Wilson, Kansas
This letter was unintentionally misplaced and just now turns up.
We think it has virtue for us to think about and so we reproduce
it.
I would like to comment on a couple articles in your Nov.-Dec.
1955 issue.
First, every old timer seems to have his favorite engine, but
for some reason, most of them are either pro-Case or anti-Case as
you will note from the article ‘Champion vs. Case.’
A picture of a threshing outfit I can just remember of coming to
my uncle’s farm to thresh. It is a Huber return flue engine
with a clover huller purchased about 1905 by Daniel Van Olinda who
operated it for many years. He was better known as Danny and is
standing at the controls. Previous to this outfit he owned a Wood
Bros, machine and threshed for about 30 years in the vicinity of
Halfmoon and Clifton Park. This picture and information was given
me by his daughter, Mrs. Archie Chauine, Sr., who still lives in
Halfmoon. I never operated a threshing machine but I fired on the
Boston & Maine BR, Rutland RR also on steam marine tug boats.
That is where I received my engineers license. When steam went out
on the tugs and the Diesel came in I shifted to Diesel and am now
Chief Engineer for the Mayflower Towing and Transportation Co., but
I still love steam and don’t believe there is any other sound
or smell in this world like the bark of a steam engine cutting off
and the smell of oil and steam. Keep that wonderful ALBUM coining
and don’t change it in any way just make it come more
often.
I have noticed this in old Thresher magazines and from talks I
have had with old engine men, but let’s let the facts speak for
themselves. All engines had their good points, but comparing
production records, Case outsold all other makes by about two to
one, so they couldn’t have been too poor an engine, and the
Case separator made the same record.
So when reading the article ‘Champion vs. Case’ I am
tempted to quip how come the Case became a leader, while Champion
just sort of faded away?
Another thing I would like to see clarified is the matter of
Avery slapping an injunction against the A. W. Stevens Co., in
regard to Stevens Undermounted engine.
Avery announced their Undermounted engine in the Sept. 1904
American Thresherman and that seems to be the first time it was
placed on the market.
Now the Aultman Co. had their Undermounted engine on the market
about a year or so sooner, as they announced it in the Nov. 1903
issue of the American Thresherman. So did not Avery infringe on the
Aultman patents? The principle of the two engines is quite
similar.
How about some of the old timers clarifying this matter. Avery
seems to have made the last use of the Undermounted principle, but
even they abandoned the principle about 1915 and went to building
top mounted, straight flue engines exclusively.
Also let’s have more pictures like the one Frank J. Stebritz
sent in of the Yellow Fellow, some, or rather I should say, most of
the old wood frame separators were workmen’s masterpieces. With
the manner in which the lumber was grooved and mortised to fit.
Also the intricate paint job on some of them.
The steel separator, was of course, far superior in
construction, but for some reason, the wood frame machine had an
appeal to it, that catches the eye.
