|
Thread Number: 34987
/ Tag: 50s/60s/70s Vacuum Cleaners
Bison Mark II and Hoover 105 or is it a 102 |
[Down to Last] |  |
| Post# 377303 8/26/2017 at 23:51 (2,427 days old) by Phaeton (Los Angeles ) | ||
For Philip and Jeff; Kirbyvertibles and Hygiene930
First for the Bison Mark II. I can say if it was a 1956 o1957 Mark II I would be really happy but it is Bison Mark II. This is the first one I have ever seen or touched. I first went to Automatic Ephemera and found a 1968 Bison Instruction and Warranty pamphlet. You want to know how helpful it was, don’t ask. I had to do a minor repair as the funky, sorry, foot adjuster as it was not working correctly or working. So I took it apart a found that there was a small screw missing and I believe it is somewhere on Mars and the Mars Rover can’t find it so I delved into my millions of odd screws and found what could have been on a 1949 Cadillac or some car and modified it to what I thought would work. Put the Bison back together and son of a hooch, the little bugger works like what I think it should. Now I seem to need a belt and it is longer than the Kirby and that pamphlet doesn’t say anything about a belt. I figured out how to get the belt off so I can use it as a sample. Now I will say it is really not a bad machine and if I had carpets I think I might use it. It might make the house tremble but I do believe the carpets would be clean as clean could be. I have a bad feeling that I might want to keep it as it is clean and not all scratched up. I have added pictures of my repair which seems to work. I will also add better pictures of the Electro Hygiene that is a Model 2-230. Yes someone dressed it in blue. I will have catch on the 105 or is it a 102 for dysonman1 and toddk13 tomorrow. Thank you for looking, Pete | ||
| Post# 377305 , Reply# 1 8/27/2017 at 01:51 (2,427 days old) by hygiene903 (Galion, OH) | ||
Hi Pete,
Since your Electro-Hygiene is a 2-230, that makes it the last of the straight suction models. It would have been built around 1953-54. Not much difference between the 230 and the 2-230, other than the bag color was changed from black to blue and the motor housing was a bit more streamlined on the 2-230. Glad you were able to repair the Bison!
Jeff | ||
| Post# 377314 , Reply# 2 8/27/2017 at 03:33 (2,427 days old) by Phaeton (Los Angeles ) | ||
|
Hi Jeff,
Who and why would a person buy a Straight Suction Royal or Electro Hygiene, say in 1953 over ones that had a brush roll? I have another old Royal Model 129 which is older and has a brush roll which is older then the 2-230. In 1953 I think I would prefer the 129. I have one more which is a 189 Good Housekeeper. I guess that is an odd question to ask, but I would never have known that Royal or Electro Hygiene would still be making straight suction machines up to 1954. At the shop I only remember working on one or two but that needed bearing plates but were much older. I do like the Royals, I think my mom was given her aunts in the early 50's. I am going to need 2 bottom plates and 3 of the black hand grips with the metal tab plus one brush roll. and I guess some shake out bags. That might be harder than the work I did on the Bison, LOL. Thank you for the fun and it is way late now. Pete | ||
Post# 377316 , Reply# 3 8/27/2017 at 06:17 (2,427 days old) by tolivac  (Greenville,NC) |
||
|
Straight suction cleaners would be good for delicate rugs.If there are brushes on the lips of the nozzle-they would be good for hard floors-like dance halls,gyms,basketball floors.The straight suction Royals were liked for those jobs. | ||
| Post# 377359 , Reply# 4 8/28/2017 at 08:33 (2,426 days old) by kirbyvertibles (Independence, KS) | ||
 | ||
| Post# 377402 , Reply# 5 8/29/2017 at 00:30 (2,425 days old) by Phaeton (Los Angeles ) | ||
|
Hello All,
I have a Hoover 105 the I have be told may be Hoover 102 Because it has the Robbin & Myers motor and a wooden handle. The base is not a 102 because it has never had the handle lever on the casting. I have been told the Robbins & Myers was discontinued prior to the 105 and the wooden handle also discontinued prior to the 105. So I really have no idea why as the Serial Number is high and I would say is a late in production unit. I have added a few pictures from my 102 Hoover booklet which the last page is missing from it and of my Hoover 105 plus pictures from the Hoover Singer Family Diary. There is also a picture of a Hoover 543 with the curved handle which is correct and a 541 with the straight handle which is also correct. Plus, care of the 102 brush roll and wood bearings. There are persons and members that know a lot more than I do about these old Hoovers out there. Thanks for looking, Pete | ||
| Post# 377414 , Reply# 6 8/29/2017 at 02:21 (2,425 days old) by hygiene903 (Galion, OH) | ||
|
Straight Suction Electro-Hygiene
Hi Pete,
