"What's wrong with this picture, er, listing...?"

[charles~richard]

Gee, if I had known that these early Hoover attachment sets were so valuable, I - long ago - would have listed the half-dozen or so sets of them that I have!



http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=280274126517&ssPageName=STRK:MEWA:IT&ih=018

 

[constellation86]

My two cents

I think alot of the value here is with the paperwork.
There was a Hoover tank manual I wanted that went for over $40 a while ago.
Any thoughts?
Nicholas

 

[myvacsrock]

Geeeze...

I have ALOT of that stuff, includeing that complete attachment kit. I'll get pics posted here some time today.

 

[charles~richard]

Well, I agree that paper ephemera is great -- I am an avid instruction booklet collector (tho not as avid as some ... I don't have silos full of stuff, haha) --- but I really can't see shelling out more than a hundred fifty bucks to get an attachment set just because it has an old instruction manual. But then, who am I to judge. I was just pretty startled that this set went so high, I guess.

 

[samotronic]

Question

I know this has nothing to do with the nostalgic $ value of these antique sets, but I was always curious, did these "dusting tools" work very well. My closest experience is with the 60s Convertible attachments, which looked like they should have been great (especially considering the 2 speed motor) but they were mediocre at best.

 

[myvacsrock]

Here is mine

*

 

[samotronic]

wow

You have it all, right there. So do the dusting tools work very well?

 

[myvacsrock]

umm..

They work O.K. for it's time

 

[truckerx]

Oh Boy, Kyle!....

That's an ancient looking Dustette. Don't think I have ever seen one like that. Very nice set you have.

 

[normvac]

Frankly they all had about the same amount of suction (maybe the Convertible was a little better and certainly much easier
to use). Until the DAM Hoover, it was a match and maybe even
a little better then the current Kirby's (until the D-80, which really would have been about or almost the same time
in the 60's) Just my experience and feelings on the subject.
Norm

 

[hygiene903]

Disting Tools

The older Hoover models that had the bottom connection for the hose actually had better suction for the tools than the later models with side or back hose connection, as they connected directly to the fan chamber and formed a complete seal. The later models with the side connection (28 for example) or the Convertibles with the back connection were always partially open to the nozzle, and lost suction. My 475, 300, and 700 Special all have good suction power with the tools.
Jeff

 

[kirbyboy1]

Thats not a dustette its a duster

The duster was a machine made to comete with electrolux. Hoover wanted to sell these with the uprights to make a complete home cleaning set. Now they also made tools that could be used if the person wanted a canister vac only and they had a floor tool and carpet nozzle. How well they actually work you will have to ask kyle. There was a problem is that people thought it was like a electrolux and could suck up anythign but what they did was basically take a 700 motor and stick it on the side of the vac. The fan would break. Hoover relized it was a failure and I believe junked the idea. Thats all i know about it.

 

[ohio_tuec]

Hoover Duster

Really a shame more of them were not produced. Now they are as rare as hen's teeth. I'm sure the suction was adequate for its day. While they were available, I know some were used to clean Zeppelins and airships (pre-Compact). I might have seen this in an old VCCC newsletter. Can anyone else confirm this?

 

[z30soulbrother]

hose conversion

i find 612 side conversion stronger suction than later 652 rear. the side one seems more sealed and holds strength of suction longer. i still say its to do with paper bag pores clogging on 652 and of course cloth only on 612 type
si

 

[vintagehoover]

Hoover Duster / Minor

The motor on the 200 was actually from the 575, not the 700. The British Empire-only 200B used the motor from the 425. The 200 sounds a lot higher in pitch to the 200B.

Both the 200 and 200B have better suction than their upright brothers used with tools. They were designed for dusting (hence the name!), and you don't need a lot of airflow to lift light debris and surface dust. Hoover stressed on the manual that the Duster/Minor was for 'surface cleaning of rugs' only. It wasn't a intended as a substitute for a 'Beats as it Sweeps as it Cleans' upright.

I love the idea of them being used on Zepplins and airships!

Additional pics/info/video:

http://www.freewebs.com/vintagehoover/minordustette.htm