Shopsmith Curiosity

[dusty]

How many Shopsmiths were built prior to 1962?

Is this number actually the total number of all 500s, Goldie, Greenies?

[JPG]

How many Shopsmiths were built prior to 1962?

Is this number actually the total number of all 500s, Goldie, Greenies?

No '500's fer sure.


I assume you are referring to the SN chart. If so quite likely.

[dusty]

How many Shopsmiths were built prior to 1962?

Is this number actually the total number of all 500s, Goldie, Greenies?

No '500's fer sure.


I assume you are referring to the SN chart. If so quite likely.

The chart to which you refer is hard for me to read.

For example; The chart implies that the first unit built was SN263051 and that the first unit built in Jan 1955 was SN288541. Is it reasonable then to conclude that during that first 9 month production run there were 25490 units built?

Assuming a six day work week (228 work days) that would meant a daily production 112 units. Really???

Carry that same logic through the balance of the chart and the integrity of the chart comes into question (well, at least the validity of how I have read the chart comes into question).

Then:

If NO 500s. When were the 500s built?

[Gene Howe]

Is it reasonable then to conclude that during that first 9 month production run there were 25490 units built?

Whoever said the S/Ns actually corresponded, 1 for 1, to the sequence of the builds? Dates, I understand, but to infer the quantity built from the S/Ns is pure folly.

[dusty]

Is it reasonable then to conclude that during that first 9 month production run there were 25490 units built?

Whoever said the S/Ns actually corresponded, 1 for 1, to the sequence of the builds? Dates, I understand, but to infer the quantity built from the S/Ns is pure folly.

In this case you might be absolutely correct but within the bounds of my manufacturing experience - serial numbers were assigned sequentially as the item came out of production. There was no such thing as inconsistency in serial numbers. They were contiguous and sequential.

If there was about to be a "parts shortage", we were able to determine the last serial number that could be produced without receiving more parts.

If we received notice that SNxxxxx had failed with a motor problem, we were immediately able to determine all pertinent data relative to that motor and to the manufacturer of that motor. The serial number was all important. All data collection was dependent upon the accuracy of that number.

I cannot imagine a factory running successfully any other way.

Admittedly, I worked in an environment where there were probably more people in manufacturing quality assurance than Shopsmith has ever employed at one time.

[JPG]

How many Shopsmiths were built prior to 1962?

Is this number actually the total number of all 500s, Goldie, Greenies?

No '500's fer sure.


I assume you are referring to the SN chart. If so quite likely.

The chart to which you refer is hard for me to read.

For example; The chart implies that the first unit built was SN263051 and that the first unit built in Jan 1955 was SN288541. Is it reasonable then to conclude that during that first 9 month production run there were 25490 units built?

Assuming a six day work week (228 work days) that would meant a daily production 112 units. Really???

Carry that same logic through the balance of the chart and the integrity of the chart comes into question (well, at least the validity of how I have read the chart comes into question).

Then:

If NO 500s. When were the 500s built?

AFTER the 510 was introduced in the '80's. Prior to that they were Mark 5s. Prior to the Mark V 510(& 505) there was no need for a '500' model distinction.
I do not know when SS Inc. changed from Mark 5 to Mark V, but I suspect with the 510 introduction. It is very confusing since there is ambiguity relative to the Mark 5 from SS Inc..

M 5-V sn chart 1200 x 600.jpg (663.79 KiB) Viewed 2601 times

Your reading the chart is correct. Although the definition of a 'Serial Number' implies a 'sequential' all inclusive set of numbers, we must also consider the source. The current source of that information is 3 subsequent corporations removed from the original source with considerable missing numbers.

So due to the lack of certainty, I have to agree with Gene.

As for 'integrity', why a total lack of the letter sequence "Mark 5" in these charts. SS Inc. did indeed manufacture Mark 5s early on"(1972...".

[skou]

JPeG, I'm REALLY surprised!

There WERE Shopsmiths built BEFORE
1953.

Yes, they ARE REAL Shopsmiths, but, just a wee
bit heavy, being made out of Cast Iron, and not
"aluminium." (Ever crack "aluminium?")

Oh, and the consensus HERE says, they are the
better lathe, AND drill-press.

steve

[skou]

How many Shopsmiths were built prior to 1962?

Is this number actually the total number of all 500s, Goldie, Greenies?

Model 10s?

You know, Hans and the Chambers brothers DID make another model.

steve

[algale]

These serial numbers could well be a combination of some kind of date code plus a code indicating some other combination of data, such as who inspected it/where the unit was shipped to, etc. Nothing obviously jumps off the chart as a pattern.

Makes me wonder how things have worked since 1987 since they simply use a date. Does anyone believe that means they never make more than one of an item on any given date?

[JPG]

JPeG, I'm REALLY surprised!

There WERE Shopsmiths built BEFORE
1953.

Yes, they ARE REAL Shopsmiths, but, just a wee
bit heavy, being made out of Cast Iron, and not
"aluminium." (Ever crack "aluminium?")

Oh, and the consensus HERE says, they are the
better lathe, AND drill-press.

steve

Geez SKOeU!! You want SS Inc.(now RLF Tools Inc.) to acknowledge the Model 10 when they do not do so for the Mark 5?