08/12/09 116 W, 1 I - + 8 - 6 Old Engine 5


Here's a rare photo of old Engine 5, a 1973 Mack CF pumper, and one of four delivered to the city in October of that year. It carried 500 gallons and was equipped with a 1,000 GPM pump. It was placed in service as Engine 5 on July 22, 1974, and later served as Engine 10 and as a reserve unit. The postcard photo by Kinston Asst. Fire Chief Tony D. Kelly is from the Durwood Barbour Collection of North Carolina Postcards, North Carolina Collection Photographic Archives, Wilson Library, UNC-Chapel Hill. Click to enlarge, or view via the postcard collection site.
 


Tony D. Kelly photo, Durwood Barbour Collection of North Carolina
Postcards, North Carolina Collection Photographic Archives,
Wilson Library, UNC-Chapel Hill





Quiz for you, Mike. Just curious as to how that postcard was postmarked “1968” when it’s a ’73 pumper?
RescueRanger - 08/12/09 - 15:37

Good catch, and great question!

The postmark information is wrong. That’s my conclusion. Raleigh received their first Mack CF pumpers in 1970, and Engine 5 received its Mack CF pumper in 1973. It’s possible that my records are incorrect, and Engine 5 received an earlier Mack CF. It’s also possible that my records are REALLY incorrect, and that (a.) the city received Mack CF pumpers on or before 1968 and (b.) that Engine 5 was also assigned one. That’s within the realm of not impossible. Unlikely, perhaps, but not impossible. I’ve been doing a LOT of digging lo these last years, and no evidence has presented itself of a Mack CF pumper before 1970. The better explanation is, I believe, that the postmark information is wrong.

There are exactly three conclusions to be drawn in this question:

#1 – The postmark information is correct, and Mike’s information is wrong.

#2 – The postmark information is wrong, and Mike’s information is correct.

#3 – The postmark information is wrong, and Mike’s information is wrong.

Explanations for why Mike’s information might be wrong are easy enough to imagine, or explain. But how might the postmark information be wrong?

There are some choices here, as well:

#1 – The wrong number was typed, when the postcard information was entered into the library database. Perhaps someone pressed a “6” instead of a “7” as the second-to-last digit in the postmark year.

#2 – The wrong year was determined as the postmark year. Perhaps the postmark was blurry, and the digits of the year were misinterpreted.

#3 – The wrong year was inferred as the postmark year. Perhaps the researcher made a “best guess” in lieu of an actual postmark.

#4 – The wrong year was postmarked. Perhaps the post office made a mistake when the postcard was mailed, such as a rubber stamp changed to an earlier year.

Etcetera.

The best next step is probably to examine the physical postcard, and see if indeed (a.) it is actually postmarked and (b.) what the actual postmark looks like. And/or prepare to be surprised if we learn that the city had Mack CF pumpers prior to 1970!

Here are my records on Raleigh engines: http://www.legeros.com/ralwake/raleigh/a..
Legeros - 08/12/09 - 17:13

Another possible option ? You have the VIN’s for those 1970 vehicles. Is there a data base where you can trace them ?
Jon - 08/12/09 - 19:35

Possibly find out when vehicle inspection began? I flipped through Vol. 1 real quick and didn’t notice any vehicles in the ’60s with inspection stickers but vehicles from the ’70s had them. Maybe it wasn’t enforced back then?
RescueRanger - 08/12/09 - 21:20



  
Remember personal info?

/ Textile

Comment moderation is enabled on this site. This means that your comment will not be visible on this site until it has been approved by an editor.

To prevent spam we require you to answer this silly question
 

  (Register your username / Log in)

Notify:
Hide email:

Small print: All html tags except <b> and <i> will be removed from your comment. You can make links by just typing the url or mail-address.