Jeanette Frantz

She also demonstrates the difference in a standard spool of thread (that fits in the bobbin can for the Two Spool) and a Singer long bobbin and a Class 66 bobbin. I'm not sure whether that's on YouTube or on her website.

Jeanette

maviskw

I couldn't tell the difference in the speed of the machine over any other machine. There were no issues. For the extra long loop to go around the spool, it has a different shaped take-up lever that is able to do the job.

SteveH

OK, I was not trying to imply that the two spool was in some way defective, under engineered, or even poor engineering. At the time that these were made there was significant pressure to innovate and stitches per minute was one major selling point (valid or not)

I have machines that were made in the 1870 that are better designed and better operationally than the models that followed, so it was not always the "best" tech that went forward, but the most marketable.

This is actually one of my main attractions to the early machines, seeing the tree of technology and which branches grew and which withered.

Jeanette Frantz

One issue that was raised on this type of machine -- how much better as far as the necessity of re-filling a bobbin. There's a YouTube video on this by FiddleyBits. She loaded bobbins: (1) a Singer long bobbin, which held approximately 35 yards of thread; (2) a FW bobbin which held about the same; (3) a Class 66 bobbin which held about 70 yards of thread. The two spool machine still held at least 2/3 more than a Class 66, and almost 3 times as much as a Singer long bobbin or a FW bobbin!. At any rate, the video was quite interesting!

Steve, sorry -- criticism was not my intent! LOL!

Jeanette