Decca Dulcephone "Trench" Model 1 - Restoration Questions

[mbhdesign]

Hello everyone,

Many thanks for allowing me to join this excellent forum and resource. I own a Decca Dulcephone (AKA: "Trench") portable Model 1 that I would like to restore.
However, it seems to have been significantly modified during its lifetime.
Here's a summary:

• The case is a black leatherette (textured resin on cloth) covering thin plywood or possibly fiberboard.
  The inside of the lid has an aluminum "bowl" (Dulceflex)
  The "Decca" and patent oval decals are still present in the upper corners of the Dulceflex bowl.
  The paper label seems to be an early one. It shows "Style, Number, Assembly, (damaged), and Packed By." Written just above the "Style" area, I can make out the number sequence of 505.18 - which I assume to be the manufacturing date of May 5, 1918. The (Serial?) Number is 37937, a relatively low number as compared to some 1920s-era versions.
  The original Paillard/Thorens motor was replaced with a Gallard No. 14 at some point after 1930. New holes have been drilled into the baseboard to fit the Gallard motor. One of which has obscured part of the original label.
  The brake may or may not be original to this machine. I suspect it may not be.
  The speed adjustment is likely not original to this machine. The holes are still present showing where the original speed adjustment would have been attached the the baseboard.
  There is a provision for a chain to be attached to the baseboard and lid - though it is missing.
  The platen seems to be original to the machine.
  The horn is marked with "R.D. 631877" and "Patent 3033" only.
  The soundbox is unmarked and may or may not be original to the machine.

My questions to the forum are these:
Should I even attempt to restore this machine back to its original 1918 state? Or restore its altered post-1930 state?
If the former, what motor should I be looking for? A Paillard, yes. But which one?
Can anyone show me (or direct me to) what the speed control on an original 1914-1918 machine looks like?

I have attached several pics showing the above details. Happy to provide more details if requested.

Many thanks in advance for your knowledge, insights, and advice. It is deeply appreciated.
Michael (mbhdesign)

[poodling around]

Okay, so I may be wrong and if so I hope some-one will correct me.

But isn't this a really early First World War Model because the tone arm forms a 90 degree angle to the sound-box (reproducer) - which was later changed because of poor 'track allignment' ?

If so, I have never seen such an early one before.

[epigramophone]

The City of London Phonograph and Gramophone Society publishes a very helpful booklet on Decca portables.
Go to clpgs.org.uk/reference series and look for RS35. It is available to non-members, but much better to join.

[poodling around]

Aha !

I have found the thread where it is mentioned very helpfully by Oedipus that on early models 'the tone-arm has a right angle at the front (very bad tracking, which was obviously realised early on), and the name Decca Dulcephone was in the top left hand corner or the lid' !

So this does indeed seem like an early one. (I have been looking for one for years !).

Restoration should be very carefully considered so I hope that the poster receives some good advice.

My opinion would be to restore it back to it's 1918 specifications if possible.

I have a couple of similar models which are not that much younger maybe so I will 'dig them out' and see what their speed controls, motors and brakes look like. Perhaps they could be helpful ?


The link to the thread on here is:

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=48293&p=286255&hil ... rm#p286255

[mbhdesign]

Thanks poodling around! I would be very grateful for any visual description of those components that you may have access to. Thank you!

And, yes, I also read that particular thread and post from Oedipus in the forum.

I also prefer to bring this Decca back to its 1918 state — though I also believe in the Hippocratic Oath of Restoration Work, namely "First, do no harm."
Someone once altered this machine from its original 1918 state to its current modified post-1930 state. It would be hard to return it to 1918 perfection without completely replacing original 1918 components — like the baseboard — with I am reluctant to do.

So, I think I will settle for "original as found" in my efforts. That means sourcing a motor, crank, and speed control that correct for this machine. But I won't replace the original backboard or make any other "cosmetic" changes in order to keep this as originally intact as possible. There's a distinction between "restoration" (cleaning, correcting, reconditioning existing parts) and "reproduction" (new cloth, replacement backboard, new leatherette, etc.). I incline to the former.

If you (or anyone) can give me some insight into the original motor, brake, and speed control I would be very grateful. Christopher Proudfoot's CLPGS publication RS#35 on Decca Portables (as referred to earlier) is an excellent resource and contains a good overall review of all the Decca portable machines — but it's only 24 pages long (describing all models) and lacks some of the more precise details I'm looking for.

Thanks so much!
Michael (mbhdesign)

[Oedipus]

This is a bit of an anomaly -- if the date is indeed 1918 -- are you sure you have read it correctly? As I stated in the Decca Ref Series booklet, the right angled tone-arm and the rear carrying handle seem to have been changed by the end of 1916. Also the Dulciflex on black models was normally black enamel on steel, not aluminium, and the black cloth does not have appear to have the 'long grain' that is normal on early models. Whatever the exact date of this Decca, it is basically early, from the Great War period, when supplies of components were unreliable, and machines would have to be assembled from whatever was available on the day.

