While doing research for Eric Halkyard to establish the timeframe that CD 104 was produced, I ran across a previously unreported Brookfield style in the 1893 and 1894 General Electric catalogs. Colin Jung showed this very poor image from the 1893 catalog he had obtained from an online source. [id=349784626]

The pony style shown on the first page of the 1893 catalog appeared to be a CD 102. [id=453046778] Originally I thought it was the same illustration used in the 1894 catalog, but Eric's sharper eye noted the two ponies were different. The 1893 image was too fuzzy to determine the catalog number. Then I realized the descriptions of the 5 styles under the three illustrations were in fact identical wording in 1893 and 1894 and just the pony illustration had been changed to CD 102 in the 1894 catalog.

CD 102 in the 1894 is No. 9322. The center one in 1893 is No. 9312. Can't read the fuzzy number but it certainly does appear it could be 9312.

Now read the description of No. 9312 (easier to read in this 1894 catalog page): "Pony Deep Groove Double Petticoat Glass Insulator." That style had an inner skirt, so it can't be CD 104. The catalog number and the description appears later in other catalogs as the Brookfield and Star CD 160. However, the 1893 pony illustration is clearly a CD 102 style pony. If the description was inteneded for the 1893 illustration, then could it be CD 146.4, which is essentially the same size as CD 102. The Price Guide shows CD 146.4 is only known with no embossing and the notation is: {Pennycuick style} {This is a CD 104 with an inner skirt}. Could the known specimens have been made by Brookfield? Or is the 1893 illustration simply CD 104 with an incorrect description? We need more information in order to determine which style was represented by the 1893 illustration.