nycnycdesign Report post Posted February 25, 2019 Hello all, In the constant quest to find the most versatile machine I've settled on a narrow adler cylinder to suit my needs best. My question relates to the often debated buying new versus buying old (from reputable dealer). A new Adler 669, with all the bells and whistles, costs around $5k whereas a reputable dealer is selling some nicely maintained older Adler 69's for about $2,500 shipped on a pedestal table. Do you all feel that theres a benefit to going new versus old when it comes to these machines? As mentioned, the older ones come from a reputable dealer so no hypothetical quality issues. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shoepatcher Report post Posted February 25, 2019 I have had Pfaff 335 and now have the Adler 669 eco version. The 669 is the only new generation narrow arm walking foot machine on the market. The Adler 69 which I have had a couple is a great machine and comparable to the Pfaff 335. The New 669 is 20% better than the 69 or 335 as well as it will sew heavier. The 669 replaced the 69. I do not know where you are located but my advice is spend a little more money and get the 669. You will not be disappointed. the specs 69 lift 12-13mm, 669 20 mm, maximum stitch length 69 5-5.5mm, 669 9mm, arm clearance to right of needle 69 10.5inches, 69 13". Those facts right there should convince you to take a serious look at the eco version of the 669. Head only sells for about $3200.00US. hope that info helps. If in the states, contact me and I can tell you who stocks them. glenn Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MachineMind Report post Posted May 15, 2021 hi Glenn, since you had both the Adler 69 and 669 would you know whether the sewing foots would be interchangeable/ compatible with each other..? thanks in advance, Jacob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shoepatcher Report post Posted May 17, 2021 No feet are not interchangeable! 69 uses same feet as 67,167,267, 169,269, 68, 168,268. 669 uses same feet as 767, 867,868,869. sorry. glenn Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites