miriam

I like the slants because you can see what you are doing. You don't have to crane your neck to see past anything. But maybe that is why I like the clones, too. I never sew over pins anyway. I've had too much damage in the past.

SteveH

our model 241-12 is the machine I would pick if I were ever nuts enough to add quilting to the pile of projects...

miriam

yup I would agree - the old commercial machines are very cool - you do have to learn to control the speed... but every thing else about sewing takes practice.

cricket_iscute

Do you folks actually free-motion quilt with your 201s? I have two of them, and neither will fmq, although they are good at straight-line quilting.

For fmq, my "go to" machine is almost always my Singer 301. It doesn't have as much harp space as some, but I love the vertical bobbin and the machine in general. All it asks is to be oiled every 8 hours of sewing, and it is totally dependable and bullet proof.

Cricket

miriam

I have seen two machines side by side - one will FM nice and the other doesn't - I think it might depend on how it is set up. Some of the high speed industrial machines have drop in bobbins which makes me question whether or not that is the issue.

deplaylady

Yep, I do my best FMQ on my 201.

cricket_iscute

Could you share any tips or secrets? I have made so many efforts to use the Singer 201s for fmq. I've serviced both of them including taking apart the dreaded bobbin assembly on one in order to clean it completely in case that was the problem. Even Ray White agreed it would not fmq but that he saw nothing wrong, nor did I. I have done fmq on many other machines, so I think I pretty much know how to do it. Would you believe that I've also done fmq on a Singer 99? Yep! By using a Stoppax attachment, this is possible. The same with a Singer 127 treadle.

Any ideas about the 201? Even with the Stoppax, the 201 did not want to fmq. The thread kept breaking and jamming and the tension is otherwise okay. I tried many threads in top and bobbin. (I did discover that it doesn't like thread thicker than 50 weight.) I tried a number of fmq feet and darning feet. I tried a needle in a spring. It just would not stitch smoothly for fmq but does otherwise. I'd say I spend the better part of three days playing with it.

SteveH

could always use this...
http://sfbay.craigslist.org/eby/art/4158109752.html

Redsquirrel

Hi Gang,
Well I just had to take out the 201 and 15-88 and see the difference. Here are some pictures to prove that yes, the 201 is quite a bit bigger. This surprised me.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]443956[/ATTACH]
The 201 is on top and the 15-88 is below. Note the size of the bases is the same, but the side slide plates are different. The 201 is way shorter as the head is closer to the edge of the base.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]443957[/ATTACH]
Above is the 201, measuring in at approx. 20cm from pillar to below the needle.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]443958[/ATTACH]
Above is the 15-88, measuring in at approx. 17 cm from pillar to below the needle.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]443959[/ATTACH]
Above is one more pic of the 201 on top and the 15-88 below, you can see how much longer the 201 is from this view too.

J Miller

I have seen a fully horizontal view of the Singer 101. That machine looks to have even more space under the arch than the 201 / 66s do. I don't have one to compare but from the pics it looks to be a lot of room.

Another Singer with lots of room too is the 9W-7.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]443961[/ATTACH]
Both of mine sew beautiful stitches.

Joe