Author Topic: Correct 1937 WECO 302?  (Read 6933 times)

Offline Fabius

  • **
  • Posts: 2284
  • Porcelain Telephone Sign Collector
Correct 1937 WECO 302?
« on: May 10, 2014, 08:11:17 PM »
Replaced capacitor? Anything else? Seller says no vents.

http://tinyurl.com/l3xcxm8

-----------------------

EDIT:  Sold for $125 plus $15 shipping on May 11, 2014
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 08:41:12 PM by TelePlay »
Tom Vaughn
La Porte, Indiana
ATCA Past President
ATCA #765
C*NET 1+ 821-9905

Offline poplar1

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6310
  • 1051-AL
Re: Correct 1937 WECO 302?
« Reply #1 on: May 10, 2014, 08:29:51 PM »
12/47 ringer
H3AD rubber handset cord--40s or 50s
new line cord
black 59A dial adapter (gasket)--should be tan
handset dates???
"C'est pas une restauration, c'est une rénovation."--François Martin.

Offline poplar1

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6310
  • 1051-AL
Re: Correct 1937 WECO 302?
« Reply #2 on: May 10, 2014, 09:48:51 PM »
Seller says:

Handle is "10-37", Tx is "10-37", Tx cap is "10-12-37".
Rx is "8-11-37", Rx cap is "10-22-37".

"C'est pas une restauration, c'est une rénovation."--François Martin.

Offline BDM

  • 313-TUxedo 6-4281
  • **
  • Posts: 1316
Re: Correct 1937 WECO 302?
« Reply #3 on: May 11, 2014, 10:31:28 PM »
Too bad it lacks the original vent. That sort of kills it for me. I imaging finding a proper rear vent would be tough not to mention costly.

--Brian--

St Clair Shores, MI

Offline poplar1

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6310
  • 1051-AL
Re: Correct 1937 WECO 302?
« Reply #4 on: May 11, 2014, 11:13:24 PM »
In the several 1937 sets documented so far, apparently 10-37 was the last month for vents, even though both small plunger and large plunger housings were made used on sets assembled in 11-37....so the ventless hand hold may indeed be original to this 11-37 phone.

Which brings up another question: should you change it out anyway, even if it's not original for a November, 1937 set? I guess it's a matter of personal preference.



Too bad it lacks the original vent. That sort of kills it for me. I imaging finding a proper rear vent would be tough not to mention costly.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 11:50:06 PM by poplar1 »
"C'est pas une restauration, c'est une rénovation."--François Martin.

Offline BDM

  • 313-TUxedo 6-4281
  • **
  • Posts: 1316
Re: Correct 1937 WECO 302?
« Reply #5 on: May 11, 2014, 11:33:46 PM »
Dave I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for mentioning this and with that knowledge in hand, I retract what I said.

--Brian--

St Clair Shores, MI

Offline poplar1

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6310
  • 1051-AL
Re: Correct 1937 WECO 302?
« Reply #6 on: May 12, 2014, 12:00:04 AM »
So far I'm basing this on observing just a few sets, so there may exist 11-37 sets with vents.....Perhaps they started making the newer style hand holds  but still had some leftover housings designed for the small plungers, so the old style housings ended up with the newer style hand holds.

Ironically, the vents appeared later on in the Signature 2500 sets (2500 DMGL).  These were late model (1990s?)  2500 sets that were leased but never sold.
"C'est pas une restauration, c'est une rénovation."--François Martin.

Offline Mr. Bones

  • **
  • Posts: 1444
Re: Correct 1937 WECO 302?
« Reply #7 on: May 12, 2014, 08:20:09 PM »
In the several 1937 sets documented so far, apparently 10-37 was the last month for vents, even though both small plunger and large plunger housings were made in 11-37....so the ventless hand hold may indeed be original to this 11-37 phone.

Which brings up another question: should you change it out anyway, even if it's not original for a November, 1937 set? I guess it's a matter of personal preference.

     It will remain vent-less... seems to be proper, and perhaps even more rare. I'll be sure to let the forum know if it turns out to keep me awake at nights! ;)

     Can't complain, at approximately 20% of the BIN on this vented 1937.

