dikman

I just had a closer look at your table, and that leg arrangement is decidedly unstable for the machine! Like the man said, fitting the feet to a large board would definitely help.

Yep, I have two W machines, and while you can often find manuals for them there's no information available about their history.

Others have made smaller tables for their cylinder arm machines, but none quite as small as yours! As you found, stability is the biggest problem, due to the weight of the machine so high up. You may need to try and widen the feet to make it safer. Keep at it, I'm sure you'll get there. Certainly looks nice and compact!

1) None really (unless you want maximum speed, of course). It will give you better slow speed control. 2) None really. A speed reducer with a servo will give increased torque at slower speeds.This type of setup can give very slow "walking" speeds. 3) Not sure what you mean. When you take your foot off the pedal the motor stops. 4) If you have an auto oiling system, the chances are very high that it won't work too well at constant slow speeds. It has been suggested that in such a case it's a good idea to regularly wind a bobbin at normal speed, to circulate some oil.

Uwe, what's this Kiwi that we export and can't get here? (Kiwi, btw, is a slang term for a new Zealander).

I doubt if they will drop by much. As long as old Singer's are considered desirable (and people believe they are better quality than newer machines) then they'll hold their price. Plus the relative scarcity of these machines here in Oz doesn't help.

Everey time I read something like this I kick myself! When I bought my Singer 211G166 and Pfaff 335 recently the chap also had a 132K6 for $800. I wanted compound feed, and the other two were cheaper so I didn't pay any attention to the 132. It was only after it was sold that I realised what a bargain it was .

Thanks christen, but I already have that one. Searching the Smithsonian for my model drew a blank. I've compared part numbers, and there are some differences between the two models, so how Singer could say they're the same is another mystery. The 153 (the slightly heavier duty one) has split bushings on the feed drive rock shaft, which the 152 doesn't appear to have. Mine has one piece bushings, same part number, so is different again. All the part numbers of the 152/153 start with 2. Most of mine appear to do the same, although the part numbers don't always line up with the two parts lists. The hook, on the other hand, has "serial no. 108007 and 108008 stamped on the parts!!! (Simanco parts). The needle plate, presser foot and vibrating foot all have different part numbers to the two lists, but a search show that they're still available. I'll just have to keep searching to find out what needle size they're matched to. I don't mind a bit of a puzzle, but it's always nice when you know there's a solution. In this case I'll have to accept that what I know now is probably all I'll ever know about this machine, and have to assume that it's basically a 111W153.

I've been fiddling with this, on and off, trying to get the feet adjusted properly. Based on the recent discussion about SV models in Constabulary's thread, I decided to assume it is a 111W152 and adjust it accordingly. I found that the needle bar was set too low and the gap between the presser foot shaft and the vibrating foot shaft was way too narrow. With that adjusted I set the feet so that it worked on 1/4" leather - the presser lifts well clear and the vibrating foot just clears the material when returning. The instructions are actually a little vague in this area and just say that both feet should lift enough to clear the work. This gave me a lift of 3/8", using the lift lever, and 1/2" using the knee lift. By re-adjusting the feet I can actually get 1/2" of leather under the feet and feeding, but I think that may be a bit much when under power. The manual states that the 152 and 153 are identical except that the 153 will handle heavier material! So how can they be identical? It means I'm not sure which model I have. I've downloaded a parts list for both models and it looks like I'll have to compare parts and see if there is any difference. It took me quite a while to work out the relationship between the two feet and what happens when you adjust things.......not as simple as it looks.

Thanks glenn. I was rather hoping that Constabulary's new-found paperwork might shed some light on it, but that now sounds extremely unlikely. In my case the 111W152 appears to be the same, but in reading the manual I've realised it could be a 152, 153 or 154! I now have to try and set the foot adjustments according to the manual and try and work out the max lift, which may give me an indication just which model it is. All of which raises the question - without an instruction manual, how could anyone ever adjust them???

You think you've got problems, try finding them (tnuts in particular) in Australia!

