A Magnificent Seven of Typewriters

Enjoy the theme music while viewing the typewriters of the same name.

David in Zurich stumped me with a comment last night. Stumbling across my post on the Montgomery Ward Escort 33 (Olivetti Dora) from last September, David said, "So it is not just me finding the (Olivetti) Valentine not the top to type?"
I suspect David might have changed his mind about his Valentine since Christmas 2010.

What threw me, though, was when David went on: "Which is in your view the best typewriter in terms of writing comfort? And the worse?"

That got me thinking.
I only went back as far as the five months since I posted on the Escort 33, but in that short time there had been seven manual portable typewriters which have truly astonished me. Astonished more so than necessarily impressed, since I wasn't always expecting such fine typing performances from some of these models. But it's for that very reason that they have left such a lasting impression on me, and why I have singled them out here.
I wouldn't go so far as to say these are the best seven manual portable typewriters in my collection - I'd probably want to do a comparative test type with at least an Alpina, a Torpedo 18, a Series 5 Smith-Corona, a Voss and an Olympia before doing that. As well, there have been some very impressive Remingtons and Underwoods which have joined the collection in the past few weeks, and which I've yet to fully try out. I reckon the latest Remington 5 will probably join the Magnificent 7, nudging out one of those listed below.
In the meantime, here the seven in question:

1. I have yet to post on this Corona Speedline Standard. It arrived on that unforgettable Melbourne Cup Day in November and, though it immediately showed its incredible paces, it was pushed to one side while I dwelt on the Hammond Multiplex and the Orel. I'm itching to get back to it.

2. Another machine I have not posted on yet is this Remington Remette. For once in my life I showed some patient in acquiring a typewriter. I had wanted a Remette for ages, and many came up for sale, here and in the US. But I hung on until the price was right, and the model looked right. Boy, was I lucky! This one turned up in immaculate condition, and types like a demon. I just love it. Some think it ugly. If so, it's the Ugly Duckling of Typewriters.

3. Now for a swan. Given it had been sitting in its case in storage for so long, this Royal Arrow performed beautifully when I finally took it out for a typecast some weeks ago. I have a very high opinion of the Hess-Myers-Dowd designed Royal portables from the 1930s through to the late 40s, and I believe Alan Seaver shares it. Richard Polt was once asked to recommend a model by someone wanting to take a "very dependable" portable on a long yachting voyage. I said, based on my own experience, "Royal", and Richard concurred.  

4. My astonishment with the performance of this Everest Model 90 was based purely on Everest's widely-held (and in most cases fully warranted) reputation for sluggishness. Only last week Will Davis, commenting on Facebook about speed typing, mentioned the Everest as being "at the other end of the scale".  I am taking this Everest to the Type-In in Brisbane next month, not just because it is maroon (Queensland's much-loved colours), but because I would like others to try it out to see what they think.

5. I was so relieved not to be drummed (or, more to the point, laughed) out of the Typosphere after my rave review of this Hispano Olivetti Pluma 22.  I keep going back to it, half-convinced I was dreaming when I first used it, and simply imaging the whole experience. Had I had some MSG in my Chinese takeway the night before? Nope. It still types as well as it did then. Now this was one typewriter that really surprised me!

6. So taken was I by this unprepossessing Underwood Champion Finger Flite that I went ahead and invested in a Universal of the same vintage. I'd sworn never to touch another one after two early disasters (as a result of shipping damage, I hasten to add). I haven't had much use of the Universal yet, but the early signs are that it will prove to be right up there with this truly champion Champion. This was a mistake purchase for which I shall always be grateful. I look forward to posting on the Universal.

7. I had always thought the Invicta-Olivetti portable was a nice enough machine without being overly spectacular. Until, that is, this gleaming green Invicta model turned up. This is a true joy to type with. Light, quick, smooth, and a real looker.

* * * * * *

THE WORST

Unhappily, David also asked about the worst. I'm only going to nominate one: the Olivetti MS Premier 25, which is an absolute disgrace to its name. There have been some others which have crossed my fingers and which in hindsight I'd rather I hadn't used. But it would be difficult to single out just a few. Instead I'm going to muse on the subject of the variations in particular models.

David was commenting on his Olivetti Valentine, and I'd still rank that as one of the worst typewriters I've ever had to use. Peter Weil was telling me a little while back about Charles Lutwidge Dodgson (Lewis Carroll of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland fame) using a Hammond to write mathematical texts. I mentioned to Peter than a good friend of mine had written two maths text books with a Valentine. Peter was as astounded by this as I was when Frank O'Shea, retired from teaching maths, gave me his Valentine and told me what he'd used it for.

What interested me was Scott Kernaghan's St Valentine's Day post on the transformation of his Valentine, after switching carriages with a Dora. The Valentine is the Dora in the emperor's clothing (or, if Ettore Sottsass was to be believed, in tart's clothing).

Is this David's Christmas 2010 Valentine?

Yet while the Dora is a so-so typer, it is consistently better than the Valentine. I always argued that the difference was the weight imbalance caused by the heavy ABS (Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene) plastic on the Valentine, especially in the front section. (Why, I'd ask, does the Remie Scout sit so beautifully, with all the weight at the back and no front section?). Sottsass designed the machine to be made of cheap, lightweight plastic, and for the Valentine to be the typewriter equivalent of a disposable Bic biro (no one likes to own up to this fact, but it is a fact!).

Scott Kernaghan's revelation now puts my theory to the test. Is there some other reason for the discernible difference between a Dora and a Valentine?

But my mention of the impressive typewriters above, in regard to the Everest, Pluma 22 and Remette especially, brings into question the obvious disparity between the same models in one line - there are many Everests, obviously, a few Lettera 22s and the odd Remette (and Underwood) which perform badly. Why? In the case of Olivetti, it doesn't come down to the factory where the machine was built (with the exception of China and Brazil, of course. I bagged an Olivetti Lettera 82 the other day, and someone commented that they had found theirs a pretty good typer.).

This is where one has to hand it to the Japanese. Whatever else we might say about Nakajima and Silver-Seiko typewriters, they are super consistent - despite being mass-produced. And I mean mass produced (150,000 a month in 1975, in the case of Najakima. That's a lot of typewriters!). These are not great typewriters, but one would be hard-pressed to find one Nakajima that differs markedly from another. They're all at the same level.

So, the worst? As I said, the Chinese-made Olivetti MS Premier 25, by a country mile. But among the non-Chinese-made machines and the better-known models, still the Valentine, for my money, much worse than any Japanese or Brazilian typewriter. Then again, given the variations in models of the same line, there are bound to good typing Valentines out there somewhere. I've just never come across one. Maybe Frank O'Shea did.