Home
  Search Archives     
  Available Archives
   1969-1979
   1980-1989
   1990-1999
   2000-2009
   2010-2017
    1969    
    1969    
1970
1970
1970
1971
1971
1971
1972
1972
1972
1973
1973
1973
1974
1974
1974
1975
1975
1975
1976
1976
1976
1977
1977
1977
1978
1978
1978
1979
1979
1979
    1980    
    1980    
1981
1981
1981
1982
1982
1982
1983
1983
1983
1984
1984
1984
1985
1985
1985
1986
1986
1986
1987
1987
1987
1988
1988
1988
1989
1989
1989
    1990    
    1990    
1991
1991
1991
1992
1992
1992
1993
1993
1993
1994
1994
1994
1995
1995
1995
1996
1996
1996
1997
1997
1997
1998
1998
1998
1999
1999
1999
    2000    
    2000    
2001
2001
2001
2002
2002
2002
2003
2003
2003
2004
2004
2004
2005
2005
2005
2006
2006
2006
2007
2007
2007
2008
2008
2008
2009
2009
2009
    2010    
    2010    
2011
2011
2011
2012
2012
2012
2013
2013
2013
2014
2014
2014
2015
2015
2015
2016
2016
2016
2017
2017
2017

 
   2005 >> February >> More on 1621s  

More on 162.1's:
Reprinted from "Crown Jewels of the Wire", February 2005, page 46

The November issue of Crown Jewels featured an article on CD 162.1's by Lee Brewer (pages 27-38). Lee writes some follow up comments:

In the article I said these signals challenge the idea of Brookfield claiming the pieces marked New York are older pieces (for sake of brevity, from now on I will abbreviate as such: NY and/ or non-NY). I received mail from fellow collector's, Rick Soller and N.R. Woodward, who have been able to help me see the issue more clearly. These CD162.1's do still challenge the theory, however, the theory will also remain valid under other circumstances.

In the article I had implied the difference between the two era's (NY and Non-NY) was 30 years. I was in error here. I think I got this span of years from thinking of the dates 1870 and 1900. The 1870 date is the start of CREB145 production -- when NY appeared on the insulators (I wonder why this is prevalent in my brain?) -- and the NJ plant started somewhere around 1900. I had not focused on the (obvious!) fact that Brookfield ended production at the NY plant somewhere around the late 1800's, which leaves a much smaller possible time period between the NY and non-NY eras. Although we do not know for sure exactly when production at the NY plant ended before moving to NJ. We know from the Brookfield website: "From 1868 to 1882 the address was 55 Fulton Street: from 1882 to 1890, it was 45 Cliff Street; and from 1890 to 1897, it was 81 or 83 Fulton Street. In 1897 the office was moved to 220 Broadway; and the company incorporated as Brookfield Glass Company the following year. Also, about this time property was acquired and a new modern plant was constructed at Old Bridge, New Jersey."

Since we do not know the exact start of the NJ plant, we cannot really know the gap between the NY and non-NY marking of pieces. For older pieces the date can be 30 years, but the last pieces made in NY were just around the end of the 1800's, and therefore they are not too much older than any without NY markings - certainly less than 30 years! The 'newest" Brookfield signals, we know, omit the NY marking, and were made at the last place Brookfield made glass -- the plant in NJ. The 'calico' NY and non-NY pieces I found in service together (as described in the article) indicate that the NJ plant used both NY and non-NY moulds simultaneously -- hence the dating technique for these SKEB (Skirt Embossed Brookfield) pieces is not valid. However CREB pieces (marked with NY) were all definitely made prior to the NJ plant and therefore are definitely older than pieces without the NY embossing. Mr. Brookfield's statement is therefore valid when considering any piece made prior to the NJ plant. It may be that Mr. Brookfield was thinking (although these terms were not in existence at the time) of CREB's vs. SKEB's when he made the statement that pieces with New York markings are older. The insulators themselves would tend to support this idea.



| Magazine Home | Search the Archives |