Bulls in the typewriter shop
Today’s Toronto Globe and Mail has an article about typewriter collecting. You may recognize a few names in it *coughcough*.
The focus of the piece is on Martin Howard, who is displaying a portion of his exquisite collection of pre-1900s typewriters at the Toronto airport. Fellow NaNoWriMo Typewriter Brigader John Payton is featured as well.
I think the article highlights an important distinction among collectors of vintage and antique typewriters. Martin Howard is one of the heavy-hitters in our field. He collects only the finest and rarest specimens and has an extremely narrow focus of the 20-year period of early typewriter development at the end of the 1800s. His museum-quality pieces literally get the white-glove treatment.
In contrast, the article describes how my toddler likes to whack the keys. My favorite machine is not a Williams or a Jewett or a Desnmore, but a dirt-common Corona. And although we discussed it over the phone, the article does not mention how I use my typewriters for typecasting, and only briefly describes Mr Payton writing with his own machines. A toddler should be allowed nowhere near Mr Howard’s collection.
In short, I tend not to collect machines that I am afraid to use. I will leave the ultra-rare, ultra-expensive typewriters to the Martin Howards of the world. As nice as it would look to be able to display my machines behind illuminated glass, they would also seem a bit isolated and sad. (I like Herman Price’s display: nicely arranged, yet accessable.)
One of the reasons that I started Machines of Loving Grace was to bring inclusion to the amateur collector, those of us who don’t seek out just the rare machines but who appreciate displaying–and yes, using–the common typewriters that many Serious Collectors will not give a second glance. We may not know the detailed history of our machines, but we know that we like how the keys feel beneath our fingers. We are the bulls in the typewriter shop, who love nothing more than to lay hands upon, disassemble, and tinker with typers. Got rust? Who cares, so long as it works? Chipped paint? Adds character.
This isn’t to say that I won’t pass up a good deal on a rare machine when it comes along. I have a pair of Caligraphs that will probably never be used, but they were free and I’d have been insane to refuse them. And I have a fairly good investment piece in the Keaton, though I can’t read the music it types. But when I’m at the writing desk? Gimme that Underwood.
That is so awesome. You’re a big-time celebrity now. It’s all Cristal and Bentleys with platinum dubs (I heard that one once, and am not entirely sure what it means) from here on out.
In other news, I couldn’t agree with you more on the functionality issue. Maybe we computer-types value function over form, or maybe it’s just a retro-junkie thing, but I’d rather have a beat-up Olympia than a spic-and-span Underwood that I can’t play with.
Comment by Mike.Speegle — February 27, 2009 @ 10:53 am
To paraphrase Tom Waits, I’m big in Canada.
I want to emphasize that there’s nothing wrong with high-end collecting. The article just spotlights two very different ends of the collecting spectrum.
Comment by olivander — February 27, 2009 @ 11:16 am
That article crossed my RSS reading this morning, and I wondered if modesty would prevent you from saying anything about it. I needn’t have worried. I noticed with ironic interest that that same issue also talks about this commercial:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1owgaEfjzF0
Comment by mpclemens — February 27, 2009 @ 12:32 pm
Goo-tactular!
You know, if there hadn’t been this undiscussed facet of the article, I might not have done more than post the article to my Facebook profile or casually pointed it out on one of the Yahoo groups. Despite how this blog often seems, I really do hate talking about myself.
BTW, Zosia Bielski is now my second-favorite lady-reporter name, trailing only Xeni Jardin by a small margin.
Comment by olivander — February 27, 2009 @ 12:50 pm
Platinum dubs???
Olivander is famous.
I’m glad to see you address the distinction between antique/collectors and users (well, that makes us sound like drug addicts.) My own site is a little misleading to random web surfers I think, who assume I collect machines or am into antiques, neither of which is true. I am just kind of like your son and like mashing on the keys and writing with cool old machines.
I’d say you kind of straddle the line though between the users and the collectors, owing to your rather comprehensive and massive collection.
Comment by Strikethru — February 27, 2009 @ 1:28 pm
I like the term “practical collector.” It’s the same reason I tend to pass up vintage cameras that use unobtainable film formats. Much as I like the old cameras (and I do, oh yes!) I prefer being able to use them. I could probably never get into collecting old Polaroid land cameras, for example.
(I’m teasing about the shameless self-promotion, of course.)
Comment by mpclemens — February 27, 2009 @ 2:12 pm
There are naked people who float about in Dante’s hell mere inches from their former illicit lovers. Having typewriters not meant for use would be to bring such a hell to this earth.
Comment by faustgleich — March 30, 2009 @ 5:58 am