The recent discovery of the new CD 228.5 Armstrong 51-C2 prompted the research which led to this tale of competitive cooperation. But first, some background information is in order.

Early in 1989, I was approached by John and Carol McDougald relative to providing information on insulator production in Millville for their new two-volume reference library. During the course of our initial correspondence on that matter, I was made aware of the existence of the 51-C2. This immediately sent me on a search through the Armstrong archives for anything pertaining to this previously unknown insulator. 

Unfortunately, the plant's drawing file yielded nothing, likewise the correspondence file. I continued my search with increasing discouragement until, in the mold order file, I chanced upon a folder labeled "51-C2 INS." Opening the folder, I found a single piece of paper as the legacy of Armstrong's 51-C2. (see below)

What I had uncovered was a mold shop order, dated September 1, 1943 -- complete with explicit instructions to send the finished mold assembly to Armstrong's main competitor. Faced with such an unexpected scenario, I hoped to find a reasonable explanation for an Armstrong/Owens-Illinois collaboration.

Additional information on the "discovery" of the 51-C2 was forthcoming at the Allentown National in 1989. The piece had surfaced in a Kansas collection, indications being that it was dug in the Midwest. This information seemed to fit the puzzle as it related to the whereabouts of the mold that produced the insulator.

Remaining to be discovered, however, was the underlying factor which led these two manufacturers to combine efforts, and produce what could essentially be considered a hybrid insulator -- an item apparently formed of Owens-Illinois glass in an Armstrong mold. 

The answer finally surfaced in an unlikely corner of the Whitall Tatum / Armstrong archives. Dusting off a thick black binder grandiosely entitled, ASTM Committee D-9 Sub-Committee-V Section-C Glass Insulators, I soon found the reasonable explanation for which I had been searching.

It seems that Victor F. Hammel, of Whitall Tatum, later Armstrong, and Minot K. Holmes (referred to on the mold shop order), manager, Owens-Illinois Insulator Division had both served on the same subcommittee of the American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) beginning May 20, 1937. Their relationship developed over the next three and a half years as the group attempted to formulate various standards for testing glass insulators. Hammel assumed chairmanship of the subcommittee in June 1938. 

Sandwiched between official subcommittee documents, personal correspondence between Hammel and Holmes indicate an unusual degree of association between their respective employers, stemming virtually from the initial introduction of the two men. In the late spring and early summer of 1937, Whitall Tatum was in the midst of developing its CD 240.2 1025 power insulator. Company purchasing agents were experiencing some difficulty locating a supplier for threaded brass bushings to be inserted in the 1025. Manufacturers contacted by Whitall Tatum were unanimous in their unwillingness to tool up for such a small (1000 to 2000 bushings) production run at a cost economically feasible to the 1025 project.

Mentioning his predicament to Holmes, Hammel received a response dated April 29, 1937 indicating his competitor's willingness to supply the needed item in any quantity desired. Four days later, Whitall Tatum placed an order for two thousand bushings.

The paper trail documenting the committee alliance of these two men ends in December, 1940. Obviously, the relationship formed during that time continued at least another three years until the 51-C2 venture. From the documentation available, it is difficult to determine the length of time Holmes and Hammel remained in close association with each other; and to what extent their efforts further affected the product lines of either company.

Regardless, the level of cooperation demonstrated by the two major insulator manufacturers of the period provides an interesting counterpoint to today's corporate/industrial operational ethics.

As an aside, the following information is presented in the context of the preceding story:

The above photograph pictures two CD 1049 mid-span transposition insulators. The insulator on the left was retrieved from Armstrong's insulator sample shelf. The hole does not go all the way through, and the insulator has no embossing. It fits the physical description of Figs. A & B, Register #L1463 -- "A.C.Co." Transposition Insulator.

Figure A. Job Order for L1463 A.C.Co. Transposition Insulator.

The insulator on the right is the more familiar version, exhibiting a shorter skirt, and bears the Owens-Illinois trademark embossed between small numbers indicating mold number and year of manufacturer.

No physical evidence exists to prove or disprove a possible collaboration between the two companies on this item. Bear in mind, however, that many manufacturers produced insulators of similar design, generally in response to the intended user's design specifications.