Porcelain Insulator News
by Jack H. Tod

Reprinted from "INSULATORS - Crown Jewels of the Wire", November 1977, page 17

Dear Jack: 

On pages 17-18 of the May 1975 issue of Crown Jewels you gave your readers a good rundown on F. N. Gisborne and his insulators. In follow-up to this, we have for you some "good" news -- and some "bad" news.

The good news is we are the proud owners of a large, white porcelain insulator which we have dubbed the "Gisborne Grandaddy". One of the enclosed pictures shows it between a regular Gisborne and the Battleford Baby. It is 4-5/8" wide, 7-1/4" tall, has a 2-1/2" threaded pin hole, a top groove, and a 3/8" tie-wire hole through the dome. Wouldn't you agree that this is a unique design? The words "GISBORNE PATTERN" are incised on the side in the same lettering as one of the standard-sized Gisbornes (small block letters, words in one line). 

Now the bad news. After over a year of research we are unable to tell you for what specific purpose it was used, where or when! We also do not know of any other collector who has one. The quality of the porcelain and the design of the base makes us believe it could be English made.... 

We would certainly be interested in knowing if anyone has written to you about this unique design or if any of your readers could help out with some information. 

We look forward each month to your very interesting articles in CJ, and sincerely hope this A1 publication will continue to tie the collectors' world together. 
Len & Dot Elder 
10815 - 42 A Ave. 
Edmonton, Alberta T6J 2P6 
Canada 

- - - - - - - - -

Dear Len & Dot: 

Many thanks for this report of a very unusual insulator, and the photos are super nice. I 'm sure this will really excite a lot of collectors, and especially those in Canada who have such fine collections of Canadian items -- and who may think they'd found every new goody there was to find! Hopefully someone out there in insulatordom might have information on the "Gisborne Grandaddy". 

Jack

Gerald Brown (Two Buttes, Colo.) advised that N. R. Woodward (Houston) found a green U-179. That's almost hard to believe, but then Woody seems to have a knack for coming up with spectacular finds.

Dear Jack: 

... You no doubt remember our discussions on the possibility of U-223 two-piece white porcelain and CD-190/191 purple glass transpositions on the line to Churchill on Hudson Bay. I talked to two CN communications linemen who have worked that line, and both denied the existence of these insulators on this line. This line should be in the process of being dismantled now. I talked to the lineman of the crew that will be taking it down, and he will be watching for them, but he was one of the linemen who had worked that line in the past. Also had the opportunity to discuss this with Mrs. Wittstock (where the info came from originally). She was quite vague about it all, so I didn't push it. 

I sure agree with your sentiments of last winter regarding somebody up here researching Canadian porcelain. There sure is a scanty amount of info, and what info there is, is of the word of mouth variety, vague and often inaccurate. I don't suppose it will ever happen, if it hasn't happened by now. It's a job I'd like to tackle but I don't think, and you would probably agree, it's a job that could be done by someone working full tine and raising a family. I'm at least 10 years from retirement. But it would be a challenging and interesting task.

Have been kind of concentrating on my porcelain collection lately. Have picked up dozens of unmarked porcelain, many of which look like Canadian items, but no way of knowing for sure. The field hasn't been touched.

Have picked up a lot of nice U.S. porcelain items lately too -- nice old Lockes, glazewelds, etc.

Also picked up a U-365, traded to me as the Australian version, which it probably is. Have never seen the U.S. version. Is there a difference between them, some way I can be sure mine is the Australian one?

I've been going to ask about an insulator for some time. It's fairly common up here and is generally considered to be a Canadian item, and it probably is. It is similar to U-438B. It exists in a wide variety of mottled brown glazes ranging from reddish thru the browns to blackish, and also in cobalt blue. My reason for being curious about it is that the glazes used are much more like glazes used by various U.S. companies and have little resemblance to glazes on most Canadian-made items. Anyway you may be familiar with it.

My next question is about the C.N.R. and C.P.R. white beehives made by Pittsburg High Voltage. Which ones? The older varieties with the crude incised markings have PHV characteristics, so they no doubt were. Other incise-marked varieties, with clear block letters and of larger size, don't appear to have PHV characteristics. The underglaze-marked types don't look like PHV items either. 

Pittsburg must have really gone after the Canadian market. I'm sure that at least 3/4 of the U.S.-made porcelain found up here are PHV. 
Keith Ewart 
Moose Jaw, Sask., Canada

- - - - - - - - -

Dear Keith: 

I know very little about the origins of the various U-365 insulators -- one allegedly from Australia and the other from U.S. locations. My only info is from what Jerry Turner (Ohio) and several others have told me. 

As I recall it, collectors first got these on trades from Australia, now referred to as the Australian version. Regarding the U.S. version, Jerry told me in1973 that these were "Said to be from the first electric trolley line in Seattle, Washington." I was also told that one of these in a California collection was dug by antiquers near Ione, Nevada. 

You will find on page 24 of the June 1974 CJ Jerry's photo of both versions side by side. The drawings below are also from Jerry's data, and it should be easy for you to tell from these drawings which one you have. Jerry didn't mention the pin hole size in the Australian one.