     I've had many dealings with Cliff, and trust him implicitly.

     Guess I'm now looking for an IV 37 early, un-marked ringer, probably be a long search, but worth it to me.

Best regards!
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 11:32:33 PM by Mr. Bones »
Sláinte!
   Mr. Bones
      Rubricollis Ferus

Offline BDM

  • 313-TUxedo 6-4281
  • **
  • Posts: 1316
Re: Correct 1937 WECO 302?
« Reply #8 on: May 12, 2014, 08:39:19 PM »
Congrats Mr. Bones. I'm going through my parts supply and if I find a 37 marked ringer, I'll ring you up :) On that link you posted, nice looking resto job. But correct if I'm wrong here. Also not so much to pick that phone in your link apart but, if I was going to drop some serious coin the following would be important for me. Shouldn't the E1 have a seam vs a seamless E1 on an original 37 302 if it was so equipped? No dial date but I do believe that could be a #4 or #5 dial. Also the bell/ringer appears to be a later model judging by the gong type. Now I realize it would be anyone's guess since Ma Bell constantly up graded in the field. So no one get holy on me now. I'm just saying for me, if I was to purchase one, what would I be looking for to be sure it's "fully" authentic? I just learned that a vent is not a guarantee as I've always believed. What else am I missing? (besides plenty of money ;D )

--Brian--

St Clair Shores, MI

Offline TelePlay

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7372
    • . . . times keep changin'
Re: Correct 1937 WECO 302?
« Reply #9 on: May 12, 2014, 08:47:27 PM »
Can't complain, at approximately 20% of the BIN on this vented 1937.

That is an interesting listing. 17 bids with 4 plus days left and it's up to $450, the reserve has not been met and the BIN is $600.

Offline poplar1

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6310
  • 1051-AL
Re: Correct 1937 WECO 302?
« Reply #10 on: May 12, 2014, 09:30:13 PM »
302s without the vents apparently started even sooner than 11-37. Here is one dated 10-37, and I found another incomplete 10-37 in my 1937 bin upstairs. Neither of these sets has vents.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=191171878063

Also, the ringers were not dated in these early sets. And a ringer dated 4-38 was recently discussed on the forum: the date was in black but on the chassis, between the gongs, and not in the usual place on the coil.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2014, 01:24:00 AM by poplar1 »
"C'est pas une restauration, c'est une rénovation."--François Martin.

Offline Mr. Bones

  • **
  • Posts: 1444
Re: Correct 1937 WECO 302?
« Reply #11 on: May 12, 2014, 09:45:57 PM »
      Saw that one last night, seems to have more original '37 parts, but needing more restoration. Not a bad price, for the willing restorer. A diamond in the rough, if you will...

Best regards!
Sláinte!
   Mr. Bones
      Rubricollis Ferus

Offline Jim Stettler

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4518
Re: Correct 1937 WECO 302?
« Reply #12 on: May 12, 2014, 10:20:59 PM »
Here is a chart regarding Small plunger 302's.
http://vintagephone.com/HB302.htm

The link is from Paul F's site.

Jim
You live, You learn,
You die, you forget it all.

Offline poplar1

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6310
  • 1051-AL
Re: Correct 1937 WECO 302?
« Reply #13 on: May 12, 2014, 10:27:04 PM »
Here is a chart regarding Small plunger 302's.
http://vintagephone.com/HB302.htm

The link is from Paul F's site.

Jim

With all due respect to Hal, I am attempting to narrow down the date ranges to the month, rather than just that vents in the  handhold were present in all sets from 1936-early 1937 and  "sometimes present" in "late 1937."

"C'est pas une restauration, c'est une rénovation."--François Martin.

Offline poplar1

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6310
  • 1051-AL
Re: Correct 1937 WECO 302?
« Reply #14 on: May 12, 2014, 11:32:11 PM »
Mr. Bones, your 11-37 set has the "small ears" and, according  to the seller, the completely flat base. The one for $450, even though it has vents, has the standard 302 housing--"Tall ears" according to the seller.
"C'est pas une restauration, c'est une rénovation."--François Martin.