Does anyone here know if the 763e Gun metal grey Hudson is more scarce than its sister the black 763e?... Thank you all for any feed back...
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
According to Greenberg's Guide 1901-1942 0 &00 gauges Vol. II. , the Gunmetal is rated at a higher price than the Black by $1000. The book lists the Gunmetal @ $2500 Good/$5000 Exc. condition, and the Black is @$1300 Good/$2500 Excellent condition. Those figures also are with the tenders included. The two figures stated above are with the 2226WX tenders. So with that, it would appear that the Gunmetal is rarer than the Black one.
Gunmetal 763's were more afflicted with the dreaded "zinc pest" for some reason. The ones that survived are more valuable. Especially the ones with Coal pile tenders. They often crumbled too.
Thank you gentlemen .. Greatly appreciated
I have to disagree about the "Zinc Pest" statement. The 700E and the 763E locomotives date to 1937 issue. By that time, Lionel had greatly improved their die casting procedures, and they used a very reputable, if not the most reputable supplier for their die casting. I will agree that a lot of stuff produced from 1925-1935 did suffer from Zinc Pest. I would say that if a 763E or the supposed tender did suffer from Zinc Pest, it is far from the norm.
Ok n p that's why we are here to talk and learn from one another...:-) is the 763e Gunmetal still in demand today? $ climbing like there grandson the 773 1950 postwar Hudson?...
But the 763e are beautiful engines like there grandsons ..773 postwar Hudson
Rails posted:Ok n p that's why we are here to talk and learn from one another...:-) is the 763e Gunmetal still in demand today? $ climbing like there grandson the 773 1950 postwar Hudson?...
It's definitely still in demand by prewar collectors, but I don't believe they are selling for the big money anymore. I saw a few at York this past weekend; they had outrageous prices on them and, you guessed it--they didn't sell. My neighbor had a beautiful gunmetal 763E (Vanderbilt tender) for sale at York last October and I'm pretty sure he had to drop the price to $1500 +/- before it sold.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the gunmetal version produced for a longer time than the black one? It's always been my understanding the gunmetal version was produced from 1937-1940, with 1940 being the only year of the gunmetal coal tender. Then the color was changed to black in 1941 &1942, using a black coal tender.
John
The gunmetal diecast tender is the big dollar item. Also made in 2225 and 2224 as tenders Gunmetal and pricey as well.
BlueComet400 posted:Rails posted:Ok n p that's why we are here to talk and learn from one another...:-) is the 763e Gunmetal still in demand today? $ climbing like there grandson the 773 1950 postwar Hudson?...
It's definitely still in demand by prewar collectors, but I don't believe they are selling for the big money anymore. I saw a few at York this past weekend; they had outrageous prices on them and, you guessed it--they didn't sell. My neighbor had a beautiful gunmetal 763E (Vanderbilt tender) for sale at York last October and I'm pretty sure he had to drop the price to $1500 +/- before it sold.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the gunmetal version produced for a longer time than the black one? It's always been my understanding the gunmetal version was produced from 1937-1940, with 1940 being the only year of the gunmetal coal tender. Then the color was changed to black in 1941 &1942, using a black coal tender.
John
I m thinking opposite !?? 763e gunmetal more rare my thinking was and still is and from another gentleman said it is more scarce..?!? Then it's sister black 763e? I personally like the gunmetal better more attractive looking in my opinion!... I have seen them going with Vanderbilt... I'm talking go for at least $2000 or more!.. Besides the rare coal tender ...
It was easier to search for a better description that I would likely write but the cut/n/paste shots below give a fairly accurate description of the process and the methods of refinement that have and can (if the manufacturer is willing) reduce or remove the chances of affected parts. Note that NJ Zinc is the inventor of the Refluxing process (1930) and remember that Lionel used them almost exclusively in the 1930's and beyond. This should at some level explain why for the most part those castings were not affected. (I do know there were still affected Lionel castings, but not nearly as many as with AF, Marklin and other manufacturers. It is fairly easy to surmise that our Chinese manufacturers are saving $$ by possibly not utilizing the Refluxing process (or other quality processes). This does not just affect toy trains, it affects every product ever manufactured with zinc alloy castings if proper processes are not used.
For reference, here are a few comments form the interweb....
****
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ZINC AND LEAD
The standard zinc product is Special High Grade zinc, with an assay of 99.995% zinc, i.e. it can contain a maximum of 50 parts per million of impurities. There is also a much lower grade of 98.5% zinc, the main impurity being lead, and this used to be the standard grade, called GOB (Good Ordinary Brand) in Europe or PW (Prime Western) in North America. The predominance of this grade as the one used in applications when the production of zinc first became established came about because it was a very suitable quality for general galvanising and because it was the natural grade produced by thermal smelting processes. The complete separation of lead from zinc was not easy.
