IOTW CD 109

From Insulator Wiki (Wikilator)

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 11:58, 22 May 2008
Andrew Gibson (Talk | contribs)
(IOTW CD 019 moved to IOTW CD 109: Typo when created page)
← Previous diff		 Revision as of 12:03, 23 May 2008
Andrew Gibson (Talk | contribs)
(Daily Update)
Next diff →
Line 41: Line 41:
information from ICON. Now it's your turn to share info and/or post information from ICON. Now it's your turn to share info and/or post
photos of your favorite CD 109! photos of your favorite CD 109!
 +
 +| discussion =
 +{{Comment
 +| name = Andrew Gibson
 +| date = Thu, 22 May 2008
 +| comment =
 +The CD 109 happens to be one of my favorite shapes. When I first
 +discovered Woodward's 1967 Report in the local library, I was intrigued
 +with this shape. And when I got the Milholland's guide book and saw the
 +picture, this became about my "most wanted". Of course, the price tag
 +made it unlikely I'd ever be able to get it (my allowance at the time
 +didn't come close -- but I could dream). Fast forward a few years to when
 +I was in college, and going to my first National. I had saved up a nice
 +bit, and I discovered that there was a CD 109 for sale. It had some
 +internal fractures on one side, but also had some milky goop that really
 +looked neat, and it fit my budget. I bought it and I've always been happy
 +I did. These are a really neat piece!
 +
 +Now, as with any insulator I get, I like knowing something of the history.
 +Knowing these were patented in 1883, it makes sense that they were made
 +shortly thereafter -- I can't imagine that they were made for any extended
 +period of time, given their rarity. But who made them? The CD 109 is
 +base-embossed, and one version of the CD 135 is also base embossed. The
 +other version is shoulder embossed. The base embossing immediately makes
 +one think of Samuel Oakman, and the date is certainly right for him, but
 +there's no clue of any sort that associates him with their manufacture
 +other than the location of the embossing. I have heard some speculation,
 +given the different colors and different embossing locations on the 135,
 +that there may have been more than one manufacturer involved. The same
 +might not be true of the 109, though. One tidbit that intrigues me is
 +that on February 20, 1885, a lawsuit was brought against the Chicago
 +Insulating Company by the Leonard Glass Works of Detroit, Michigan. They
 +were attempting to recover some $8,000 (which, in today's dollars, would
 +be about $180,000). It seems reasonable to assume that Leonard Glass
 +Works did a fair amount of work for Chi Ins Co, and it would seem equally
 +reasonable to believe that the work they did was making insulators!
 +
 +It would appear that the Chicago Insulating Company only lasted for a
 +couple of years. They had listings in the Chicago City Directory in 1883
 +and 1884, for a location at 122 LaSalle Street, Chicago.
 +
 +Also, interestingly, my recollection is that there's an ad for the Chicago
 +Insulating Company, for these insulators. Of note is a reference to a
 +larger style diamond pony than has ever been found. Perhaps there's a
 +larger version of the 109 out there waiting to be found!
 +}}
 +
 +{{Comment
 +| name = Bob Stahr
 +| date = Thu, 22 May 2008
 +| comment =
 +Yes, Andrew the Leonard Glassworks in Detroit is known to have made Chicago
 +Diamonds, at least known to me. I have uncovered a number of newspaper and
 +trade journal articles detailing the lawsuit between Chicago Insulating
 +Company and Leonard. It appears that Chicago was a short lived affair and
 +went bankrupt and owed Leonard money. The lawsuit dragged out into the court
 +system from 1885 to 1892. Leonard is to have been reported in so much
 +trouble that they might have closed in 1886. So, Since Chicago Insulating
 +Co. incorporated in November 20, 1882 and was being sued by February 20,
 +1885, it can be assumed the insulators were made for a very short time at
 +Leonard.
 +
 +I suppose another glass company could have made Chicago's. If I had to guess
 +it would be upstate New York at Ellenville, Matthew Johnson patented a
 +machine for making insulators on August 14, 1883. Note his address is in
 +Ellenville.
 +
 +Johnson patent:
 +{{Patent
 +| type = Utility
 +| number = 282,989
 +| patentee = Mathew Johnson
 +| date = August 14, 1883
 +}}
 +
 +Note that there is also a Homer Brooke's patent issued the same day August
 +14, 1883.
 +{{Patent
 +| type = Utility
 +| number = 283,321
 +| patentee = Homer Brooke
 +| date = August 14, 1883
 +}}
 +
 +This just adds to the confusion.
 +
 +In addition here are some Ellenville references to insulators:
 +[http://www.hopefarm.com/ulster1.htm]
 +[http://www.neversinkmuseum.org/Irish%20glass%20makers.html]
 +}}
 +
 +{{Comment
 +| name = Paul Greaves
 +| date = Thu, 22 May 2008
 +| comment =
 +Fabulous information! From you link below, it sounds like the Museum in
 +Ellenville has glass insulators that were supposed to have been made
 +there. It would sure be interesting to know what kind they are! Here
 +is the location... is there anyone that lives locally that could go find
 +out?
 +
 +Ellenville Museum, Terwilliger House
 +45 Canal Street, Ellenville, NY
 +Telephone: 845-647-5530
 +}}
 +
}} }}

Revision as of 12:03, 23 May 2008

Contents

CD 109 - Insulator of the Week on Wed, 21 May 2008

Nickname

Chicago teardrop pony

Related Patents

Utility Patent 286,801 issued to Bradley Fiske & Samuel Mott on October 16, 1883

Details

Embossing: (Base Rim) Chicago Insulating Co. Pat. Oct. 16, 1883

Colors: Usually just a standard aqua. Some have been found with a good degree of milk inclusions.

Comments

Patented by Fiske & Mott in 1883. The primary selling point of this design involved the wire groove. There was minimal contact with the wire due to the narrow raised ribs between the cutout patterns. This was touted as a means for providing better insulating qualities. In addition, Fiske & Mott also incorporated a second feature that involved the lack of projections above the body of the insulator at the wire groove. Insulators of that time period with raised projections at the wire groove, (such as the CD 130.1 Cal Electric Works) were evidently known for their susceptibility to damage, both before and during use. The "streamline" design of the CD 109, having no projections, was an equally important selling point. Both of these features are also found on the considerably more common Chicago CD 135s.

These brief comments on the Insulator of the Week are not intended to be complete and are presented to encourage discussion and additional information from ICON. Now it's your turn to share info and/or post photos of your favorite CD 109!

Questions

None

Discussion

Andrew Gibson commented on Thu, 22 May 2008

The CD 109 happens to be one of my favorite shapes. When I first discovered Woodward's 1967 Report in the local library, I was intrigued with this shape. And when I got the Milholland's guide book and saw the picture, this became about my "most wanted". Of course, the price tag made it unlikely I'd ever be able to get it (my allowance at the time didn't come close -- but I could dream). Fast forward a few years to when I was in college, and going to my first National. I had saved up a nice bit, and I discovered that there was a CD 109 for sale. It had some internal fractures on one side, but also had some milky goop that really looked neat, and it fit my budget. I bought it and I've always been happy I did. These are a really neat piece!

Now, as with any insulator I get, I like knowing something of the history. Knowing these were patented in 1883, it makes sense that they were made shortly thereafter -- I can't imagine that they were made for any extended period of time, given their rarity. But who made them? The CD 109 is base-embossed, and one version of the CD 135 is also base embossed. The other version is shoulder embossed. The base embossing immediately makes one think of Samuel Oakman, and the date is certainly right for him, but there's no clue of any sort that associates him with their manufacture other than the location of the embossing. I have heard some speculation, given the different colors and different embossing locations on the 135, that there may have been more than one manufacturer involved. The same might not be true of the 109, though. One tidbit that intrigues me is that on February 20, 1885, a lawsuit was brought against the Chicago Insulating Company by the Leonard Glass Works of Detroit, Michigan. They were attempting to recover some $8,000 (which, in today's dollars, would be about $180,000). It seems reasonable to assume that Leonard Glass Works did a fair amount of work for Chi Ins Co, and it would seem equally reasonable to believe that the work they did was making insulators!

It would appear that the Chicago Insulating Company only lasted for a couple of years. They had listings in the Chicago City Directory in 1883 and 1884, for a location at 122 LaSalle Street, Chicago.

Also, interestingly, my recollection is that there's an ad for the Chicago Insulating Company, for these insulators. Of note is a reference to a larger style diamond pony than has ever been found. Perhaps there's a larger version of the 109 out there waiting to be found!

Bob Stahr commented on Thu, 22 May 2008

Yes, Andrew the Leonard Glassworks in Detroit is known to have made Chicago Diamonds, at least known to me. I have uncovered a number of newspaper and trade journal articles detailing the lawsuit between Chicago Insulating Company and Leonard. It appears that Chicago was a short lived affair and went bankrupt and owed Leonard money. The lawsuit dragged out into the court system from 1885 to 1892. Leonard is to have been reported in so much trouble that they might have closed in 1886. So, Since Chicago Insulating Co. incorporated in November 20, 1882 and was being sued by February 20, 1885, it can be assumed the insulators were made for a very short time at Leonard.

I suppose another glass company could have made Chicago's. If I had to guess it would be upstate New York at Ellenville, Matthew Johnson patented a machine for making insulators on August 14, 1883. Note his address is in Ellenville.

Johnson patent: Utility Patent 282,989 issued to Mathew Johnson on August 14, 1883

Note that there is also a Homer Brooke's patent issued the same day August 14, 1883. Utility Patent 283,321 issued to Homer Brooke on August 14, 1883

This just adds to the confusion.

In addition here are some Ellenville references to insulators: [1] [2]

Paul Greaves commented on Thu, 22 May 2008

Fabulous information! From you link below, it sounds like the Museum in Ellenville has glass insulators that were supposed to have been made there. It would sure be interesting to know what kind they are! Here is the location... is there anyone that lives locally that could go find out?

Ellenville Museum, Terwilliger House 45 Canal Street, Ellenville, NY Telephone: 845-647-5530

Retrieved from "https://www.insulators.info/wiki/IOTW_CD_109"
Personal tools

Served by www.insulators.info at October 31, 2024 09:00:58 PM in 0.08 secs.