Experiment with rubber typewheel for the Blickensderfer

The platen of the Blickensderfer 7 typewriter is rock-hard - like slate. When it was new and still rubbery, it would have cushioned the impact of the hard, vulcanite typewheel and have evened-out the pressure to improve the quality of the imprint.

Instead of getting new rubber on the platen (tricky for a Blick), tried a quick experiment of putting the resilience on the typewheel; use a stiff rubber typewheel with a rock-hard platen.

To manufacture a 'rubber' typewheel, this was printed in TPU - a synthetic rubber that can be used for FDM 3D printing. The limitation is that TPU cannot really be used on a fine 0.2 mm diameter extruder-nozzle, so the model modified for a coarser 0.4 mm. A relatively stiff TPU (Shore 98?) was used. That's very stiff and not 'grippy'.

As can be seen in below image; the TPU wheel is less finely detailed than the PLA wheel.

Despite the coarseness, it does type legibly!:

The quality of work is actually better than expected from a 0.4 mm coarse typewheel. This hints that there is some effect of the TPU being ever so slightly 'springy'. However, the finer detail of the 0.2 mm hard PLA typewheel still makes for better work.

Handling both the PLA and TPU wheels, there is actually not such a great difference in the resilience - this stiff TPU is good for printing, but is not very 'rubbery'. A TPU with Shore 95 or even 85 could be better for cushioning the impact on the platen.

Conclusion from the quick experiment; making the typewheel from Shore 98 TPU is not an improvement over 'hard' PLA with fine detail.

Perhaps still a try with a Shore 85 or 95 material, but for now sticking with using backing-sheets : )

Cut-out drawing of the Underwood 4-bank portable typewriter (why?)

Inside the lid of the carrying case of the typewriter, there is a nicely cut-out image of the typewriter itself.

This label is present in more (all?) of the early Underwood 4-bank portable cases, so almost certainly this was pasted inside the lid by Underwood themselves.

It's a nice touch. Having looked at it a bit more, did start to wonder what the reason was behind this little pasted label. As owner, you'd know this was the lid for your Underwood 4-bank. In the 1920s it would I think anyhow be most unusual for anyone to own more than one portable typewriter. And a shop or dealer would for sure know to match a lid with the correct typewriter.

There is no additional text or advertising copy - and that would in any case be a bit late; when looking at the inside of the lid, the viewer most likely already is the owner of the machine. For adding advertising copy to the machine, a more likely chosen solution would have been to visibly stow e.g. the instruction leaflet (as e.g. on some Royal portable).

Perhaps it was simply an expression of the pride they took in their new 4-bank Standard Portable. (Do late 3-bank Portables have a 3-bank picture inside the lid?)

The decision for the extra cost of making and pasting this label was probably documented and written about in Underwood company internal memo's and work instructions. These will however all be long gone.

So whilst it's a nice touch, it does leave me wondering on the thinking behind it.

Difficult to date, timeless construction (from 1884)

Once very common and still found on flea-markets and in thrift stores, the pocket spring balance. In this instance, a Hughes Pocket Balance with the scale marked in kilos.

Above the legend stating it is a Hughes Pocket Balance, there is the knot and arrow logo of Salter. Near the bottom of the faceplate, it states 'patent'. And indeed this is a patented construction for a low-cost mass-manufactured pocket spring balance. 

The patent was applied in Britain (granted as British patent 800 of 1884) and in several other countries. Inventors are John Hughes and Thomas Bache Salter, assigning to George Salter & Co. of West Bromwich - makers of spring scales since the 1790s. The drawings of e.g. the Canadian patent 20,397 show exactly the clever construction of the item above.

The single metal sheet at the back forms the frame, with the several shaped pieces slotting into and onto the spring and frame like a sliding-puzzle. Only a few rivets needed to create a working unit, no brazing or soldering. 

The top of the frame sheet is shaped with 'flaps' as shown also in the above figures from the US patent 390,522 applied for in 1884 and issued in 1888. These flaps are folded over to form the top wall of the frame, slotting into the top-eyelet that is attached to the spring. Even though this specimen was heavily corroded, the flaps are visible.

The construction of these pocket balances has not changed much since 1884 - they are still being made new today with the same design and construction.

This makes these items also quite difficult to date, it is hard to estimate when a specimen was manufactured. 

The marking of Salter's pocket balances seems to have changed from Hughes to Salter over time, for example in the picture in a 1921 advertisement the faceplate is marked Salter. Of course not certain if all products changed from Hughes over to Salter, or if it perhaps varied per type or batch even.

The knot and arrow trademark was registered in 1884, so that also does not narrow it down in any way. Specimens with hollow 'pop'-rivets instead of solid rivets would however be more modern, e.g. 1950s or later. A post-war item would also be expected to have a 'made in England' marking.

All this merely narrows the date-range down to anywhere between 1884 and perhaps 1920-ish. The style of engraving on the brass faceplate is fits that range - for example the below Salter-marked specimen with a more modern-looking engraving is likely to be from the 1920s or 30s.

Impossible to date exactly, this slightly battered Hughes Pocket Balance probably dates from around 1900, with about 15 years uncertainty either way.

A proven and timeless design :-)

Silver-Reed 100 sitting on a chair

(Typed with a reproduction wheel 223 "Print Type" on a Blickensderfer - a bit blotchy from a freshly over-inked pad.) 

Ink rolls for the Blickensderfer dry out, they also did so a century ago

Old, original rolls for the Blickensderfer typewriter will still contain plenty of colorant, but be completely dry - and the typewriter will not print. Online sources mention these can be revived with WD40 - though the mix of many different (mineral?) oils would give me pause to do so. Some of the heavier fractions of WD40 tend to set into a hard 'tar-like' consistency. The lighter fractions will however be effective in making a roll functional (until they evaporate), if of course the roll is still cylindrical and not worn down in the middle.

(Looking at old typewriter ribbon ink ingredient lists, reviving an old roll might be best attempted with castor-oil, neatsfoot oil or poppyseed oil. One or a mix of these was likely used as the original carrier for the pigment on these ink rolls.)

An alternative is of course to make new ink rolls from cylindrical felt and modern stamping pad ink. However, modern water-based stamp inks dry out rather quickly too. When typing on a Blick, a new roll needs to be fitted regularly. Or of course replenished with another drop or two of ink to soak into the roll.

Maintaining proper inking of a roll on the Blick is not a new challenge. It seems that maintaining a proper inked and clearly printing ink roll was also a concern a century ago when the Blick was 'current'. For faint printing; "a dried pad can be revived by allowing a few drops of Blickenderfer Pad Reviver to soak into it":

In the very extensive user manual for the Blickensderfer 7 and 8 typewriters published by the London Blick company, the price-list mentions a bottle of reviving liquid! For sixpence per bottle:

Very curious if any of these bottles survived - and if the contents could then be determined! (Equally curious what's included in the Re-inking outfit at 2/6.)

This manual also contains a very insightful section on 'Faults' of the machine - the manivaried ways that the Blickensderfer may be giving less than satisfactory results. Reading these it reveals that many of the issues encountered today were also experienced in 1913. (And probably right from 1897 - the text samples suggest that this booklet was originally written in 1897, this being the expanded 8th edition of 1913.)

With care and attention, my No. 7 gives reasonable output. Now having read these instruction, it may actually be that the machine is already performing close to 'when-new' levels :-)

Instructions For Using The Blick Typewriters No. 7 & 8 Models - available on The Archive.