Author Topic: NIB Pink 1961 554  (Read 2492 times)

Offline McHeath

  • **
  • Posts: 3349
NIB Pink 1961 554
« on: July 06, 2009, 12:05:16 AM »
If this is what it claims to be it's pretty sweet..

http://tinyurl.com/ovqnac

Offline Dennis Markham

  • VintageRotaryPhones.com
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5621
    • VintageRotaryPhones.com
Re: NIB Pink 1961 554
« Reply #1 on: July 06, 2009, 12:09:00 AM »
It looks like the real deal.

Offline McHeath

  • **
  • Posts: 3349
Re: NIB Pink 1961 554
« Reply #2 on: July 08, 2009, 01:54:41 AM »
It went for $361 clams.  Is that good or bad or someplace in between?

Offline Dennis Markham

  • VintageRotaryPhones.com
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5621
    • VintageRotaryPhones.com
Re: NIB Pink 1961 554
« Reply #3 on: July 08, 2009, 08:17:17 AM »
I was surprised it went that high.  Does that mean the one I have that is also one that I believe was never installed worth that much or more?  Mine is soft plastic from 1959.  I posted some photos of it a while back here:

http://www.classicrotaryphones.com/forum/index.php?topic=536.msg5802#msg5802

I bought it off ebay a few years ago.  It's still in that box.   

Offline Dan

  • **
  • Posts: 1960
  • 1957 WE 500-P
Re: NIB Pink 1961 554
« Reply #4 on: July 08, 2009, 06:38:12 PM »
Narrow switch hook, six hole earpiece, pink plate mounting--that's a $500  phone on ebay, Dennis
"Imagine how weird telephones would look if our ears weren't so close to our mouths." - Steven Wright

Offline bingster

  • Contest Director
  • **
  • Posts: 2945
    • OTRplus Classic Radio
Re: NIB Pink 1961 554
« Reply #5 on: July 08, 2009, 08:27:29 PM »
Can anybody show a photo of a narrow switchhook and a wide switchhook?  I've never understood what those terms refer to.
= DARRIN =



Offline Dan

  • **
  • Posts: 1960
  • 1957 WE 500-P
Re: NIB Pink 1961 554
« Reply #6 on: July 08, 2009, 09:07:48 PM »
Here's a narrow one from Dennis' pink --it has a "bent in look"





here's a wider newer more common switchhook

"Imagine how weird telephones would look if our ears weren't so close to our mouths." - Steven Wright

Offline bingster

  • Contest Director
  • **
  • Posts: 2945
    • OTRplus Classic Radio
Re: NIB Pink 1961 554
« Reply #7 on: July 08, 2009, 09:09:03 PM »
Mystery solved.  Thanks, Dan!
= DARRIN =



Offline Dan

  • **
  • Posts: 1960
  • 1957 WE 500-P
Re: NIB Pink 1961 554
« Reply #8 on: July 08, 2009, 09:12:46 PM »
here's a better pic of a wide hook, you can see the difference better here

http://tinyurl.com/n9uast
"Imagine how weird telephones would look if our ears weren't so close to our mouths." - Steven Wright

Offline Dennis Markham

  • VintageRotaryPhones.com
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5621
    • VintageRotaryPhones.com
Re: NIB Pink 1961 554
« Reply #9 on: July 08, 2009, 10:28:48 PM »
Dan, actually the width I was referring to is the opposite of what you've shown.  When I refer to a "wide" hook I mean the with of the metal as opposed to the distance from upright to upright (if it were a goal post standing up.  Notice how wide/thick the hook is on my pink vs the thinness/narrowness/skinniness of the other hook.  The early ones were wide.  Some as jsowers pointed out were black (in the beginning) some have a satin type finish and then the chrome hook.  Following those were the narrower chrome and then ultimately they were made of Lucite.

But you're right, the distance from left to right is wider.  The earlier hook is more "V" shaped, made with wider material.

Offline Dan

  • **
  • Posts: 1960
  • 1957 WE 500-P
Re: NIB Pink 1961 554
« Reply #10 on: July 08, 2009, 10:41:58 PM »
Thanks. So wide is the width of the metal hook material . I had it backwords, I thought it was the width of the space between the prongs. So early = thicker metal in a more distinct 'V"  formation. I think a better term would be a "v" hook vs an "u" hook, but this may confuse some.
"Imagine how weird telephones would look if our ears weren't so close to our mouths." - Steven Wright

Offline Dennis Markham

  • VintageRotaryPhones.com
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5621
    • VintageRotaryPhones.com
Re: NIB Pink 1961 554
« Reply #11 on: July 08, 2009, 10:46:49 PM »
Dan, that was just the way I referred to the wider hook.  I'm sure there is an official designation.  I never thought about the distance between the prongs, but that would make the most sense when saying wide.  Those earlier hooks are much heavier too.

Offline McHeath

  • **
  • Posts: 3349
Re: NIB Pink 1961 554
« Reply #12 on: July 09, 2009, 12:49:17 AM »
Ma Bell probably called the wide hook something real catchy like "Q mount on/off hanger device".  :D

I recently learned that Cortelco, once Kellogg, currently uses the term "Housing assembly" for what I've been calling a "cover" or "shell" for the old phones.  I wrote them and asked about getting a new cover for a 3554, which is the same as a 554, and they replied with:

"Black housing assembly for 3554 is 1829650000PAK.  If it is the housing assembly you need, contact
one of our distributors."

Offline jsowers

  • **
  • Posts: 2066
Re: NIB Pink 1961 554
« Reply #13 on: July 09, 2009, 11:40:11 AM »
I usually refer to them as "fat" and "skinny" switchhooks, but feel free to come up with something you can remember. Like some people you may know, the fatter one is older than the skinny one.  ;) 

This also gives me an opportunity to post some more pictures you may like.  First, if you can take your eyes off the number card and not get hypnotized, is the fat switchhook of 1955-59 from a yellow soft plastic 554 from 9-57. Second is the skinny switchhook from 1960 onward on a yellow hard plastic 554 from 1961. And third is the box the phone in picture #2 was shipped in. Can you believe that? This is the box as I opened it. No packing material. The thin switchhook was actually sticking out of the box a little! The phone, miraculously, was not damaged. Amazing.
Jonathan

Offline Dennis Markham

  • VintageRotaryPhones.com
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5621
    • VintageRotaryPhones.com
Re: NIB Pink 1961 554
« Reply #14 on: July 09, 2009, 12:27:52 PM »
That is amazing that that telephone was not damaged!  What are people thinking?  They should have just taped an envelope to the outside and put a stamp or two on it. :)