In answer to your question about why Electro-Hygiene remained straight suction into the 50's, I'll start with a brief history. Philip Geier started the P.A. Geier Company in 1905 as a job order machine shop. As the company grew, they turned toward manufacturing, and their first products were parts for punch presses, and eventually they began building and selling the entire press. In 1910 Mr. Geier designed and built his first vacuum cleaner and named it the Royal. They soon became so popular that the punch presses were discontinued and the entire company was devoted to vacuum cleaners. By the late 1920's, the line had expanded to 3 models, the Standard, the Super, and the Purifier, which had a chamber in front of the fan case where the nozzle was attached. The chamber was filled with deodorizing crystals and the slide was opened which allowed part of the air to be drawn through the crystals as you vacuumed. Arthur (Art) Frankenfeld was a Royal salesman who could sell the Purifier like no other, stressing the idea that it would purify the air as you cleaned. Then in 1934, the Purifier was renamed the Electro-Hygiene, and the company began as a wholly owned subsidiary of the P.A. Geier Co., with Art Frankenfeld heading the division. They had their own sales force and management and experienced growth to the point that in 1941 Electro-Hygiene was incorporated. The model 80 was their first model (to my knowledge). In the late 30's it was replaced with the 94 which was produced until P.A. Geier switched to military products during WWII. After the war, the model 230 was introduced, still a straight suction machine, although P.A. Geier had been producing vacs with a revolving brush since the late 30's. The reason Electro-Hygiene remained straight suction all this time was the crystal chamber. It was such an important part of the Electro-Hygiene that they refused to go to a revolving brush until they could come up with a place for the crystal chamber. The answer came in 1955, with the model 285, which was almost identical to the Royal 801. A crystal chamber was designed that could be snapped on in place of the front cover plate, and the revolving brush Electro-Hygiene was born! I happen to have a model 80, 94, 230, 2-230, and 285 in my collection as well as a 189 Good Housekeeper. Here are pics of them, in the order mentioned here except for the 230 and 2-230, which I already posted in the other thread. You'll notice the inline switch on the 80, and hopefully you can see the hammered finish on the 94. Not hammertone, but actually hammered. And although it's not shown in the pic, I do have the crystal chamber for the 285. Hope this has been helpful. Jeff | ||
| Post# 377427 , Reply# 7 8/29/2017 at 08:52 (2,425 days old) by kirbyvertibles (Independence, KS) | ||
|
| ||
| Post# 377435 , Reply# 9 8/29/2017 at 10:03 (2,425 days old) by dysonman1 (the county) | ||
The Model 105 had a Hoover-built motor (note the tag on the FRONT of the motor), it also had the switch on the left side of the machine, as well as a handle grip. The tag on the front of the motor was only on 105. 102 had a Robins and Meyers motor with tag on top in brass, 105 had the tag on front, model 541 had NO tag on front (tag on back of motor).
| ||
| Post# 377573 , Reply# 11 8/30/2017 at 00:18 (2,424 days old) by Phaeton (Los Angeles ) | ||
|
Hello All,
I really enjoy reading all these comments and wow Jeff you sure is knowledgeable about the Royal family of vacuums by P.A. Geier Co. Regarding early Hoovers, I work on automobiles and if we take the 1948 Buick Roadmaster, it went from solid lifters to hydraulic lifters during the model year run and 1958 Lincoln went through several slight changes. It was the same in the industry I worked in. So yes I am happy with the little 105 Hoover. A little loss if information happens with each generation even when it might be well documented. Now I did see a file draw with change orders and memos that was in the Hoover Factory, I believe the year was 1921. I just do not remember where I put it. I have a strange sense of humor, sorry. I worked a second job at week nights from 7pm until 11pm and Saturday from 10am until 3pm back in the 70’s at a vacuum shop in Glendale on Brand Blvd. I repaired hundreds of vacuums no matter what brand they were. I repaired, painted and buffed up so many Electrolux G, I really like the G and have one, and the owner would do repairs on really old machines. I rebuilt vacuums for the sales floor and his customers. I really never collected many of them for myself. I buff out a Singer R-1 and a Hoover 700 for myself and I did have a Royal. Oh Darn that brings up a Hoover question, what is the significant in having the flat switch with the “H” cut out in it and was it only on 700s or also on 1-speed 725s? I still have the Singer and an Electrolux G and I long for a Hoover 700. Only recently have I bought a few machines kind of for the fun of it. I later started getting involved with old 50’s Cadillacs, Buicks and Lincolns. I tend to be doing a lot of yakking, don’t worry I eventually stop. It has been fun so I am looking forward to another session and thanks for looking, Pete | ||
| Post# 377581 , Reply# 12 8/30/2017 at 09:47 (2,424 days old) by dysonman1 (the county) | ||
|
Todd
One of the great things about Hoover are the huge number of ads they put out. While other manufacturers were just getting started, Hoover and their advertising department were putting out tons of ads every month.
