stitchgearhead

Sorry to take so long to answer. Spent all day out on my day job. Here are the other pics that are on the ad: I sent a message to the seller, but I have no reply yet. We'll see. @AlZilla: thanks for that link to the Pfaff 28 thread. I have learned a lot from that. I'll post any developments that arise. Thanks for all the help.

Yeah...that's what I thought! Thank you both. I'm going to call the seller tomorrow. Hopefully there's no big parts missing...even then, it's a cheap adventure, even if it doesn't work out. I'll post any advancements here, with pictures if possible. Thanks for the encouragement! DF

Amazing! Another world...

Hello all As the title states, I found an ad for a cheap PFAFF 27, near me, that left me wondering. I always wanted to try my hand at restoring an old, but worthy, sewing machine, and i think I am ready for the challenge. I was looking for a cylinder arm machine for light leather, and found this. I haven't even talked to the seller yet, but it is near me (20 Km away), and the price is right (74€). The forum, or even the Net, does not seem to have much info on this... By its looks, it will need restoration (which doesn't scare me), but may need special, hard to find parts (which does scare me a bit...). So, pending further info, what do you more knowledgeable people think? Could it be worth pursuing? Or am I better of choosing something else as a "project machine"? I have a PFAFF 146 that I love to bits, so PFAFF is a good name to me, but this had me baffled a bit, due to the lack of info...even here! A search for PFAFF 27 yielded nothing directly related, which is odd... Thanks for any help you might have to offer. DF

@fibersport: Thanks, I already read that, as well as many, many more posts on this forum. Thanks to the knowledgeable members here, I now know immensely more about sewing machines than I did a few months ago, and was able to get my first machine (a Durkopp Adler 268-263) into beautiful working order. I think I am now capable of working out most issues that I came across. What drove me to this post was the PFAFF 546, a not very often mentioned model. @AlZilla: thanks, but I already have that particular PDF. It is a manual for a large number of models, all based on the general PFAFF 141 architecture, of which the 145 and the 546 are simply variants. That's what I didn't know. If I did, I might not have posted this. For the record, the 546 is a walking foot, twin needle flatbed version, which has an additional roller puller behind the needle area, to help pull large/difficult/long materials. It requires a non standard table cutout, due to the additional area needed for the roller puller. But, it should do for what I need. Thanks for the help. Daniel

@TomE: I already did, and learned quite a lot. I didn't want to make a very long post with all I could find on them. But the PFAFF 546, for instance, has not been discussed here at all, that I could find...and, if it's similar to some other model (like the 1245) that has been discussed often, I don't know of those similarities. That's why I asked. The 1245 and the Singer 211 have, but not the 546. I have read the manual, and it belongs to the family of the 141, 142, 145, etc, (but it is a very special version)...so I will go with that. But that's OK. I will make the choice based on what I know, and hope for the best. Thanks anyway. Daniel

Hello all I'm looking to buy a flat bed, walking foot machine for my hobby. There's not much to choose from around here, that is not very expensive, and I've found 3 options so far. I would like your advice on these, please, as far as...well, everything that has to do with using the machine, on a hobby (i.e., not professional) situation. 1 - PFAFF 546-748-01 (I think) - twin needle, unison feed (has an aditional roller puller behind the feet, to help pull heavy pieces) - no table, just the machine head 2 - PFAFF 1245 (2 different machines, from different sellers. One seems younger, and is white). 3 - Singer 211 - don't know the version, but sellers states that bobbins are large, not small. So, anything you can tell me about these machines would be helpful. As far as I can see, any of them would work for the kind of light-medium work I intend to use it for. May even be overkill, I don't know. I'm trying to keep it short. Tanks for the help. Daniel Fróis

Hi Just so everyone knows, in case it might be useful, I found another Thread Size table that may help identify some threads in Europe. I'm posting a link, because I don't know if I can post the PDF itself, due to possible copyright issues: https://www.amefird.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Filament-Thread-Size-Chart-2-4-10.pdf Filament-Thread-Size-Chart-2-4-10.pdf I didn't even knew there were other Thread size standards in use (what is a T210 thread???). So, this is why I didn't understand many of the adverts for threads. Hope it can help someone. Daniel.

