When I began collecting several years ago, I had no idea how many sizes, shapes and colors of insulators there were. This was before I had my first insulator book or knew that there was such a thing as a club of insulator collectors. After joining the Pole Cats, buying some books and attending some shows, one thing became clear to me -- I would never be able to have every different insulator I saw.

In January 1974 I was talking with Dennis McHenry, NIA Treasurer, about my problem. Dennis is a long time collector and has nearly the entire Hemingray line. Within his collection he has a specialty group of Hemingray 9, CD 106. At that time he had 38 of them, all different, and suggested that they would make a fine inexpensive specialty for me. The thought of so many different insulators by one manufacturer, as well as the usually low price, appealed to me. In February 1974 I began my specialty with a single insulator. Now the collection has grown to 72 pieces, all different in one way or another.

Mr. N. R. Woodward, in his book of insulator history, states that the Hemingray 9 was introduced about 1900 and continued in production virtually unchanged until 1955, when it was redesigned. I believe that run of 55 years is the longest production run of any insulator. I also believe that the 1955 redesign was quite major; and in later years when CD numbers were assigned, the old 9 was given CD 106, and the new 9 was given CD 107. I have no proof of these assumptions.

Perhaps the long production run accounts for the variety found in the 9. Perhaps some of it can be attributed to the mold wearing over the years. Or perhaps different mold makers used some artistic license to create a slightly different looking insulator. Someday perhaps I'll be able to answer some of these things. One person who may be able to supply some of the answers is Mr. Ern Parkison of Muncie, Indiana. Mr. Parkison, who worked for Hemingray for 41 years, has already been very helpful. Someday I hope to meet him in person and gather more information on this fascinating subject.

That's enough background information. Now I'll get on to explaining what makes the insulators different. The things I use to judge by are as follows: embossing, color, dome size, skirt length, drip points, manufacturing defects and embossing errors.

I have recorded 8 different embossing arrangements. This is without counting mold and lot numbers. If they were counted, there would be no end to the arrangements. The list of arrangements would be more interesting if they were in chronological order. As it is, they are in random order:

1. HEMINGRAY 9 // MADE IN U.S.A.
2. HEMINGRAY / No 9 // PATENT / MAY 2 1893 (The 2 in this one is a script 2, like the old written Q.)
3. HEMINGRAY / No 9 // PATENTED / MAY 2 1893
4. HEMINGRAY / No 9 // PATENT / MAY 2 1893
5. HEMINGRAY / No 9 PATENTED
6. HEMINGRAY - 9 / 0 // MADE IN U.S.A. (The 0 on the front is an alpha 0 and indicates the insulator was made by Owens-Illinois, who bought out Hemingray in 1933.)
7. HEMINGRAY // No 9
8. HEMINGRAY / MADE IN U.S.A. // No 9

Still on the subject of embossing, it should be noted that there are many different sizes of characters used. Sometimes there is more than one size on a single insulator. In most cases, the embossing is very strong, regardless of the size.

I know that colors are seen differently by each person, but I feel I have recorded 14 different colors:

After the embossing and colors, the next most apparent thing in looking at a group of 9's, is the dome size. This is the diameter of the upper ridge of the wire groove. I have recorded 11 different sizes, ranging from 2-3/32" to 2-7/16".

The next most apparent difference is the skirt length. This is the distance from the end of the threads to the base. I have recorded 19 different lengths, ranging from 1/4" to 1-1/2".

The next difference is not nearly so apparent as the others, mainly because the insulator sits on them. Of course I mean the drip points. I finally gave up trying to record different drip shapes, and settled on just two: sharp and round. However, I have recorded 17 different numbers of drip points, ranging from 26 to 42. I also understand some 9's were made without drips, but I have not seen any.

Manufacturing defects are usually easy to spot. I count in this category mixed colors and any other abnormalities. I have recorded nine of these defects:

1. Amber swirl in Aqua.
2. Amber swirl in Ice Blue.
3. Jade swirl in Aqua.
4. Hemingray Blue full of tiny bubbles.
5. Ghosting of letters on crown, as if insulator fell back into the mold.
6. Varied size of drips on same insulator, as if too little glass was used.
7. Black streaks in Pale Aqua.
8. Skirt not the same length all around, as if it settled to one side during cooling.
9. Jade and Amber swirl in Aqua.

The last difference is the embossing errors. These are usually easy to spot, but sometimes they do take considerable looking. I have recorded six embossing errors:

1. 'N' in Hemingray was overstruck with a 'G'.
2. 'D' in Patented was omitted.
3. 'M' in Hemingray was double struck.
4. 'ED' in Patented was omitted.
5. 'HEMINGRAY / No 9' embossed over an attempt to blot out PATENT / MAY 2 1893.
6. 'M' in Hemingray was overstruck with an 'I'.

Sorry to have been so long winded, but I guess my 72 insulators have quite a story to tell. Thanks for inviting me to tell as much of the story as I know or can guess. Perhaps someday I'll be able to add to it.

