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

 
   1982 >> July >> The Mad Hatter C.D. 134.6  

The Mad Hatter - C.D. 134.6
by Wendel Hunter, N, A. #567

Reprinted from "INSULATORS - Crown Jewels of the Wire", July 1982, page 13

Is this insulator the rarest of the BROOKFIELDS? 

This insulator has unusual embossing and a patent date that has been listed in various places as April 17th, 1896, as well as April 7th, 1896.

It interested me to the extent of contacting Jack Tod, our hobby's fountainhead* of information. He supplied a copy from the Official Patent Gazette for this patent with the correct date of Tuesday, April 7, 1896. But the drawings and information in the Official Gazette did not resemble the C.D. 134.6. The two drawings did resemble the C.D. 112.4, and I don't think Brookfield made any of these. 

For the first time, I requested the full Letters Patent from the government Patent Office. See these patent pages for the results!

Indeed, the Mad Hatter, made to the modification shown in figures 5 and 6, and described in Hannibal Rappleye's letter of invention?

It should be noted that the Official Gazette did not include figures 3 through 6, nor any mention of a modification.

In Milholland's photo I can't discern any projection such as #100 in the figure 5 patent drawing; but if the insulator does have this feature, it would likely necessitate the use of a two part mold.

The following are just some personal opinions. 

It seems odd that this insulator was not embossed with a W. or Wm.; but then it may have been some number of years after the patent of 1896 before it was actually produced. 

Also, the Philadelphia embossing suggests a localized and limited area of use.

The insulator would be costly to make, and costly to sell, and very likely unsatisfactory in use. So maybe Brookfield threw this mold with their name on it away. At any rate, the Brookfield catalog of 1912 does not list it; whereas the unusual C.D. 119 O'Brien and the odd C.D. 139 Schoethaler patent insulators of the 1880's and earlier 1900's were still cataloged. 

So unless some dude has preserved a bank vault full of these jewels, I personally consider the C.D. 134.6 to be the rarest of the Brookfield insulator manufacture.

* Jack -- Completely complimentary, as opposed to a nickname.



| Magazine Home | Search the Archives |