I looked at my photobucket site - and it looks like I never shared a picture of my $10 "save". It was the top of a White treadle cabinet (no drawers though) with a VS2 machine (like above) inside. It was in the back "junk" room of an antique shop and I resisted the first day, but I felt really bad knowing it would either go in the trash or become a tractor - so the next day when we were going past, we stopped and picked it up.

Here is the machine I picked up in the treadle top for $10.

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c3...ps85c248da.jpg

I found the box of attachments, and it had two extra shuttles and 6 bobbins in is - and I looked and the above machine also had the shuttle and a bobbin still in it (probably a big reason I bought it in the first place).

I've got at least 8 white shuttles on hand, so I"m sure I can spare one - send me a PM if interested.

Thanks, MacyBaby!
 

Thank you for all the info, Cathy. I *am* having trouble finding a shuttle. so if you can help me, that is great, too!

I went and found a more "useable" 1923 Singer Model 66 Redeye...in nearly new condition...a little dirty and has a small wear spot where an inner wooden piece of the treadle cabinet that was supposed to "clamp" the machine head in place when closed (either added or designed that way) pressed on the machine head in one spot. The wood had no cushion on it or anything, so it slightly messed with one small part of a decal. It's not rubbed off, but just damaged slightly there. The machine came with some accessories and 4 bobbins, and an original manual in good shape (except missing the back cover). The thing was owned by a guy whose mother owned it and had inherited it from her mother in law...so it was a single family machine.

But this white seems to be a little unique, and I'd like to get it in working order...starting with needing a shuttle. As it turns out, it does have an original top clamp setup, and it has some nice original low-shank accessories to match....very heavy-made and chromed. I have a single bobbin that fits, and I think it just needs some cleaning, oiling and a shuttle, to try it out. :)

Thanks for all the info, and when I can I'll try to take some pics of it, and post them here. I love old machinery, but I think I could get sucked into collecting sewing machines, so I may just sell this one when I get it in a little better shape. On second thought, I'm sure I'm gonna keep it...it's too neat!

BTW, what is the safest, gentllest way to clean these old machines, so that I don't damage the paint or especially the seemingly fragile decals? Also, though they call these "decals," are they really that?...or were they painted on or stenciled? To me a decal is an applique. Is that why they are so fragile (it would seem)?

Thanks again!
-Dave

There is a sticky at the top that has info about cleaning - an yes, they are decals - applied on top of the paint and then a protective coat (shellac) put on over the top. The shellac wears off (or get mistakenly cleaned off) and then the decals start wearing off.

OK, here's a long dissertation on restoring sewing machines, as I see it. Who am I to have an opinion on the subject when I am just a newbie to sewing machines? Well, I'm not a newbie to restoring metal and metalwork, I'm adept artistically...and I have always loved fine machinery of all kinds. SO....

I looked at all the cleaning methods both here and on ISMACS...which got into restoration, and I think that their methods are OK (if not harsh) for "museum restoration"-type approaches, but since there is no huge market value in "rare" sewing machines (do any sell for hundred of thousands of dollars?), and since there is no way around the "re-doing" of a rough machine to get it back to anything resembling it's original glory, and since re-doing is not "original" regardless of your approach....with an old machine that is rough, I'd much prefer a total makeover...complete finish-replacement, using modern finishing materials which are far superior in every way to old japanning and varnish.

In the case of my White VS-2, which has very nice metal but very little decal-ing left, I can sandblast the metal, spray it with synthetic coatings that will not scratch...like a car finish. Then I can duplicate the decal-ing from pictures of the same model (VS-2) and from "before" pictures...hand paint it...again with superior coatings. And finally, I can give multiple clear coats of a super hard polymer coating. I can then either buff and clear coat the shiny metal parts, or even re-chrome any thing that was chromed but rusted. If necessary, I could even get my buddy to machine any plates I need...from polished stainless if I wish. The machine would truly be better than original, and ready for twice the 125-odd years that it's lasted already....it could look better in 250 years, than it does today. I don't see that this approach takes a dang thing away from the machine at all. All of the essence of the machine...it's BUILD...it's beautiful mechanical workings...would remain intact. Only it's clothing would change, and that would be twice as good as original, yet look closer to original (ie: new) than if it had been "restored" using old techniques and to the degree that Glenn or Graham recommend, which leaves it's flaws still readily apparent. Call it's weathered, damaged facade "character" if you wish, but I'll take the machine's original character back any day, and start a whole new life together with it.