Lead usually occurs naturally with zinc i.e. the zinc mineral, sphalerite (ZnS) is usually found in combined deposits with the lead mineral, galena (PbS), and the thermal methods of producing zinc do not easily make a complete separation of lead from zinc. Lead is in many ways very different from zinc – density, reactivity (lead is not particularly reactive, requires much less energy to produce and was therefore produced much earlier than zinc). Nonetheless zinc and lead have a certain affinity for one another. This affinity, whilst being a nuisance in some respects, is exploited in a number of metal smelting processes. Zinc metal is quite soluble in lead metal, as is lead in zinc, both to a degree that depends on temperature. Complete solution of one in the other occurs only at high temperatures. In one method of smelting and recovering zinc, zinc vapour is condensed into a large quantity of molten lead, and this rapid solution into lead prevents the zinc vapour from oxidising to zinc oxide, something that the highly reactive zinc has a strong desire to do. Subsequently the lead is cooled and the zinc separates out from it and is, as a result, recovered. Further cooling of the zinc allows the lead content to be reduced to about 1%, i.e. to GOB quality. Without this affinity between zinc and lead this process (the Imperial Smelting Process) would not function.
A complete separation of zinc from lead can only be achieved by distillation; without distillation a small amount of lead will always remain with the zinc and a small amount of zinc will always remain with the lead
***********
Zinc refining
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Zinc refining is the process of purifying zinc to super high grade (SHG) zinc, which is at least 99.995% pure. This process is not usually required when smelting of zinc is done through electrolysis processes, but is needed when zinc is produced by pyrometallurgical processes, because it is only 98.5% pure.
There are various refining methods, but the refluxing process is the most commonly used.
High purity zinc is required industrially to avoid zinc pest, a slow distortion and cracking of zinc die castings caused by impurities precipitating out.
Refluxing process[edit]
The New Jersey Zinc Company invented this process in 1930.
The process take advantage of the relatively low boiling point of zinc (907 °C (1,665 °F)) as compared to the impurities being removed in the first "column": iron and aluminium. Therefore, in the first column the zinc is heated above its boiling point and allowed to rise to a condenser. The iron and aluminium impurities sink to the bottom in the form of a solid or liquid. There are still lead and cadmium vapor impurities. In order to remove the lead 2-3% of the vapor is condensed, which draws the majority of the lead out of the vapor; down to the point where it is only 0.003% of the total contents. Finally the vapor is pumped into the cadmium column where it is cooled to an intermediate temperature below the boiling point zinc, but still above the boiling point of cadmium (767 °C (1,413 °F)). The zinc leaves out the bottom as a refined liquid, while the cadmium leaves out the top as vapor.
See also[edit]
References[edit]
- Porter, Frank (1991), Zinc Handbook: Properties, Processing, and Use in Design, CRC Press, pp. 21–22, ISBN 0-8247-8340-9 .
Dennis, Thanks for going the little extra with your comments on Zamax, and the dreaded Zinc Pest problem. By the mid 1930's of 1935/36 vintage, the problem of Zinc Pest involved in Lionel, was almost completely eliminated. I have quite a few items from that specific period, with absolutely no indication of the problem. Lionel's supplier was right near them, and their only supplier that they used in that timeframe, which was fortunate for Lionel. Other manufacturers did suffer from Zinc Pest, of the same period, but it is unknown who their suppliers were, for their own die casting. The period prior to 1930 was new, for die casting, and items from that era, did have the possibility of suffering.
No problem, I've always had an interest in this subject from a materials science perspective.
Yes, from what I have read, the problem was documented as early as 1923. We all know about Dorfan and their products all of which the castings are know to be affected such that few survive today. Later in the 1930's and beyond, firms such as AF (Gilbert), Paya ( Spain), Marklin (Germany), Mantua, Tyco, Athearn, KMT (Japan), and many many others were negatively affected. I've read of Radio part castings, kitchen appliance castings, Automobile castings, even the vent motor frame casting and engine cooling fan on my old 911 were affected.
A) The process only works if you use it, and
B) It can also be affected by poor quality control.
Our new train products made in China are no different. I suspect that much higher volumes are produced of anything today than were produced way back when, so even a small % of failed product may affect a lot of people.
We, as consumers, expect perfection ( And rightly so) but it ain't always there!
Bottom line is, it's still a potential real problem for todays manufacturers and all we as consumers can do is too complain and voice ourselves with our wallets. That said, I've seen plenty of complaints about zinc pest on MTH, Lionel, Williams, Kline and probably all the rest of the current manufacturers. It's not just one, it is all. When you contract out your production, you get what you get and your stuck with it.
All I can say is find something that runs and run the snot out of it while can !!!!
John, you're right about the timeline changes of the locomotive.
I see slightly less versions of the first gunmetal gray version of the 763E with the Vanderbilt tender than the later black versions.
The gray with the 2226W coal tender is still pretty hard to find. Most of them I see are not in the best shape. Bernie Rubin D.D.S. in Canada purchased a Mint in box version in 1991 for $17,500. I think a few months ago, one went on the bay for a little over $3000 in Excellent condition, which seems to be the going price about...
They cataloged the 763E in gray with the coal tender in 3 sets: A passenger set, a work train (Fritz Von Tagen in Oregon owns one of these), and the semi-scale freight set.
