Sheluma

I don't know what's wrong with me, for some reason I thought you didn't have the plate. The W&G was initially $75, with the foot control not working. When I got there he plugged it in (you can plug this machine into the wall without the controller), and the motor hummed but the machine wouldn't move. We spritzed it with WD40, but it needs a lot more. There is an opening in the motor big enough to see the commutator which had a thick layer of black carbon, and I could see sparks (this may be normal?) when it was running. So he let me have it for $25. A few days later he found the manual, and I tried to pay him for it but he refused to take anything. The manual has been taped several times and some pages (starting with p.2) are stuck together and I can't get them apart without tearing the paper. It is a mess, splotched all over with machine oil, falling apart, no cover, but I'm really happy to have it.

Anyway, sorry to hijack with W&G, but about the buttonholer, it may have been a Singer, but an interim one that was crappy. I'm no expert because I've never made a buttonhole by machine, but I think there is another slant buttonholer -- in the pink clamshell "jetsons" case. I think that one and the metal one in the maroon case were for the 301. They don't come with the 401 plate. Then I think there was the crappy one that Joan had, then the "professional" buttonholer came out. I think she told me it was made in Japan or Taiwan.

Sheluma

My memory is not to be trusted because this was so long ago, so it might have been made in the US. Maybe it was this one:
http://www.rubylane.com/item/490120-...Attachment-for

miriam

As far as button hole makers go - I like the one in the pink case best.

ArchaicArcane

I believe you might be right. It didn't work on the 503, then I moved it to the 411 and it worked mostly but was temperamental, then moved it to the 503 again and it did a beautiful job. I probably displaced the gum.

I oiled it tonight, and left the 503 out. I'm going to try to do a monogram with it tomorrow.

I think now that you have the plate, the plate that comes with the other monogrammer should be irrelevant. I opened the initial template today for the first time ever. I think it's possible the OSMG I got this monogrammer from had new old stock. All of the boxes were in one of his sheds and had been wet and were mildewy. I took everything out of the box and built a wood box for it. My monogrammer is packaged a little differently than the one in the ISMACS link, the initials all came in a small separate box.

I think you did great with the W&G! I bet it smartens right up when you get that motor cleaned up. I think the commutator is likely a huge part of your issue. Some sparks are normal, like if you run a drill, you can see the sparks. Same type of motor.

I think I may know of an offline source for the plate. Let me contact them and see. I remember back a few months ago, SteveH said he could make some flat stock pieces. If we can get the plate and bobbin case to him, I'd love to know if he could make the modified pieces. I would have no problem sending him spares. I don't want to send the ones from my 411, in case the post loses them.

Yes, I think of the Jetsons one and the one in the Maroon cased one the same buttonholer, in different clothes. It may be wrong, I think it's because they use the same templates that I usually think that.

I've seen that box for low shank, but never for the slant. I didn't realise that it wasn't very good. I've used the jetsons one on the 503. Works like a charm. I can't recall what plate I used. The one that comes in the buttonholers is pretty much generic. It attaches where the seam guide does. Or I may have just raised the throat plate. It's been more than a year, I can't remember what was for dinner last night. I don't see any reason the Maroon case one wouldn't work on it either.

Technically, the monogrammer (in straight stitch mode) would work on the 301, I think.

Functionally, you find the pink and maroon cased buttonholers different?

Sheluma

I don't know for sure that it was that one. I don't want to disparage what might be a decent buttonholer. Now I wish I had let her send it to me. BTW, I mentioned Joan's name because I thought someone might remember her. She used to write a vintage fabrics column online that is still archived, and she wrote a book on vintage fabrics. She died several years ago.

miriam

I haven't had a button holer in the maroon case - I like it better than the 'professional' I know it moves fabric back and forth but for what ever reason I like it better. I guess I though the button holes came out a little nicer - I don't remember why though. The pink case is for the slant and the green is for short shank.

Have you tested the Greist buttonholer, too? I have one that may be new old stock. I tested it but it, too was gunky with old dead oil. I can't remember what happened after that. LOL I have a couple real old Singers - you have to really follow the manual but those work very nice - no where for the oil to hide.

ArchaicArcane

Well, it turns out I have one of the Slant Singer buttonholers here, the one in the cardboard box. I literally tripped over it the other today. Those weird things on the corners? They're actual metal. Made a mess of my foot. I really have to pay more attention. *sigh*

I'll try it out the next time I have a slant machine out. It doesn't really look any different outwardly than the one in the pink Jetsons case. The dies are plastic though. I wonder if that's why it wasn't loved. That said, if it's got plastic dies, and the jetsons case has the same metal ones as the maroon case and the Low shank ones in the green cases, I'd have guessed that the Jetsons one was available first.