Don't care what Glenn or Graham think about this approach. I only agree with their approach in a situation where you have very significant original/new condition to begin with...THEN a museum restore makes sense (as in my 1923 66 Redeye...excellent original condition). If you have a machine whose condition doesn't really represent it's original glory, then "restoring" using original technique makes no real sense...it's still not "original" when you've messed with it (ie: when finished). And remaking it in a spectacular way with modern materials does no more harm to it than what they do in "restoring" it with old methods. You can always sandblast my spectacularly-remade machine and start over with original techniques...including remaking original decals if you wish. Truly, what does it matter it the machine's facade is half gone (or more) to begin with?

If you have a machine in ANY condition, and you want be true to maintaining it as original (ie: a TRUE museum piece), you cannot tinker with it except in the very minimalist fashion, so as to maintain it in it's current state and prevent further deterioration. Now THAT is the ONLY way to be true to preserving the actual original essence of the machine. You would never polish a rare coin, for example...or ANY museum piece, except in rare circumstance. Instead, you would simply arrest any deterioration, and place it in an environment which will protect it from further deterioration. So what Glenn and Graham do is not in reality any more "preservative" than what I would prefer to do in a restoration project. In my opinion, it is actually less so, since my methods would truly preserve the metal machine from deterioration much better than their use of original old materials and techniques. Theirs would simply preserve what's left of it's haggard looks.

That's the way I see it. I'd be much happier owning and USING a brand spankin' new 1880-90's White VS machine, than an ol' nag that I'm forever worrying about knocking off a piece of decal from her nose. I think I'd be honoring her and her makers more by a complete makeover than by a bath, a callus-sanding and corn-removal, any day, and I think they'd like it better if they were around, too, so long as I kept their same original motif. That part I'd faithfully reproduce by hand painted artwork...again, superior to decals.

That's the arduous and ardent makeover I have planned with ole Vicky Sue, too. (VS-2) :)

Now my Singin' Betty Red-Eyes, she'll be restored, since she's purty to begin with, and I'll just keep her as she is. I just hope she doesn't get jealous...

One last note...of course, by it's very nature, woodwork is ALWAYS a "restore" unless it's rotten, and then it's either get a new piece somewhere or build your own. That's because it has no underlying structure that is not directly related to it's outward appearance. That is not the case with a metal machine. It has both an inner and outer beauty. Therein lies the difference, the way I see it.

vdot
You make some very valid points. It is always interesting to have a new perspective on our old machines. When I bought my first VS Singer, about 15% of the decals were left. It deserved a better look, even if it meant going solid black. Now when I sew with it, those worn out decals don't ruin the mood. I appreciate it for what it is, a very solid and dependable handcrank (with an aftermarket crank). Thanks for posting!

White VS's
 

Thank you, Annette, for reading my long apologetic on rebuilding. :)
I was afraid some might suggest a lynching, thinking I was attacking some established vintage SM community members' views, but I felt strongly about my logic and feeling behind the when and whys of going for a remake on oldies but goodies. :)

Your Singer VS's percentage of decals is more than that which my White VS2 has left...only 5-10%.

On a different subject, I just learned why Whites turn/crank the direction they do (versus Singers). The first Whites all came with a hand crank to get them started (which I guess was easily disengaged), and their engineers felt hand cranks are more-naturally turned clockwise, or "pushed" (which I agree with). So they built the internals to work that way, and apparently just kept with it. I assume Singers probably all weren't made with cranks early on, and their engineers found the motion of "pulling" a handwheel which has no crank, easier than "pushing" (which I happen to agree with, too). You can see one example of how White may have made their early White machines' handcranks, by looking at the "end view" picture of a White Peerless at this site:

http://www.sewmuse.co.uk/white.htm

It got me to thinking that I might like to get an after-market hand-crank for mine, or make one. I'd also love to have a White Gem or White Prize.

