Singer HD: Addendum (Comparison to Kenmore 1752)

[@jsmxwll]

there is a rolling foot for the Kenmore that might have helped here. other than my Singer 404a, i pretty much only use vintage Kenmores. the rolling foot has been great for thick layered tougher materials. it also works well for materials that like to slide against each other.

[@Petestleger]

As an owner of a Singer HD, but dubious of modern stuffs over equivalent older things, I have found this series brilliant, and somewhat surprising. My take is (maybe) that if you're looking to buy a new machine, on a limited budget, the Singer HDs aren't too bad. They certainly seem to compare well with other modern equivalents at the same price point. I am surprised that they do out-perform older machines in any respect to be honest, and it's good to know it's not all hype. Longevity is obvs. another issue... Thank you for this, I think you've been scrupulously (which I had to Google, only to find I had spelt it right) fair and open. All the best etc... Pete

[@PibbleMom297]

Just like you, I'm dubious of modern machines, especially those with mostly plastic "innards" but am not hypocritical enough to deny using a modern computerized quilting machine. It's monster weighing in a 46 pounds. It DOES have a lot of metal in it, but there's plenty of plastic too. It works VERY well and is superb for free motion quilting. However, as you say, when it comes to longevity, my collection of all-metal Kenmore's and my vintage Singer 201-2 and 301A will all outlast the quilting machine by several generations if not longer.

[@louparsons]

Noooooo! Say it's not so! I have a soft spot for 'vintage' Kenmore machines, but I appreciate your candor when comparing the Kenmore and Singer HD 'as available.' The Singer works, out of the box, well enough to do the job better than the Kenmore. My heart wants to say 'but, what about the age of the Kenmore, it's vintage, needs a tune-up, it needs a modern electronic speed control (as opposed to the rheostat) but then the comparison wouldn't be 'like for like.' As always, I appreciate the time and effort you put in to making videos, I appreciate that you'll go out on a limb in the 'vintage' versus 'modern' arguments, and that you say (I hate to say this) the Singer HD, in this comparison, is better. YVR

[@phelanlow9572]

1. Kenmore feed dog teeth are different (pointy dimples and 4 groups of teeth) compared to Singer HD has more aggressive teeth (angled slats and 7 groups of teeth). Unfortunately, the only Kenmore vintage feed dog I have found have the same exact teeth pattern. However, from model to model, the teeth may be worn down more or less. So the pointier, the better. 2. Kenmore 1.2 amp motor is stronger (more needle piercing power). But the HD probably has a 90 watt motor (less needle piercing power).

[@eriklehnsherr]

Might actually have to give it another shot. For the price I guess if I have issues again, I'm not out too terrible much. Maybe mine was a lemon