PREFACE: The following story details the case history of an actual insulator manufactured by Whitall Tatum Company. Only the names have been changed to protect the innocent!!?

Actually, as a challenge to the reader's powers of deduction, drawings and catalogue number descriptions have been omitted from the text and can be found elsewhere in this issue.

Friday, June 8, 1928 dawned clear and warm across southern New Jersey, but dark clouds would soon gather above Whitall Tatum's Millville production offices, formed by the circumstances of the day. Key to the issue herein, and considerably prior to this date, we note that the company had been pursuing -- in a rather half-hearted, but nevertheless continuous fashion -- a redesign of their number 4 (CD 169) and 5 (CD 165.1) deep groove and extra deep groove double petticoat products. Alterations to these insulators had initially been proposed as early as October 1926, but serious redesign efforts had been held to a minimum, pending depletion of the stock on hand to a point at which renewed production would be warranted. 

As inventory remained high, this situation would no doubt have continued through 1928. However, the morning mail had suddenly placed the issue in turmoil, for included within was a letter of singular importance. (Fig. A) In it, Hatheway-Patterson Corp., an electrical supply house in Newark, New Jersey, outlined their desire to purchase a new type of insulator. The new design, generated by Hatheway-Patterson (H-P) was similar in some respects to both Whitall Tatum number 4 and 5 insulators. Viewed as a source of potential profit, it was quickly decided that this item deserved further investigation. 

Whereas the H-P article had been identified by the customer as a composite CD 165.1 Whitall Tatum Co. No. 5 / CD 164 Hemingray 20, the engineers at the Millville plant felt that the proposed insulator more closely approximated their redesign (CD163) of the number 4 insulator. So, as the 4/5 redesign continued to simmer on the back burner, a fire was lit under the H-P proposal, and we find the customer in receipt of a hastily generated cost estimate by return mail days later. Then, oddly, records indicate no further action taken until almost precisely one year had passed.

It seems safe to assume that the issue was revived only when stock reserves of the original CD 169 number 4 had become uncomfortably low (see Fig. B). By June 5, 1929, a new cost estimate was in preparation, and forthwith the development of the Hatheway-Patterson insulator began in earnest.

Medium Image (61 Kb)
Large Image (131 Kb)
Fig. A.

At the outset, in an effort to kill two birds with one stone, the mindset of the engineering department held that the H-P article should become Whitall Tatum's new stock number 4 insulator. A retreat from this position occurred after wood models were fashioned for use in displacement testing, as the test results showed this to be a very heavy, and therefore an expensive item to produce. (Fig. C)

One course of logic would dictate a "return to the old drawing board" at this point. This was not to be the case, however, as we begin to realize that the Hatheway-Patterson-4/5 redesign was and had for some time been a management bottleneck.

Medium Image (90 Kb)
Large Image (187 Kb)
Fig. B.

Finally, seeking to prod the company's New York City based decision makers off dead center, the Millville team conspires to send a letter, recounting the entire history of the H-P project, making certain to include their solution: two separate insulator designs. (Fig. D) This correspondence was effective in driving its point home, and at last, authorization for a Mold Shop Order (MSO) was obtained.

Medium Image (40 Kb)
Large Image (78 Kb)
Fig. C.

An initial run of the H-P design was included in the final week of production in 1929.

Eighteen months from concept to final design would have to place the Hatheway-Patterson insulator as one of Whitall Tatum's most trying exercises. Alas, the story does not end here. The initial runs of H-P insulators were almost entirely unacceptable. (Fig. E)

Now, without question a return to the drawing board was mandated, and on the last day of February 1930, the engineering staff had achieved a workable design. Even so, actual commercial production did not commence until March 7, 1931 -- presumably delayed by concerns arising from the stock market crash.

A seven day effort at #69 feeder of F-5 furnace was devoted exclusively to the manufacture of the mystery insulator. (Note: a feeder is a refractory lined channel which delivers or "feeds" molten glass to the insulator forming machine. Multiple feeders from a single furnace constitute the most common arrangement.) Production at week's end totaled 239,438 units.

Medium Image (107 Kb)
Large Image (219 Kb)
Fig. D.

Within a week's time, all insulator production at Whitall Tatum Co. ceased, as the effects of the Great Depression began to take their toll on Millville's glass industry. Sporadic production resumed in the spring of 1933, but neither Whitall Tatum nor its successors would ever manufacture a Hatheway-Patterson style insulator again. The March 1931 production run constituted the entire lifespan of this specific design.

Early H-P insulators, if they exist, would exhibit a uniform radius in the dome, weighing a hefty 20.5 ounces. An important fact to note from a collector's standpoint, is that less than 20,000 units are documented as sold before this item was made obsolete in late 1941 and removed from company advertisements. 

With all the facts thus presented, the time has come for you to form your own conclusion to the "The Cast of the Unidentified Insulator." Check your shelves, then turn to pages 16 and 17 where the identity of this mystery insulator is revealed.

Medium Image (72 Kb)
Large Image (152 Kb)
Fig. E.

CONCLUSION: Whitall Tatum produced their CD 168 number 11 in response to the Hatheway-Patterson inquiry. Based upon long-standing price trends, collectors are well aware of the relative scarcity of this insulator. The accompanying drawings depict the unsuccessful early (Fig. F) and redesigned production (Fig. G) configurations.

Medium Image (76 Kb)
Large Image (190 Kb)
(Fig. F.)

Medium Image (67 Kb)
Large Image (173 Kb)
Fig. G.