I found this new info in the following book, which has some extremely good info in it, if you like sewing machines. Being a download on Project Gutenberg, it is all text, and has no illustrations (just place-holders). I would like to get a printed copy of it for my library. I also found a great little table of needles needed for almost all of the White shuttle machines (which was hard to find). I found it on an English website, which has some other great info (it's actually a Singer site):

http://www.singersewinginfo.co.uk/antiques/white/

I'll post my rendition of the table below this book info:

====== Book Info =================================
The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Invention of the Sewing Machine, by
Grace Rogers Cooper

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.net

Title: The Invention of the Sewing Machine

Author: Grace Rogers Cooper

Release Date: June 4, 2010 [EBook #32677]

Language: English

Character set encoding: ASCII

*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK INVENTION OF THE SEWING MACHINE ***

Produced by Chris Curnow, Joseph Cooper, Louise Pattison
and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
http://www.pgdp.net


SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION
UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM

[Illustration]

BULLETIN 254

WASHINGTON, D.C.

1968


[Illustration]

THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION PRESS

_The Invention
Of the Sewing Machine_

[Illustration]

_Grace Rogers Cooper_

CURATOR OF TEXTILES
MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION WASHINGTON, D.C. 1968


_Publications of the United States National Museum_

====== End of Book Info ====================================

Here's the White Shuttle Machines' Needle table:

White Sewing Machines - Needle Chart*

Model White Singer Boye
White VS's (except those listed) FS 20x1 12
White Boat Shuttle RS 1x1 20
White VS8 WSM 15x1 16
White Gem 16x1 Round Shank
White Prize FS 20x1 12
White Automatic Chain Stitch WSM 1x11/25x1 Round Shank 20-1/2
White Rotary WSM 15x1 16

*-Flat Shank except as listed


I hope this is useful to others with Whites as much as it was me. :)

-Dave

Sorry for the formatting of the Needle Table on my post above. This forum strips out spaces and tabs needed for makin the columns. Those columns were:

Model --------------> White----------------> Singer----------------> Boye

Not all Models have values for all of the needle manufacturers' "needle #," and some needle numbers have descriptions behind them. For newbies like me, the way to sort the table out is that the Singer needle numbers are in a format that looks like "15x1," White's are FS, RS or WSM, and Boye's are 12, 16, 20 or 20-1/2.

Or just go to the site that I mentioned in the post above (if it's still around when you read this at some future time...if there is a future in the future...now I'm getting weird...but it's late...and my dog is snoring next to me...now THAT's weird...and the fact that I'm typing a post on a quilting board at 4:30am is SUPER weird).

White's Website...the first and the last times it was seen...
 

White's website for the first time it was seen on the internet (or at least saved):

http://web.archive.org/web/200201262....com/index.asp


And the last time:

http://web.archive.org/web/201001301....com/index.asp


...kind of sad...

vdot. While I certainly do not recommend or condone lynching of any sort, I would personally say that simply stating personal experience/opinion vs making what sound more like pronouncements, might go down easier for the majority of folks.

For example, I completely disagree with the following "modern finishing materials which are far superior in every way to old japanning and varnish." especially when stated as if it were obvious to anyone with brains, as opposed to simply being your opinion. I do not believe that modern finishes are stronger or better, just cheaper to mass produce and apply.

Sandblasting (I HOPE you actually meant media blasting) can be useful is cases of machines that are totally shot, but I have two parts machines that are that because some clever monkey blasted them and removed enough material to effect the fit and function.

FYI - I have a thread on here from when I first began that shows the whole process i went through to take a 100% rusted, 2% design remaining machine to a repaint. I used modern paints. If I were to do it now (and I may strip it again and redo it better) I would NOT use modern paints, but the reproduction Japanning. The finish is different in look and feel. The closest you can get to the old look that I have found is the high heat ceramic paint. It has the viscosity to create the similar look and feel.

As to re-manufacturing parts, of course we can and do it all the time, but realize that you cannot buy steel of the quality originally used in most of the pre WW2 today without spending more that a parts machine in better shape would cost. (Time-Money-Effort equation does not really balance to make parts for most machines)


My particular case is a bit different in that I only collect 19th century machines and most do have historical and financial value. I am actually more in your court that you might guess from my post here, because I also feel that the best way to honor the engineering if these machines is to use them, and with that in mind I go through my own process which I refer to as removing the neglect. I do not repaint, but I do remove the patina and return the machine to a clean and operational state while allowing it to still have its battle scars.

Bottom line is you own your machine and have every right to do as you will, but others, including myself, might feel sad or a sense of loss with your choices... But I hope you enjoy them none the less!!

