Warning: Contains exposed typewriter mechanisms. Viewer discretion is advised.
With multiple machines on the workbench at the moment, I decided it would be an interesting venture to show off a few of them without their decorative body shells.
The two main machines I'm cleaning currently, a Remington 5 and a Royal P, are very similar in regards to age, shape, size, and function, yet are so completely different.
Where the Remingtons distincive look comes from its flat-fanned typebasket, and its more forward and un-pronounced ribbon spool area., the Royal has the more standard U shape typebasket area with the much larger and noticeable ribbon spool area.
Despite the greater amount of metal on the Remington frame, the Royal just feels more solid for some reason. I will mention that for the longest time I could not consider how the Remington self-starter worked. As with all things, it seems, upon inspection its actually incredibly simple and I'm disappointed I could not imagine a solution myself.
Basically, pushing the key down pushes a catch out to the escapement rack and activates the release. The catch can only move 5 spaces before hitting a stop. Then, by letting the key go, the catch is pulled back and the escapement rack goes back to normal operating position.
The black keys add to the look of the black shell on the Remington, but nothing can beat the style and feel of Royal glass keys.
With those two machines considered, I decided to throw in an unexpected contender; Many of you have seen this little design on my blog before. Its the assembly for a Fox portable typewriter. I decided to show just how tiny it is compared to its bigger competition (well, what would have been the competition had Fox not gone bankrupt in '21).
I like to think that had Fox survived, the patent issues with Corona would have made them produce a 4 bank portable when they realized that others were doing so. The mechanism of the Fox portable, when transitioned to a 4 bank machine, alongside the outstanding level of care given to aesthetics by the company, would have resulted in one of the most attractive and well engineered machines. Alas that they never had the chance to try.
We cant just compare the Fox to a Royal though. No no, we need to bring bitter enemy's together.
I had to threaten them both with WD-40 to get them to not fight, but I can still sense the anger simmering. The Fox, of course, had a mechanism that can be taken out of the main shell entirely. The Corona, entirely opposite in design, is actually built into the main shell. Time has not been kind to the Fox portables; more often then not, they are in terrible shape and function poorly. A shame, because they are so well designed. The manufacturers would have probably laughed at us expecting these machines to survive in working condition after 100 years, but oddly enough as we know, some machines can look like rust piles and still work wonderfully (such as the Underwood 5).
That concludes todays exciting episode of Northwest Typewriters. Tune in next time!
Nice blog. Very interesting comparison!
ReplyDeleteThank you, I try to show off the things not normally seen with these machines
Deleteah typewriters, always different, always the same.
ReplyDeleteDiversely similar, yet similarly diverse. Typewriters are the only known objects in existence which can divide by 0.
DeleteNaked typewriters, NSFW tag needed :D
ReplyDeleteThis is worse than anything else out there. Bar none. I'm surprised I've not been banished from the internet for unleashing such uncivilized photography!
DeleteI sense a naked typewriter meme beginning!
ReplyDeletePerhaps it would give the NanoRhino company in November!
DeleteNeked typewriters - just shocking. I am amazed at how teeny the Fox is compared to the Remington and the Royal. I love these kind of comparisons.
ReplyDeleteWhile the whole thing would stand taller than the Royal, the mechanism and keyboard is just so much more compact. I want to see what a Royal 3-bank would look like.
DeleteAh, if only Fox had survived!
ReplyDeleteNow I have to confess that I didn't know that the keyboard and typebars could be removed like this from the Fox portable! How easy is it? Was the user meant to be able to swap keyboards, or was this more for the convenience of the manufacturer and/or repairman?
On the No. 1 and 2, all one needs to do is take the front plate with the decals off via the 4 small screws that hold it on, then take out the 4 anchoring screws (2 on each side of the body) on the machine. This will separate the typing mechanism, the carriage (still on the folding arms), and the frame itself. It is also very easy to put back together; you place the mechanism back into the frame with the front two screws, have the carriage arms laying down on a flat surface so that you can drop the frame with mechanism in between them, raise the carriage via hand into operational position and screw in the back-left screw. The back-right screw has a spring with it that puts tension on the raising/lowering of the carriage so it doesn't fall down with all its weight. You just need to slip the spring in as you insert the screw.
DeleteOn the Sterling, its both easier and harder. Due to the design, the carriage can be taken off the frame with the mechanism still on by taking out only 4 small screws. Taking the mechanism off is the same as the 1 and 2, you just have to wiggle it out of the bottom of the frame which takes a few seconds. On the 1 and 2, you just lift the mechanism straight up and out.
I don't beleive that it was designed for a user to swap keyboard, though the potentiality exists that had the line survived for more than its 4 short years in production, they may have considered it as it would be truly easy to do (though perhaps via a certified shop). Overall, I think its just how the design ended up; it's all very well engineered, and would have certainly made it easy for a repairman to contend with.
Long response, but the Fox portables are my number one favorite machines so I was obligated to go in depth
Ogled the images.... :-)
ReplyDeleteAgain neat to see how long-lived company designs were. The Royal basic mechanism is not so different from a mid thirties' De Luxe.
And the Remington is pretty much their original Portable, albeit super-sized. (On stiffness of that, in the patents for the Remington design is noted that it's designed with an inner and outer frame. The 'housing' is also meant as a structural part. At least, that's the patent writings...)
Thanks for the pics!
As far as I can tell, the Royal model P design survived all the way up through the 50s or something, with modifications done to it to keep it up to date. I recently worked on a QDL from the 40's, and its definitely the same mechanism. Just goes to show you how well designed the original model was.
DeleteAnd owning a Remington portable no. 1, I can indeed say that the mechanism there is the same, with the lower profile due to the folding nature of the typebars. Another example of a good design continuing on for quite awhile. I hadn't known about Remington designing the frame to be part of the structural integrity, though thinking back on it, it certainly does seem to do just that! Another day, another new fact; Thank you!