|
Post by maroongem on Jan 5, 2007 12:33:47 GMT -5
Gentlemen,
The fact that BOTH your machines were missing the escutcheon should tell you that the crank that came with your machines is non-Edison. I realize this is one of the topics on "the other board" and I stand by my statement. I have at present 4 DD machines a C-19, B-19, BC-34 & C-150. In cylinder format, an Amberola 1-A, an Amberola III, V, 30 and 50. ALL of the cranks are within .002 +/- tolerance and all fit each other's escutcheons nicely. I called a friend of mine this am who has a very late C-19 and is also a machinist and asked him to mic the OD diameter of his crank and the ID of his escutcheon. They are both within the tolerances +/- .005 of my machines' cranks. I don't what more I can tell you........................
Bill
|
|
|
Post by neophone on Jan 6, 2007 4:33:49 GMT -5
Bill, What are you implying? It's too terrible to contemplate, I can barely bring myself to type it-Our Edison Disc Phonographs have been contaminated with non-Edison equipment!!!! I can't bare it! I need to take a bath! Regards, J. P.S. Seriously, although larger, the crank seem exactly the same, I'll have to look it over again.
|
|
|
Post by gramophoneshane on Jan 6, 2007 7:13:54 GMT -5
Im 99.9% sure mines an edison. It starts off the same size as a normal edi-handle down near the knob, but tapers up to the larger size near the threaded end. It has the same sized knob, screw, and the "tyre washer" like the normal handles.
|
|
|
Post by maroongem on Jan 6, 2007 9:56:56 GMT -5
Im 99.9% sure mines an edison. It starts off the same size as a normal edi-handle down near the knob, but tapers up to the larger size near the threaded end. It has the same sized knob, screw, and the "tyre washer" like the normal handles. It's that 10th of a percent that will get you every time. Let me ask you this, How many Edison DD machines and later Amberolas have you had occasion to examine & repair over the years? Bill
|
|
|
Post by gramophoneshane on Jan 6, 2007 13:29:33 GMT -5
I've never touched an amberola, but owned 7 DDs, and seen probly 20 more. Let me ask you this- why would another company bother to make a handle with exactly the same sized screw, knob and washer? Was edison still making cylinder machines after around 1926? I dont understand why you find it so hard to believe that the handle may have changed. Like the "standard" 2 min boxes, just because you haven't come across them before, doesn't mean they didn't happen!
|
|
|
Post by maroongem on Jan 6, 2007 14:24:30 GMT -5
I've never touched an amberola, but owned 7 DDs, and seen probly 20 more. Let me ask you this- why would another company bother to make a handle with exactly the same sized screw, knob and washer? Was edison still making cylinder machines after around 1926? I dont understand why you find it so hard to believe that the handle may have changed. Like the "standard" 2 min boxes, just because you haven't come across them before, doesn't mean they didn't happen! Look, I'm not going to debate this anymore with you. You show me hard evidence that Edison, with sliding sales, would tool up to make new cranks and escutcheons for a handful (apparently two, yours & John's, (which both strangely were missing their escutcheons.) In the past 30+ years I have had more than 40 machines (both DD and later Amberolas) pass through my hands, either owned or repaired and have yet to see a stepped down crank with a larger then usual OD and an oversized ID escutcheon to fit them. Perhaps Steve can join in on this debate and supply the "documentation" you mentioned.............................. And yes, Edison was still making cylinder machines in 1926. The Mod 60 Amberola in 1926 (Amberola 50 motor in a London #1 cabinet with the new Diamond D Reproducer and in 1928 the Mod 80 Amberola (same motor & Reproducer) in an S-19 cabinet.
|
|
|
Post by gramophoneshane on Jan 6, 2007 15:36:14 GMT -5
Obviously Johns is not original to his S-19-not being gold plated, and the escutcheon would have been removed for the larger handle to be fitted, but I dont think its co-incidence that I could tell him exactly what his edison handle would be like before he even got it, and from the other side of the world. Unfortunately,I cant provide you with hard evidence that it is an edison handle, but I doubt you can provide me with the proof it is not either! Perhaps we should just agree to disagree then ;D
|
|
|
Post by maroongem on Jan 6, 2007 16:48:16 GMT -5
but I dont think its co-incidence that I could tell him exactly what his edison handle would be like before he even got it, and from the other side of the world. Unfortunately,I cant provide you with hard evidence that it is an edison handle, but I doubt you can provide me with the proof it is not either! Perhaps we should just agree to disagree then ;D Perhaps you might want to read the first reply you made to John on Dec. 15th where you say his crank is exactly like the one you have on your L-35. Now He didn't post a picture until Dec. 28th so he apparently sent you one before hand or you may have seen it in the tea leaves??? You stated that Steve supplied you with documentation that Edison had a tooling & parts change late. Well where is it? Did the dog eat it?(like my homework in school) I will agree to disagree!!!! ;D
|
|
|
Post by maroongem on Jan 6, 2007 17:04:04 GMT -5
Like the "standard" 2 min boxes, just because you haven't come across them before, doesn't mean they didn't happen! And if you paid attention to my post, on 23,Sept I said they were UK releases...........
|
|
|
Post by gramophoneshane on Jan 6, 2007 22:27:39 GMT -5
Wow. A conspirousy theary- no, John didn't send me a picture before his post- nor do I read tea leaves. John didn't even have his machine when I posted, and he only had the px off ebay at the time. I simply knew it would be an edison handle because I have one. Steve did not send me his documentation, he sent me an email in which he stated that he read somewhere that the handles had changed at some point, and he would try and find where he read it. After your statement about the standard boxes being UK releases only, I posted a thread on the OTVMMB, to which a few of the other guys replied that they were infact also used on some late US releases- like the one pictured below I will try and post a link to that thread when time permits.
|
|
|
Post by maroongem on Jan 7, 2007 0:02:12 GMT -5
Wow. A conspirousy theary- no, John didn't send me a picture before his post- nor do I read tea leaves. John didn't even have his machine when I posted, and he only had the px off ebay at the time. I simply knew it would be an edison handle because I have one. Steve did not send me his documentation, he sent me an email in which he stated that he read somewhere that the handles had changed at some point, and he would try and find where he read it. After your statement about the standard boxes being UK releases only, I posted a thread on the OTVMMB, to which a few of the other guys replied that they were infact also used on some late US releases- like the one pictured below I will try and post a link to that thread when time permits. quote] No conspiracy theory, I went by what you posted. You are back pedaling now and you know it, Now, Steve didn't send you documentation, but he told you about it. Look pal, I was born at night, but it wasn't last night. If you go back to the thread about standard boxes with red tops, I said I had never seen one here, but I posted ones from the UK. Vast difference! Bill
|
|
|
Post by Matt Brown on Jan 7, 2007 19:49:50 GMT -5
Let's keep our eyes on the ball, folks ;D
A healthy debate never hurt anyone, but let's keep it civil.
Take a deep breath, and remember that we're discussing antique phonos, not life-or-death matters.
Matt
|
|
|
Post by maroongem on Jan 8, 2007 13:39:23 GMT -5
Let's keep our eyes on the ball, folks ;D A healthy debate never hurt anyone, but let's keep it civil. Take a deep breath, and remember that we're discussing antique phonos, not life-or-death matters. Matt I'm cool with that, Matt. My apologies. Bill
|
|