This particularly applies to motors; Deccas turn up with various different motors, so no one can tell you what is the correct one for your gramophone. To find the right motor, you will need to make a diagram of the original holes in the motor board, with their position relative to the spindle hole and the original winder hole, and then start looking for a motor with corresponding features. It is likely to be a Paillard, but not certain. I think the brake is probably original, but the speed control certainly is not, and the 'correct' one will be determined by the type of motor. As to 'restoration', I would say leave the Garrard (I assume that's what you mean by Gallard) in situ until you find the right one, and don't attempt to re-write history by fitting a motor of the right period but needing extra holes drilled. Keep the original motor board, and if you find the right motor, the holes for the Garrard will be there as a clue to future generations that the motor, though correct, was not the original one in this gramophone.

That date: what does '505' mean? Before computers came along (they cannot cope, it seems with single figures), you never used to put a '0' before a figure except after a decimal point. No month has 50 days in it, so is this the 5th of May? (today we would write 0505 for that -- or some people would, I wouldn't!). Having said that, these early labels do tend to have the date at the top rather than the bottom, as on later labels, so this probably is meant to be a date, whatever that date may be. I can't see the last digit in the photo, but I wonder if it is a 5 or a 6 rather than an 8?

[recordmaker]

That date: what does '505' mean? Before computers came along (they cannot cope, it seems with single figures), you never used to put a '0' before a figure except after a decimal point. No month has 50 days in it, so is this the 5th of May? (today we would write 0505 for that -- or some people would, I wouldn't!). Having said that, these early labels do tend to have the date at the top rather than the bottom, as on later labels, so this probably is meant to be a date, whatever that date may be. I can't see the last digit in the photo, but I wonder if it is a 5 or a 6 rather than an 8?

British date writing convention is day- month-year so this makes sense as the 5th of May. Computers have mostly forced the USA convention in recent years but not in conversation this side of the pond the fact we no longer write cheques ( checks )for payment means that it also gets less use in daily writing.

The dates inscribed on Edison Bell cylinder masters recorded by Russell Hunting in London and he uses the USA convention possibly leading to confusion of the processing plant in London and modern archivists.

[edisonplayer]

This would be an excellent machine for WW1 reenacting in Newville,PA! edisonplayer.

[mbhdesign]

First of all, thanks to all who have responded so far.
Everyone brings up excellent points. I really appreciate this. Let me see if I can provide us all with more visual data to work with.

"The Date"
Thanks to Oedipus and recordmaker for their excellent comments and questions.
Yes, I read this as standard pre-computer era UK (also European) date format leading with the day and then the month. So it would read DDMM.YY

Therefore, I think the handwritten numbering at the top of the label might read "5" (no zero in front, no need for the placeholder and it is odd to start with a zero anyway) for May, "05" (zero in front as a placeholder to differentiate from double-digit days) for "Fifth," a point (period, separator, probably not a decimal), and then "1" and (I believe) "8" standing for the year "18."

It is very difficult to see the extremely faded numerals toward the far right. Under different lighting and examination, I have tried to detect between pen ink marks and blemishes/rub/gouges in the following photo set. The first shows the label as-is. In the second, I have digitally superimposed the pen strokes that I can see (in transparent green).

Label Detail - As photographed

Label Detail - Digital highlight added (in green)

Is this correct? I don't know. If anyone has similar labels and dates to compare to, that would greatly help.

And, yes, this would be a great machine to take to the Newville site (I'm a member of the GWA myself.)

More pics and details in the next posting.
Michael

[mbhdesign]

Ok, here are a few more details to share from this machine.

Oedipus mentioned that aluminum bowl (Dulciflex) machines were typically covered in maroon cloth (impregnated canvas, I assume, or possibly similar to Dupont Fabrikoid of the same era?)
Leather-covered machines had copper-plated bowls and black machines had black (oxidized?) bowls.

This particular machine has an aluminum bowl and what appears to be a black-colored impregnated cloth (or fine canvas) covering.
There are places where the covering has separated from the case showing a purple-ish color backing to the canvas cloth covering. Also, it appears that the case is wooden.
Here are a few photographs that show these details:

Handle attachments at hinge side (back) of case

Detail of side closure and covering texture

Side top edge of cloth pulled away to show case material

Crank handle side of case

Interior of case lid - Dulceflex bowl removed

Interior of case bottom - motor board removed

Upper attachment point of lid holder - purple material visible

Lower attachment point of lid holder - original screw hole for chain?

Pencil marking of factory inspector(?)

Original screw holes for handle clip (missing) near hinge inside lid.

I considered whether this covering might have once been maroon colored and painted over in black after assembly but that doesn't seem to be the case.
This seems to be the original covering material and color for this particular machine.