Quite handsome, inside and out! And I did not notice misalignment until you mentioned it. I go back and forth on the degree of perfection that is right for typewriter output. On the one hand I feel it should have some "character" - fuzzy, misaligned characters - to give it a vintage look, and especially distinguish a page from computer output. Then on the other hand I find myself, like you, maligning a machine a bit for those imperfections. My solution is to have machines that do both. I love my Oliver and Remington 5 for character. But if I just want to bang out something quick that looks good but still represents the immediacy of a typewriter, I go to my Olympia Report (electric).Fun video - gosh those two fingers fly!
Frankly, I like how the output of this looks quite a lot (with the exception of a few of the capitals such as Q and A which are just way too blurry) but I pointed it out because it is indeed a flaw, compared to other typewriters of its era.I was watching that and I realized that I type faster than I think I do. XD
Wow!!There is no doubt in my mind that this was a good investment. It's not just rare, it's a model I've never heard of. (I did see the Jolson Everest standard for sale on eBay a little while ago, but that's the only one I've ever seen, and I have not ever heard of a Jolson Everest portable.) It's beautiful, it's in great shape, the typeface is fantastic. Way to go!I recently got a green K2 that you're inspiring me to show on my blog. The carriage return is a bit resistant and noisy compared to more sophisticated typewriters. Like you, I find the touch pretty easy; it just doesn't have that accelerating, snappy, springy feel that many crave.Congratulations!
Richard Polt said "wow" about my typewriter! Not just wow, but "Wow!!" ;DBeing rare and ugly is a strange affliction, while rare and beautiful is a supreme advantage. I hesitate to use the term "rare", but now I have something to show off at type-ins. (Though I still haven't actually been to one…)I could compare this to a Studio 44, I think. Neither are particularly snappy and have an odd sort of undefined soft end to the keystroke, if you know what I mean. I'm not sure which I prefer, though. I do like the Everest's looks more.I love how there is so much variety among manual typewriters! Even if some might never make it to the top of anybody's list as the best overall typewriter, almost every one has its own qualities that make it worth having.
Very pretty typewriter, and rare for sure. Congrats.Perhaps I missed it but did you say this was an ebay find?
I didn't say, but it was. Else, there would be two of these recently sold. XD
My Studio 44's have a pleasant tightness that I really like. Seems like yours is "soft."
It's hard to explain it well. I've owned two different Studio 44s and they both felt the same, so I doubt we're thinking of the same thing. There's a sort of quality to the Studio 44 that I think it kind of tendon-like because it is less machine-feeling. XD This feeling is neither slushy nor snappy like an Olympia or Torpedo is. The Everest has some of those qualities as well, and as I said, each typewriter has its own reasons for being interesting and good.
"Tendon-like" is spot-on.
Another design oddity of the Everest K2 is that instead of a paper support arm, the curved metal panel behind the margin scale can rotate up to support the paper. Clever.