@MtlBiker:That's really useful information. Thank you for that. I know, from readings here, that many members use Sunstop threads, and are happy with them. A good option, even if they don't have a website for orders that I could find yet. I was also surprised to see that they make Gutterman threads. There are many places that sell Gutterman, even Amazon, but the problem is that they don´t specify the thickness on the descriptions...at least, I couldn't relate anything there to the standards I know of. It seems a few inquiries are in order. @Mulesaw: Thank you hugely for this. I much prefer ordering online, since I don't have much free time. I have never heard of Amman Serafil threads, but I will investigate. If they work well with your machines, they should be more than good enough for me. I'll mail Amman Portugal to see if they can recommend an online reseller, or a shop near me. Otherwise, I guess I'll place an order with your Danish supplier. Thank you both for your precious help. Daniel

@Constabulary: the sound may just be normal (it is on your motors), but, with small sample population, it is difficult to know for sure if it represents a problem or not. I believe you may be right, some mechanisms are just normally noisy. Unfortunately, I still haven't bought a servo motor, but intend to soon. I would do, however, a small change that has no negative impact, even if it doesn't change anything: I would put the motor spinning, with no belt, and sand the inside of the pulley with medium, and then fine, sandpaper. Say, 320-400-600. May reduce the noise, and will give the OP an idea of how far out-of-round the pulley is... Also, there's something that is made on car belts, that is useful for identifying the source of belt noise: with the motor/belt spinning, spread a little liquid on to the belt/pulley interface. May be water or thin oil, but I usually use WD40 or equivalent. If the noise changes, some of it, at least, comes from there. It may also come from the machine pulley (rather than the motor pulley...), so try there too. Just a test... Anyhow, this may be just as Shakespeare once wrote: "Much ado about nothing". Some people are more sensitive to noise than others. I do hope this turns out well for the OP. Daniel.

Hello I am having a tough time finding suppliers for good sewing machine thread in Europe. So, I would like to know where do Europe-based members acquire their threads for leather sewing machines. I have no trouble finding thick threads for hand sewing. But, If I look for V69, V92 or V138 threads, I come up with nothing useful. Many suppliers, like Tandy Europe, only have thick threads (V207), or Gutterman threads, which do not specify thickness in a way I can understand. More generic sellers, like Amazon, have many thin (V69 or similar) threads, but many do not specify the thickness, and none have V92 or V138 threads, that I could find. I have searched for the V## standard, the T## (T70, T90, T135) and the TKT## (TKT20, TKT30, TKT40) standards, but find nothing useful. Perhaps it's just me? Being that I am completely inexperienced in this, it may very well be that I am looking for the wrong terms. I only need V69, V92 and V138 sizes. I would like a good quality thread, polyester or bonded nylon, with a fairly wide selection of colors. So, do any Europe-based members have any recomendations for suppliers? Thanks. Daniel Forgot to mention: UK won't do, since Brexit (unfortunately...).

In my experience, when metal touches metal, it never does that CHWUNK sound. Screech, scratching sound (if speed at metal/metal interface is high), or dry blow, knocking sound if it's a consequence of too big a gap between parts that should be closely adjusted (like in conrod or crankshaft bearings). That sound seems very much, to me, to come from the pulley/belt interface. Does the noise change, in any way, when you increase/decrease belt tension? Do you have any way to try the motor with a (even if temporary) belt of another kind? Even if only for a few revolutions? I'm betting that a different belt (preferably narrower) will produce a very different sound. If I were in your shoes, I would try another belt, of any kind, before deciding anything. Maybe even one of those round leather belts for old machines - should last long enough to draw conclusions. Also, if it turns out to be the pulley, any machinist should be able to rectify it fairly easily, so as to be perfectly round and concentric relative to the axle bore. Please, let us know what happened with the new belt. I, for one, am curious. Daniel

@BurkhardtWill do. Thanks. @Uwe, thanks again for all your help. Daniel.

Uwe, please forget my request. I already have the 268 Parts Book, probably from one of your earlier posts, or from some other generous members contribution. Thanks. Daniel.

Uwe, I forgot to thank you for the 768 Parts book. It's wonderful, not only for the P/Ns, but also to see how the mechanisms are when disassembled. I don't mean to push your patience, but...I have to ask: you wouldn't happen to have a similar book for the 268 (or the 267 - much of the mechanisms are similar, I believe, apart from the post-related parts), would you? Sorry if I'm imposing. I've learned a lot from you, both here and from your videos (hook timing, for one - had no idea until I saw your video), so that's the last thing I want to do. Sincerely, thanks. Daniel

Thanks, Uwe. I think it is normal to have a different part number, since there are some differences. For starters, the 768 part is thicker near the needle, whereas the 268 part is the same thickness throughout. Here's some pics: The mounting system and overall dimensions seem very similar. Of course, the devil is in the details...that's why I asked. Unfortunately, KHSew still hasn't answered my query. I'll let everyone know if they do. Thanks. Daniel

