|
Post by maroongem on Nov 28, 2007 13:34:07 GMT -5
I think the N was for celluloid only because it was spring loaded and was meant to bear down more on the surface, which probably would have ruined a wax surface over a period of time. I utilized the same reference as you and as the author of the website states, they modified an N with a stylus from a Mod. B Reproducer which is a diamond, so one could infer from that statement that the original stylus was a non-diamond tip. Otherwise, why would they bother to change the stylus if it was already diamond tipped?
|
|
|
Post by gramophoneshane on Nov 28, 2007 13:47:56 GMT -5
Perhaps to get a stylus capable of playing 4 minute celluloids? The spring loading would have to be far greater than that of a columbia to wear out wax cylinders. I wonder if the edisonshop site owner would know what the stylus of an "N" is made of?
|
|
|
Post by maroongem on Nov 28, 2007 13:51:13 GMT -5
I give up. Here's a suggestion:put the link to the auction on the "other" board and let them look at the stylus and decide what it is.
|
|
|
Post by gramophoneshane on Nov 28, 2007 14:09:18 GMT -5
I don't think looking at a picture would be a very accurate way to determine if the stylus is sapphire or diamond. Surely it would have to be properly tested. I don't think the shape of a stylus would have any bearing on what it's made of. I think you could shape a diamond like a hedgehog if you really wanted to. Hopefully we'll know for sure soon anyway. I've sent an email to the edisonshop to see what they have to say about the stylus.
|
|
|
Post by maroongem on Nov 28, 2007 17:30:22 GMT -5
I don't think looking at a picture would be a very accurate way to determine if the stylus is sapphire or diamond. Surely it would have to be properly tested. I don't think the shape of a stylus would have any bearing on what it's made of. I think you could shape a diamond like a hedgehog if you really wanted to. You're kidding me, right?
|
|
|
Post by gramophoneshane on Nov 28, 2007 21:30:43 GMT -5
No- Im not. What makes you think if a sapphire can be shaped like a door knob, that a diamond ccouldn't?? Your thinking the indestructible reproducer came out with sapphires is pure speculation on your part, based on the shape of the stylus. Even though it's written in the indestructible book that they used a DIAMOND stylus in their reproducers, and the website says they are meant only for celluloid, and that ONE was converted using a Edison Diamond B reproducer. Then you try and tell me that the Major may have seen the same information you found, even though the passage mention advertisements for this reproducer, and the book was published long before the web was even thought of. Then you get argumentive, because it doesn't agree with what you think you know. Your always asking for documentation on anything you disagree with, so perhaps this time you can show some documentation that indestructible EVER made a sapphire stylus, instead of disagreeing with no evidence of what your saying!
|
|
|
Post by maroongem on Nov 29, 2007 13:33:16 GMT -5
Shane, I'm quite satisfied with my knowledge about what was used on these types of reproducers regarding the stylus, and until you or someone else can show the existence of a diamond tip on a non-edison reproducer designed for cylinders, (save the apparent special made one for the Hexaphone) I'll stay with that belief. You made a statement that these were diamond tipped, so it is up to you to prove this fact that has seemed to escape every other reference book and web page. Sapphires are much softer than a diamond and therefore can be polished smooth and can be shaped. If you believe a diamond in the teens (even a synthetic one, which btw didn't exist until the early 50s) can be also shaped in that configuration, you know little about the elemental make up of diamonds. As I stated previously, why don't you post the link to the eBay auction on the other board and ask others what they think or perhaps know what in fact the stylus was made of for the Indestructible Reproducers. No one here seems to be jumping into the fray here, but I'm sure there will be input on the other board and perhaps some collectors there that have one. If you can't see that the stylus on the eBay Indestructible Reproducer is a typical sapphire configuration, I don't know what else to tell you. I will tell you this though, this is the last time I'll get into it, so you can believe what you want to.