It does not bother me one bit that you don't care for my techniques. We all have our opinions and a way of doing things and this is a good thing. I have no objection to repainting and making your VS brand new again. I have done this to several machines that were beyond hope and yes they look brand new with new decals. I will preserve the original finish with all scars visible if the machine is in good shape as for as decals and the black finish. Would love to see pics of your finsihed product when you are done with it. Most people will not take offense to what you have said but they may in the manner which you stated.

I agree with a lot of what you had to say, but I do absolutely disagree that there are not modern materials far superior to japaning and varnish....many polymers are much tougher, glossier and resistant to damages of all kinds. All one has to do is look at most higher-class vehicle finishes. I drive my Toyota daily thru branches and thorny bushes with nary a scratch, have bird dirt and bug juice on the paint for weeks at a time with no damage. Japanning can't even stand up to a few pins without scratching, and the finish wears off by simple handling of it over a period of time (albeit a long time, but I've seen few decent cars that have had their paint worn off from even heavy "traffic").

With respect to finish, I guess I might agree with you if I wanted an older-looking finish, as it would be hard to duplicate the older patina and look in general. And I did assume that one would want a "new" and shiny look...not necessarily new as of 1895, but the highest of quality new of today...not plastic-y...but a quality high-gloss look using expensive automotive polymers, baked and clear-coated. So I suppose you may be right about that too, as I did assume, but I also explained that my goal was shiny, new and lasting from modern times for 200+ years into the future.

After I posted the "sandblasting" statement, which was made "off-the-cuff," I realized I should have corrected that, but I would actually usually not use media blasting, but a good soaking in appropriate solvent anyway, especially with Japaning it should come off down to bare metal pretty easily. Sorry for not making that correction, and you caught it. :)

BTW, are you the guy who has a restore shop, and goes by "Sewing Machine Steve?" If so, I liked your work (what I could see of it) on the Singer 27, and especially on the Singer 66 on your website.

Oh so not me.... my Collection travels under the name "The Victorian Sweatshop" Here is my website which is WAY behind the actual collection, but undergoing updates as we speak.

I get your point about the "Glossy" but a Japanned finish that is restored can be just as deep if not deeper that polymer in appearance. If you could "Japan" your automobile you would have a finish that would NOT sun fade like modern paints. The main issue with Japanning is that it is brittle, whereas the modern paints are more flexible. I have restored 60's and early 70's Mopars and when I did, I shot my own paint, so I do have a small amount of experience on that side as well.

Oh, and I would LOVE to have someone show me (not tell me) an "appropriate solvent" to clean old japanning off, it is SO not as easy to strip as paint.... I am restoring a couple pair of old tailor shears and the japanning is a biatch to remove.

hehe -I don't like the "new" finishes on most new stuff LOL!! So I for sure wouldn't care for it on the old stuff.

My biggest pet peave is to see someone brag about "restoring" on old cabinet - and they slopped a coat of Polyurathine on it. Most retail places sell a product that is made to put on fast and easy - and to look "good enough" for those that only want to put in a half - effort to do the job right. While there are some great modern products, they often aren't availbe at the big box stores. And companies where time=money don't use them either.

To me, there is nothing prettier than 7 -8 coats of hand rubbed finish. You get a deep luster that does not look like a layer of plastic applied over the top.

A lot of newer products aren't "better" they are just different. And most of that "difference" is so they can market it as "new and better".

I'll second this sentiment. I can't think of a sewing machine ever being owned in my family but my grandfather had a fine AH Fox side by side shotgun 1920's vintage. The blueing off the barrel was wore off, stock had checks, and ejectors didn't work, the product of many years out hunting with the dogs for mostly quail. My father thought it would be a fine thing to have the gun restored to like new condition and this was done but it was hardly the same gun in my opinion. Something was missing and he never should have fooled with it. The gun and the quail are both gone now.

