Reliance Visible -- in detail.

RELIANCE VISIBLE

David B. Davis collection

Now, we'll take a look at an actual machine, which was accompanied by the catalog illustrated in detail in the previous pages. But before we do that, a few historical observations are required.

First, let's point out the fact that this machine is a product of the new RELIANCE TYPEWRITER COMPANY, but is in fact identical with the last product of the PITTSBURG line (which was the Pittsburg Visible No. 12.) Thus, the new firm very obviously picked up where the other left off in terms of design. Second, we should also indicate that the Pittsburg No. 12 was a completely new machine as compared with the previous Pittsburg No. 10 in almost every respect and detail.

(Keeping this in mind, we can apply our actual testing observations to that final Pittsburg No. 12 and not just to the Reliance Visible.)

In point of fact, the Reliance machines jump in serial number into a new bracket that begins at or around s/n 51000. The machine seen here is serial number 51695, making it very early in the production. Again, the accompanying literature and correspondence includes two dates -- a letter sent from Montgomery Ward to one Enos Lesh, dated October 28, 1916, and a note in the manual written by Lesh giving a date of March 4, 1917. These are considerably later than the first generally assumed production dates for this machine, but do in fact correspond more closely with some of the dates given in Beeching's book. We cannot just assume that the machine didn't sit in Montgomery Ward's stock for a couple of years, but then again that seems unlikely. Only the discovery of the actual date of incorporation for Reliance Typewriter Company will prove out the earliest likely date for Reliance Visible machines.

In point of fact, some of the illustrations in the catalog which illustrate actual typing being performed have dates, on the documents in use, ranging from 1913 on -- it is likely that these are recycled illustrations from an earlier PITTSBURG brochure.

We provide another look at Jim Dax's PITTSBURG VISIBLE for comparison. Immediately obvious is that the new design has been made much more conventional, not just in appearance but in terms of enclosure and decoration. The ribbon spools are now mounted properly on top of the machine, and the whole affair is now no longer of odd proportion but rather in line with most standard machines of the day. What isn't obvious is that the type-bar mechanism is not the same as the Pittsburg No. 10 -- part of the No. 12, then, was a wholesale redesign of this most important part of the typewriter. The result is a machine whose action is quite light, and pretty responsive.

The machine does in fact incorporate segment shift, and note should be made that the shift action on this machine must certainly be among the lightest ever tested; the effort required to operate the shift is practically nothing. This one feature makes the Pittsburg 12 / Reliance stand out above very many standard machines of this time, whether carriage or segment shifted. The lightness of touch of the keys when typing is also notable, and although there are machines with slightly lighter touch, this design is among the lightest. The return speed of the type-bars is not among the fastest, however, and we would place this machine's speed capability at the high end of "medium" comparatively.

Here is proof that the separable keyboard and frame feature so distinctive to this machine was tested -- and we can tell you that it is extremely easy to do. Pulling up the key on the top right of the keyboard section unlocks it, and it is simply lifted out. Putting the keyboard back is only slightly more difficult, but mounting lugs in the frame, visible easily through the rear, align the keyboard section on installation easily enough. However, unfortunately, some other operational details aren't up to conventional levels -- the backspace and margin release / tab keys mounted on the frame sides (as they must be, operating in concert with the carriage, to avoid over-complication of linkages) are somewhat awkward. One further positive feature is the ribbon selector indicator in plain sight just below and to the left of the print point.

What then is the final analysis? Well, I cannot help but include the original price of the machine in the consideration. Normally, "cut rate" machines which offered a price around half that of conventional standard machines failed miserably for one reason or another, not necessarily as a result of design -- but often so anyway. Here, with the Reliance Visible, the price distinction is blurred by the overall good quality of the machine's construction (and we must say EXCELLENT finish) and overall pleasant qualities of its operation. The carriage is light and easy to return, the return lever operates quite well (see the Emerson article on this site -- the line-space mechanism is exactly that of the Emerson No. 3 for some unknown reason !!) and the typing action is quite agreeable and moderately fast. The machine is in fact capable of good, hard work, and in many circumstances could be considered as a first-rate machine. What we mean by that is this: In some instances, "cut rate" machines were thought of as a good 'second' machine, for example, in an office which needed one typewriter constantly but on occasion could use two -- in the case of the Reliance Visible, though, we feel that the machine could be that 'full time' machine in many cases, particularly where little tabular work needed to be performed. It is indeed among the best of the low-priced machines of the era that we've tested. I should add that the machine is not as solidly built as the Harris Visible No. 4, considering low-priced machines, but the three-bank keyboard of the Harris dooms it in comparison with the four-bank single-shift "standard" keyboard of the Reliance Visible. Testing of this machine compared with other standards of the day does reveal an overall lighter quality, in other words a feel of less sturdiness, but without the hint that the machine would be prone to rapid failure. It compares well enough to make one wonder why it wasn't more successful.

One possibility for the failure not only of the Reliance, but of other cut-rate machines to be successful was the fact that, as time progressed, more and more rebuilt machines were being offered to the market, in some cases later on having actually been rebuilt by the original manufacturers themselves. This placed newly-rebuilt but more elaborately equipped machines in a much lower price range, and also allowed for rental. That singular factor may have had an impact -- in fact, likely had one -- on the ability of these brand-new but low-priced machines to make headway. We have no records to show just how many rebuilt machines were being distributed by rebuilders and original makers, but the machines exist today in some number, and advertisements of the day certainly indicate that the trade in this field was brisk.

We know now that the Reliance Visible, and its family mates, sold for several years through not only Montgomery Ward, but eventually through other limited channels, didn't have any significant impact in typewriter history -- serial number documentation shows that only something like 10,000 to 12,000 machines were built by this concern. Production endpoints are speculative, and various books give dates ranging from 1921 (more likely) to 1929 (pretty unlikely, we'd say.) The machines are interesting to us today for what they indicate to us about the relationships between design, marketing, distribution and pricing, even if they caused neither a design revolution or a flurry of competitive response. Indeed, they are all the more interesting for having failed.

Next.. a later, and DIFFERENT Reliance Visible !