Update: I took the liberty and contacted the seller regarding the material used on the stylus. You can click on the auction link above and read his statement. Any other questions or arguements can be directed to him.......................
|
|
|
Post by gramophoneshane on Nov 29, 2007 18:41:14 GMT -5
To be honest, I don't know what to believe at this point. All I have to go on, is what in a book written by a possibly long dead Major, who did enough research into the company to list every cylinder they made, and publish it- and you who says it was imposible to grind and polish a diamond to that shape, even though they were capable of making precission styli for DD's and BA's... Like I've said many times before, I'm no expert on phonographs, or gem stones, or anything else for that matter. I'm keeping an open mind on the subject. At least until Rob from the reproducer site gets back to me again. He also has original advertisements for Indestructible reproducers, and said he will find them in the next couple days. With some luck, we'll know one way or the other this time next week.
Til then, we'll just have to sit back, put our feet up, and spin a few tunes on the mandrel.
BTW: I never said that the ebay stylus wasn't a typical sapphire configuration. It is, but that doesn't mean it definately not a diamond, or that it is the original stylus. In fact, I think I mentioned indo's diamond stylus before the ebay repro was even posted. The ebay repro may well have a sapphire in it, but it is "documented", that they made and advertised DIAMOND stylus spring tensioned reproducers, not suitable for wax cylinders. Whether that reproducer was an N, or something else, I don't know, but I can't see them running advertisements for ONE modified reproducer for a hexaphone, and warning the public not to use them on a wax cylinder. That just makes no sense.
|
|
ultona
Full Member
It's Not Easy Bein' Green
Posts: 164
|
Post by ultona on Nov 30, 2007 9:10:15 GMT -5
To be honest, I don't know what to believe at this point. All I have to go on, is what in a book written by a possibly long dead Major, who did enough research into the company to list every cylinder they made, and publish it- and you who says it was imposible to grind and polish a diamond to that shape, even though they were capable of making precission styli for DD's and BA's... Like I've said many times before, I'm no expert on phonographs, or gem stones, or anything else for that matter. I'm keeping an open mind on the subject. At least until Rob from the reproducer site gets back to me again. He also has original advertisements for Indestructible reproducers, and said he will find them in the next couple days. With some luck, we'll know one way or the other this time next week. Til then, we'll just have to sit back, put our feet up, and spin a few tunes on the mandrel. BTW: I never said that the ebay stylus wasn't a typical sapphire configuration. It is, but that doesn't mean it definately not a diamond, or that it is the original stylus. In fact, I think I mentioned indo's diamond stylus before the ebay repro was even posted. The ebay repro may well have a sapphire in it, but it is "documented", that they made and advertised DIAMOND stylus spring tensioned reproducers, not suitable for wax cylinders. Whether that reproducer was an N, or something else, I don't know, but I can't see them running advertisements for ONE modified reproducer for a hexaphone, and warning the public not to use them on a wax cylinder. That just makes no sense. I can't really chime in here with anything new to add, other than what reproducers I've actually seen. I think in the last 22 years of shows and the like I've only come across two of these "Indestructible" reproducers ever. I wonder if they were actually made at the Albany factory (which stood just about 500 feet from where I'm sitting now). Now, the two I've seen were both sapphire-tipped with the spring-loaded stylus bar and based much like an Edison reproducer. I have no idea if they offered a later diamond tip, but it seems unlikely. I have a feeling if any diamond tipped examples have shown up, they could have very possibly been later "jobber" alterations offered to Hexaphone people, in lines with the firms that did coin-op modifications / improvements to all kinds of phono stuff over the years. I guess I'm going by the local aspect here and feel free to correct me. I'd be interested to hear what Rob has to say from the Edison shop. Albany Indestructibles (the cylinders) turn up all the time here, I suspect because they were made here and sold more readily around here, again, just a guess. I've never seen any of the reproducers locally which makes me suspect they hardly made any of them to begin with. It certainly wouldn't be the first instance where a product was made and even hyped through extensive advertising and have it flop. Think of all those other little "gizmos" we all love to have for our machines! Just adding what little I could add here! Sean
|
|