Jon

I like old japanning. I like old hand tools along with sewing machines and my old Stanley planes were japanned. It's a tough finish. I think why manufacturers moved away from it was more in an effort to reduce costs (plus styles change) than it was because more modern paints were superior. If a machine's finish is toast AND it's not historically significant or rare, then by all means go ahead and paint it. Most of Steve's machines are rare and becoming more significant with every passing day so it makes sense to preserve as much of the original material as possible.
People do repaints of featherweights every day. They're one of the few machines the repainters can sell at a profit when they're done. I think though that eventually people will appreciate a machine with a good original finish more than the repainted ones.
Me, I prefer an original finish or one that has been minimally repaired/restored using traditional materials and methods. I don't collect rare or valuable machines and it's still pretty easy to find machines in good original condition. I also don't mind honest wear on a machine. It's ok for a 100 yr old machine to show it's age a bit. It's natural the finish on the bed will take a beating from all the fabric being dragged across it and from needles poking and scratching it. I'm not as fond of pinrash on the arm of the machine even though it's the result of use too. It must be a useful place for pins for so many machines to have it, it's just too bad there wasn't some sort of protection for the machine.
Rodney

drooling here - OK, I know different subject - but an AH Fox SxS . . . .

I think we mostly agree..

so would you prefer this (stripped, brushed, clear-coated)
[ATTACH=CONFIG]487534[/ATTACH]

over this? (missing majority of peripheral decals and big gouge in center decal)
[ATTACH=CONFIG]487535[/ATTACH]

I am just curious. I will admit I was tempted by the polished iron version myself....

I definitely go along with restoring vs re-making with wood. The wood IS both what you see and what you don't. It's integral with the finish. For me the machine is different. It's beauty is derived from the metal, the ingenuity of it's workings and it's metalwork. The coating on it is, for me, a separate piece of artwork...totally different from the art of the metalwork. In fact, I enjoy the metalwork much more than the artwork of it's coating, even new, let alone when it is washed out. Personally, I might even like a bare-metal with clearcoat finish old machine better than with a basic black finish with no real crafted artwork on it, and definitely better than washed-out artwork. The beauty of the metal machine would be so pronounced and visible with a good clearcoat. I know, I know ... a bunch of people disagree with me.

Well, it's not like I don't like the artwork, which is why I would replace the original worn-out work with meticulously hand-painted reproduction of the original, if it was nice.

I just see the machine something like I do land. The beauty of the land is inherent and permanent (more of less), just like that of the dated metal machine. If one puts a nice house on it, it can enhance the beauty of the land, but will never out-do a truly beautiful piece of land.

WHEN the house gets decrepit, it detracts from the beauty of the land. If its design was of inherent beauty and features, and it was built using fine, quality materials which could be restored to near original beauty, then great...restore it. If it wasn't anything special, or it did not make use of quality materials or it cannot be restored except as to produce a mere semblance of it's original beauty, then if you have the money, tear the old thing down, and build a new magnificent work of art upon the beautiful landscape for this generation and those in the future to enjoy as much as the last house was enjoyed by it's builders and their progeny. If you really liked the original design better than one you can come up with now, then duplicate the old one...down to the last scintilla.

Again, like in my original post, I make the point of saying..."at least that's how I see it." :)

Definitely...I love it! Where can I get one? :)

On the other hand, if you could refinish it entirely, and add fine, intricate, hand-painted artwork I would probably love that even better, with or without the artwork being original...so long as it "went" with the piece. A neon-velvet art piece, no matter how beautiful, would not make it look too good. :)

that picture is from a seller I do business with. he has a person who likes to do this to "thrashed" machines.

I like it. It would make a great machine for everyday use, and it shows off the mechanical beauty of the thing. If it were me, and if they usually had the name across the arm, I'd want to at least paint that on there...gotta give credit to the guys who built it. :)

I really like the machine in your avatar, too. Do you own it?

Caroline, do you see what you and your sister started? Love the debate. Just rather ironic that old finish vs. new would be such a hot topic! That, and the cat in my arms approves of such dialogue. Koko is never short of an opinion. Of course, that would be the Siamese in her.

Maybe Koko likes Moki (the sweetie with the light blue background...to the left). :)

BTW, sorry I kinda took this post off topic...I didn't realize how the forum was organized at first, and I found it from a search on White VS-2's..... too late now, though...Oooops! :(

Yep, it's my favorite to sew with... Even started doing some quilting squares on it...

Both have their charm but I would choose the one with the worn decals and japanning every time. That doesn't mean people who like the stripped down industrial look are wrong, I like some of it. I just prefer the worn original over the complete change in character of the exposed iron and steel version.
Rodney