Thanks guys, it all helps. Special Version makes more sense than the other descriptors I've seen. I agree about the "hardened parts" bit. Initially it sounded good, but the fact that there appears to have been quite a lot of different model SV's made, across the various classes, would tend to rule that out I think. (18 different models in the 111W class alone is quite a lot!). As for mine, I haven't yet found any difference to the 111W152. What I also find interesting is that none of the usual listings for Singer machines make any reference to SV models. Just what was "special" about them will likely remain a mystery, I guess. (Adds to the Singer mystique ).

Constabulary, my apologies for digressing slightly here (but you started it by putting up the photos!). When I bought my machine, I searched on the model number and turned up nothing. After seeing your photo, I searched on KSV and got a lot more hits!!! I'm still none the wiser, as some say it means "special variety", one said it's a special model suited to "artisans" (I doubt that), and someone else said it's a short run model to see if it sells before going into production, after which they deleted the SV designation (doesn't sound right to me). I also found a listing of needle part numbers for every Singer model (supposedly) and in it there are quite a few classes that have SV models. The 111W class actually lists 18 different SV models (!!) - but not mine, there are numbers before and after, but not mine. Actual SV machines, in general, appear to be uncommon. So I'm still about this designation, and will be interested to see if you come across any info as you start reading your little treasure trove.

Well spotted. I was so surprised at seeing the first one that I didn't see the others! Hopefully there may be some reference inside about just what SV means - or even my machine? (111WSV77).

What a gold mine of info!! Lots of fascinating reading there, and great for cross-referencing parts maybe. I noticed a reference in photo 8 to a "KSV" model. That is the first reference, other than a youtube vid, to an SV machine (which I have) that I've seen. Are there any other references to SV machines, by any chance?

Dorado, if you want to add a bit of embellishment, try some basic stamping. Once you work out a suitable pattern it can look pretty impressive.

Good for the teeth to, no doubt .

Anybody else wondering just what's in coke besides sugar and water? (I think I'll stick to drinking beer). Personally, I reckon it's the exfoliating glove that's the key .

Son-of-a-gun! Thanks Red Cent, looks just like I was trying to describe, although in the film it still looks like the loop extends a bit further down the back (probably an optical delusion). Nice to know my reasoning was close. Now I just have to make it.

In sheer desperation, I watched the movie again but this time I was only interested in any scenes featuring McQueen's holster. I paused/slo-mo'd at any suitable scene. Unfortunately there isn't one single scene that gives a clear image of the back, but I can sort of extrapolate how it's made from a couple of side views and based on some excellent info that longtooth provided of what is a later, and more complex, Walk and Draw that Anderson made. The holster is made with the mouth of the holster quite a bit below the bottom of the belt, the trigger guard rides on the top of the mouth and the front is cut low, presumably to help the barrel clear the holster. The belt loop folds over the belt and appears to be molded tightly to the belt. It looks like it carries on down the back of the holster, past the mouth and stops about half-way down the length of the holster (which isn't that far as it's designed for a shorter barrel than the 7 1/2" that McQueen uses). Although on longtooth's model there is a skirt it uses three Chicago screws , in a triangular pattern, below the belt line and I'm guessing that this one would be similar in the way that the belt loop is attached to the back of the holster. The top two screws would probably be very close to the bottom of the belt line to keep the holster in place and stop it sliding around. On his later models Anderson used a cutout in the belt to locate the holster in place, but I couldn't see any sign of this in the movie. The belt itself may have a slight hip shaping to it, but I can't be sure as if it has it's very slight. Please feel free to add to and/or correct any of this if anyone knows for sure that I'm wrong in any of my assumptions.

Looks great to me. I tend to like relatively plain holsters, and yours is nice - simple and functional.

The more you learn, the more you realize how much more there is to learn........ Belt looks great, you're off to a good start.

Now that's a thread hijack! (Cool buckle, by the way).

Very nice job, Langston. The flag design is different and, to my eyes, well executed.