E.M.G Davey Mark numbers

[chunnybh]

The Mark numbers introduced by Balfour Davey for his gramophone designs can seem quite confusing. They don’t seem chronological. My thinking is Davey started designing them chronologically but their production was scattered with some being introduced at later dates. I can’t imagine there was any random thinking in a man who was so precise, regimented and focused. An Ace fighter pilot may think outside the box but is meticulous in execution.
E.g., the Mk IV was released in 1929 where as the Mk VIII in 1928. The Mk X in 1929 & the Mk IX three years later in 1932.
Most of the Davey models can be dated and catalogued with the aid of advertisements and pamphlets. There are a few missing links. Pre Mk IV. Was there a MK 1, 11 & 111?.
The Mk V recently found shines some light on the Mk VI. I have been mistakenly calling a Wilson Horn model the Mk VI. I now believe Frank James was correct in stating the Mk VI was the same as the Mk V with storage for records.
The early Wilson Horn models all seem to follow the same design with the upside down Gooseneck tonearm. It is possible that the later Wilson horn models after the Lumiere conversions were the Mk 1, 11, & 111 but my thinking is that Davey introduced the internal conduit which extended the acoustic length and the first model with this improvement is the Mk V. The Mk IV in its infancy, even though it was released later, would also have preceded the Mk V as it would have set the idea of the internal conduit and may well have been released later in 1929 just to fill a niche in the market for an affordable E.M.G.
The Mk VII, the first freely advertised E.M.G designed by Davey was introduced in July 1928 and Davey had only been at E.M.G for a few short months. My conclusion is that the only Wilson Horn gramophone designed by Davey was the Mk VIII.
Any thoughts on clarifying the Davey Mark numbers is most welcome.

On another note. Here is a link to Horace Balfour Davey at the Aerodome site which seems to get better and more informative by the day. I don't believe Balfour Davey's hip flask was for sale on Ebay. I hope it is in safe hands.

http://www.theaerodrome.com/aces/england/davey.php

[emgcr]

This is a very interesting debate and, after the passage of time, many details can probably only be guessed at. These tables taken from "The EMG story" by Frank James may help visually :

EMG---Known manufacturing inception dates.

Mk VII------------1928 (July)
Mk VIII-----------1928 ? Replaced by Mk IX.
Mk IV-------------1929 (Autumn) Discontinued in 1946.
Mk X--------------1929 (March)
Mk Xa-------------1930 (November)
Mk IX-------------1932
Mk Xb-------------1933
Mk Xb Oversize--1934

Additionally, it is extremely interesting to note Frank’s estimates of manufacturing numbers (also from the book and based on a letter from Balfour Davey in 1962) in tabular form:

Mk Xb--------------------50 (Including Oversize)
Mk Xa--------------------75
Mk X--------------------150
Mk IX-------------------350
Mk VIII-----------------300
Mk VII------------------100
Mk IV-------------------350
Magnaphones----------100
Others--------------------25

Total all models------1,500 (Acoustic).

Superb photos Chunny---never seen them before. Many thanks.

[chunnybh]

Thanks for the list Graham. Sadly it does not mention any before the Mk VII. I'm trying to locate an ad for the Mk V, sure I had seen one before. Did the number of Magnaphones come from Balfour Davey' letter?
Sites come and go so I am adding the picture of Balfour Davey from the Aerodome site. For me, the picture of "the Farman Experimental 2 two-seater biplane" brought a scary reality to the WW1 air battles. I can't say enough good thing about this site. I've spent days just browsing through it. Wonderful stuff.

[Orchorsol]

Thanks for posting Chunny - wonderful to see more of Balfour Davey and as you say, the Mk numbers and their chronology are a mysterious puzzle!

[emgcr]

Here is an advert from "The Gramophone" in the September 1930 edition which includes the Mk V.

Pages 96 and 97 of "The EMG story" show how Frank arrives at his estimates but, in view of the very small survival rate, I have always thought that 100 Magnaphones (not a figure from Balfour Davey's letter) might be a little optimistic. However, I really have no idea and could be entirely wrong.

[emgcr]

In order to help complete the picture, I thought it might be useful to have this tabulation in the same thread :

EMG/Expert trading addresses.


EMG

1922----------------------1 Vernon Gardens, Montpelier Road, Brighton.
1924/29------------------267 High Holborn, London WCI
1929 to 10/4/48--------11 Grape Street, London WC2
1948/1967---------------6 Newman Steet, London WI
30/10/67----------------26 Soho Square, London WI
1980---------------------END---Voluntary liquidation.

EXPERT

1930 (June) to 1933----55 Rathbone Place, Oxford Street, London WI
1933/36-----------------10A Soho Square, London WI
1936/39-----------------64 Frith Street, London WI
During & Post war-----Ingerthorpe, Great North Road, London N2
17/2/59-----------------Death of Ellis Michael Ginn (born 1899)

[CarlosV]

Such small production numbers weaken the chronology link of models with the advertisements. We cannot really see EMG as a Gramophone-type factory, with groups planning new models and respective advertisement campaigns. They probably would not even carry any stock on their shop. On top of that, Graham's you tube adapted EMG is a (very nice) example of what could be a significant and more lucrative fraction of EMG's business - the conversion: these adapted machines could not be named with exclusive model numbers. So my guess is that Davey may have created and planned for a coherent list of machine types at some point, but advertising them was opportunistic, which would lead to the apparent incoherence.

By the way, nice photos, Chunny!

[chunnybh]

Thanks Graham, That's the ad I was looking for. My downloaded version of The Gramophone, Sept 1930 issue is missing the advertisements.
I've found a few more ads for the Mk V. They all say a large "TABLE" model. The stunning example found recently is either on a stand or the legs are part of the body. Does Table Model not mean one that is designed to sit on a table?.

[Orchorsol]

An obvious point, but I'll make it anyway...

Whilst we're used to Mark numbers generally denoting chronological changes to a generic design, this isn't always exactly so. The Wiki page for Mark (designation) doesn't refer specifically to chronology, although it does mention versions; progress; defined level of development.

The EMG Mk series does broadly work as a progression of size and performance - could they have envisaged all the models up to Mk VIII by 1928? It's easy to imagine the Mk IX and X/Xa/Xb/Oversize* being tacked on later (albeit perhaps loosely, comparing the VIII and IX).

* but why not X, XI, XII? !

[Loudbass]

I attach p.51 from The EMG Story which is I believe an advert from The Gramophone in mid 1930. Davey writes that he started experimenting with gramophone design some four years previously. After building two small machines, he started working on designs for larger machines, "labelling my drawings with the now well-known Mark Numbers".
Some of these machines made it into production, (Marks IV to X), but Marks I to III may well have remained as design sketches and it is possible that some of the Mark designs may in fact predate his association with EMG?
Incidentally the Mark V does indeed have fixed legs and does not therefore truely conform to the usual designation of table machine. However it may have been described thus to contrast it with the larger Mark VII which is a true cabinet machine with a horn that runs the full height of the cabinet?
Fascinating debate....I would love to find a Mark I!