As I've traveled around the country for the last ten years, I've taken lots of pictures. My motto has become "have camera, will travel!" I spent a little time this month looking through the pictures that I've taken in the past year or so to see what new information I could share with you regarding some styles, some embossings and some colors that you may not have seen. In addition, I want to get some feedback on one of the CD issues that continues to raise questions.

First we'll deal with some Styles: 

1) CD 127 - On the left is what I would consider the standard style for a CD 127. It's one of the many Brookfield three line embossings that appears in this style. On the right is a piece that I had not seen before. It is an unembossed CD 127 with one of the most pronounced lips under the wire groove that I have seen. In addition the skirt is perfectly vertical. Those two unusual attributes are further enhanced by the fact that this piece is a nice deep green-aqua. (Hopefully, you can see the color contrast between the light aqua Brookfield) Altogether, a neat new find that Mike Bliss shared with me at the Cedar Rapids National.

2) When Carol and I published our reference book two years ago, the jury was still out on the "Slim Pin", at least with regard to the appropriateness of its appearance in the CD listing. These pictures help clarify why it belongs in the CD listing, where it now appears as CD 141.5. The history of these pieces goes back to the mid-seventies when a group of these, maybe 15-20, were found in Lake Erie. To the best of my knowledge, no other specimens have ever been found, and no specific function has been attributed to these insulators. They are interesting in that the wire groove can only carry a light wire and yet the length of the skirt implies a need for high linear electrical resistance. One theory that has been suggested is that since these pieces were found in the water, they may have been used to carry antennas on ships. The purpose of the long skirt was to help shed the water in an obviously wet environment. You be the judge on that theory. 

These pictures highlight two very interesting characteristics of this particular Slim Pin. First, it's mint. I've probably seen twelve of these over the years, and this is by far the best one I know of. (If you need proof, look at page 315 of our reference book.) Second, the pin has been successfully removed. This gives us a good look at both the pin and the threading in the insulator. Thanks to Bill Rosato for sharing this beauty with me.

3) Here's one that just barely falls in the "style" category. It's really the style of the metal cap on this rather ordinary CD 106 Lynchburg that caught my attention as I passed the Bob and Phoebe Adams' table at the Cedar Rapids National. If ever an insulator deserved the nickname "helicopter", this one does. The metal cap is heavily rusted and appears to be cemented on the top of the insulator. The wings are attached to the cap with a rivet-like arrangement. The wings appear to be too light weight to serve any useful function, but I think it was designed to do something in the insulating field. My attempts to convince the Adams' that a serious CD 106 collector might be interested in the piece failed to achieve my desired effect. If you have any ideas about this one, I'd love to hear from you.

4) This great insulator answered a question that had been lingering in the back of my mind for nearly 15 years. I included the CD 106 Gayner NO.91 listing in our book on the basis of an article and picture that appeared in an old Cross Arms magazine in the mid 70's. Unfortunately, the picture wasn't clear enough to make out the embossing. I knew Editor Jim Garrity to be a thorough researcher, however, and I trusted the accuracy of the listing even though I'd never seen the piece personally.

Last year's Eastern Regional and Richard Wentzel ended the mystery. Pictured is a CD 106?? Gayner NO.91 between two regular CD 106 Gayner NO.90's. (Take a look at the wire grooves on the two NO.90's. The one on the left has a newer look, more like the CD 107's some manufacturer's made.) The close-up (below) should leave no doubt that there is, in fact, a Gayner NO.91. The NO.91 is quite a bit smaller than the NO.90's. Now that the piece has been found, we can begin debating whether or not it should be assigned a new CD number. Oops! Sorry I brought it up. By the way, I'd be interested to know if any more of these are out there in collections.

Close up photograph of the embossing on a Gayner No. 91.

Color Variations

4) You may wonder why I decided to try to demonstrate color variations in a black and white publication. Again, I hope the picture explains my logic. Until this spring, all of the CD 113 Brailles I had ever seen ranged in color from dark purple to royal purple. My visit to the Western Regional in Enumclaw expanded my knowledge and may be news to you, too. On the left, a beautiful royal purple Braille; on the right a cloudy, off clear Braille with purple and burgundy tints. I'm told by the local experts that there are a handful of these in existence. This one belongs to Mark Lauckner -- a real beauty.

Embossings

5) Thanks to Bill Meier for sharing this one with me. It's a beautiful purple tint Hemingray No.12. The difference here is that there is a clear second line of embossing with "HE" appearing directly below the "HE" in HEMINGRAY. I examined this one carefully, and I'm convinced it's not a 'ghost embossing' . It looks to me like the engraver cut two letters and decided there wasn't enough room for a second line of embossing so he moved up the mold and started over. (How's that for a theory?) If you're a trivia buff and you have the time, you can find this listing in one of the old references books from the late 60' s. Let me know if you happen to find it.

6) Here's another piece I was introduced to at the Eastern Regional last year. I must say that my introduction was with mixed feelings as this CD 106 gem (remember who the CD 106 collector is) was changing hands, and none of the hands were mine. Dick Bowman found this one in a collection and had promised it to Bill Meier. The embossing on the back of this otherwise common insulator is "PATENT/MAY 1893". What makes this embossing really neat is that not only is there no "2", there isn't even any room for a "2". The MAY is jammed right up against the 1893. Here's my theory. This mold was embossed on May 1, 1893. Hemingray was still waiting for patent approval and was sure it was imminent, but didn't want to put the wrong date on the patent, so they just put the month and the year. BELIEVE IT OR NOT! --- NOT!!!!!

(P.S. I was fortunate enough to pick up two of these for my own collection at the Carol Stream show this year. One in aqua was a gift from Rob Lloyd. The other, in a bubbly, snowy aqua, almost jade, came from Mike McLaughlin. I'm usually very careful about checking for embossing errors, and yet the three I've mentioned in this article are the only ones I ever remember seeing. There still are some sleepers out there if you look hard enough. Here's a clue if you're looking for one of these --- it's a heavier, thicker mold than normal. Good Luck! P.P.S...... Thanks Rob and Mike.)

The Controversy

7) CD 102.3 was originally assigned to the KCGW (No Name) with either a "Dot" or a "Vertical Bar" on the front and back skirts. Somewhere along the line, a rather heavy Brookfield pony was also assigned this CD Number. In my current listing, I don't include the Brookfield under CD 102.3 because, in my opinion, the piece was not manufactured with the intent of making a different insulator. Rather, it's just another of the many variations of Brookfield ponies, all of which are catalogued as CD 102's (We're not talking about CD 101's here.)

Needless to say, I incurred the wrath of the CD 102 collectors. This picture shows the comparison between the heavy Brookfield and the CD 102.3 KCGW. These pieces were provided to me by Jim Doty, one of the proponents of the CD 102.3 Brookfield theory. The picture demonstrates the merit of Jim's argument. The sizes are similar, even though the shape of the dome and the wire grooves are different. I'd be interested in how some of the rest of you feel. We're not putting this one up for a vote, but if there is overwhelming support for the CD 102.3 Brookfield, we'll take another look at it. I look forward to hearing from you.

I hope all of you found something in this article you haven't seen before. That's why I take all of those pictures, in case you were wondering. BELIEVE IT OR NOT!