If your Sim U-438B items are U.S. manufacture, I'd guess they were Pittsburg. You could tell that (usually) by looking at the pin hole. Most Pittsburgs have unglazed pin holes with a perfectly flat top, but occasionally with the top having concentric rings progressively deeper towards the center.

You are correct that Pittsburg sold heavily in Canada, and they also "job shopped" in the U.S., selling custom items to anyone who wanted them -- notably railroads. We have determined by dump digging near the old Pittsburg plant that they made both C.N.R. and C.P.R. beehives, and with both the incuse and underglaze markings. Unfortunately I did not make records of which specific combinations were represented. The ones by Pittsburg are reasonably crude, as compared with ones made in Canada or England. They do have the characteristic shape at the bottom rim, but they also have the characteristic Pittsburg pin hole -- unglazed, flat top, etc. 

U.S. companies (Imperial, Locke, and then Pittsburg) did furnish most of the porcelain insulators to Canada for many years until porcelain companies became firmly established in Canada, the first of which was Canadian Porcelain Co. founded in 1912. It's no wonder then that many early U.S. classics can be found on old lines up your way. 

Jack

Dear Jack: 

A bottle digger friend just dug up a small strain insulator, a sketch of which I'm enclosing. It's a mottled shiny brown -- very pretty. I would like any information you might want to give on this. 
Tom Kasner 
Bend, Cregon

- - - - - - - - -

Dear Tom: 

Your insulator is a radio antenna strain, and we showed this in the April 1976 CJ, page 20. Walter Lehnert (Minneapolis), our researcher and authority on radio antenna insulators, found this in a 1915 catalog of Electro Importing Co., and some of their items bear an EICO marking. 

This petticoated strain is a rather unusual style, and they are probably a goody to collectors of radio strains. I have no idea of whether or not they are scarce, but my hunch is that they are. 

Jack

The marking shown at the right is that of Lapp Insulators, Inc. This is their official trademark, registered (#140,418) March 15, 1921 and used by Lapp since May 1, 1919. 

This is "old hat" info to porcelain buffs, but is misunderstood by other collectors reporting to us on Lapp insulators. 

The marking is the company's initials in monogram (L. I.) within an oval. 

We wish to clarify this, since within the space of one week two readers reported having unmarked specimens, but which had a "4 within a circle" on them. Some Lapp handstamps are only approximations of this design, but it's still meant to be the trademark, Oval-LI. If you wish to see a beautiful representation of this trademark, visit the Lapp plant and gaze at it giantly etched into the plate glass doors at the front entrance of the main building.

Jack

Dear Jack: 

.... and please "unconfuse" me on "glazewelds". All my specimens of U-935 are clearly marked with the Imperial handstamps, and one cannot detect any sign of glazeweld here. I'm sure these are all one-piece as you show too.... Etc.
Bob Reyburn 
Ontario, Calif.

- - - - - - - - - -

Dear Bob: 

It is not always easy to tell that the items are made up of two or more parts by glazewelding. This is especially true on the Imperial items, but it also goes for some Thomas and Fred Locke items. During roughly the 1897-1899 period, all these companies were just setting the shells into one another upside dawn and filling in all the cracks and crevices with generous amounts of glaze slip. Upon firing, it's nearly impossible to detect any signs of glazewelding. Again, this is especially true on Imperials. I have same Imperials which you'd swear were made one-piece, but it just figures from their size and vintage that they would have to have been made by glazewelding. 

I know that U-935 usually has no trace of glazewelding (and I've looked closely at many of them), but the specimen I have before me does have evidence of being a glazeweld -- no open cracks etc., but still you can see where considerable extra glaze slip was poured in. It's also ever so slightly different in color and sheen than the glaze on the insulator body in the same area. 

Regarding items in the Style Chart such as U-923, U-923B, U-923C, U-923D, U-924, U-935, etc. not showing the probable glazeweld joints, that's simple. First, at times I just got tired of trying to dream up what the various parts (& joints) would look like. Secondly, at one time I myself wasn't 100% convinced that some of these medium-sized insulators were actually glazewelds (even though listed in catalogs as made from more than one part by glazewelding), so I got leary about dreaming up glazeweld juncture lines that might not actually be there. 

This "not being 100% sure" thing also caused things such as U-713 (an Imperial) being back on page 76 of the Chart instead of being up in the U-922 to U-966 part of the Chart where all the glazewelds are shown. 

So we get back to the question that we think all of the early items of moderately large size were glazewelds, but we aren't certain. It would be easy to tell for certain by just sectioning specimens, but who wants to put nice Imperials under the lapidary saw just to satisfy curiosity? So it boils down to this; we just say we have an Imperial U-713, and that's good enough -- and definitive for listing. 

Similarly, I have always thought that the U-186 "twist-lock" was made by glazewelding the crown portion onto the base portion, and I've seen at least a couple of specimens which had slight evidence (but not convincing) of a glaze-weld juncture just under the crown. Even the most damaged one in collector circles was still too good to saw apart for this purpose. Curiosity has its limits! 

Jack

Arthur Jones (Newcastle, Maine) has a Sim U-608A with a Fred M. Locke handstamp marking on the skirt. There's nothing unusual about that. BUT, guess what? It is a white one, and that's certainly big news for Locke fans. Fred Locke cataloged the #12 as available in either brown or white glaze, but I'd never heard of a white one until Arthur reported having this one.