, yes, if they were dated, we wouldn't have this discussion, lol.