Sewing machine help

>>1072090
Looks like my old sings.
Should work better than anything short of an industrial that are sold nowadays.
I live in a city of 2 million.
Went to the largest fabric store, brought my stingray hides.
None of their machines could pierce it.
Singer I bought off fleabay for $50 does it all day long without issues.

File: needle shrpener.jpg (50KB, 564x469px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 564x469px

>>1072090
$50 is a good deal if it works.

Dont use thin ass needles. That machine has a decent motor and will snap a needle pretty quickly.
Thick needles and keep them sharp.
To sharpen the needles when they get dull--
soda bottle cap
fill with 00 or finer steel wool so it mushrooms over the top about an inch
stretch a piece of junk fabric over the top and glue in place.
Poke the needle in and our about 15-20 times.

Seriously. When sewing anything thicker than 2 layers of cotton, use a tick sharp needle. Google is your friend.

>>1072090
I'd put my money on an old Singer over any older brand. That's a really basic machine and I wouldn't pay for than $50 for it in working condition. Maybe more if it has a nice cabinet. That said, Singers are cheap and better. Post your local Craig's List and I will look and see if there are any good ones in your area. What's your budget?

>>1072180
I'm on mobile. I'm just south of Minneapolis st Paul area in Minnesota. Winona area works too. If that don't help I can try to get Craigslist to work on my phone

>>1072174
>>1072180
Btw from what I think I've found out about it, it is a Japanese knock off of the singer 15/90 or some shit. It's supposed to be almost as good and pretty much interchangeable with the singer. That is if I'm willing to believe everything I read on the internet

>>1072235
>>1072232
Mankato, Rochester, La Crosse, and Minneapolis seem to be the CLs in the area you mentioned. There are a couple of genuine Singers to be had for under $100 and some even for $50. Why get a knockoff when you can get the real deal?

Any of the old school black Singers are great for what you need. Plain, straight stitches, easy of use, and decent power. People asking $300 for them as 'collector's items' are insane. Singer made millions of them. Literally millions. They are about as collectible as parking tickets.

If you can find a Singer Model 301 (brownish tan colored) you will be all set. It's probably the best straight stitch machine Singer ever made. The 400/500 series is also great but they added zig-zag stuff you don't need and collectors have a thing for them, so prices tend to be higher. The 600 series and later was when the wheels started to come off. Don't bother.

>>1072253
Thank you

i bought a similarly old machine for $30. its been great for learning on, but it inly has straight stitches which kind of sucks. cant really stop any edges from fraying apart from sewing another line or two on the seam.

Might as well keep this thread alive. Anyone have any cool sewing projects they do? Anything you have relevant please post

>>1072090
That's a cheap, just-post-WWII Singer 15 clone made in Japan back before the Japanese were any good at manufacturing. Some are OK, but they're not as yough as the actual Singer 15. The steel isn't as good, the tolerances can be utterly wack.
There are a million of these things in the basement of every house over 60 years old. Here in NE, even genuine Singers are give-aways, unless it's a machine in absolute pristine condition.

But echoing others here, old machines will outperform anything new. Once upon a time, a sewing machine cost more than a car. Pre WWII, get a Singer. Period. Post WWII, Singer fell off a cliff, get an Elna or Necchi instead. The Necchi zig-zaggers with a 15-class hook are top notch machines, perhaps the best sewing machines ever made.

>>1072253
>If you can find a Singer Model 301 (brownish tan colored) you will be all set. It's probably the best straight stitch machine Singer ever made.
That's a slant-shank machine, which means it won't take the much more common low-shank accessories absolutely everybody else uses. It was a Singer attempt to force everyone to buy new accessories (and only from Singer) and it failed. It's also a rotary-hook machine, they're not as forgiving when you push them (eg, free-motion or weird materials). Unless stitch speed is an overriding concern, vertical oscillating hook is the way to go.

>>1073298
They produced machines and accessories that used the slant shank in the millions. From the 301 in 1951 until at least the 700 series in the 1970s. You can still buy accessories and parts for them. It's like calling the Ford Model T a failure because not everyone copied it and Ford doesn't make it anymore. By the time the slant shank was withdrawn from the market home sewing machines were crap anyway. Plastic garbage that could do all kinds of fancy stitches but not sew in a straight line through 3 pieces of tissue paper or last more than 5 years before breaking down.

Parts are not hard to find, accessories are not hard to find and it is easier to sew with than a low or high shank.

>>1073663
>They produced machines and accessories that used the slant shank in the millions.
Sure. But only a few Singer machines were slants, and even Singer gave up on it. Nearly every sewing machine and maker in the 20th century was low shank. Slant parts aren't that hard to find, but they're still a tiny minority.

Also, your only machine choice with slant shank is horizontal rotary hook. Smooth and fast for dressmaking and tailoring, but not my first choice for anything else. They knot and skip stitches more easily, and are also more prone to striking the hook.

>>1073753
[really, these are minor quibbles. I'd take a 301 over any home machine made today. Just saying I'd also take a 15-91 or BU Nova over the 301 hands-down.]

>>1073753
>Also, your only machine choice with slant shank is horizontal rotary hook.
Wait, I'm wrong. 301 was a vertical rotary hook. That's more forgiving, still not as bulletproof as oscillating though.