The motor switch from Robins and Meyers to Hoover-built was well documented in "The Fabulous Dustpan" by Frank Hoover. In the book "A Trip Through The Hoover Factory", which documented in pictures how the entire model 105 was made, they showed the factory actually making the motor. The booklet was published in 1921, at the beginning of the run of the model 105. I got my copy from Charles Lester over 20 years ago. Vac Shops over the years have had a major hand in putting parts from one model onto another model. Look at all the Kirbys that have been bastardized by vac shops. The Robins and Meyers motor fit into the 105 exactly like a Hoover built motor. Personally, I've taken Eureka household vac motors and put them into Sanitaires before. | ||
|
Post# 377582 , Reply# 13 8/30/2017 at 10:44 (2,424 days old) by electrolux137 (Los Angeles) |
||
 | ||
| Post# 377593 , Reply# 15 8/30/2017 at 15:17 (2,423 days old) by Phaeton (Los Angeles ) | ||
|
Hello All,
We are all right in how we might describe a vacuum, a car, repairs and the swapping of parts to make something work. When I worked at the vac shop I repaired his Janitorial Accounts Hoovers which were a mixed lot of convertibles, 63s and up. On these machine I might have to replace the handles and agitator brush rolls basically from just a whole lot of use. He had tons of parts and parts machines. I remember on canisters I would replace burnt with a motor that fit but might not be the original type used in the canister. (Just a side note, while I will call the Compact/Interstate a somewhat easy machine to take apart but getting that a new bumper back on was hell and all we had then was heat lamps to warm it up with). If we were repairing a retail customer’s vacuum, he would ask if they wanted to replace the motor with a good working one as the cost of new would be more then they wanted to spend. Now if we turn the clock back to 1930’s and a customer had a Hoover 105 with a burnt motor and we had a good Hoover 102 motor and the customer decided the 102 motor would be okay I would call that a good fix for them. I am not sure about the Hoover 541 being swappable but these 3 motors all the same 4 screw hole pattern and the 700 and 543 we 3 hole patterns. I guess you could drill and tap 3 holes in to the base as long as the fitting diameters were the same. I would like to call that either an equitable repair, (sounds good, no I think equitable repair sounds great?), a Mickey Mouse job, or at strongest Jerry-rigged. I guess I would say I did an equitable repair on my Bison nozzle adjuster I don’t think I would say Mickey Mouse or jerry-rigged. It would seem my Hoover 105 and 541 have had repairs to the handle positioning devise on the base as one has a cap screw and a screw. I guess my 543 might be original which I have added pictures. Now Bastardized is a 1955 Cadillac Coupe DeVille I bought a few years back. I was asked to buy it from the owner for a minimal amount. The owner had hired a person to restore it. This person had an IQ of a dead Fly when it came to restoring. He pulled out ALL the wiring and proceeded to make his own harnesses with wrong connectors. He added factory air to it, (1953 to 1956 were factory trunk units), all hole for the unit were cut but they were all off the proper location. The Cad has a 1950 cad engine with a 1954 transmission and a 1952 intake manifold. The 1955 bracket for the compressor does not fit a 1950 engine properly. This is what I can call frigging bastardized. I did not know all this when I bought it. Now I do have all the correct items for making it correct. I have a 1955 engine, transmission, manifold and used harness. Now if you are a collect and you wanted it to have matching numbers it isn’t going happen. So I would say it was an equitable way to fix it and it was totally bastardized when I bought it. It will never see an RMS Auction but it would be a great driver. For each and all cars I repair I have wiring diagrams, Master Parts Book, Shop Manuals and more. They include serial members and change overs notices and there are also the great Hollander books and Chilton Repair Manuals all of these give detailed information. Anyone with money can buy them. I have owned way more old cars then vacuum cleaners but I have worked on more vacuums then cars, I have owned nearly 160 of those gas guzzling monster. Finding written information on any particular vacuum with or without money is near too impossible. I have a few owner’s manuals for 102, 541, 543 and Model B Rexair, that I bought on eBay. Boy you aficionados, collectors and experts are going to have to knock me off, I just yak too much even for me and it is getting annoying Another fun time and thanks for looking, Pete | ||
| Forum Index: | 
| Other Forums: |
|
|
|
|
|
Comes to the Rescue!
;){kind=link}
;){kind=link}
;){kind=link}
;){kind=link}
;){kind=link}
;){kind=link}
;){kind=link}
;){kind=link}
;){kind=link}
;){kind=link}
;){kind=link}
;){kind=link}
;){kind=link}
;){kind=link}