I'm much closer to a newbie than a veteran myself, but I tried to provide
precisely this type of information in
comment #4.
Please forgive the direct questions, but did you not follow the links in that comment, not realize there
were links, or was I somehow otherwise unclear? I'm not trying to be obnoxious. I'm sincerely trying to point out relevant helpful information in my comments but it sometimes seems my effort goes to waste. It took me a more than a moment to annotate that comment and some of the information it links to (in particular
my thread on machining that precise casting!). It's frustrating to see you write that you "found this" after I tried pretty hard to point you right at it! <laugh>
Thanks for posting your reply from Logan Actuators. It makes me very happy to see a commercial business reply at all to a letter from a hobbyist (tersely or not). Fewer and fewer companies seem willing to do so. I've seen people give Logan grief for their "exorbitant" prices and surly support of hobbyists, but clearly its a labor of love that they provide those services at all — there just isn't enough of a market to make much of a business providing those parts, manuals, and answering questions.
Logan also thinks that the s/n is 9898. That 1065P is a real mystery, though (the poor alignment of the 69 convinces me that this was stamped by a previous owner). I have this vague memory (probably incorrect) of reading somewhere that when a QCGB was added as a customized option at the factory to a lathe without one they sometimes added an additional s/n. I could be completely off base, but I wonder if the 1065P is to indicate that it was modified with a new leadscrew and QCGB? (Adding a QCGB to the lathe mandates replacing the leadscrew, I believe.)
Regards,
--
Rex