Insulator Question.

[Robby Raccoon]

I asked it previously on a post here about the most kind gift from Jim Sinsley , but it never got answered. As a curious Bear, I must learn all I can.
Anyway, the largest insulator he sent me is what appears to be a CD 151 (which means...?) that the site on insulators says was produced between the 1880s and 1915-- it says PAT[sup]D[/sup] May 2 [sup]ND[/sup] 1893, so how does that work out to be an 1880s piece??? Just, on the site, I cannot find this identical variation. All of them that have the name on them have the period with them-- "H . G . CO ." But mine says "H G . CO . / PAT[sup]D[/sup] MAY 2 [sup]ND[/sup] 1893" Notice the period after the H is missing. The back says "PETTICOAT" I'm just wondering why this one is not in there, since they have all the others in there. Click Here to go to that page. Unless I'm missing something, it isn't there. Also, why is the 3 in 1893 so huge, and why'd they space the periods away so far from what they abbreviate? The period is totally missing, not smudged or faint. Could this also nail down a five-year time-period it was made? Is it common to have unlisted variations?

 

[BillinMo]

I asked it previously on a post here about the most kind gift from Jim Sinsley , but it never got answered. As a curious Bear, I must learn all I can.
Anyway, the largest insulator he sent me is what appears to be a CD 151 (which means...?)

CD stands for consolidated design. It's an insulator classification system originally developed by N. R. "Woody" Woodward that assigns numbers to insulator shapes. There is a fair amount of variation within most assigned numbers, especially older insulators. It usually takes newer collectors a while to learn about CD numbers. Lots more info here: http://nia.org/history_and_guide/index.htm

that the site on insulators says was produced between the 1880s and 1915-- it says PAT[sup]D[/sup] May 2 [sup]ND[/sup] 1893, so how does that work out to be an 1880s piece??? Just, on the site, I cannot find this identical variation. All of them that have the name on them have the period with them-- "H . G . CO ." But mine says "H G . CO . / PAT[sup]D[/sup] MAY 2 [sup]ND[/sup] 1893" Notice the period after the H is missing. The back says "PETTICOAT" I'm just wondering why this one is not in there, since they have all the others in there. Click Here to go to that page. Unless I'm missing something, it isn't there.

The absence of the period is not of any consequence. Might just be a mold variation, poorly embossed, etc.

Also, why is the 3 in 1893 so huge, and why'd they space the periods away so far from what they abbreviate? The period is totally missing, not smudged or faint.

This style was in use for quite a few years, so there would have been lots of molds, with lots of little variations from hand-engraved molds.

Could this also nail down a five-year time-period it was made? Is it common to have unlisted variations

We couldn't nail down a five-year period, but the CD 151 style is probably from around the early 1890s to 1910 or so, based on catalog info. It tended to be used by smaller telegraph companies and railroads and never became a Western Union style. Most minor punctuation variations aren't listed. It won't affect value.

 

[MuddyMO]

For this Hemingray made CD 151, it first came out with no drips (pre-1893 patent). The patent was for drip points. Curiously, there is a smooth base version, with the drip point patent blotted out, indicating that the CD 151 was being made without drip points, after the patent was applied for.

There will be times a punctuation mark was not listed. I've got a CD151 H G CO with no periods, which I believe to be unlisted.

 

[Robby Raccoon]

Super. Thank you both!

 

[botlguy]

I agree with the others and repeat that minor period placement or lack of periods or other punctuation differences are of no consequence or value difference to the general collecting audience. Sorting out those things is left to the specialist and will never be in the Price Guide unless it is determined to be significant to collectors in general. The CD 151 was also made by BROOKFIELD and at least two (2) other companies and never had drip points. They could have been made prior to HEMINGRAY (H.G. Co.) thus attributed to having been made prior to 1893. HEMINGRAY may have received an order for the 151 that specified "No Drips" so they blotted out / peened the mold to remove the Drip Point patent date. Jim

 

[Robby Raccoon]

Alright, awesome. Thanks! I've seen a couple Brookfield pieces, but not this style--they had no drips, though.