Now the Story Can be Told - 1949 WECo 500 Set

[Jim S.]

Check out the photo on page 15 of the window.
Spring 1950

http://www.archive.org/stream/belltelephonemag00vol2930amerrich#page/n15/mode/1up

Not the greatest tidbit, but still one for the scrapbook.
Jim

[Phonesrfun]

I don't see what you are pointing out.  Either that, or I am lost as to which is page 15.  Can you elaborate?

[Phonesrfun]

Regarding GF and 5302 sets. The 5302 is a recycled set not a transitional set. The 500 becames popular and everyone wanted the "new" phone.

They designed the 5302 to give the new "look" to 302's.

Jim:

That is absolutely true.  A T1/U1 combination using the 302 insides would be way too loud and distracting.  They even pointed this fact out in the two field trial write-ups that have been posted here.

That means that when they dusted off the old 302 bases and made the 5302 cover, they could not use a G1 handset because the 302 induction coil did not have any equalization to lower the gain on short loops.  So, in order to do the 5302, they had to go back to the F1/HA1 combination.  However, they wanted, in most cases, for the 5302 to look like a 500, so they needed to go back and redesign the G1 handset to accept the F1 and HA1 elements, but still look like a G1 handset.  It is interesting to note that I have seem more 5302s with full F1 handsets than I have seen with GF handsets.

And you are correct, and many people don't realize it, but the 5302 is not a transitional phone.  It came on the scene several years after they plugged the market with 500's.  The 500 design was so successful that they wound up with tons of used 302's that had not lived out their full life.  Rather than scrap them, Ma Bell just applied a little make-up to the 302 and got a phone that outwardly almost resembled a 500.  Probably enough to satisfy most people that did not know the difference.

I am not making fun of the 5302 because I probably have 4 of them.

[Jim S.]

I don't see what you are pointing out.  Either that, or I am lost as to which is page 15.  Can you elaborate?

Page 15 on the "display window " page ( not the book).
There is a photo of a D1, a 500, and a 302 The caption is that it is a display for the 1950 shareholders meeting.


It is a nice go-with photo for D/P's display
Jim

[Jim S.]

Bill,
The first phone we had when I was growing up was a 5302 w/ g/f. They changed it out when I was about 3-4.
Jim

[gpo706]

Base is done nice.

No need for further scraping/cleaning, overall a nice presentable chassis.

As long as the sticky bits are gone!

Coming along nicely.

Where you gonna source the clear body D/P?

[Doug Rose]

Dan...simply outstanding. This looks tremendous. After the MI show, contact Ray Kotke if you haven't already. A clear body and handset would really top it off. The bottom looks great, everything can be read. I'd stop and just add the feet. Great GREAT find! You just might have the last surviving piece of history....Doug

[Drew]

D/P    The base looks nice, and that's a good photo you've provided which leads me to yet one more thought about dating this phone. My guess is that sometime between the 1948 sets and the 1949 test models, the base plate stamping was changed from what you have to what we see in 1950,51, etc....but possibly later, in 1949 ?  It seems that this is among the more noticeable modifications with the 48-50 sets. Kind of wonder why WE did this since after reading notes on field test models, every one was very satisfied with appearance and performance, and it seems that the size of the base and the placement of components did not change, although how the feet are mounted changed, as discussed earlier in this thread. I think at some point, that number 125 stamped on your base will be tied to some Bell Lab notes on the 500 and will specifically date the phone and where it was tested. I would think there are notes on every one of the 4,000 1949 sets since they also sent out a 302 to be exchanged and compared with the 500 (same household)......thats just how detailed Bell Labs and WE were.

Also; Is there a U.S. Patent on the design of the 500 and what was the date it was filed.. Design Patents numbers are preceded by the letter D. For a second I thought that the number on this set, D177001 was the design Patent, but that number dates to 1956, so it's not a design Patent number.

Something tells me this will be among the longest threads the forum has seen ....

Drew

[bwanna]

"old phones in movies", at 261 posts is tops. this thread is second at 203 posts. my guess is it will be the front runner before the week end is over.

btw, d/p, did i ever tell you.....nice work

[McHeath]

I read that great article on "An Improved Telephone Set", it's a very good source of info on the design of the 500 eh?

After reading that article I'm still leaning towards this set being a 1948 unit, one of the 50 that the article says were sent out for trail use in the summer and fall of that year.  The reason being is that these units were specifically pre-production models, and your unit has several features that seem to fall into that category.  The dial is a totally different design, as is the ringer, the feet, the hookswitch, and even the network top and the contours of the base plate.

The article says the 1949 trail units were sent out in November of that year and were pulled right off the assembly line, which also tells us that 49' units were being made that year and are out there someplace.  However, those trail units were production models and I'm assuming that they were the pattern of the later models that we all know so well.

Your unit has a very different pattern, and all the individual stamping of codes indicates that each part was being monitored carefully.

I wonder if Bell Labs would cooperate with you in determining the history of this phone?  Perhaps a letter or phone call to them would open up a direct line into the archives.  Betting there is some documentation there about this specific model.

[Drew]

Key point McHeath.....I missed that about the '49s being pulled directly off the assembly line in Nov. 1949.

It's does seem rather likely that this phone is a 1948....one of only fifty, Wow !

We should make no assumptions about the 125 number indicating it's the 125th unit made - Like many serial number systems, they can start with the number 100 as the first unit or even the number 1000.

[McHeath]

Good point about the numbers marked on this phone not exactly meaning that it's number 125 in series. 

My own thoughts are given the cluster of unusual features this phone has that it's very early, and who knows it may be one of a kind. 

[Jim S.]

I wonder if Bell Labs would cooperate with you in determining the history of this phone?  Perhaps a letter or phone call to them would open up a direct line into the archives.  Betting there is some documentation there about this specific model.

Dave Massey or Paul F might have some contact info for the archives.

I contacted Lucent back in 1999. The archives sent me a photo. Some of the other archives wanted to charge a search fee and then a copy fee as well.

I will PM  D/P the contact info I have from 99. I think the archivist I delt with is probably retired.


Jim

[Jim S.]

http://blog.modernmechanix.com/category/communications/telephone/page/7/

Here is ad for the new set (page 7 2nd photo).  There are some interesting telephone ads on this site.
Jim

[Drew]

I just got off the phone with my father in law who has an extensive scientific background - his father was also a physicist (co-author of The Principles of Electricity by Page/Adams) and was attached to the Signal Corps. during WWII and was working with Bell Labs in New York and New Jersey.  I told him about this phone we've been discussing....it's his feeling that Bell Labs would have kept a very close eye on these phones and it would have definitely been returned for examination and it was policy to destroy any pre production set after a thorough tear down, with the possible exception of a few being offered to the key people involved in the project. Bell Labs would not have wanted anyone in the public to have these or any of their components.  He also feels that there would have been extensive notes on each set, possibly a report on the entire group.

This info might be a bit redundant, but thought a comment from someone in the scientific community  of the 1940's would be of use.