Classic Mode

C.O.C.A. Times

Issue: 2004-November - Vol 4 Num 3

Page 4 Text:

C.S.I. MINNEAPOLIS
by John Peterson
Don't you love those television shows that seek
to both challenge and entertain? I certainly do!
Though we may not agree on specific programs, I
think it is safe to say that we can all agree that there
are not enough of these shows offered to us. One of
my current favorites is "C.S.I.," (Crime Scene
Investigations, Miami, New York, and now
Minneapolis!) Besides the appeal of smart women
and clever writing, I enjoy the intellectual dissec-
tion of victims, crime scenes and the psyches of all
the players. With a combination of forensic inves-
tigation and strong intuition, the investigators
resolve puzzling and often contradictory evidence
on a weekly basis. Sort of like what I attempt to do
each time I report for duty to my tiny workshop in
the basement.
Today's article is entitled "C.S.I. Minneapolis"
or more specifically, "Coin-Op Scientific Inquiry,
Minneapolis." For you newer members who have
not had the pleasure of suffering through my earli-
er articles, there are several notable differences
between the older coin operated games made in
England versus those from the same era here in
America. One of the most frustrating is the lack of
manufacturer's identification on most British
games. My research suggests that a major reason
for this was the British game maker's desire for
anonymity and therefore immunity from prosecu-
tion should their game be deemed a gambling
machine rather than an amusement device. (See
"This Comdog Won't Hunt, "COCA Times, July
2002 for a more in-depth discussion.) The end
result is the vast majority of
pre-WWII British games
have no manufacturing iden-
tification on the game. We
will examine one such game
today to see what secrets it
has to tell us. Please dim the
lights, Professor. Let's begin.
Slide, please. (Photo A)
The machine before us is an
allwin named "Lucky Horse Shoe." Several fea-
tures besides its appalling condition immediately
stand out. First, you have undoubtedly noticed that
this is an automatic payout game. For the junior
grade detectives among us, your more experienced
brethren were able to conclude such by observation
of the case front. Take another look. There 1s a
hammer lever on the right and
a payout cup, nothing else.
Therefore, once the ball has
dropped into the horseshoe
"win" hole, the coin payout
must be automatic. Just for
comparison, please examine a
traditional allwin (Photo B).
This is another game of about
the same vintage as "Lucky
Horse Shoe." See the large knob on the lower left
hand side of the case? This is what you tum after
your ball has gone into a "win" hole. By doing so,
you manually operate the interior coin slide which
drops a coin (or whatever your prize) into the pay-
-out cup as well as returning your ball for another.
As you know, the autopay allwins are in the
decided minority and are much more desirable and
valuable than the manual
models. Therefore, this must
be a rare and valuable allwin,
right? Not so fast, Inspector.
Your initial assumption is
incorrect, we see a most
unusual interior mechanism.
(Photo C). Take a look as the
the spring at the bottom of the
door with the red ribbon
attached for illustrative purposes. This spring
attaches the hammer lever to the payout slide
mechanism. After the ball drops into the Shoes
"win" hole, you push the hammer lever down a
second time. This activates the coin slide in the
same manner as the turning of a traditional payout
knob. Quite a clever slipper, this "Shoe!"
2

Page 5 Text:

pay games, "Lucky Circle" and "Lucky Star" to
name two. I have checked the primary English ref-
erence book, Arcades and Slot Machines by Paul
Braithwaite. Alas, there is no listing for a "Lucky
Horse Shoes" under the B.M. Co. name or any
other for that matter. This is not surprising as the
names of the games under the manufacturers list is
not complete, even in this primary reference book.
What supports my proto-
type theory? Take a close
look at the inside of the case
(Photo D). You will note that
the back wall of the case is
most unusual. Almost every
wall game has a solid back-
board. The board provides the
strength necessary to support
the game when it is screwed
into the wall and more importantly, is cheap to
manufacture and install. "Shoe" has three separate
boards joined by the two visible seam strip boards.
No one in their right mind would suggest such a
time-consuming feature on a hidden component
when a simple single board solution already exist-
ed and was in use on all production games.
Finally there is that unusual payout mechanism.
Shoe's exterior configuration with its lack of a pay-
out knob tells the player: "I am an autopay game."
The Brits know autopay games well and they love
them. They know exactly what is required to play
which is nothing more than to deposit the coin and
push/release the hammer lever. If you score a win,
the reward is automatic. When the punter wins but
does not automatically get the payout with this
imposter, the next logical step is to bang his fist on
the case to "encourage" the payout mechanism.
How many bangs does he take before he puts his
own shoe into action? Due to the fact that I have
not seen this payout mechanism on any other game,
I believe "Shoe" was "an idea ahead of its time" to
quote Edsel Ford. "Lucky Horse Shoe" had the
unlucky fortune of being B.M. Co.'s version of our
Edsel automobile. It looked incredibly good but
based on the expectations of the day, it was just too
advanced for the audience.
The last issue demanding our attention is the
What about age, class? The more observant
have noted the art deco shape of the cabinet. If cor-
rect, this would date the game from 1925 through
the later 1930's. As if to reinforce the art deco con-
clusion, the thematic scheme is emphasized by the
physical structure of the playfield and the bold
color organization. Look at the terrific metal shoe
that serves as the "win" hole. True to inspired
design, it appears that one almost cannot lose with
this game. Once you start playing you soon realize
that the nails across the mouth of the open shoe is
giving you the boot! If this were a game from the
1950's or 60's it would have featured a multi-col-
ored plastic backflash with bright pictures, proba-
bly of horses and horseshoes. The "win" and "lose"
holes would likely have been placed on a horizon-
tal gallery. Garnes from the 1940's were severely
limited by World War Two. Themes from that peri-
od usually reflected the tremendous stress under
which Great Britain labored most heroically.
Adding up the elements of the case design, the inte-
grated hardware and color scheme plus the elimi-
nation of later periods, I think it safe to conclude
that this is almost certainly a 1930's or late 1920's
game.
Next, manufacturers. Anyone care to guess? I'm
going to go out on a limb and suggest that it was
the British Manufacturing Company (B.M. Co.).
They built games from 1914 to 1946 in London,
England. When they went out of business at the
end of the War, much of their remaining stock was
sold to Oliver Whales of Redcar, England. Because
of this, some of Whales' better games appear to be
a hybrid of styles from both companies. I will have
an example of this to show you at a later date.
Back to "Lucky Horse Shoes." I'm going to
climb further out on that limb and suggest that this
was most likely a prototype game by the B.M. Co.
that never made it into production. Here is why.
First, the attribution to B.M. Co. is due in part to
the hardware. Take another look at the allwin in
Photo B. This is a more traditional game also made
by B.M. Co. about the same time as "Shoes." The
art deco styles of the two cases are quite similar.
Note the identical shape of the distinctive hammer
levers. Secondly, B.M. Co. made a number of auto-
3

Download Page 4: PDF File | Image

Future scanning projects are planned by the International Arcade Museum Library (IAML).

Pro Tip: You can flip pages on the issue easily by using the left and right arrow keys on your keyboard.