I'm sure others recognize Joan's name, I'm far too new to sewing to recognize it, I think.

I don't think I've used one of the professional ones yet. I have a few here, but the occasion just hasn't happened. I like the maroon / pink one because the dies seem more robust. What are they made of though?

I have 2 of the greist buttonholers here, but I haven't tested them to see if they work with the low shank Singers. I would think they would, but the chart on the back throws me a little. I have the Pfaff one (#8) which says "All Pfaff sewing machines except models 139, 239, 1221 and 1222" and the #6 which says "low bar - Left needle position zig zag and automatic machines"

I know that the 139, 239 and 1222 are high shank, but why differentiate between the Pfaff and the other low shank center needle position machines?

You know that John Greist worked for Singer? He was Griest on their patents, including the puzzleboxes if memory serves, and when he opened his company it was Greist. Can't remember where I read that either.

ETA: Here it is: http://www.thesewbox.com/2008/06/blog-post.html


I haven't gotten my hands on one of the really old buttonholers, but I've heard good things about them too. There was a great blog post somewhere that they tested and compared all of them, the Greist, the Singer, the Ruby, the Famous, others I'm forgetting about... I have the famous here, and I think the ruby is a buttonholer, not a zig zag attachment too.

Sheluma

Ouch. The transition from plastic to cardboard was painful.

Yes, that makes sense. Also the cardboard box (vs. plastic). BTW, I've seen archival cardboard boxes with corners like that (made today). I wish I knew which buttonholer Joan had. I actually searched my old hard drive hoping to find a picture of it, but no luck. Maybe they ran out of the jetsons when she bought her 401, or maybe it had been discontinued?

My green one is buried but they *look* like they could be aluminum or zinc. (?) I wonder.
I've wondered about how difficult it may have been for Griest/Greist to transition from Singer to his own company. I wonder if, by some "exit contract", he wasn't allowed to mention the Singer name on his products. Could that be why low shank was lumped in with Pfaff? Or, did he market the Pfaff buttonholer under contract with Pfaff, which would have precluded mentioning any other brand? I don't have any Greist buttonholers -- maybe there is a low-shank set that is "generic", and basically a duplicate of the Pfaff one?
And the Peerless that SteveH has. I like the look of the old ones with no "clothes". I think there are more options without cams, but of course more settings to adjust. I wonder if you can make an eyelet.

Macybaby

I have both of the monogramers (long cam and round cam) but have not tired either of them yet. Don't have a 500 series machine yet either (hope to by the end of October).

ArchaicArcane

I don't get the impression that it was discontinued. I always thought that the Pink Jetsons one came out with the 500 series machines, but I could be wrong. The manual's date is 1960 on it. I don't have the manual for the Greist one.

The Singer one in the carboard box has an advertisement for the monogrammer that does the larger letters, possibly the one that MacyBaby mentions?

I found this interesting when I found it last night:
http://www.sil.si.edu/DigitalCollect...ring%20Company

Those first 2 links show a Griest branded "Improved Singer" machine and a large manufacturing building in the literature. They show a date of 1879, 10 years before the Puzzle boxes came out.

I'm really surprised that Singer worked with him, since it looks like that same thing destroyed any chance of Singer ever building machines for Sears: http://www.ismacs.net/sears/sears.html

Then later, after he left Singer, it looks like he retained a contract to continue to make attachments for them: http://www.oldsewingear.com/1/category/greist/1.html


Hopefully not lead? That's one thing that was used a lot back then, til we knew what it did...

I think it was easier than you'd suspect. It looks like they had a partnership for years. The low shank that they claim is fairly universal is the #9, it's lumped with the Necchi machines. The only thing I can think of is that the thumbscrew for my Pfaff 130 doesn't fit any of my Singer machines. Could it be that simple? Singer, Necchi, Pfaff and others are all mentioned on the back of the buttonholer. Including a reference to a Slant buttonholer which would be Singer only. It's a chart of 10 different representations of sewing machines, and then tells you which one you need. That's where the #6 and #8 references came from.
I'd love to have one of those in my hands to try it out. I've never had a need for eyelets, but you know if I came across that eyelet template I'd have to snag it. )