|
Post by lucius1958 on Oct 11, 2012 22:24:11 GMT -5
Well: You've definitely got a model K there.... I can't tell from the quality of the photos, but you might be missing the swivel link between the diaphragm and the stylus bars. If that is so, you had best get a replacement diaphragm (and, of course, gaskets).
Now, is the threaded pin on the hinge block still intact; and is the threaded hole on the upper part of the reproducer still good (not stripped or broken through)? Is the limit loop on the upper part intact, and do you have the limit pin for the weight?
In that case, once you've dealt with the diaphragm and gaskets, you can remove the stylus bars, screw the weight back in (not too tight), reattach the bars to the link and replace their screws. Then screw the limit pin back into the weight, and you're good to go. (That is, if the styli are in good shape: if they have worn spots, they should be turned).
If you have problems with any of these parts, it might be better to send the whole reproducer to any of the folks mentioned above for a professional rebuilding. It'll cost you a bit, but it's worth having the job done right.
Hope this is of help to you.
Bill
|
|
|
Post by lucius1958 on Sept 30, 2012 23:01:15 GMT -5
I see..... an avenging harpy, swooping down on the criminals at IODA, GoDigitalMG and Harry Fox Agency.... ;-)
|
|
|
Post by lucius1958 on Sept 8, 2012 22:50:02 GMT -5
That same piece is also found on the A-80 (and possibly the 60 models as well); I believe it is meant to keep the horn from swinging around too much. This was only a problem on those models, as they were the only ones where the horn was pivoted at the rear.
Bill
|
|
|
Post by lucius1958 on Aug 13, 2012 1:23:19 GMT -5
I also have a S 19 Edison made spring of 1919, that is what the S 19 means....I have 25 records that came with it. Everything works perfect and looks great. I would like to know what it all is worth. It was valued $475 back in the 80's and I paid $276. Strictly speaking, the appellation "S-19" refers to a cabinet in the Sheraton style, introduced in 1919.
|
|
|
Post by lucius1958 on Aug 11, 2012 23:48:58 GMT -5
I would add that many collectors find that GoJo hand cleaner (the kind WITHOUT pumice) is excellent for cleaning cabinets. Just brush it on, let it sit a little while, then rub over the finish with some extra-fine steel wool and wipe off with a clean rag. Another cleaner, Goop, is also very useful.
Bill
|
|
|
Post by lucius1958 on Aug 10, 2012 22:26:09 GMT -5
I see black wax, blue wax and so on. They all work Blue wax? If you're talking about Blue Amberols (which are celluloid, not wax), those are invariably 4 minute records (with a few very rare exceptions). Generally, 2 minute records are not specifically marked as such; but 4 minute Indestructibles, Everlastings and wax Amberols will be marked "4M" on the end. Blue Amberols are not marked "4M", though; as they were sufficiently different in appearance to cause confusion. If it's got a plaster core, it's a Blue Amberol. Those are best played with a Diamond reproducer. Bill
|
|
|
Post by lucius1958 on Aug 9, 2012 21:52:34 GMT -5
The early embossed-label pressings were outstanding, in that the grooves were stamped on a thin celluloid sheet coated with varnish (condensite) which was then bonded to the record core. These were known as "transfer process" pressings and were made from late 1912 to mid 1916. While this produced a very quiet recording, there were issues with the sheet separating from the core. Now this is interesting. As far as I know, Frow's book does not mention this process: he does mention celluloid test pressings being used for review by the Music Committee, but not in production. The 'separation' issue, as I read it, appears to have been a chemical reaction between the core and the varnish layer, which was remedied early on by the addition of the 'hexa' compound. As for the poor quality of wartime discs, that was generally attributed to phenol shortages, and Edison's attempts to find alternate suppliers... Bill
|
|
|
Post by lucius1958 on Aug 9, 2012 21:36:25 GMT -5
As far as I know, Gem pulleys were never lined with anything...
As for the reproducer, the model B is a fairly early one, and was meant for 2 minute wax cylinders. Only the late model Gems had the capability for 4 minute records (and then just barely).
Bill
|
|
|
Post by lucius1958 on Jul 24, 2012 22:24:48 GMT -5
If you want more information, there is a link to a spreadsheet in the 'Diamond Disc Records' section of the board. You should check the matrix number (engraved below the etched label) against the list, and it should give you the catalog number, recording date, artist etc.
From my offhand recollection, Edison discontinued the edge numbers sometime in 1918; as mentioned, occasionally you will find some that have no catalog number at all... that's where the matrix numbers are useful.
|
|
|
Post by lucius1958 on Jun 16, 2012 0:50:36 GMT -5
I've just acquired a P-1 portable, and I'd like to know if anyone knows of a good rebuilder for the soundbox. I'd like to make sure it's in peak condition.
The potmetal is in good shape, barring a small chip on the area over the needle bar pivot; but I don't want to risk disassembling it myself.
The sound is not too bad, as far as I can tell; but perhaps it could use new gaskets.
Any suggestions?
Bill
|
|
|
Post by lucius1958 on Jun 13, 2012 1:36:53 GMT -5
Thanks! Bill
|
|
|
Post by lucius1958 on Jun 12, 2012 0:30:01 GMT -5
Thanks!
One error there: "Sweet Indiana Home" is 50990-R - I need the L side.
Bill
|
|
|
Post by lucius1958 on Jun 10, 2012 23:49:42 GMT -5
Since there does not seem to be a comprehensive DD discography online, I need a little help with some of my recent acquisitions which have lost their labels:
50851-L 50990-L 51032-L 51094-R 51226-R 51645 - R/L
So: can anyone give me titles, artists and (on the last two) a more specific recording date?
Bill
|
|
|
Post by lucius1958 on Jun 4, 2012 1:39:40 GMT -5
Anyone know how to correct repeating on otherwise good DDs? I believe it's a reproducer problem, as I've been using the same one on two machines (temporarily).
I had noticed that the limit pin had a tendency to drift to the left when I lowered it; and I believe it must occasionally be coming up against the loop during play. This happens on otherwise clean discs with minimal eccentricity.
Any advice?
Bill
|
|
|
Post by lucius1958 on May 26, 2012 0:56:15 GMT -5
Pardon me for digging ghoulishly into an ancient thread:
I have a BC-34 that is, to me, a bit of a puzzle. The serial number is 4585; which seems fairly early, considering the large number of this model produced. The horn is a No. 100, which is supposed to have been used only during the first two months of production.
However, it also has the 10/12" buttons and orange felt associated with the late models.
I have no reason to believe this machine was altered at any later date; or that Edison 'recycled' serial numbers on popular models... ?
Bill
|
|