one typist in the 21st century
Sunday, August 21, 2016
The Chicago
You can't beat a Chicago for looks. I wish it were easier to type on. The action is kind of stiff and clunky, and my type cylinder doesn't always rotate to the right position. If it worked better, I'd be plugging away at it!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Is it just me, or is the rail sticking out to the left way more than usual? Wonderfully clean machine, regardless.
ReplyDeleteThe typewriter is designed so that you have to pull out that arm of the mechanism to the left in order to type. When you're done, you can push it back in.
DeleteVery attractive :)
ReplyDeleteGreat looking typewriter. Sometimes it is nice just to have a great typewriter even if it is difficult to use.
ReplyDeleteFine looker. It's vexing to have a nice, stylish rig that has problems though.
ReplyDeleteSO beautiful. So very beautiful. How could you not have such a machine!
ReplyDeleteWell, I guess I don't feel so bad about passing over that $75 Chicago a couple years ago if it's not fun to type on :D
ReplyDeleteAll the pics I've seen of these feature a W-E-R-T-Y keyboard -- with the Q relocated to the far left of the bottom rank (Q-Z-X-C ... ) Necessary, I guess, to fit all the letters plus the two shift keys in the space the designers provided. Do you know if this was the standard configuration?
ReplyDeleteThat is standard on the Chicago. I think the purpose was to have an equal number of characters on each row. That makes it mechanically simpler to put the characters on nine rows on the typewheel (three rows for lowercase, three for uppercase, and three for numerals and figures).
Delete