Another note: I did check JUKI PLC parts, and, again, they look very similar to mine. Again, it boils down to exact dimensions, and the feasibility of adapting the parts. If only they were cheap, it would bear a few experiments... Thanks. Daniel

Thanks! They do have lots of interesting stuff. I left a message on the "Contact us" page. Will let everyone know what the reply will be, for the benefit of future enquiries from members. Daniel

Hi I've been trying, unsuccessfully, to find parts for a bigger inter-needle distance for my Adler 268 twin-needle. Yesterday I took out the feed dog and had a good look at it, and taken measures. It seems visually very similar to the parts for a Adler 768. The foot and the needle carrier are not such a big problem, because they are the same parts as for the 267, but the feed dog is a different matter. So, I was wondering if anybody knows if the feed dog for a 768 twin-needle will fit, or can be adapted to fit, on the 268? Thanks. Daniel

Thanks, shoepatcher. I have found a photo of a 268-263 for sale, and it is indeed the closest, visually, I've seen yet to mine. Black plastic covers on the post, for instance. Unfortunately, I still haven't found the specs for the 262 or 263 versions, nor an older version of the Service Manual. If you, or anyone else, knows where I can get them, please advise. The machine came with 110 needles installed, but the holes on the feed dog are more than big enough to fit a 140 needle, I think (I don't have one yet). Also, since the clutch motor is not the original Adler one, there is no way to check speeds or any other motor-related specs. It does have a 6mm stitch length, but even that is not fully garanteed: the thread on the righthand side kind of skips, very taut, going around the bobbin case, when set at maximum stitch length, as if the mechanism doesn't allow enough slack. However, the bobbin carrier on that side has quite a bit of wear, compared to the left side, so that may be the cause, but it would be nice to know, at least, these 2 specs: max stitch length and possible needle sizes. Still, not a deal breaker. At 5 mm or less, it works flawlessly. I'll soon get a servo motor with a small pulley, and it will be more than good enough for my uses. Thanks a lot. I really mean it. I'd be lost with all this without leatherworker.net! Daniel

Nice quiver! I see you're a field/trad archer...that style is usually preferred by target archers, but I think it's the most functional. The back-leaning style never seemed functional to me. I see what you mean about the base. Perhaps it would have been easier if the base was smaller ( making the quiver more conical overall)? Maybe even teardrop shaped? I never made a quiver, but I thought a lot about how to make one, and was part of the reason for starting my interest in leatherwork. I am nowhere skilled enough to be able to remark anything, but I would offer a couple of ideas for your next quiver, if it happens... 1 - Make the arrow pouch easily detachable from the flap. You could then change one of the parts while keeping the other. 2 - (pet peeve with quivers): make an internal bag/purse for the arrows, that could be easily removed for cleaning. It's amazing how much dirt can accumulate at the bottom... Overall, to the eyes of a newbie, this seems very nicely done. Congrats! Daniel

Thank you all for your kind words. It is indeed wonderful what can be learned here. And, not only that, but the feeling, so different from many other forums, of people really wanting to help, and wanting to learn. This is how all forums should be. So, really happy to be here. I hope, someday, to be able to contribute to all of this. Daniel.

Also, the Durkopp Service Manual I have is from April 1990, and it has 30 versions listed...but no 262 version. I'm guessing it's because the machine is older than 1990...which is likely. I will search for older versions of the manual. Thanks. Daniel

Continue due to size limits... And, please, forgive me for taking too long to reply. It's not lack of interest, it's lack of time. Thank you both for your help. Daniel

Thank you both for taking the time to reply. Here are some more pics. The will to find the version is because some details, like maximum stitch length, vary between versions, according to the manual, and I would like to check that everything is working properly. The other (main?) reason is...that I'm a gearhead, and always want to know as much as I can about my machines. I really like the mechanical side of things, and sewing machines in general, and this one in particular, fascinate me, and make me want to know how every single piece works, and how it interacts with other pieces. I want to understand how machines work, and not just use them. A sewing machine is no different, and more interesting than most. This machine needs a proper disassembly/reassembly (like I've done with so many other kinds of machinery), but I do not know enough (yet) to do it. All I've done, so far, is check and adjust the hook timing, readjust the needle spacing (the right needle was touching the side of the feed dog hole), and lubricate what I could. As far as these 268 go, this is probably the simplest of the twin-needle. Double-feed, no line cutters or anything else extra, I think, and still it works well, even with all the gunk in hard-to-reach places, and probably bad adjustments (judging by the needle positioning...). Still, it is usable right now, but I believe it can be made much better. I have everything I need for that, including wide experience with mechanical devices, except knowledge of this particular machine. But it is fascinating, at least as much as working with leather.