https://forum.talkingmachine.info/
https://forum.talkingmachine.info/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=40702
Microgramomothsshoshani wrote:TINY moths, no?soundgen wrote:Not if the moths get at itshoshani wrote: Happily, the diaphragm gaskets are made of felt that apparently lasts forever without needing to be replaced, .
That's not why it doesn't fit. (I just noticed this part of the original post, btw!) The No 4, be it HMV or Victor, is interchangeable and one will fit the tonearm of the other, but the reason yours won't fit is that the tonearm on the 102 has the larger "Orthophonic/5" swan neck connection. A No 4 can be adapted by changing the rubber isolator and brass ring assembly; the backplate flange is the same size on the No 4 as it is on the 5a/5b. I've done it, and that's actually how EMI's German affiliate Electrola constructed the 106 portable - which was basically an HMV 102 with a No 4 soundbox. (With the larger back fitting, Electrola called it the No 4A.)ImperialGuardsman wrote:What reproducer would have shipped with this machine? I have an HMV #4, but I used a US flange when rebuilding it so it doesn't fit.
[/quote][/quote][/quote]The diaphragm is warped a bit and the needle bar looks like it has been repaired. I think it needs a good rebuild, and a set screw so it will lock onto the tone arm. BUT, it sound okay all things considered!Inigo wrote:Steve, do you mean in the 5A/B soundbox? There are felt gaskets at sides of the diaphragm. And the back is the first part you dismantle... I don't understand well your question...
Imperial, the substitute soundbox looks pretty interesting... I wouldn't throw it away... Has it a good sound?
The Spanish independent Columbia brand made portables very similar to the 102, actually an hybrid between the big heavy Columbia 113 with Garrard motor and the hmv102, similar tonearm, brake and soundbox. And that soundbox was very similar at the front grille cover to your Roller soundbox. Very interesting...
Those of Spanish Columbia portables sounded damn well, with strong volume and a deep bass. I owned one in a very nice green rexine material. It neither had its original soundbox, but a Paiilard Maestrophonic no17 instead, with aterrible good sound. Years ago I traded it for a Columbia 113, which I liked much more for is aspect and enormous size. Later I lamented that deal, for the sound of the 113 is not as good. That pain was later cured, though, by acquiring a102 like yours (black ministry of defence model, B/9 coded, 1945) whose magnificent sound is as good as that Spanish Columbia model.
I forgot about the Orthophonic difference! I may put up an add in the yankee trader section for a 5a or B, though I'll lean towards something all brass if possible.shoshani wrote:That's not why it doesn't fit. (I just noticed this part of the original post, btw!) The No 4, be it HMV or Victor, is interchangeable and one will fit the tonearm of the other, but the reason yours won't fit is that the tonearm on the 102 has the larger "Orthophonic/5" swan neck connection. A No 4 can be adapted by changing the rubber isolator and brass ring assembly; the backplate flange is the same size on the No 4 as it is on the 5a/5b. I've done it, and that's actually how EMI's German affiliate Electrola constructed the 106 portable - which was basically an HMV 102 with a No 4 soundbox. (With the larger back fitting, Electrola called it the No 4A.)ImperialGuardsman wrote:What reproducer would have shipped with this machine? I have an HMV #4, but I used a US flange when rebuilding it so it doesn't fit.