I don't believe that Goudy ever published the name of the pantograph that he used for engraving working patterns at "Deepdene" before the 1939 fire. However, in the photograph on p. 89 of Bruckner, it is possible to read the manufacturer's name cast into one of the pantograph arms: F. Deckel, München. Friedrich Deckel of Munich was a major industrial pantograph engraver in the 20th century. The Deckel brand still survives as the Deckel Maho Gildemeister (DMG) division of Gildemeister AG. Deckel always made extremely fine machines.  This pantograph is also shown on a two-page spread (pp. 90-91) in Bruckner.
This particular Deckel is a machine of the configuration pioneered by the Taylor-Hobson machine in England.  (This configuration is more familiar to American machinists from the Gorton 3-U, P1-2, and related two-dimensional pantograph engravers; the early Gorton machines were produced under license from Taylor-Hobson). Theo Rehak identified Goudy's pantograph as a Deckel model 2G1 , but I have not been able to locate this model in the literature. It seems generally similar, however, to the (possibly later) Deckel models G1L and G1U.
Here it is shown in Advertising and Selling (May 1939)
The photograph above reveals at least one interesting detail of Goudy's particular machine. Note the block tied to the circular hole in a lever on the upper right of the picture. This lever is a feature of Deckel pantographs (my Deckel GK21 has a similar lever, and a nearly identical lever is illustrated in the manual for the GK12). This lever provides for both coarse adjustment of the cutter height and for raising and lowering the cutter into the work. If the lever is moved down (as shown in the photo), the cutter is moved into the work; in this position the lever can also be rotated left-right to adjust the depth of cut. If the lever is moved up, a spring in the spindle assembly moves the cutter up, away from the work. Normally, it is not necessary to tie a heavy block to this lever in order to keep the cutter engaged; that Goudy has done so would seem to be an indication that there was some degree of wear in the spindle assembly on his machine.
In his discussion of his Scripps College Old Style in A Half-Century of Type Design and Typography: 1895-1945, Volume 2 (NY: The Typophiles, 1946): 226-227, Goudy reveals that after the 1939 fire destroyed his old mill studio he was unable, due to wartime restrictions, to obtain a replacement horiztonal pantograph for working pattern engraving until September of 1943. In the interim, he adapted his replacement E&PM Co. vertical pantograph to this service, but found this to be difficult.
3. Rehak. Practical Typecasting (1993) , pp. 102 and 135.
4. There is a puzzle in this photograph in Lewis. The pattern Goudy is using has at least two letters - an 'A' and what might be an 'O' (obscured by the pantograph arm). The working pattern being cut has these same letters, but they are in the wrong order. It should read "AO" not 'OA". I cannot really explain this; my guess is that the two letters on the working pattern were cut at different times.
Lewis' Behind the Type is in the public domain, as is the reproduction of the photograph from it here.
The 1939 volume of Advertising and Selling is in the public domain, as are the reproductions of the photographs from it here.
All portions of this document not noted otherwise are Copyright © 2013 by David M. MacMillan and Rollande Krandall.
Circuitous Root is a Registered Trademark of David M. MacMillan and Rollande Krandall.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons "Attribution - ShareAlike" license. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ for its terms.
Presented originally by Circuitous Root®
Select Resolution: 0 [other resolutions temporarily disabled due to lack of disk space]