Skip to main content

Jane Doe: Discovery

The next 1601 I tested, and the only other one in my possession is Jane. A 158.16011.

Right off the bat, I know she's going to take a little bit of work before I can send her on her way one day. Her drop feed sticks. The feed dogs have no problem being up and working, and being down and staying there. But transitioning between the two can be a bit of a challenge. This, thankfully doesn't keep me from doing any testing with her, I just need to make sure I get that resolved between now and October (when I hope to post the machines up for sale)

Boy oh boy does she sew. What's that Mazda slogan, "Zoom, Zoom"? She's got that in droves. In a way that I'm actually having the feeling I'm going to have to investigate. Because she flies a bit free after I lift my foot from the pedal. Inertia keeps her going for sometimes as much as TWO whole new stitches. She's a smooth operator/drag racer.

A design change I can note between Helen and Jane is the reverse stich modifier. Jane's labeling is more spaced out and her range of motion through as a knob also increases to match. I'll open them both up side by side and a future post. I'm curious about the difference in the mechanics.

She'll sew, and sew, and sew. Even with the more complex C-Cams that I had difficulty with on Helen, she has zero problem. I didn't have to adjust the tuning whatsoever to get her to produce stitches that look exactly like the cams in shape. Again, I ran as many stitches as possible on her at max width, stitch length of between 1.5 and 2, and M reverse modifier.

Pressure foot pressure was something I could actually "measure" on Jane that I couldn't on Helen. I don't know if it is original, or someone changed out the knob, but I actually have gradations on Jane. Which allowed me to set her at what is about 4, which ended up looking like the same that I had on Helen. And that was just about perfect for buttonholing.

I'm going to check Jane's speed related extra stitches soon enough, it has me a little concerned. Is it a replaced motor? Or is there something in her just oiled up better than I have ever come across in ANY machine? I'll look.

The speed demon she is, I have noted that she IS skipping stitches on occasion. Helen never skipped a stitch, even if she wasn't doing okay with getting the shape right. I have tension adjusted as best as I can, but still once in a blue moon, especially on zig-zag she misses a stitch. I have to take a deeper look into that miss. Is it a matter of not moving? Or is it a matter of just not locking in?
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Kenmore Ensemble: An Introduction

In this adventure there are 9 machines that will be tested. An important thing to note about the models for Kenmores of this era is the context of the naming scheme. "XXX.MM(MM)Y" The XXX being the general design numbers such as 117, 158, or 148. These often correlate with the manufacturer of the machine and the region of sale. MM(MM) mean while is the model. I have seen model numbers that are from two digits to four digits. All the models I'll be writing on in this series are four digits. Model Number and Serial Plate The last number is the Y, and is always the Y no matter how many M's precede it. It is often casually implied as the manufacturing year, 0 being the first year of manufacture. From what I've actually seen, it's more like revision number just like in modern computing when they go from 2.0 to 2.1. A major revision has been made, but it isn't different enough to be a new machine. With this, sometimes multiple revisions can happen in
Post a Comment
Read more

To Helen Black: An introduction to 1601s

I'm working with the machines now, not in chronological order, but in complexity order. So the first machine I have worked with is Helen. This bird is a 158.16010. She has a slightly green, maybe mint, enamel casing. Quick things you'll note about her and what basically drew me to these generations of machines is the simplicity of the design. Proof Helen is indeed a machine Basic features that are identical across the 1601/1701/1802 line are the side opening door to get to the light bulb, the easy to remove top (it is just held on with a tension clip around), and the order of the knobs. From left to right up to down, Stitch Width, Reverse Stitch Modifier, Stitch length (with reverse button), and Stitch Selector.  Everything is upfront and easy to access. All the machines I will be testing are flat bed, so to get to the bobbin casing there is either lifting up the machine and tilting it back, or popping out the access plate and hoping your hands are small enough to re
Post a Comment
Read more

Helen and Jane Adventures: Part 1

My previous entries covered the first impressions between the two machines. And with both of them I have a bit of exploration to go through before I can say definitively anything about the design. Helen (16010) & Jane (16011) One thing I can say for both of these machines, they are strong. You can feel the power when working with them. And neither of them are particularly loud for their strength. Working on these vintage machines, you feel like you are unstoppable in comparison to the computerized machines I have worked with (Bernina Bernette 25 is my go to dearest). They have the same feeling as I get with my mechanical near industrial serger (Juki MO-735). They go through the material like there is nothing there. This was even the case when on Helen, I hadn't quite corrected the bobbin issue and I was destroying my needle points. I also know that Jane is more than capable on hemming jeans. She's the machine that got me into this mess in the first place. I that serger
Post a Comment
Read more