In the meantime, I would be glad to hear from anyone who has any information relating to the Hemingray 9. I am also interested in buying or trading for any 9's that are different.

Thank you, Charlie Angevine, for your Hemingray No. 9 article. It reminded me of an article on early Hemingrays we ran in our second issue, April 1969, which was the first issue we ran out of. So, for the benefit of new collectors and subscribers, I thought perhaps a reprint would be nice. As you read the following article on old Hemingrays, keep in mind that it was written in 1969, so there could be some difference in the rarity scale; but basically it's a good article to help you with your collecting of early Hemingrays.

We hope these two articles may inspire someone to write one on Hemingrays not covered here.

Your Editor

EARLY HEMINGRAYS

by Bob Anderson

(Copied from pages 3 - 11 of April 1969 issue of this journal.)

As with old Brookfields little is known of the early Hemingrays except that a patent was issued December 19, 1871 to Robert Hemingray covering a method of forming insulators. This report deals with insulators so embossed and a few with the May 2, 1893 patent (covering drip points) which were continuations of earlier styles.

BACKGROUND

Before concentrating on Hemingray it might be interesting to look briefly at why so many companies tried their hand at making insulators. Glass houses in those days were fire traps, and there probably wasn't a pleasant job in the place. Even so, as with many other lines of work, if the money was good, the job could be tolerated at least for a while.

Telegraph building during the second half of the 19th century was a booming business. For instance, in an address at the Morse Testimonial June 10, 1871 William Orton, then president of Western Union, stated that in the U.S. alone there were 180, 000 miles of telegraph wire and among Europe, India, and Australia another 475, 000 miles. Further, the industry as a whole was expanding at the rate of 100,000 miles of wire per year. Another account lists nearly 290,000 miles of wire in the U.S. early in 1878. This adds up to a growth rate of 17,000 miles per year in the U.S. alone between mid-1871 and 1878.

These lines needed insulators. If one assumes that poles were placed every 150 feet or about 35 poles per mile, then 35 insulators were needed per mile of wire. A Tillotson catalog from sometime in the 1880's lists insulator prices at $35 to $50 per thousand. Assuming an average price of $40 per thousand, one mile of wire insulation cost about $1.50. Using the 17,000 mile per year growth rate this meant someone was being paid over $25,000 per year to furnish insulation in the U.S. alone.

While it is true that workers had to be paid and raw materials to make glass had to be purchased from this gross amount, still $1 was worth about three times what it is now; and there were very few taxes. It is not hard then to see why people wanted to make insulators especially if they already had an established glass house as did Hemingray.

According to Woodward's The Glass Insulator in America 1967 Report, Hemingray glass started in 1848, the Covington Kentucky plant was in operation by 1858, and in 1874 the name became Hemingray Glass Company with Robert Hemingray president. A plant was built in Muncie, Indiana and began operation around 1890 though it is not known whether or not they made insulators. The Covington plant operated until 1919 when it was destroyed by flood, and the Muncie plant operated through 1933 when it was sold to Owens-Illinois.

The insulators themselves are for the most part 3 part mold. Early models are what I call old 3 part mold; i. e. the mold seam goes around the insulator high on the dome. The others are what is normally thought of as 3 part mold which I'll call new 3 part mold. One cannot accurately date Hemingrays this way though as there appears to be quite an overlapping period when both mold styles were used.

There may have been some 2 part mold Hemingrays (the picture accompanying the Dec. 19, 1871 patent shows a 2 part mold insulator of the Brookfield WUT style), but as of this writing I don't know of any.

Hemingray embossing differs from Brookfield in that the numbers refer to the styles, and letters designate lot numbers. A signal then with the 1871 patent on one side and a 2 on the other is a Hemingray 2. One can be reasonably sure this is correct because the number 4 Dec 19 1871 for instance was later embossed Hemingray 4 (see numbers 4A and 4B on the list).

One other Hemingray feature is the flat collar at the base of the screw threads which was included in the Hemingray patent. According to the patent the insulator was formed by first pouring a quantity of glass into the mold. Next a floating plunger was pressed into the mold pushing the molten glass around it thus forming the insulator. When the glass reached the right height in the mold the screw mandrel formed the threads through a hole in the bottom of the plunger. This plunger, because it could be pushed to any given depth compensated for too little or too much glass in the mold.

ABOUT THE LIST

FINAL COMMENTS

This report has not attempted to answer all questions on early Hemingrays. As a matter of fact it quite probably raises more than it answers such as :

1. Are there Hemingray 6's and 7's? Tibbitts lists a Hemingray 8 with only the 1893 patent.
2. Were there WU 1's thru 5's?
3. Are there 2 part mold Hemingrays ?
4. What was the American Union (No. 8)?

I've attempted to tie together some of the known facts and also to propose a few new ideas. If it's generated interest in early Hemingrays, it has been well worth the effort.