Author Topic: SNET/So. Cal merger?  (Read 4218 times)

unbeldi

  • Guest
Re: SNET/So. Cal merger?
« Reply #15 on: December 01, 2014, 01:04:58 PM »
Yes, but if it was for a local operating company they would not need one side from a telco on the other coast. 

Just heard back from the seller, he says he sold it for a guy who "found it in a box of Ferrari parts"

I don't think an exhibit would necessarily be just for one operating company, but the local operating company would likely be in charge of orchestrating any exhibit, having all the local connections to contractors, installers, etc, and the "prestige" of hosting the show.


I suppose with a Ferrari one can cover the miles from S.N.E. to S.CA. quickly.

Online Sargeguy

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4569
Re: SNET/So. Cal merger?
« Reply #16 on: December 01, 2014, 01:20:54 PM »
I think a Ferrari indicates Southern California, Connecticut would be a Bentley. 

Another reason that I don't buy the "show piece" theory is that although the SNET side is perfect the So. Cal side shows some imperfections, it has a few pits and bumps and the border is uneven in places. There is a "fault" running through the N and I in California.  These are hardly noticeable, but it means the sign is not a good candidate for a sign to display at a trade show.  It supports my hungover sign maker theory.
Greg Sargeant
Providence, RI
TCI /ATCA #4409

unbeldi

  • Guest
Re: SNET/So. Cal merger?
« Reply #17 on: December 01, 2014, 02:19:44 PM »
Well, perhaps it supports the idea that one of the sides is fake.

It is not clear to me whether a fake should be better or worse than an original.  Somehow, I think it might be better in quality, but often creators of fake items try to introduce imperfections to make their work look more original.

Enamel finishes are known to crack, is that what the imperfection is that you mentioned?  Perhaps this happened when the other side was added or modified?


So. California Telephone existed from ca. 1916 to 1947. The sign appears to be valid from 1921 to 1939. The lack of INCORPORATED may indicate it being early in that period.

SNET existed prior and after, to even much beyond the Divestiture.  It was considered more of an Independent than a Baby Bell. Would they have used the same signs as other operating companies?  Probably.  Even 20% of ownership would be good enough to benefit.

Since it is a flange type sign, it may be unlikely that the plate was simply reused on the other side to make a new one. For a flat-mounted sign it wouldn't matter.

That the sign would slip through QA with two different names, just seems the most unlikely scenario. This would mean that they mixed up the signs for different companies in manufacturing. Wouldn't they produce separate batches?

I would make exact duplicates of the bell shapes and AT&T names of both sides on thin paper or plastic foil and compare the two sides in great detail.

Offline Fabius

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2113
  • Porcelain Telephone Sign Collector
Re: SNET/So. Cal merger?
« Reply #18 on: December 01, 2014, 02:56:12 PM »

So. California Telephone existed from ca. 1916 to 1947. The sign appears to be valid from 1921 to 1939. The lack of INCORPORATED may indicate it being early in that period.

SNET existed prior and after, to even much beyond the Divestiture.  It was considered more of an Independent than a Baby Bell. Would they have used the same signs as other operating companies?  Probably.  Even 20% of ownership would be good enough to benefit.

I don't believe Southern California Telephone used INCORPORATED on their signs. Southern Bell and the companies they controlled did.

Though AT&T didn't have total ownership of SNET it was part of the Bell System and thus used the same type signs as the rest of the Bell System. I have a SNET 11x11 '21 Bell sign and hubcap.
Tom Vaughn
La Porte, Indiana
ATCA Past President
ATCA #765
C*NET 1+ 821-9905

Online Sargeguy

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4569
Re: SNET/So. Cal merger?
« Reply #19 on: December 01, 2014, 05:10:45 PM »
Quote
Enamel finishes are known to crack, is that what the imperfection is that you mentioned?  Perhaps this happened when the other side was added or modified?

It looks like there was a scratch in the base layer which was enameled over.  The other imperfections are not unusual on old signs, this one seems to have more than average on the So. Cal side.  No signs of modification or alterations. 
Greg Sargeant
Providence, RI
TCI /ATCA #4409