"The phone is a remarkably complex, simple device, and very rarely ever needs repairs, once you fix them." - Dan/Panther
Started by mentalstampede, July 02, 2017, 11:30:31 AM
Quote from: mentalstampede on July 03, 2017, 11:56:46 PMThe plot thickens! I opened mine up to take more photos, and much to my surprise I have no blue lead on my dial like is shown on the diagram and You have in your phones. This does not as far as I can tell appear to have any detrimental effect on the operation of the phone, but it is interesting nonetheless. If my reading of the circuit diagram is correct, the only thing that changes is the transmitter is not shorted out of the circuit while dialing, only the receiver. Perhaps that would indicate that mine is an earlier phone with more similarity to the 700 series?In any case, My dial is mounted in a recessed bezel like Alex's is. Also, my ring has large dots instead of the triangular chevrons I'm used to seeing on AE dials.Mine has a 4 55 date on the base, so even though the elements have mid 1954 dates, they weren't actually assembled into a complete phone until April 1955.
Quote from: unbeldi on July 03, 2017, 08:18:08 PMIt's hard to find AE80s of this early date, as it is hard to find 100s. I think AE_Collector (Terry) has some early 80s. I don't know how long they made the 100, but perhaps no longer than until they started to make AE 80s for AE.
QuoteI had always questioned why Leich jumped in numbers from type 700 to 100, in a short period of time. It think the 700s came out around 1953, and I have reached the opinion that the 100 series was brought to market after the GT merger with the Gary Company, and Leich became subordinate to Automatic Electric in the combination. AE had the 80/90 series already on the books, so the successor to the Leich 700 became the 100. Therefore, the 100 acquired the Type 52 dial from the AE 80, for which it was made, I believe.
QuoteSo, this is the explanation for my asking for the dial pictures. I am kind of surprised to see yours had a recessed (cupped) dial mounting bezel/ring, rather than the Type 52 front mounted number plate. Perhaps the early 100s also used 51A dials, which is what I think yours is if it has bifurcated springs with twin-contacts points. The picture is straight on, so I can't determine whether that is true in fact.
QuoteI thought 1955 was the first year of manufacture for the 100s, but Mentalstampede's 1954-dated receiver and transmitter may indicate the previous year. Why else would Leich have bought WECo T1 and U1 elements ? Perhaps they bought a large batch during the design phase already. On my August 1955 set, the elements are dated in January and April 1955, also several months before set production.
QuoteIt may well be that the 100-type evolved in components used in the course of this time in mid-1950s, especially as the dial is concerned. Stromberg-Carlson underwent similar contemporaneous evolution from 1400 to the 1500 series.Your picture shows the two receiver shunt wires are more or less white/grey, while they are red and yellow in the diagram, and also on my set with the PVC insulation. Is there evidence that they are just color-faded the entire length?
QuoteThe colors WH and GR, also R and Y were already used for the dial in the 700 series, so in the 100 they just added the blue.
QuoteBTW, the 700 series had specifications, that it could use a WECo #7 dial, albeit wired differently than in a 500 set.
QuoteI think AE started using PVC insulation closer to their move to Northlake in 1957, so I think my dial may have been installed later than 1956, as I think I alluded to earlier. That was the date on the replacement ringer.
Quote from: Alex G. Bell on July 05, 2017, 01:21:28 AMInvestigating why my 100 C does not ring I found correct ringer and capacitor wiring. I had thought the ringer clapper spring seemed very stiff considering that the ringer frame is stamped "SL 8 57" in vermilion. I took the "SL" to mean it was a straight line ringer but now I have my doubts. For one thing there is no bias spring and for another the clapper, though small, as it might be for either a SL or moderately high frequency ringer, is attached with a set screw, something I would only expect with a frequency ringer. The clapper also sits pretty much half-way between gongs, another thing that suggests a frequency rather than SL ringer.
Quote from: mentalstampede on July 05, 2017, 12:45:22 PMInteresting. It certainly sounds like a frequency ringer, bit I have never seen what a Leich straight line ringer looks like to compare. Is there anything stamped on the capacitor housing? My 20~ has the frequency stamped on the capacitor itself.
Quote from: HarrySmith on July 05, 2017, 04:55:38 PMLooking at that squarish hole magnified, the edges seem very rough and the metal is rusted where it was bent indicating the finish broke at those points. Maybe someone punched a hole to run a wire through?? Just a thought.
Quote from: unbeldi on July 05, 2017, 04:59:48 PMI agree, your set (AGB's) exhibits a high degree of oddness w/r/t the ringer, lol.It certainly has all the feature of a frequency ringer, and an SL ringer would have a bias spring.I don't have any 100-set brochures or any catalogs where the 100 sets are shown. The ringer code table, that I posted, I got from a 700 set brochure, IIRC. I would have recorded comments, had I ever found any discrepancies with observed ringer markings.
Quote from: Alex G. Bell on July 05, 2017, 01:13:09 PMI read the code and capacitance value and looked them up on the chart on the wiring diagram. The reed is so stiff, the clapper being centered and the lack of a bias spring all seem pretty clear indications that it is NOT a SL ringer despite the clear "SL" marking. I have to think that between these things and the "C" code on the bottom of the set, that it was mismarked in the factory rather than the ringer having been swapped out.