Jangchub wrote:
>> There is this ad on Craig's list (thank you Karen for the heads up).
>> Please take a look at these and let me know which is the best and if
>> the price is okay.
>>
>>formatting link> >> Victoria
>
>
> I don't know anything about the Touch and Sew Range, but I'd assume the
> 755 would be the most recent. My own opinion is STAY AWAY from
> computerised machines. They're just a pain. If something goes wrong, you
> need a computer technician to repair them and a simple magnet can do > them in! >
I had a Singer of about the same era as those shown - not the computerized. And sold it about 9 years ago for $75 to a neighbor. It worked fine, is good for basic sewing, zig-zags, etc. I'd stay away from the Athena - first computerized. But, the 755 or 646 should be good for your purposes.
That said, I have a Bernina QE 155, which is computerized. But, it is not meant for doing all kinds of big embroidery stuff. I have never, ever had a problem with it - in nearly 10 years, and it is pretty sweet to be able to change stitches quickly. More, changing the details of a stitch with the computer controls is quick and makes trying things simple. I did immediately notice the difference in machine motor power, control with the Bernina as compared to my then 20+ year old Singer. IME, and my various sewing friends, I'd never go to a "cheap" computerized machine. It's the guts of the machine that makes the difference in its working, and this has been really reliable.
I was lucky enough to get a rather grand secondhand Brother machine very
> cheaply: it's computerised and has eleventy-splodgett stitches, but I
> really only use the straight stitch and the zig zag. On two occasions, I
> used the built-in alphabets to put ID tags on kid's Scout messkits. On a
> few occasions, I've used the three-step zig zag to hem dancewear and
> swimwear. Unless you're going to be sewing a lot of lycra or elastane,
> you really don't need the fancy stitches at all. Most of our ballet Mums
> could make perfectly good leotards and tutus with simple zig zag > stitching anyway. >
> Bottom line is, my ancient Singer workhorse (I think it was a 338) is
> thirty years old and goes like a rhino. It's *much* less temperamental
> than the Brother and all the parts are metal, so they'll last a lot
> longer than the plastic parts in a modern machine. I always advise
> people to go for older machines - they just go and go without missing a > beat.
Interesting. But, Brother has found a niche with the less pricey computerized machine, so I'm not surprised it's a bit finicky.
Ellicec